How to have light move faster than C

[mythoughts]

@Trinopus

Math does relate to physical reality. Two inches, four pounds, six seconds.

Without the math, all you have is roughly descriptive language. Distance, weight, time. Only with math are the units defined and the quantities measureable.

Yes, and rough descriptive language is entirely sufficient if we assume the unknown magnitudes of the effects automatically fall in favour of SR.

I am not looking to prove SR wrong because it has the time dilated by 23%, but it needs 25% for things to work out ok!

If we do that, we don’t have any way to address the issues you, yourself, wish to raise.

Untrue, I only raise the direction/axis of an effect and I am not challenging it’s magnitude, at least not is any example where that has and magnitude worth noting.

One Yoctosecond after you drop a clock, it’s velocity according to SR will clearly be insufficient to have SR time dilation make up for GR’s issue.
Even the fact the argument exist is ridiculous, it is a GR experiment and must be solved within GR as far as I am concerned.

It reduces your point to being mere assertions. I assert otherwise. Prove me wrong. The debate goes nowhere.

No, I cover every outcome I can think of, if the outcomes I suggest are not to your liking, then suggest one that does make sense.

Your descriptions contradict the real world.

I am a better physicist, because I can do the math.

Great, then just this once take one of my thought experiments, do the math (you pick the velocities if you want, or ask me) and then relay what is observed by the different players.

The length contracts by 23%, one twin ages 40 years while the other twin ages only ages 23.5 days from travelling at 200,000,000 ms a second for 23 light years (based on the stationary reference…

That kind of result, but based on MY thought experiment.

You will not do this though.

We would conduct physical experiments – tens of thousands of them – to find the right amount. So far, they have all agreed with relativity. Not one has contradicted it.

You’ve only ducked it. You haven’t answered it.

I have not answered what? I predict you will duck this question!

[mythoughts]

@Idle_Thoughts

You seem to be getting very heated for this forum. I’ve already given you many notes in this topic. Rather than give you yet another note, I’m just going to move this thread over to the BBQ Pit, where you can feel free to flame out as you wish.

I thought you said you were done!

Now you are back to reduce the viability of this thread because you could not answer my riddles.

And I was losing my temper at YOU!
If you stay away, I was fine, but the rubbish out of your mou… keyboard was indeed too much.
It was the additional truck load of hay that broke the already heavily laiden camels back.

AND I shouted s you would not ignore me, and what I shouted is something you must ignore because it is something you won’t do!

Please do NOT make another one of these topics on these boards unless you can keep a calm head. Even so, you should make it in Great Debates, because it’s clear this is a subject you’re looking to debate, rather than look for opinions on.
Do not make another topic about this outside of Great Debates.

As for this topic, it’s in the Pit now so that you (and everyone else) can feel free to say what you really want without holding back.

Ah huh.
And so now it is pretty much all against me shouting in insults.

You are a real piece of work, dodge everything and demote it into a board where everyone can abuse me.

I wouldn’t say what I think of you style of winning an argument, even in the ‘pit’.

[zoid]

mythoughts is a poopy-head.

Hey this is fun!

[Crazyhorse]

Einstein just sent me a message from the past using these very principles.

It says: “mythoughts is a poopy-head. Albert”

[mythoughts]

@Itself

How about the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment?

I did not notice this at the top when replying to the email initially.

Looking into it, it seems entirely consistent with either Lorentz static aether, SR and an entrained aether.

Well, Obviously when I say Lorentz and SR I mean if the claims that Lorentz are suitable for explaining light speed consistency which I reject, but if it worked then the experiment tell us nothing.

Very few quite specific experiments can tell the difference between an aether that you are probably carrying with you (depending on many details of the setup and the aether) and light being C relative to all observers IS that was possible.

[zweisamkeit]

HEY EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD I SERIOUSLY DISCOVERED SOMETHING AWESOME!

Ahem. Sorry for the caps lock there, but I’m genuinely excited about this. Ok, so I record The Daily Show and Colbert Report on my DVR, but I’m rarely caught up to the most recent show, since I actually prefer watching a few episodes in a single sitting.

On the Feb 18 Colbert Report, Stephen’s guest was Brian Greene - theoretical physicist at Columbia. He was there to talk about World Science U, a website he co(?)-founded that is going to be a massive open online course website. Here is a link to the video of his segment.

Why is this exciting? Because Greene is teaching the first two courses – on special relativity! AND – he said that while they both cover SR, one is specifically and intentionally NOT math-focused. Greene wants World Science U to be accessible to everyone and he knows that a lot of people don’t know/understand/follow mathematical explanations. The courses are totally free, interactive and visual.

I got excited watching, because I kept thinking of these threads and how math has been a sticking point.

The courses will begin March 6 - you can click on this link to go to the World Science U website, where he has a short video “trailer”. You can also give your email address so you’ll be notified as soon as the courses go live.

This is an article in the Columbia Spectator that has more information.

[zoid]

@zoid

mythoughts is a poopy-head.

Hey this is fun!

@Crazyhorse

Einstein just sent me a message from the past using these very principles.

It says: “mythoughts is a poopy-head. Albert”

Clearly I am Einstein.

Any other opinion is simply all a distraction, I didn’t come here to quibble over the technical details of experiments or to argue their interpretation.

Sceptics are by default defenders of the trailing edge and will always oppose the leading edge of science and technology.
Be one if you want, but they always look very stupid and small minded with enough hind sight.

The rest of you will of course shout me down without addressing my perfect argument.

I AM EINSTEIN!

huff, puff, huff, puff…
If I repeat it enough times you’ll see it’s true, so just accept the fact that I’m smarter than every scientist and mathematician on the planet and accept my claim at face value already. You didn’t read it anyway and if you did you obviously didn’t understand it.

[Crazyhorse]

@zoid

Clearly I am Einstein.

Any other opinion is simply all a distraction, I didn’t come here to quibble over the technical details of experiments or to argue their interpretation.

Sceptics are by default defenders of the trailing edge and will always oppose the leading edge of science and technology.
Be one if you want, but they always look very stupid and small minded with enough hind sight.

The rest of you will of course shout me down without addressing my perfect argument.

I AM EINSTEIN!

huff, puff, huff, puff…

If I repeat it enough times you’ll see it’s true, so just accept the fact that I’m smarter than every scientist and mathematician on the planet and accept my claim at face value already. You didn’t read it anyway and if you did you obviously didn’t understand it.

I don’ t know how to read, but I can model what you’ve written in my head, and it seems like you’re saying Einstein is a poopy-head.

[mythoughts]

I just received a reply from a scientist I shared both versions on the test explained in the first post of this thread (train and rotating version).

He required the picture I made before I could grasp it, and took some days to think about it and has said that it looks like a solid paradox to him.

This is interesting since it means at least 2 things.

Firstly I am able to explain an experiment and have someone (intelligent) understand it.

AND he could not see and way out of the paradox.

So it turns out that you guys haven’t been explaining why these thought experiments are not paradoxes because I am not providing the math.
Or because my argument is weak.
Or because I am unable to explain it enough to someone who really tries to explain it.

Nope, it is because you are not ABLE to.

And the reason you ask for math, even though you would have to do it yourself (IF YOU CAN) to not accept it on faith is not because the math would add to it one bit, but because you are trying to distract.

From now on, I will no longer reply to anything already asked and answered, and my answer ignored. Which is clear victory!

[mythoughts]

@zoid

Clearly I am Einstein.

Any other opinion is simply all a distraction, I didn’t come here to quibble over the technical details of experiments or to argue their interpretation.

Sceptics are by default defenders of the trailing edge and will always oppose the leading edge of science and technology.
Be one if you want, but they always look very stupid and small minded with enough hind sight.

The rest of you will of course shout me down without addressing my perfect argument.

I AM EINSTEIN!

huff, puff, huff, puff…
If I repeat it enough times you’ll see it’s true, so just accept the fact that I’m smarter than every scientist and mathematician on the planet and accept my claim at face value already. You didn’t read it anyway and if you did you obviously didn’t understand it.

If you fail to address my argument enough times it becomes clear.

[zoid]

@mythoughts

If you fail to address my argument enough times it becomes clear.

Then we are agreed. I am Einstein, and by extension, you are a poopy-head.

[Crazyhorse]

@mythoughts

I just received a reply from a scientist I shared both versions on the test explained in the first post of this thread (train and rotating version).

He required the picture I made before I could grasp it, and took some days to think about it and has said that it looks like a solid paradox to him.

That’s not what “I told you to stop contacting me. If this continues I will have no choice but to contact the police.” means.

[mythoughts]

@zoid

Then we are agreed. I am Einstein, and by extension, you are a poopy-head.

Stop, your high level arguments are going way over my head.

[zoid]

And although it’s been pointed out before mythoughts, your posts are an excellent example of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude

.

[dasmoocher]

@mythoughts

I AM A PHYSICIST, uncredentialed yes, but a physicist and I work just as long and hard as any other.
And because I never learnt the math, I have had to do every physical model in my head.

I’m no Alfred Einstein, but I think this would make a great business card:

mythoughts, [no degree]
PHYSICIST
The Internet

Work hard and long
No math learnt or needed
It’s all in my head.

[mythoughts]

@Crazyhorse

That’s not what “I told you to stop contacting me. If this continues I will have no choice but to contact the police.” means.

Ah, finally you guys are in your element!

Not sure there can possibly be any reason arguing with someone demonstrating only school yard bullying tactics as if that related to science or truth.

The true face of Relativists is exposed, fingers stuck in ears yelling I Can’t Hear You LaLALaLa.

If this thread has given up the last fraction of an attempt at debate, I am off to the other thread.

Note: I before I mistakenly confused idlethoughts with itself since the latter replied to an reply I made to the former.

But when itself said I ‘refused’ his math when he new before he posted that I couldn’t read it is beyond the pale or pail. Whatever that means.

[zoid]

He actually said that?
Holy Fuck!

[Kimble]

@mythoughts

I just received a reply from a scientist I shared both versions on the test explained in the first post of this thread (train and rotating version).

He required the picture I made before I could grasp it, and took some days to think about it and has said that it looks like a solid paradox to him.

This is interesting since it means at least 2 things.

Firstly I am able to explain an experiment and have someone (intelligent) understand it.

AND he could not see and way out of the paradox.

So it turns out that you guys haven’t been explaining why these thought experiments are not paradoxes because I am not providing the math.
Or because my argument is weak.
Or because I am unable to explain it enough to someone who really tries to explain it.

Nope, it is because you are not ABLE to.

And the reason you ask for math, even though you would have to do it yourself (IF YOU CAN) to not accept it on faith is not because the math would add to it one bit, but because you are trying to distract.

From now on, I will no longer reply to anything already asked and answered, and my answer ignored. Which is clear victory!

So why isn’t the rotating version explained by the Ehrenfest paradox, where the relativistic rotation of the cylinder causes its circumference to expand in a non-Euclidean manner, thereby delaying the electrical signal between the sensors and the spinning clock by precisely the amount of time needed to show the time between the sensor’s pulses as (distance between the sensors)/c?

And you totally don’t understand the MGP experiment. The speed of light is constant (duh); the rotation of the earth causes the length of the path traveled by a beam of light between two fixed mirrors to be longer going eastbound than westbound. Since the experiment was in the northern hemisphere, the northern side of the rectangle moved slower than the southern end. Therefore, light traveling counterclockwise had a longer path than the clockwise light. This is what was predicted; this is what was found. If the ether was dragged by the Earth in any way, it didn’t show up in the results.

And surely you were joking about the Silvertooth stuff, right? The first “paper” was a secondhand retelling of experiments without data published in a journal that doesn’t do what most people would call “peer review”. The second one’s conclusion included these lovely lines: “Thus the result of this experiment is not evidence of any directionally dependent difference in wavelength – it is in fact only a very elaborate thermometer… This revelation is undoubtedly a deep disappointment to many who held on to the notion that this experiment might represent elusive evidence of an optically detectable ether.” (And Silvertooth’s reported results were for a stationary ether, not a dragged one.)

[naita]

Here are some simple, common sense flaws in your arguments:

Your rotating sensors experiment drawing describes objects in “almost the exactly the same location”. There is no such thing. Either they’re in the same location or they are not. If you do the math, taking the differences in location into consideration, the relativity math, and the experimental observations, work out.

An aether rotating with the Earth is consistent with the observations in experiments of the constancy of lightspeed in a vacuum on Earth. But a universal aether rotating with the Earth is not consistent with the observations made of the rest of the universe, such as the movements of planets and moons. And neither is any conceived of gravity bound aether. We can observe the movements of the heavens with greate accuracy. These observations are consistent with a constant speed of light and with GR and SR, they are not consistent with any aether theory, except for the one that goes “The aether behaves in whichever manner necessary to account for the observations and I don’t need to describe what that behaviour is, it just is.”

[simster]

@mythoughts

I just received a reply from a scientist I shared both versions on the test explained in the first post of this thread (train and rotating version).

He required the picture I made before I could grasp it, and took some days to think about it and has said that it looks like a solid paradox to him.

This is interesting since it means at least 2 things.

Firstly I am able to explain an experiment and have someone (intelligent) understand it.

AND he could not see and way out of the paradox.

So it turns out that you guys haven’t been explaining why these thought experiments are not paradoxes because I am not providing the math.
Or because my argument is weak.
Or because I am unable to explain it enough to someone who really tries to explain it.

Nope, it is because you are not ABLE to.

And the reason you ask for math, even though you would have to do it yourself (IF YOU CAN) to not accept it on faith is not because the math would add to it one bit, but because you are trying to distract.

From now on, I will no longer reply to anything already asked and answered, and my answer ignored. Which is clear victory!

Why don’t you have your “scientist friend” log on here and explain it.