light propagates at c + v?

[BdS]

The genius of Einstein’s discoveries is that he looked at the experiments and assumed the findings were true. This was the exact opposite of what other physicists seemed to be doing. Instead of assuming the theory was correct and that the experiments failed, he assumed that the experiments were correct and the theory had failed.

As I know the experiments are correct and your evaluation of them failed Mr Einstein, sorry.

 

[paddoboy]

As I know the experiments are correct and your evaluation of them failed Mr Einstein, sorry.

Of course!! You have a good day now ya hear?

 

[paddoboy]

And the proof follows, but you cant comprehend it. By you not being able to critically think for yourself I understand why you cant process the information and see why light travels at c + v.

Of course I comprehend it. It's you with the problem. You cannot remove yourself from that old school of time and space being absolute [which has been shown they are not] and the counter-intuitive [on face value] of the speed of light being absolute: You rant and rave on without taking into account the facts of time dilation and length contraction, which explains why what you see as counter-intuitive is not. In other words you dismiss SR.That alone explains much.

You are not the one who produced the theory of only c and have only the ability to show other peoples work, a science reporter in other words. In future you'll be showing/defending my work to others, lol. At least my work wont leave behind generations of lobotomized cranks defending it. So you'll be able to report and defend it with confidence that its what the experiments show, no assumptions needed...

Yeah sure my friend. If you chose to live in your little cocoon governed by your mythical beliefs that is your problem.
I certainly will keep reporting science as I see it, and as it changes and advances that will certainly occur. Of course that will not happen on forums such as this, with every Tom, Dick and Harry that suffers from delusions of grandeur using this vehicle [the only vehicle they have] to push their nonsense on to the world [well not quite the world as you no doubt seem to imagine ] but a small sliver of cyber space on a remote science forum.
Not getting you very far is it?

 

[BdS]

Of course I comprehend it.

Ok, lets see if you or anyone else comprehends what Im saying. From the video explain what Im saying.

Yeah sure my friend. If you chose to live in your little cocoon governed by your mythical beliefs that is your problem.
I certainly will keep reporting science as I see it, and as it changes and advances that will certainly occur. Of course that will not happen on forums such as this, with every Tom, Dick and Harry that suffers from delusions of grandeur using this vehicle [the only vehicle they have] to push their nonsense on to the world [well not quite the world as you no doubt seem to imagine ] but a small sliver of cyber space on a remote science forum.
Not getting you very far is it?

You just want to keep attacking my character, because you cant argue the science.

 

[paddoboy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

“The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s)”

1 / 299792458m = 0.0000000033356 sec (time it takes light to travel 1 metre)
230km * 1000 = 230000m (Solar System average speed around the galaxy in metres)
230000m * 0.0000000033356 = 0.000767188m = 0.767188mm (distance Earth moved in orbit around the galaxy in the time it took light to travel 1 metre)

If light travels at only c and not c + v (where v is the velocity of the emitter) then we should measure a drift of 0.767188mm over a 1 metre distance and a 230km drift over 299792458m.

Take a mounted laser and shine it against the wall from a distance of 1 metre. Draw a dot on the wall where the laser light is and keep it on for a year. If light travels at only c then we should detect a drift of up to 0.767188mm from the dot we drew on the wall. The Earth is spinning and orbiting the sun so as it spins the drift will change direction depending on the direction we are facing relative to the galactic year orbit direction/speed of 230km/s. If the orbit speed is to our left we should detect a drift to the right of our dot and in 12 hours when the orbit speed is to our right the drift should be to the left of the dot.

If we don’t detect a drift then light travels at c + v

The OP:

The post in "Gravitational Curve/field reconfiguration" in the pseudoscience thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gravitational-curve-field-reconfiguration.153013/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_year

“The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 828,000 km/h (230 km/s)”

1 / 299792458m = 0.0000000033356 sec (time it takes light to travel 1 metre)
230km * 1000 = 230000m (Solar System average speed around the galaxy in metres)
230000m * 0.0000000033356 = 0.000767188m = 0.767188mm (distance Earth moved in orbit around the galaxy in the time it took light to travel 1 metre)

If light travels at only c and not c + v (where v is the velocity of the emitter) then we should measure a drift of 0.767188mm over a 1 metre distance and a 230km drift over 299792458m.

Take a mounted laser and shine it against the wall from a distance of 1 metre. Draw a dot on the wall where the laser light is and keep it on for a year. If light travels at only c then we should detect a drift of up to 0.767188mm from the dot we drew on the wall. The Earth is spinning and orbiting the sun so as it spins the drift will change direction depending on the direction we are facing relative to the galactic year orbit direction/speed of 230km/s. If the orbit speed is to our left we should detect a drift to the right of our dot and in 12 hours when the orbit speed is to our right the drift should be to the left of the dot.

If we don’t detect a drift then light travels at c + v

At post 9:

I believe you in your enthusiasm for your mission, do not really understand what you are saying.
The illustrations of how you once again invoked some nonsense already put in pseudoscience shows that.
What is anyone to learn from your video?
It's all science.

 

[paddoboy]

You just want to keep attacking my character, because you cant argue the science.

I don't need to attack your character....Your character is defined already. I'm only taking a passing interest. and noting observations.

 

[BdS]

So is yours a coward and a waist of time... Bye I dont talk to or read what tarded spambots have to say.

 

[origin]

Ok, lets see if you or anyone else comprehends what Im saying.

I think that everyone understands what you are saying, they just disagree with what you are saying.

 

[BdS]

Ok, lets see if you or anyone else comprehends what Im saying. From the video explain what Im saying.

The problem is before he even starts to explain he already assumes the local observer and remote observer see different things. How is that possible? i know nature is weird, but not that weird...
The local observer is in motion and you say he sees the light go straight up in a straight line | the distance of c only moving at c, that is obviously not whats happening. He is in motion and what the local observer sees is exactly the same as the remote observer sees the / c + v, he just doesn't notice the v. Because the local observer is moving at v he sees it going in a straight line | only at c, but the light followed the / c + v path through space. Too hard to understand? whats the problem? 100 years of this?

The real way to see this is obviously to plot the motion on a stationary coordinate system and show both the remote and local observer and they'll both agree they see the same thing this /.

 

[BdS]

The real way to see this is obviously to plot the motion on a stationary coordinate system and show both the remote and local observer and they'll both agree they see the same thing this /.

And they'll both agree it took the exact same time for the clock to complete 1 cycle. The light followed the exact same path for both observers.

 

[BdS]

Special relativity must be for the "special" people, because I dont understand it at all.

 

[origin]

The problem is before he even starts to explain he already assumes the local observer and remote observer see different things. How is that possible? i know nature is weird, but not that weird...
The local observer is in motion and you say he sees the light go straight up in a straight line | the distance of c only moving at c, that is obviously not whats happening. He is in motion and what the local observer sees is exactly the same as the remote observer sees the / c + v, he just doesn't notice the v. Because the local observer is moving at v he sees it going in a straight line | only at c, but the light followed the / c + v path through space. Too hard to understand? whats the problem? 100 years of this?

The real way to see this is obviously to plot the motion on a stationary coordinate system and show both the remote and local observer and they'll both agree they see the same thing this /.

That is incorrect. The speed of light is a constant for all observers. This has been shown by the experiments that show all measurements of light in a vacuum is constant.

 

[BdS]

That is incorrect. The speed of light is a constant for all observers. This has been shown by the experiments that show all measurements of light in a vacuum is constant.

one of those "special" people I mentioned and another candidate for the ignore forum function... His words really prove his opinion as always.
It constantly moves at c + v.

 

[origin]

And they'll both agree it took the exact same time for the clock to complete 1 cycle. The light followed the exact same path for both observers.

No they won't.

 

[origin]

Special relativity must be for the "special" people, because I dont understand it at all.

You can do that mathematics for special relativity by using highschool algebra. It is particularly easy if you only look at the direction of travel instead of looking at all 3D directions. If you like I could direct you to some excellent lectures that go over how this works. Like I said highschool algebra will suffice to understand understand the concept.

 

[origin]

one of those "special" people I mentioned and another candidate for the ignore forum function... His words really prove his opinion as always.
It constantly moves at c + v.

I am not giving my opinion, I am giving you what experimentation and the mathematics show. If you prefer to just ignoring ideas you do not understand instead of learning to understand those ideas, that is your choice.

 

[DaveC426913]

Relativity is one of the most exhaustively-tested theories in all science. It has passed with flying colours every time, to as many decimal places as we care to check, never once deviating from expectations.

The fact that its not easy to understand, because it usually manifests beyond typical human perception (extremely high speeds and energies), does not change that.

 

[BdS]

I am not giving my opinion, I am giving you what experimentation and the mathematics show.

And what am I giving? theres the experiments and the maths... wow. Can you tell whats wrong with them? thought not.

Like I said highschool algebra will suffice to understand understand the concept.

Carpenter maths and elementary school logic is all thats needed to understand mine.

Prove why the local observer and remote observer see different things and I will believe you, but you going to need solid logical physical evidence.

Relativity is one of the most exhaustively-tested theories in all science. It has passed with flying colours every time, to as many decimal places as we care to check, never once deviating from expectations.

The fact that its not easy to understand, because it usually manifests beyond typical human perception (extremely high speeds and energies), does not change that.

Relativity is easy to understand, I just dont agree with it. Your Italic cryptic lingo isn't helping you either. What you going to do now?
Have you achieved extremely high speeds recorded the data and proved your assumptions? Till then all relativity has is pseudoscience, yes? just like curved spacetime and the rest of it all pseudoscience, yes? Mods better move all the posts in the science section to the fringe sections. Mainstream deals with "special" fringe science... lol omg!
Im showing you at low speeds the claimed effects are non-existent, why should they manifest at high speeds if no trace of them exists at low speeds?

if you want to achieve extremely high speeds ask me how and if I feel motivated I might just tell you

 

[BdS]

Prove why the local observer and remote observer see different things and I will believe you, but you going to need solid logical physical evidence.

Lets conduct a experiment, we put paddoboy, origin and Dave on a shuttle with no windows to the Orion *** constellation at a velocity of 30km/h and we just wait.

 

[paddoboy]

Lets conduct a experiment, we put paddoboy, origin and Dave on a shuttle with no windows to the Orion *** constellation at a velocity of 30km/h and we just wait.

Get a bigger shuttle, you'll need virtually the whole world as no one else agrees with you .
That really says it all.