The relative velocity of photon and moving frame:SR heresy.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Jul 13, 2004.

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    A personal note: Another forum and I have come to a parting of the ways. I haven't been 86'd, I've just been effectively censored for what I personally considered creative and significant. If I err in my biased assessment, so be it, but a constant rule I have for critics is, prove it. The unfettered and uncontrolled activity by arbitrarily acting mentors has reached a level that I no longer care to continue my relationship with that forum, or its employees, spelled mentors, whose strongest scientific arguments are derision and sneering. To my friends and colleagues there I will truly miss the spirited and unabashed enthusiasm they exhibit in prosecuting the publication of their ideas and beliefs.

    So with this my, favorite whine, I welcome myself once again to the real world.

    Relative velocity of frame and photon consistent with laws of physics and a death to SR.

    The dispute over the truth of SR or not is passionately described in the context of relativity and the measurement of the speed of light. SR theorists impose the impossible physical consideration that in measuring the relative velocity of frame and photon that the frame may be considered stationary, even though it is known to be physically moving. No wonder one measures the relative velocity of photon and frame as C under these artificial conditions, it is a n intrinsic theoretical model design flaw. I know, I know, all the experimental evidence that ...

    The earth frame is sufficiently at rest with respect to all measurements of the relative velocity of photons and earth related platforms. This result follows experimentally even though the earth has a known sun orbital velocty of 30km/sec. There is complete agreement between the laws of physics and relativity when the moving frame observer also determines that her velocity relative to the earth platform is not dependent on the orbital or daily spin velocity of the inertial platform earth - the earth may be considered as a zero velocity inertial frame..

    Therefore, using the earth as a common inertial frame for photon and moving frame we may determine the combined relative velocity of photon and moving frame with respect to the common inertial platform earth. Simply said, repeated even, the relative velocity of photons and material frames may be easily determined by using the earth frame as common zero velocity frame. All this does not impose contradictions to with experimental results.

    It is esential to keep in mind that what we are calculating here is relative velocity of photon and frame. We are not adding photon velocity to moving frame velocity to arrive at a photon velocity > c.

    Determining the relative velocity, Vrel, of photon, C, and frame, V, where C and V both are moving in the same direction,

    Vrel = |C| - |V|.

    When photon and frame are moving anti-parallel the relative velocity of photon and frame is

    Vrel = |C| + |V|

    which expresses a measure of the relative (expanding velocity) of photon and frame. As C is > V always, we use the convention of taking the relative vector velocity direction parallel to C.

    All the postulates of light are protected here as are the concepts of relativity. The only difference is that my solution does not require the insertion of time dilation or frame contraction to arrive at the measurement of C = 3x10^8m/sec. Hence the current model is SR defect free.

    Of particular importance is the consideration of an assumed fictional zero velocity moving frame is avoided when determining the relative velocty of photon and moving frame. This consideration is particularly destructive to a rational interpretation of experimental results by the arbitrary mathematical contrivance of considering the moving frame velocity as stationary.

    A moving platform observer may not arbitrarily consider her frame as stationary when it is in fact moving. Train stations do not accelerate and trains do not consider themselves stationary and watch train stations go whizzing past. These mathematical processes are physically impossible to achieve and using these assumed models in calculating SR results is bogus.

    What I mean here is that the practice of SR theorists who "determine their velocity as stationary" and the stationary frame as moving are assuming a physical impossibility. How many of you have ever seen a railway station accelerate where the people on the platform are observed to exhibit a reaction to an acceleration by the plaform?

    You SR theorists should best insert some simple laws of physics into that sillines you call special relativity.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Aw come on, just kidding.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi geistkiesel,
    You'd be more convincing if you learned enough physics to demonstrate some understanding of the concepts involved. For starters, you could try to avoid confusing accelerating frames with inertial frames.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104

    Actually not seeing people standing along the station curb waving goodbye to grandma all leaning due to their acceleration makes a bit of sense.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Brandon9000 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    Essentially none of the people who have taken the trouble to learn elementary physics and special relativity have a problem with the theory. It has been verified experimentally all over the world for a century. So, why do people who have never studied physics at all feel compelled to opine that it is wrong?

    Theories in physics are very rarely disproven by people who know nothing about them.

    If you think you're right, then submit a paper to a legitimate scientific journal. If you don't want to do this, then explain why not.
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,221
    Exactly! I find it incredibly arrogant of people who have never had a class on relativity (or often an advanced math or physics class of any kind) like to go around trying to poke holes in it. Why on earth would you try to attack something that you don't even understand? I mean, real physics students spend hours and hours diligently studying from actual textbooks and getting personal help from professional college educators in order to learn about relativity...and they never seem to have a problem with it. What makes you think that reading 'A Brief History of Time' (or even worse, kook internet pages) qualifies you to critique relativity?
     
  9. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,166
    Yes, of course it does!
    To suggest that relativity implies otherwise reveals a lack of understanding of the concepts involved, hence my comment.
     
  10. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    It does seem easier to attack the messenger than to answer that question doesn't it?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Well pete I am not confused. Earth is considered an inertial frame,unaccelerated.
     
  12. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Yes, those persons who have studied elementary physics have no trouble with special relativity. They are called robots.
    I noticed you offered no physics here to refute the post. Your 'it has been verified experimentally all over the world . . ." is a common robot echo. You haven't read, studied or critically analyzed any of those 'experiments'. What the hell do you know about it Spam_RoboBrandon9000?
     
  13. Brandon9000 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    172
    To answer your final question first, I have two degrees in physics. Scientific theories are very rarely disproven by people who haven't bothered to learn them. It is interesting that you find a century of experimental verification to be of no importance. The reason why I did not refute your post point by point is that it is entirely wrong and indicates a complete lack of familiarity with the topic. Not only that, but your thought experiments are poorly described and vague.

    You said:

    First of all, when you speak of the relative velocity of a frame and a photon, you need to specify in what frame the relative velocity is measured, since the answer will differ from frame to frame.

    All observers in inertial frames will measure light as propagating through a vacuum at exactly c -- no more, no less. An external observer in frame A, measuring the relative speed of a photon and frame B, moving parallel to it at speed S, will measure the relative speed between the photon and frame B as being either c-S or c+S depending on the whether A sees B as moving in the same or the opposite direction from the photon. This is simply by the definition of relative speed.

    You said:

    This is false. To the extent that we may consider a train as moving at a constant speed, it will be stationary from the point of view of those aboard it, and the Earth and train stations moving. To think otherwise would be to believe that there is a preferred reference frame, which there is not.
     
  14. hyperdog Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    Geistkiesel, if you have a hard time seeing a moving train as an inertial frame, try recasting the thought experiment in terms of two large spaceships drifting by each other.
     
  15. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Funny that what you claim physicists are doing wrong (even if it is not what they do) is exactly what you are doing.

    This exactly what you are doing: addition of velocities.

    There is another difference and it is that your "theory" do not coincide with experiment results.

    As allready said, there is at least one defect in your model, and it is that it does not coincide with experimental results.

    I am stationnary relative to myself. My velocity relatively to myself is zero. This is not fictionnal.

    moving reltively to whom?

    When I am sitting in train and that train is moving relatively to the earth, in a reference frame attached to the train, the train is stationary, I am stationary.
    If I put a ruler in the train, the train's position wrt this ruler is allways the same, the train is stationary wrt this reference frame, and this reference frame is stationnary wrt the train.

    Since you don't seem to understand what is a reference frame you say that, but in fact in a reference frame attached to the train, the train is stationary.

    What you say here has nothing to do with SR. All you say is about the definition of a reference frame. It has nothing to do with SR.
    And I will rephrase your question: How many of you have ever seen an object that is moving relative to itself?

    As I understand from your level of understanding, you never learnt physics, so that you don't know how physics studies are performed.
    The only robotic thinking that I can see here is that of people not willing to accept that there are theories that can contradict our intuition. But intuition is based on personal experience, and no one of us has ever been at velocities wrt earth close to the speed of light.

    BTW, those who teach us at the universities were once students. Are they also robots?
    What about the previous generations of physicists?
     
  16. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
     
  17. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I do not have hard time seeing a moving train as an inertial frame, but to jump from moving inertial frame to stationary frame for the sheer sake of mathematical contrivances is silly.

    Hyperdog, just one question: Have you ever seen a railway station accelerate leaving a parked train stationary, other than in a thought experiment I mean?
     
  18. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    “ Originally Posted by geistkiesel

    SR theorists impose the impossible physical consideration that in measuring the relative velocity of frame and photon that the frame may be considered stationary, even though it is known to be physically moving.

    the earth may be considered as a zero velocity inertial frame..


    The latter sentence is stated fom th perspective that experimenally, the earth frame can be considered stationary. See the Michelson-Morely experimental results. This is far removed from making the assumption that railway stations can move and train stop at the whim of mathematical nerds.


    What experimental results?



    Oh yeah? define "I" and "myself".

    The train is moving wrt the earth. You are attached to the train. Th etrain is moving wrt the earth. You are statuionary wrt to the train, not the earth, you are moving.

    The next time you get on a train and it accelerates as it pulls out of the station, consider yourself relative to the train, then look out the window and ask yourslef if you are moving or not..

    The train and ruler are stationary wrt each other. This is correct.


    The train is stationary with respect to what is attached to it. The train and all attached to the train are moving with respect to the earth to which the train is not attached and stationary.

    I agree, it has nothing to do with SR as I have nothing to do with SR. Usng the arguments of excluded middle reasoning a moving object moving with respect to itself is a contradiciton and therefore an error in logic, as well as phyics. I have never seen an object movin wrt itself.


    I have no problems with contradicted intuition. It is contradicted physics to which I object. Ok robot, here is what I mean. The words you just used:

    quoth 1100f:
    " . . . people not willing to accept that there are theories that can contradict our intuition.."

    These are not your words, someone put these words in your mouth and you repeat them as if you drew them up using your own deductive processes. You didn't deduce these words, some prissy physics professor jammed them into your consciousness. These words are spread all over the place and are used by senseless physics professors unable to prove what they have to say using physics. You just proved yourself a robot to me. Do you uinderstand what I mean?

    Most of them, yes.

    [qiote=1100f]What about the previous generations of physicists?[/QUOTE]You mean like the phyicists that maintained the Ptolemaic epicycle earth centered model for nearly 2000 years? Yes, them also.
     
  19. hyperdog Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    43
    The phrase "stationary frame" is baffling to me. Aren't all frames stationary with respect to themselves, and moving with respect to all other frames?

    Nope. And if I haven't seen it, then it must be physically impossible, according to The First Law of Hyperdog.
     
  20. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    You don't seem to understand that when you say a frame is moving, you must say relatively to whom.
    SR physicist say that all frames can be stationary or moving wrt other frames.
    In my reference fram I am stationary.

    "I" is 1100F
    "Myself" is also 1100F
    So what I can say is that I am stationary wrt to I (but since this is not a good english sentence I will say instead that I am stationary wrt myself)

    Finally we agree that while I can be stationary wrt some reference frame, I can be moving wrt another reference frame.

    Wrt the train I am still stationnary


    That's funny. You never studied physics. You don't know how they teach physics. You don't seem to understand the basic of physics since you even don't seem to understand what is a reference frame. But you know what my professors told me when I learned SR. Since I am a robot I don't ven understand what they told me but you, who were never with me in my studies, know exactly what they said.
    WOW
     
  21. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    In my reference fram I am stationary.
    In the context of the discussion. A train is moving with respect to the stationary railway statio, which is velocity zero.
    I Understand.



    We agree.

    We agree.






    1.Who told you I never studied physics, was it your professor?
    2.You mean you and I do not agree on what a reference frame is?
    3. Yes I know what your professor told you when you learned SR, the same thing my professor told me. Is this so difficult to deduce yourself?
    4. Not a complete robot. In the other thread you indicated actual thinking ability. Was this just a passing insignificant moment in your mind or can we expect more thinking?

    I can understand your WOW, I have the same reaction every time I pass a mirror, or even when an idle thought bubbles to the surface, WOW, WOW!!. I know what you mean 1100f. We have communicated. We have comm-un-i-ca-ted! Shake partner.
     
  22. 1100f Banned Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    807
    Wel, if you studied physics, and got the impression that they treat you as robots, then you must have been at the wrong university.
    I can assure you that where I studied, they didn't taught us as robots, but the main thing that they taught us was to think.
     
  23. shoffsta Geek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    60
    "a constant rule I have for critics is, prove it." -geistkiesel
    Right you are! I agree, I like that!
    You think like a Physicist - never believe what is told to you, but think about it first, then believe it! Haven't heard of a good physicist who thought differently yet! (Doesn't seem like a robot to me...)
    btw: are you german?

    "Well pete I am not confused. Earth is considered an inertial frame, unaccelerated." -geistkiesel
    that brings in general relativity. if you are in free fall, it's the equivalent of an inertial reference frame - but that's something totally different.

    " Someone earlier called me arrogant for daring to do what I do here. So, now "arrogant" is a bad thing is it? " -geistkiesel
    actually it is pretty arrogant to think one can outsmart a century of the best physicists there have been. And I think it is a bad thing, since you're pissing off lot's of people who'll think you're stupid and won't give good answers to you're problem, whereas they would be happy to help a person saying: "I have problems understanding SR, for example I don't see how ... could be true, since it seems to contradict with ...".

    But be how it may; here's my answer:
    It seems like you are still sticking to newtonian equations; you can't simply add two velocities. for a correct set of equations, see: http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/topics/SpecialRelativity.html
    And most of your post doesn't make sense to me. and why do you assume there is a difference between one reference frame and another (Earth and train)? It just seems that way to you. That doesn't mean It's true. Now, how would you find out youre moving, if you're train has no windows?
    or you're looking at another train moving next to you: who is moving? you don't know. You can feel acceleration, but not movement!

    "Sr should be in video games." -geistkiesel
    Actually I'm currently developing an astroids game according to GR (very fast astroids). There will probably soon be a few questions of mine up here about that.
     

Share This Page