Hi, I am not going to describe a new experiment in this post.
What I am going to ask is if anyone who has read any of my thought experiments in other threads can tell me what should happen if the experiment were to be performed.
It seems foolish to try an experiment to disprove Relativity if when I get the result I expected, tell every one and then I am told that is what Relativity would have expected.
So since I am ill equipped to answer what SR says due to the fact that it firstly makes no sense to me and secondly I can’t do the math, I need your help so I know what is expected to happen.
So thee are only a few rules, it must be a thought experiment I proposed previously to disprove SR, it should hopefully be one that seems possible to perform without technology that humanity does not have and extra points if it actually seem plausible for someone not wealthy to fund.
And you must be able to explain what will happen in all parts of the experiment I have laid out and any secondary experiments where I propose a small variation.
But don’t be afraid because if you are missing out a pat I will kindly point it out t you, so if you miss it initially no worries just don’t ignore it when I mention the part you missed.
Otherwise you haven’t really predicted what SR says in the experiment.
BTW I see another thread in great debates was closed without notice, I do not understand this as I was told I am welcome to start a thread here, I was not rude and I hope it was simply because it addressed a single member.
So I am starting this thread in good faith that I have the mods blessings until I hear otherwise. Additionally I am reluctant to take the abuse from the threat in the pit.
Additionally if you are unaware of any of my thought experiments and want to help me out, just ask and I will point you to one or give you a new one in the greatest clarity, simplicity and brevity (not my strong suit) I can personally muster.
If this is true then maybe you should try getting yourself to a point where you can understand it and do the calculations. Trying to disprove something you don’t understand is foolish. Go and get a physics degree first. Then become a PhD research student. Then disprove special relativity.
Your spinning clock on the cylinder: the clock is slowed down by a factor of gamma. The Ehrenrest paradox (or the resolution thereof) states the circumference of the cylinder expands from the perspective of those on the cylinder by a factor of gamma. The gammas cancel out. Therefore, the spinning clock registers a speed of c for the photon.
You want us to predict the outcome of an experiment you refuse to describe to us? Righty-O!
I predict vial #3 will glow for 3 minutes before exploding, causing hamster #3177 to levitate for 17.68 minutes at a height of approximately 17 centimeters, before crashing to the table and dying of herpes 2 days later.
Special relativity predicts that no matter what you do, the speed of light will never exceed 3x10[sup]5[/sup] kilometers per second. If you can come up with an experiment in which this is not the case, congratulations on your Nobel prize.
But a thought experiment won’t do that, because you need to actually show that the result is different from special relativity.
I posted my earlier response from my phone, so I didn’t read carefully enough to see that you were only asking about special relativity. SR has nothing to say about the rotating/accelerating/vibrating clock because those aren’t handled by special relativity. Same with the rotating disk that’s a hexagon for no reason, same for the plank spinning crazily around. You’ve been told the answers to the people on the rotating train question.
Perhaps you don’t realize that rotation is acceleration. Since Special Relativity doesn’t apply under acceleration, a rotating system won’t work for you. SR only works in systems traveling in a straight line at a constant velocity.
Not really. Special Relativity can handle acceleration just fine. That’s why the derivation of the relativistic rocket http://www.relativitycalculator.com/images/rocket_equations/AIAA.pdf can be done without any mention of gravity or general relativity. It just requires calculus, in addition to algebra. You can even make some predictions about the effects of gravity with using the full majesty of GR, by using SR and the equivalence principle Gravitational time dilation - Wikipedia Einstein did that calculation in 1907, long before GR was fully developed. For a rotating object, you can do calculations either way - with SR in an accelerating (rotating) frame, or with GR in a nonrotating frame (with the centrifugal force treated as gravity). Of course, you get the same answer either way. But with both SR and GR, the speed of light in a vacuum, as measured from an inertial frame is constant.
Yes, though I confess I can’t see what about my posts would make you say that, my posts have been over-long and repetitive as a result to addressing the same accusations and objections, but I consider that almost all have been meaningful and related to the topic.
At this time user Pasta has agreed to work through a problem together and ignore the ‘noise’ and so I agree with that, so I will respect his request and not reply to anyone else in the meantime, I would ask that this remain open if possible but my participation may be on pause.
However those that want to look at the problem in question can go to post 279 in the “How to have light move faster than C” thread currently located in the BBQ Pit.
However I will focus on just communicating with Pasta for the time being as is his request.
If once that has reached it’s conclusion, and provided he could not point out what SR would predict if the experiment were to be performed in a manner that seems both possible and in keeping with SR, then I will return here to communicate (1, 2, 3 days?) .
Then I would like to resume here, I hope the form of this thread will keep it on topic better.
Any further wandering into pointlessness-land, or an inability to debate, or opening any further threads on Special Relativity in general (ha!) will earn you warnings from this point on.
I expect you to be a contributing member of the SDMB. To date that’s a dicey proposition. It’s time you stepped up your game.
But while the hostile and pointless nature of most responses to my messages are hard to deny, except for the fact that first post in this thread has a slight degree of pointlessness as it does not declare a specific experiment, I am lost as to what criticism could be levelled at me besides being repetitive (as I am addressing the same issues over and over as people ask), long (as I attempt to be clear) and possibly that you disagree with the points I make. I have debated every point anyone has made as far as I am aware within reason, but there is an inability do debate when my points made back almost never get challenged.
But if your issue is anything other than those points I don’t see what it could be, and if I don’t know what the issue is I am unlikely to avoid it again.
I consider the only pointlessness is the optimism that anyone will lave a reason based discussion and address my replies, and so far that optimism seems to be justified in Past’s reply that he sees no significant issues with my argument.
So if you can explain what you mean I will have a better chance of avoiding your wraith.
Note: Oh, and I’m not saying I have never been frustrated or mad and replied in understandable anger, that is the exception not the rule.
Also if I was wrong in anything I assert above plenty of examples would exist to prove me wrong.
I sent a private message in reply to idle thoughts which he informed me had gone unread.
He challenged me saying my arguments have no ‘proof’ as I have no cites, well I have decided to post it to this thread, you now the thread I’m not talking in!
I am not looking for any replies since so few go my way but this is my response to him which has relevance here IMO.
Firstly I have cited things but I do not want to get into a citation war for many reasons, firstly it requires a lot of reading off the site which is messy and chaotic, secondly it requires interpreting the evidence to make sure that the evidence that is interpreted to be for SR does actually backs SR up (example below*), Additionally in a world where SR has been accepted for so long there are going to be way way more citations for SR and they will have more acceptance than citations that I CAN MAKE but choose not to since they will automatically be considered less credible.
Finally that would be irrelevant since SR could be flawed even if time dilation, length contraction and constancy of the speed of light were true as I have described (coherently).
And it is also in my opinion the case that there are likely no experiments to measure the speed of light in a non-enclosed experiment with large relative motion to significant earth mass which is the only experiment that would show an obvious divergence from SR and entrained aether (and sensors not inline with direction of motion just n case, interferometry should be ok esp. if rectangular).
An argument based on logic of what SR asserts to be seen being acceptable, acceptable but seeming paradoxical and fatally paradoxical is very clear IF everyone behaves like an adult and avoids appeals of/to authority, personal attacks, strawman attacks and other techniques to avoid describing what SR predicts. Or maybe pointing out why an experiment is invalid as a thought experiment and could not be performed even theoretically.
Thank you for being open minded enough not to ban the discussion just because it is controversial.
*It requires interpreting the evidence to make sure that the evidence that is interpreted to be for SR does actually backs SR up as is the case with an experiment for SR that detected variation in light speed for the Earth’s rotation but since rotation is absolute not relative it asserts that is in agreement with SR because it has found a variation in the speed of light and disregards a completely dragged aether which may be true but only at the elevation and geography of the location.
but this is my response to him which has relevance here IMO.