The speed of light may have been broken.

[Motor Daddy]

I've proven you aren't correct about it showing relativity wrong. You skipped over that post.

You haven't proven me incorrect. In relativity, it is ASSUMED that light always takes the same amount of time to travel from the center of the box to the receivers on each wall. Sorry, buddy, that is simply impossible. It will take light the same amount of time to reach each receiver ONLY if the absolute velocity of the box is ZERO. So you do the test once and you get the same times, and then perform the test again after accelerating the box to a different velocity, and you say the light still reaches the receivers in the same time?? Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

Furthermore, I wouldn't dismiss all answers, I just find yours laughable. You can't write a coherent explanation of your thoughts? You don't know how to give sections titles? It's beyond your wit to read other papers and copy their style of overview, body of work, summary, bibliography?

You're basically saying it's beyond your ability to write a short review, like a book review a child might do. Seriously?

I never said I am incapable of learning how to write and submit a properly formatted paper. Where do you get this stuff? You asserting that I am incapable of learning how to write a paper is just your style of twisting something into something different. You are the dishonest one, AN, and you know it! Your integrity is crap!

I asked you why you hadn't submitted, as clearly you think you're right. If you can devote time into making pictures and posts for forums, why can't you do the same for a journal and get your work to the scientific community? Clearly you want people to know, else you'd not be here. Why go the hard way when the quicker, more efficient way is to let a journal know? Your claims simply don't stack up.

Let me explain to you again, I do this for fun. I enjoy discussing concepts of distance and time with others. I enjoy the back and forth discussion. To me, that is fun. Sure, I am capable of learning the proper format and submitting my work, but do you honestly believe that I could convince a reader of a paper a few pages long, when I can't convince anyone on a forum with years of back and forth debate?? Please! People believe what they want to believe. Unfortunately for you, and all the other SR believers, your days are numbered. Oh it's gonna take some time, but in the end the new neutrino findings will overturn SR, and the scientific community will go kicking and screaming, still shouting "Einstein is right" all the way to their grave. SR is false, and when proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that is gonna leave no alternative but absolute motion!!!! I can't wait!! So talk the talk now, AN, because your days are numbered.

What makes you a crank and plenty of other people who whine about their work on forums is that you're mistaken, ignorant and dishonest. You've shown in this thread and others I've recently encountered you in you'll misrepresent people, ie me, you don't know what relativity says and you proclaim easily falsified work irrefutable (nothing in my refutation was beyond 1st year undergrad stuff).

You never miss an opportunity to call someone crank and label them dishonest, do you? That is your theme song, AN. Isn't it getting old? Yawn. You asserting someone dishonest and calling them crank doesn't make it true, regardless of how many times you shout it.

Don't get me wrong, everyone produces incorrect work from time to time. I've had plenty of ideas shot down but I took it gracefully and accepted when I was proven false. You and other hacks here never accept that, you just reword your claims and repeat them.

So you were/are a hack and a crank yourself?

If you don't care if anyone accepts you why are you here? Why endlessly go on about it? Why interject it into threads? Why spend years and years pushing it? Sorry, you can't play the "I don't care if anyone knows" card, else you'd not be pushing it so hard. You obviously want people to accept it.

I enjoy it. I like to talk about distance and time. I like the give and take discussion. How many times do I have to say it, I do it for fun, like you do yourself, remember?

As for leading a horse to water, I just demonstrated using stuff undergrads learn their first term in university that you were mistaken about there being an inconsistency in your setup in SR. That would tell a rational person that perhaps their claims about SR aren't as concrete as they thought, that perhaps their understanding is a little weak, that perhaps they should do more learning. You'll just reword your complaint and repeat it.

You've not proven anything inconsistent but your own behaviour.

Draw me a quick diagram of a box in motion in SR, with a light sphere in it, such as my diagram, and show the light sphere in it at different times hitting different receivers. Make 2 diagrams, just for the heck of it, one at a zero velocity, and one at a .7 c velocity. Just humor me, will you?

 

[Neddy Bate]

Draw me a quick diagram of a box in motion in SR, with a light sphere in it, such as my diagram, and show the light sphere in it at different times hitting different receivers. Make 2 diagrams, just for the heck of it, one at a zero velocity, and one at a .7 c velocity. Just humor me, will you?

Hey Motor Daddy, how goes it??? I did some diagrams for you back on page 75 of the "Relativity of Simultaneity" thread. If AlphaNumeric wants to use these, he is welcome to them:



The following diagram shows the train according to the embankment frame.
The clocks on the train are shown in green.
Notice that the clocks on the train are not all synchronized to each other:

The following diagram shows the train according to the train frame.
Notice that the clocks on the train are all synchronized to each other.
Also notice that the train is not length-contracted in its own frame:

 

[Neddy Bate]

Now some folks might object to the train being a rectangle instead of a cube.
They were probably thinking the train should be like this, according to the train frame:

That is fine; there is nothing wrong with that.
But in that case, the embankment frame would find the cube to be length-contracted, like this:

 

[Neddy Bate]

Oh, and I used v=0.866025c for the speed...

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You haven't proven me incorrect. In relativity, it is ASSUMED that light always takes the same amount of time to travel from the center of the box to the receivers on each wall. Sorry, buddy, that is simply impossible. It will take light the same amount of time to reach each receiver ONLY if the absolute velocity of the box is ZERO. So you do the test once and you get the same times, and then perform the test again after accelerating the box to a different velocity, and you say the light still reaches the receivers in the same time?? Now that right there is funny, I don't care who you are.

So you've failed to show relativity inconsistent, you can only assert it and ignore when someone goes through the explicit algebra.

I never said I am incapable of learning how to write and submit a properly formatted paper. Where do you get this stuff? You asserting that I am incapable of learning how to write a paper is just your style of twisting something into something different. You are the dishonest one, AN, and you know it! Your integrity is crap!

Hypocrisy overload!

You're the one who said it wasn't something you are able to do.

You never miss an opportunity to call someone crank and label them dishonest, do you? That is your theme song, AN. Isn't it getting old? Yawn. You asserting someone dishonest and calling them crank doesn't make it true, regardless of how many times you shout it.

Except I am able to back up my claims. You were wrong about relativity's statements about light spheres and you were wrong saying your box concept shows relativity false.

It's not my fault physics cranks find outlets view the internet. I don't call everyone a crank, just those who make baseless or even falsified claims about subjects they don't know about. You're one. Sorry if you keep hearing 'crank', that isn't my fault.

So you were/are a hack and a crank yourself?

Wow, you accuse me of twisting things then you say that. I said exactly the opposite, that someone isn't a crank if they get something wrong, they are a crank for other reasons. I've said many times on these forums that every scientist makes mistakes, what separates us from hacks is the ability to face up to it.

This shows how dishonest you are, repeatedly twisting things I've said even after I've corrected you. Do you think no one would notice?

Draw me a quick diagram of a box in motion in SR, with a light sphere in it, such as my diagram, and show the light sphere in it at different times hitting different receivers. Make 2 diagrams, just for the heck of it, one at a zero velocity, and one at a .7 c velocity. Just humor me, will you?

I did that on paper when I went through the algebra. What's the matter, can't you understand the algebra? You shouldn't need to be shown a picture, you should be able to reconstruct it from the algebra.

Come on, you asked me to provide algebra and I have done. Now you've posted twice and not addressed it once. Do you understand the algebra? If so you shouldn't have any problem drawing the situations yourself. You should be able to understand the physical setup from my description and formula but you shouldn't need a picture to address the algebra anyway. Please explain what is wrong with what I've done. I've shown the rules of relativity lead to consistent results, contradicting your claim. Your box construct is a rephrasing of standard homework problems and is easily understood using basic introductory SR.

Funny how you went from demanding I produce the algebra to avoiding addressing it when I provided it. Shows your level of integrity.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Neddy, nice diagrams. Far better than I'd have come up with, even if I were at home, it wasn't 11.25pm and I could be bothered.

MD, notice how the square becomes a rectangle? That's something you forgot to consider. You clearly don't know what relativity says, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Hey, Neddy Bate, How you been?

Only one problem with the two diagrams is that you are showing two frames, an embankment frame and a train frame. Sorry, but there is only one frame, THE box. There is a light source at the center of the box, and receivers at the center of each wall. So, you see, there is no other frame to compare to.

I asked AN to humor me and draw a couple quick diagrams of a box, one diagram with the box at one velocity, and one diagram with the box at another velocity. There is only one box. SR says the light sphere is the same in both diagrams. Hehehe snicker, snicker, bwahahahahahaahahaaha even!

 

[Motor Daddy]

MD, notice how the square becomes a rectangle? That's something you forgot to consider. You clearly don't know what relativity says, no matter how much you assert otherwise.

Wrong again, AN, the box is a cube, with each side 1 light second in length.

You can confirm this by having a stick in the box and counting how many times the stick lays end to end in each direction. The length of each side will be the same number of sticks.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Wow, you accuse me of twisting things then you say that. I said exactly the opposite, that someone isn't a crank if they get something wrong, they are a crank for other reasons. I've said many times on these forums that every scientist makes mistakes, what separates us from hacks is the ability to face up to it.

How much time is allowed before one has to face up to it and admit they are wrong, before you consider them a hack and a crank, and dishonest??

3 days?
1 year?
26.5 years?

How much time did it take you to admit you were being stupid and your idea was garbage??

What happens if Einstein's theory is PROVEN wrong, and he never admitted he was wrong before he died, does that make him a super crank, hack, whack job??

Also, what do they call the whack jobs that believe in a super crank's work that is later proven wrong, but the believer never admits it to himself, a but sniffing crank whacko super hack??

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Wrong again, AN, the box is a cube, with each side 1 light second in length.

You can confirm this by having a stick in the box and counting how many times the stick lays end to end in each direction. The length of each side will be the same number of sticks.

Under relativity the number of sticks is invariant under a Lorentz transform but their length isn't. In a particular frame you might arrange the stick's matter to be 1 light second in length but in a different frame it'll be shorter. The fact a rod is 300,000 km long doesn't mean it's immune to length contraction. Only in 1 frame will be box be a cube if you Lorentz transform along a given side.

This proves what I said, you don't know what SR says so your claims to show it to be inconsistent are nonsense.

Can you refute the algebra I've given? You complained I was shying away but now you're doing it. Looks like I called your bluff.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

How much time is allowed before one has to face up to it and admit they are wrong, before you consider them a hack and a crank, and dishonest??

3 days?
1 year?
26.5 years?

What happens if Einstein's theory is PROVEN wrong, and he never admitted he was wrong before he died, does that make him a super crank, hack, whack job??

Also, what do they call the whack jobs that believe in a super crank's work that is later proven wrong, but the believer never admits it to himself, a but sniffing crank whacko super hack??

You clearly have a chip on your shoulder about this. Someone isn't a crank for ultimately being wrong. A crank is someone who cannot accept it when their mistakes are shown to them. And Einstein wasn't wrong in terms of mathematical consistent, but (perhaps) due to not matching experiments. You're claiming SR is logically inconsistent, which it is not. Being wrong because technology didn't exist to differentiate between your predictions and the truth of nature doesn't make you a crank. Science is the step by step improvement of our understanding as we learn more via experiments and update models. Doing this doesn't make you a crank, it's what being a scientist is all about. If you can't accept correction and update when appropriate then you aren't a scientist. You cannot and thus you're a crank. Q E D.

Your attempts to be over the top just show how much you grasp at straws. Can't you engage in rational discussion? I suppose you're trying to change the subject away from my evidence you're wrong about relativity. When do you plan to address my algebra?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Under relativity the number of sticks is invariant under a Lorentz transform but their length isn't. In a particular frame you might arrange the stick's matter to be 1 light second in length but in a different frame it'll be shorter. The fact a rod is 300,000 km long doesn't mean it's immune to length contraction. Only in 1 frame will be box be a cube if you Lorentz transform along a given side.

This proves what I said, you don't know what SR says so your claims to show it to be inconsistent are nonsense.

Can you refute the algebra I've given? You complained I was shying away but now you're doing it. Looks like I called your bluff.

There is only one frame that has the receivers and the light source. The light is emitted and the time is annotated when the light reaches the receivers. You do not know the length of the box until you have the times from the receivers. Remember, a meter is defined as light travel time. Until you know the time you do not know the length.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There is only one frame that has the receivers and the light source. The light is emitted and the time is annotated when the light reaches the receivers. You do not know the length of the box until you have the times from the receivers. Remember, a meter is defined as light travel time. Until you know the time you do not know the length.

The matter which makes up the box is stretched out to be 1 light second in its rest frame. It's then a set length. Boosting your reference to a new frame makes the box appear a different length, less than 1 light second. If you then warped the box to be 1 ls in the new frame the old frame would disagree.

You seem to be struggling with the notion of setting the length of an object. The box is built to some size and then not altered. It is 1 ls in side length in its rest frame. To other frames it may not appear 1 ls in all sides, just like any other solid object.

Saying "The box has side length 1 light second" doesn't mean ALL frames see that, only a particular frame which you should specify. Since you didn't it's normal to assume it's the rest frame. Doesn't matter, my algebra works with a general L, that's the beauty of algebra.

So, when do you plan to address the algebra? You're whining about the value of L when my algebra doesn't need to specify the value of L. Do you even understand the purpose of algebra? Perhaps that's why you're using numbers, you don't actually understand it.

Looks like you're all talk and your bluff has been well and truly called

 

[wellwisher]

The speed of light is constant in all space-time references. But say the reference was not exactly space-time (in the proper proportions of space and time) but something more like space*-time where there is imbalance in space and time. The speed of light could appear to move faster than C within space-time, while still not exceeding C since it is really space*-time.

If we look at a quantum jump, by definition it can transverse finite distance in zero time. Do the math, this will appear to exceed C in there was only space-time. If the jump had more potential in distance, than in time, it can move in space further than assumed for that given time. It is actually moving in space(+)-time, with some extra distance potential.

One way to visualized this a smooth motion, with some added quantum bunny hops along the way, so the total distance is longer for that time.

 

[Dywyddyr]

If we look at a quantum jump, by definition it can transverse finite distance in zero time.

No.
As for the rest: get an education.

 

[billvon]

Sorry, but there is only one frame, THE box. There is a light source at the center of the box, and receivers at the center of each wall. So, you see, there is no other frame to compare to.

There are two inertial frames - one moving, one not - in your diagram. The moving one is the box. The non-moving one is the observer. The two frames are not the same, since all physical laws apply in both frames.

 

[arfa brane]

The meter and the second are not defined in terms of the speed of light.

The meter is specifically defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second.

So you have cognitive dissonance as well as a shrunken brain?
The first sentence asserts that the second sentence is false, you dimwit.

The distance or length light travels in some amount of time is the speed it travels, so the "meter" is defined in terms of the speed of light.

You actually are a moron, aren't you?

 

[markl323]

A few comments from a few physicists:

Neutrinos CAN Go Faster Than Light Without Violating Relativity

observed tachyonic neutrinos = evidence of higher dimensions?

this is getting exciting

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

observed tachyonic neutrinos = evidence of higher dimensions?

this is getting exciting

Wow !! I like that membrane universe and bulk space stuff . Yeah sounds like something I said yesterday . To separate spaces bumping into each other causes differential with in the 2 separate spaces. Membranes of space could be a better way of stating it . Separate Membranes of space bumping into each other and it causes heat differential in the space which leads to waves . Resonance of waves combined and ultimately matter is sequestered from the events . Like sound being transformed to electromagnetic waves . I don't know ? Keep talking brainyacs .

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2011/sep/24/1?commentpage=3#start-of-comments

"I received a comment on this piece from Luca Stanco, a senior member of the Opera collaboration (who also worked on the ZEUS experiment with me several years ago). He points out that although he is a member of Opera, he did not sign the arXiv preprint because while he supported the seminar and release of results, he considers the analysis "preliminary" due at least in part to worries like those I describe, and that it has been presented as being more robust than he thinks it is. Four other senior members of Opera also removed their names from the author list for this result."