light propagates at c + v?

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.
 
DaveC426913 said:
One beam is acing the direction of motion, the other beam is facing opposite the direction of motion.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BdS said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
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...
 
Last edited:
BdS said:
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
Click to expand...
The problem is actual measurements of the speed of light show what you just wrote to be incorrect.
 
danshawen:

danshawen said:
A much better response than I have ever received here JamesR I do appreciate being treated as a genuine crank rather than one in the "crazy" category, although that remains to be seen. And you seem to understand the issues I have raised better too.
Click to expand...
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?

Not a "real rotation"? My physics instructor did not hesitate for a moment to roll out Minkowski's "relativistic Cadillac tail lights" scenario, in which apparent 3D rotations were substituted for ones that were 4D by the math. Seen that one?
Click to expand...
You mean Torrell rotation? You're not confusing the two, are you?

The invariant interval CONTAINS the INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT. That's what makes it invariant.
Click to expand...
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.

The geometry doesn't make it invariant in a relativistic universe. It makes it BOGUS. It makes up for the fact that geometry is not capable of setting a hard limit on a load of geometric nonsense the way the invariant speed of light can.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

You cannot stipulate that two phase angles I used in connection with the single dimension of light travel time must follow the rules of Euclidean geometry if ithey simply do not.
Click to expand...
Fine. Which rules of geometry do they follow? What are these angles, anyway? Please show me how you define and use them mathematically.

All that is necessary to notice here is that no matter which way you rotate it, light travel time in any direction makes more sense than designating them all as static dimensions that may not move without invalidating any geometry that is based on then.
Click to expand...
Again, you've lost me. Please explain what you're talking about.

It is impossible to "prove" Minkowski used the wrong math. There is never anything that is "provably wrong" about using more dimensions without limit, complex math for quantities other than potential energy, etc. it isn't the math itself that is wrong. It's about resorting to more complex math when it is not necessary, and what that does to an understanding of a more complex conceptualization with relativity.
Click to expand...
Fine. So show me your simple math that works better. You can use TeX, right?

All math ever does is to set up a problem and turn the crank until a number or an expression drops out in reduced form ONE number, or ONE reduced form or expression. NEVER two, which relativity uniquely requires.
Click to expand...
You lost me again. Please explain what you're talking about.

danshawen said:
You can't do trigonometry without three vertices, and you can't justify the basis of a coordinate system without an origin that is fixed.
Click to expand...
This is an assertion that you have not supported. Show me why your claim is true. Show me the maths.

Relativity always has at least two frames of reference that are being compared, and I assert that it is impossible to relate both frames of reference to a common origin for more than one reason.
Click to expand...
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.

There is no preferred reference frame is one.
Click to expand...
Yay! We agree on something.

The Uncertainty principle makes two.
Click to expand...
I don't see the relevance of the uncertainty principle to Einstein's theory of relativity. Please explain.

Can YOU answer my classmate's question about whether something contracts with respect to the leading, trailing edge or its center? YOU show US the math.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
BdS said:
Not me, the experiments...

Provide a link so I can see your actual measurements.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
DaveC426913 said:
Sorry, the onus is on you, as the one putting forth an alternate theory, to understand the current theory.
Click to expand...
I do understand current theory. Why do you think I can challenge it?
DaveC426913 said:
It is not our job here to teach you basic physics.
Click to expand...
You cant teach me anything.
DaveC426913 said:
If you wish to refute the findings of SR, you need to do your homework.
Click to expand...
I have and presented it already. You're just not intellectually capable of comprehending it or rebutting it.
 
BdS said:
I do understand current theory. Why do you think I can challenge it?.
Click to expand...
Why not then publish a paper and undergo appropriate peer review.

BdS said:
Keep dreaming in your little fictional world.
Click to expand...
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.
 
James R said:
danshawen:
You mean Torrell rotation?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top