light propagates at c + v?

[DaveC426913]

Sorry dont agree. I can absolutely prove the earth is moving around the sun and the solar system round the galaxy. Nothing is stationary.

Yes.
You can show that the Earth is moving relative to the Sun, and the Sun is moving relative to the galaxy.

Velocity is relative.

Yes, but moving none the less. the experiments dont detect that motion drift, so I dont care whats moving relative to what for the experiment. I only care that it is moving.

If your motion drift idea was correct, you should be able to determine at what velocity it is drifting and in what direction. If you can't determine that then it could be any speed. Including zero. So why don't we simply settle on that?

First you measure Andromeda to other points of reference and those points to other points and determine Andromeda motion, then you do the same for the milkyway. And you get your answer.

What other points? Other galaxies?
Yup. You can show the relative motion between Milky Way, Andromeda and other galaxies.

Not what the experiments show.

The experiments show a speed of c, no matter how it is measured. This is indisputable. You agreed to it when examining Alice's experiment.

What is happening is that you are making a subsequent assertion about what speed that "really" is. Unfortunately, it is a flawed assertion, which I will show.

I ask again: what observer measures Alice's laser traveling at a speed other than c?

 

[BdS]

If your motion drift idea was correct, you should be able to determine at what velocity it is drifting and in what direction. If you can't determine that then it could be any speed. Including zero. So why don't we simply settle on that?

It doesn't drift and thats why its c + v. No we can prove we not moving at zero velocity.

The experiments show a speed of c, no matter how it is measured. This is indisputable. You agreed to it when examining Alice's experiment.

No I agreed to Alice measuring only c, in her moving v FOR.

What is happening is that you are making a subsequent assertion about what speed that "really" is. Unfortunately, it is a flawed assertion, which I will show.

Please do.

I ask again: what observer measures Alice's laser traveling at a speed other than c?

All observers not in Alice's FOR.

 

[DaveC426913]

All observers not in Alice's FOR.

Perfect.

Let's posit Bob, who is in his own FoR.
That means he is moving relative to her.
And THAT means he sees Alice's FoR with relativistic effects. He sees time slower and distances shorter in Alice's FoR.

It turns out, that if he measures the distance from Alice's laser to the wall, and measures the time he observed the laser to travel that distance, he will measure the beam to travel at c.

If Alice went whipping by at .99c, the distance Bob measures from laser to wall will be compressed to 1/7th of the length Alice measures it at. So, as the ship whizzes past, he sees the laser beam chasing the wall, and taking 7 times longer to catch up to it (since it's moving away from the laser). When he checks his instruments, he sees that the light beam has traveled 7 times farther and taken 7 times longer - resulting in a d/t of exactly c.

This works for any and all angles of the laser beam to the direction of travel. It would be exhaustive to list an example of each, but I can assure you it will work out.

 

[danshawen]

Perfect.

Let's posit Bob, who is in his own FoR.
That means he is moving relative to her.
And THAT means he sees Alice's FoR with relativistic effects. He sees time slower and distances shorter in Alice's FoR.

It turns out, that if he measures the distance from Alice's laser to the wall, and measures the time he observed the laser to travel that distance, he will measure the beam to travel at c.

If Alice went whipping by at .99c, the distance Bob measures from laser to wall will be compressed to 1/7th of the length Alice measures it at. So, as the ship whizzes past, he sees the laser beam chasing the wall, and taking 7 times longer to catch up to it (since it's moving away from the laser). When he checks his instruments, he sees that the light beam has traveled 7 times farther and taken 7 times longer - resulting in a d/t of exactly c.

This works for any and all angles of the laser beam to the direction of travel. It would be exhaustive to list an example of each, but I can assure you it will work out.

In other words, length is blue shifted (shorter wavelengths, lengths) as it approaches, red shifted (longer wavelengths, lengths) once Alice and her laser cavity "whizzes past." But the speed of light is the same for Alice as it is for Bob, no matter which way the laser cavity is oriented. The photons in the laser cavity have inertia imparted to them by the electrons in the mirrors from which they reflect.

A retired laser physicist / engineer John Macken with over 20 patents to his credit in laser technology has used this example as the opening argument in his crank theory about dipoles.

None of this means what the opening post of this thread suggests, however, a velocity of +c vector added to -c always yields a FoR that is at rest with respect to the FoR it was measured in. Take a harder look at those mirrors and what it is they do and you will understand.

The same dynamic works for energy that is bound by rotation (matter) and for the same reason. This has particular significance for a spin zero particle, and Kaluza-Klein which is supposed to be the best explanation available to explain quantum spin is a crank theory if ever I saw one. I don't care if Yang-Mills electroweak unification is a special case or not. There. I said it.

 

[origin]

None of this means what the opening post of this thread suggests, however, a velocity of +c vector added to -c always yields a FoR that is at rest with respect to the FoR it was measured in. Take a harder look at those mirrors and what it is they do and you will understand.

Huh?

 

[danshawen]

Huh?

It's the same as what the previous poster said. If +c is invariant, so is - c. Add them. It only works for this case.

 

[DaveC426913]

It doesn't drift and thats why its c + v.

Your contention, a jump from "no drift" straight to "c+v" is simply that: a contention. You are drawing that conclusion because you see no other way it could be true. But you not seeing it does not mean it's not there.

How can you possibly expect to put forth an alternative explanation if you don't even know how the current explanation works?

 

[origin]

It's the same as what the previous poster said. If +c is invariant, so is - c. Add them. It only works for this case.

$$Huh^2?$$

 

[DaveC426913]

It's the same as what the previous poster said. If +c is invariant, so is - c. Add them. It only works for this case.

I'm not sure how this helps BdS though. S/he does not grant that c is invariant. If s/he did, this thread would not even exist.

 

[danshawen]

I'm not sure how this helps BdS though. S/he does not grant that c is invariant. If s/he did, this thread would not even exist.

That's why my suggestion is: c+v evaluates to something other than c iff v=-c.

 

[danshawen]

This may look like a trivial result, but it isn't. This is the way to derive the invariant that is at rest with the invariant that is the speed of light. Without this relation, bound energy can literally never form in THIS universe, not a five dimensional one supposed by Kazula-Klein theory.

So, why did no one think to apply the same logic to quantum spin before resorting to Hilbert's five dimensional mathematical crankery? The theory of quantum spin as it stands cannot identify what inertia is, and that's a problem. A particle with spin zero is the missing invariant.

The basic problem with mathematical crankery is that it can be consistent with all of the appropriate rules and still amount to nothing but a smoldering heap of the conceptual equivalent of excrement. There is a proof of exactly that.

 

[origin]

That's why my suggestion is: c+v evaluates to something other than c iff v=-c.

$$Huh^3?$$
I really do not understand what you are trying to say. Could you expand a bit on your explanation or show mathematically what you are talking about?

 

[danshawen]

$$Huh^3?$$
I really do not understand what you are trying to say. Could you expand a bit on your explanation or show mathematically what you are talking about?

In relativistic "space" ("scare" quotes intentional), and for linear inertial motion:

c+c = c (invariant)
c-v = c-v
c-c = "at rest" in any inertial reference frame (invariant)

We now define a similar relation for quantum spin:

c(rotational) + c(rotational) = c(rotational, invariant)
c(rotational) - v(rotational) = v(rotational, <c) + v(linear, <c)
c(rotational) - c(rotational) = quantum spin of zero (invariant)

"Space" is a volume defined by a single linear dimension of light travel time, and two dimensionless phase angles not defined by trigonometry or vector addition in a Euclidean vector field.

 

[origin]

c+c = c (invariant)

What does that mean? Are you saying a reference frame can move at c?

c-v = c-v

Since the speed of light is invariant c-v does not make sense, right?

c-c = "at rest" in any inertial reference frame (invariant)

Under what condition can you have c-c? I do not understand what that even means.

Maybe I am being dense, but this really does not make any sense in the realm of SR.

 

[danshawen]

What does that mean? Are you saying a reference frame can move at c?

Since the speed of light is invariant c-v does not make sense, right?

Under what condition can you have c-c? I do not understand what that even means.

Maybe I am being dense, but this really does not make any sense in the realm of SR.

The speed of light is not just any pedestrian invariant. It is invariant in all rotated directions, in all inertial reference frames where v<c.

W and Z bosons, electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, neutrinos, Higgs, and its heavier cousin(s), if any, all propagate at linear speeds < c.

You can have c-c in many ways. One way is in a laser cavity. One direction of propagation is +c., and the other is -c. In the rotational mode of bound energy propagation in a spin zero particle of which there is only one we know of, the bound energy is propagating in the manner of two senses of quantum spin, equal and opposite. In both the case of the laser cavity and the spin zero particle, linear or rotational inertia is present. The only means in this universe for transferring linear inertia to/from rotational inertia is through the bound energy that is matter, or this spin zero particle.

Particle creation from photons also requires vectors of +/- c. Virtual particles continuously created and destroyed in the quantum foam require vectors of +/-c. Observer duality in both relativity and quantum physics require this, which is adverse to a mathematical expression of reality that does not take into account such duality. Euclidean geometry is one such example.

No, my friend, you are anything but " thick". Few others here have gotten it. Getting it requires you to understand relativity at a level much deeper than boost matrices and/or Lorentz covariance will yet allow.

 

[Russ_Watters]

You can have c-c in many ways. One way is in a laser cavity. One direction of propagation is +c., and the other is -c.

That's not how math works, at least by convention. The sign of the value is part of the value, not part of the equation. So c+v is still c+v, even for negative values of v. Flipping the whole thing over and evaluating it backwards as -c-v doesn't add any value, so it isn't done. The full equation would be something like -c1=-c-v. All of the negatives cancel out and you are left with c1=c+v again.

 

[danshawen]

That's not how math works, at least by convention. The sign of the value is part of the value, not part of the equation. So c+v is still c+v, even for negative values of v. Flipping the whole thing over and evaluating it backwards as -c-v doesn't add any value, so it isn't done. The full equation would be something like -c1=-c-v. All of the negatives cancel out and you are left with c1=c+v again.

Signs are mathematical CONVENTIONS. What is + v for one observer is -v for another. I wasn't finished writing when you responded. Check the text again.

 

[origin]

The speed of light is not just any pedestrian invariant. It is invariant in all rotated directions, in all inertial reference frames where v<c.

All inertial frames must be <c so that stipulation is not necessary.

W and Z bosons, electrons, quarks, their antiparticles, neutrinos, Higgs, and its heavier cousin(s), if any, all propagate at linear speeds < c.

Sure, all massive particles have a speed <c.

You can have c-c in many ways. One way is in a laser cavity. One direction of propagation is +c., and the other is -c.

The fact that you have two light waves or photons going in opposite directions certainly does not mean that anything is at rest!

 

[danshawen]

All inertial frames must be <c so that stipulation is not necessary.


Sure, all massive particles have a speed <c.


The fact that you have two light waves or photons going in opposite directions certainly does not mean that anything is at rest!

That is exactly what defines "at rest" in any (single) inertial reference frame, but yes, not the same "at rest" in ALL inertial reference frames. That distinction is what principally defines the strong invariant, +/- c.

 

[danshawen]

Perfect.

Let's posit Bob, who is in his own FoR.
That means he is moving relative to her.
And THAT means he sees Alice's FoR with relativistic effects. He sees time slower and distances shorter in Alice's FoR.

It turns out, that if he measures the distance from Alice's laser to the wall, and measures the time he observed the laser to travel that distance, he will measure the beam to travel at c.

If Alice went whipping by at .99c, the distance Bob measures from laser to wall will be compressed to 1/7th of the length Alice measures it at. So, as the ship whizzes past, he sees the laser beam chasing the wall, and taking 7 times longer to catch up to it (since it's moving away from the laser). When he checks his instruments, he sees that the light beam has traveled 7 times farther and taken 7 times longer - resulting in a d/t of exactly c.

This works for any and all angles of the laser beam to the direction of travel. It would be exhaustive to list an example of each, but I can assure you it will work out.

It's time to clear up the "7 times farther and 7 times longer" part of your response. The ability to make such comparisons requires either a belief in Lorentz covariance or a belief that inertialess space is something it s practical to do solid geometry in.

Oh, sure, you could do relativity by making certain that you do all your geometry in the direction of motion next to a very long line of perfect meter sticks which were all at rest when you started, or can't you? The "at rest" frame sees everything in the moving frame as Doppler shifted, including lengths, and vice versa. But lengths are light travel time, and time appears dilated in both frames with respect to the other. An origin would need to be designated by some means that involved the speed of light. And if light travel time is used to do this, neither frame will be able to agree on a coordinate for an origin. Only quantum entanglement would make it possible to mitigate this discrepancy, because it exceeds the speed of light.

Wheeler's graphical derivation of Lorentz covariance is flawed because, like your example, it ascribes absolute location to an inertialess medium which supports no such concept. It does seem to provide a conceptual framework for time dilation, but believing this is the cause of time dilation is a fallacy borne of an inappropriate use of solid geometry in an inertialess relativistic volume composed of light travel time.

The only analog of absolute space are the geometric centers of fundamental particles composed of bound energy. The only absolute time is the origin of the instant of quantum entanglement time we refer to as "now", and which is the instant from which the direction of time's arrow derives.

Forget about Lorenz Covariance. Space is a volume of light travel time. Time is more fundamental than the bulk propagation of bound or unbound energy in a universe comprised of energy transfer events.