How to have light move faster than C

[mythoughts]

@Buck_Godot

I realize these questions probably won’t get answered by mythougths any more than they have in the past,

What have I not answered in the past?
You know what, I have 2 answers, nothing, and don’t bother answering because with his thread in he pit I am no longer willing to take part, I have started a new thread in great debates with ‘idiot’ in the title referring to me and self abuse is
the only type I am willing to accept.

I will likely ignore the rest of the arguments in the pit and not even read them.

but for some reason banging my head against the message board is slightly less painful than banging it against the wall.

**
Why is it so important to you that you prove relativity wrong?**

Good question.
I guess since I am certain it is wrong is one.
And because I believe that if this long standing error in the path of understanding is corrected we will see incredible advancements in technology only comparable to Star Trek and the like.
[/QUOTE]

**
Why is it that you feel that your interpretation of the laws of physics are more informed than are those of the thousands of physicists out there who have studied for decades and the issue and actually can do the math?**

[/QUOTE]

That is a good question.
to answer the last part first, I believe that abstractions and contradictions can go unnoticed until it is applied back to the physical model, then the assertions that the math makes may become untenable.

As to why me, well in part because I am not familiar with the math I have had to visualize things more than most people, also I am not the only one, if you don’t look for people that disagree with SR and think they can disprove it you might only meet one, but if you look there are many.

Secondly I have put a lot of time into researching the entrained aether model which has never had a shared of evidence against it unless you get specific about a prediction, my research into this has been for 17 years and has produced some fruit. So I know from my own research that there is an aether. However I’m not going to disclose my research at this time (I did a little in the first thread).

[/QUOTE]

** Do you think that you are the only person out of all of those brilliant minds who has considered the gedanken experiments you are proposing? **

[QUOTE]

I am not sure, as I said there other thought experiments that people propose to disprove SR and I am only aware of a few cherry picked examples SR does predict.
But naturally I am presenting my ones, like any creative person I would be disappointed to find I was not there first, but ironically perhaps I don’t seek out to read other peoples thought experiments to disprove SR because I already know it is SR is false, now that is an example of counterintuitive, so I really couldn’t say.

Please don’t use the excuse that they would but they’re views are being suppressed by the scientific community.

There are scientific arguments opposing SR, these are ignored.
Scientists that go against the status quo however do keep tight lipped.
For instance low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) or ‘cold fusion’ is an example of a suppressed branch of science, Eugene Mallove was fired from MIT and MIT did something wrong with the data etc… So some scientists have been doing LENR in labs in secret under other titles to avoid the harassment and loss of a job.
For the conspiracy minded, Eugene Mallove was later murdered in a slightly unusual seemingly motiveless and contradictory manner.

But the fact is if you look for challenged to SR you will find them including credential scientists. If you decide to simultaneously deride these scientists for believing in such then that would be extreme irony.

Just a few years ago some scientists made a huge splash by presenting experimental results that neutrinos seemed to move faster than light.

Yes, and the explanation seems quite questionable. Were they pressured to rescind?

As it happened they eventually discovered a glitch in their equipment, but until then their results were considered seriously (albeit skeptically)

That is my point.
But that is hardy the best example of FTL that has been identified.

, and no move was made to suppress them.

You assert.

Higher physics indicates that the universe works in unusual and highly unintuitive ways.

Please see the new thread I started then.

There are several times that in thinking of these things I come up with something that seems contradictory. However my response to such wouldn’t be to come to the dope to prove that I was right and the entire physics community was wrong, it would be to come to the dope to have people who understand the subject much better than I do explain why I was wrong and how the theory handles my counter example.

That is precisely what I have been doing.
No one has given me a coherent answer.

If their explanations went over my head

That is not the case, no complete/coherent explanation has been given.
I can readily follow the reasons why the classically sited thought experiments fail.

[mythoughts]

@Truman_Burbank

I am a therapist.

Do you normally treat people by message board? Must make it very hard to get a read on someone.

I don’t know the math.

So I am not alone.

I do know monomaniacal insistence that ‘my beliefs are true even in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence’ , eg “I understand the flaws in basic physics experiments better than any physics teacher that ever lived”, screaming walls of text with Great Big Letters, and similar phenomenon.

Ok, now you see here is the thing.

There are two possibilities, the obvious one to you that I am wrong, there is a possibility however slight you perceive it to be in what you must admit is almost complete ignorance of my reasons and logic it appears you aren’t responding to that I am correct.

It may not be the answer you think is most probable, and you may think the lottery ticket has a better chance of winning, but it is possible that a theory that is impossible but suitably mesmerising has taken preference over one that is reasonable but was discarded with insufficient consideration

If you consider what a therapist would say to the Wright Brother’s before their plane flew, he could see much the same as you.

There have been many times in the past, every time there is a breakthrough the majority did not see coming, the one or 2 who said otherwise were ignored meaning that it was a few people who thought differently that were correct and made a majority wrong.

When I think about the absurd nature of denying the possibility of heavier than air flight I wonder what they though birds did!

You see under such a state of a belief that heavier than air flight is impossible the truth that is so obvious to us now was not available due to the effects of cognitive dissonance and peer pressure which causes one to become intellectually dishonest without realization.

The Wright Brothers could scream at the tops of their lungs and no one would believe them either, well no one that mattered.

And so once the plane did it’s first fight with witnesses and newspapers, surely then, well no.

Many insisted it was impossible till the point where the discontinuity with reality must have finally sunken in, I wonder how that must have felt.
The same has happened with the Telescope to the Telephone.
And this was again after they were invented.

So please don’t judge me by the fact that I am disagreeing with the current truth, truth as we currently know it has a shorter half life than you may guess, this means that it was not really truth but a very convincing falsehood or partial truth.

Which basically means that sadly most of what we think we know is wrong.

But heavier than air flight, the telephone, the telescope are obviously the truth and here to stay.

So if you instead judge this based on the fact that I am making logical arguments and others are making judgements based on less ultimate things like the current belief of science, the current INTERPRETATION of experimental results, and that the are unable to answer my questions based on logic or demonstrate the flaw in them you may come to a different conclusion.

How we assign quality to evidence is very important, if the emperor is prancing around naked and everyone agrees and even deceives themselves into believing that it is they that are mistaken about him being naked, does not mean that you as the only dissenting voice are wrong!

In other words the value of absolute truth is far greater than evidence based on agreeing with a crowd or agreeing with authority.

Such example are meant to teach us something beyond the specific example, we are meant to apply these to check to see if everyone is deceiving themselves.

If the other onlookers can’t give us a coherent explanation of the emperors clothes and some admit they can’t see them themselves but they take it on faith he is wearing some, this can be taken as a warning.

When the honest person objects that the can see the emperors penis and describe it so clearly he isn’t wearing a thing and others fail to counter this argument we really know who is deceiving themselves.

Only seldom is flawed logic not very obvious to all parties, and if logic is not flawed or incomplete then it must surely be true.

There is one way to solve this, who is making logical sense! Not who is in agreement with the truth of the day.
To your questions on drugs and family illness, no (never except second hand exposure to pot smoke long ago) and no. Math has been covered ad naseam.

[Trinopus]

@mythoughts

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

You haven’t answered why you think you know more than actual professors, doctors, masters, and scientists. You haven’t answered why you think you can see the faults in relativity which no one else has ever seen.

I predict you will claim you have answered.

[mythoughts]

@glee

although you have not done any of these experiments in real life, you confidently predict the results.
How can you be sure your predictions are correct?!

I predict every result I can think of that relativity could possibly argue for or could happen as far as I see.

The fact that one one has offered what SR or GR will predict is in my opinion the only victory possible if the person I am debating with will never acknowledge when I have won a point.

If they have a better solution it is mighty strange that in hundreds and hundreds of posts the only evidence I am wrong is in the form of insults and arguments that SR must be right because of scientist and technology.

The problem is most people and institutions are not slightly, but massively underestimate how intellectually dishonest they are and the effects of that, the traits they are showing are reflected elsewhere which is why these beliefs exist in the first place.

Deception is self reinforcing in this fashion, the only way out is logic, if logic is flawed it is rare that the flaw is not immediately obvious.
I have been told many times my logic is flawed.

I have not been told once what the flaw is. Or if so that was easily shown to be flawed and they stopped responding.

If I am the one deceiving myself then the solutions must be simple, the flaws in the logic locatable.

On the contrary, if I take a reasonably complex equation and altered it subtly spotting the flaw or why it now no longer conforms to reality would be highly exclusive to few readers, and probably be extremely hard for them to spot if they were not familiar with the equation. In other words it would be better that someone who wants to check my assertion do their own work rather than take mine on faith or copy an error I made deceiving themselves into thinking I am right if I am not.

And no one has even responded to me logic on math, they only say they want the math and care not that I am unable to comply without quite a bit of further study and they ignore my points opposing it.

[Napier]

I am an actual, real, degreed physicist. While relativities are not my main work area, and school was a long time ago, I did know the math. We worked through together the derivation of E=MC^2 starting with the observation that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast the observer moves. I don’t know the math any more, but I still have the paperwork on my shelf in a thick manila envelope, and I can remember knowing it, and can remember how exciting and satisfying it was to work out. The whole thing really only needs high school algebra, though you have to be pretty clever to see your whole path through to the end and be able to make that entire trip. And it’s a pretty good dose of algebra.

I’m not going through it again. I’m sure it hasn’t changed, but I’ve become way busier. And harder to amuse.

But not impossible to amuse. I am posting today to remark with pleasure upon the fact that, at some point, this tedious thread seems to have been moved to the Pit.

Nothing could be more elegantly pleasing, nor confirming to my sense that at its deepest level the universe ultimately makes perfect sense.

[Pasta]

@mythoughts

If I am the one deceiving myself then the solutions must be simple, the flaws in the logic locatable.

Hopefully you recognize that I am looking to locate them, with your help, even though that requires we take it slow to make sure we both understand what you are saying at each point along the way. Post #250 in this thread is the current status, where I seek justification for your claim that that light clock experiment is not what it seems to be. Could you explain your logic there, or provide a citation that I could look at? I know you have a lot of conversations going on at once, but if you are interested in fleshing out these thoughts, perhaps you could ignore the noise for a short while, so we can have a more efficient back-and-forth. (This would also be a moratorium on new threads. The discussion make take a clear route.) I really am trying to isolate the hole in either your reasoning or everyone else’s.

[Truman_Burbank]

I’m not treating you. I don’t need to know the math to understand the vastly more likely probability is that you are wrong, and an example of Dunning-Kruger, given that many people here with way better understanding than I, all unanimously agree that this is the case.
That’s also logic.

[Truman_Burbank]

"WARNING!!!
IF I am wrong, I am setting science backwards since I am encouraging people to believe something wrong. "
Dude, this is VERY grandiose, imagining you have this sort of influence in the world. . Also, you claim to be a physicist (who doesn’t do math).
HOW exactly do you claim that the title of physicist is honestly yours to claim? Education? Profession? Just incredibly smarter with a smattering of exposure to physics? What are your credentials?

[pancakes3]

Oh good. The pit.

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR GODDAMN POINT?

also,

galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html

answers all of your questions already because it’s part of a sophomore physics class curriculum and it does so with no math.

[mythoughts]

@Trinopus

You haven’t answered why you think you know more than actual professors, doctors, masters, and scientists. You haven’t answered why you think you can see the faults in relativity which no one else has ever seen.

I predict you will claim you have answered.

I have.
You have not read it, or acknowledged it.

I have said firstly I am not the only one.

I have said that they have jobs to protect and the negative attention received by a claim SR is wrong can readily prove unattractive. Ask me how I know!

I have said that the beliefs of a whole world can be wrong, and is when a breakthrough occurs as in almost every example.
Everyone wants to believe that they would embrace an important genuine breakthrough and that the beliefs they grew up with unlike the ones of the past will stand, but in every time and frequently and still today that is not so.

I have also mentioned that I might be lacking in some areas due to learning difficulties at school, but have a degree of brilliance in others.

I have noted that the more education someone has had the less likely they are to file for a patent as being feed information you have to regurgitate to pass a test is totally different to original thought, original experiments of the scientists we look up to today, both have the same knowledge, but I’d rather have any of the original experimenters/discoverers of electricity to work with than someone educated to a higher degree today.

I also pointed out that I first started to learn reality, thought is seemed impossible.
Then understood it and thought is infallible.
And it has taken me the better part of 2 decades to go though stages from believing it, questioning it again, doubting it, being sure it is wrong but struggling with a clear thought experiment that shows it, to thinking of experiments that kinda show it, to finally thinking of experiments that seem to me to be both clear and conclusive with no wriggle room.

So it has not been that it is easy to see the flaws when mesmerised by it, the mind automatically forms arguments that SR can solve even when you try to challenge it!

I have often wondered now I see the flaws, why didn’t I see them when I looker earlier?

If many thought experiments to challenge SR that everyone knows of are weak and we can all see how SR fits agreeably enough, then why are none of us able to see the flaws in mine? Well no one with a keyboard and fingers who is reading this thread anyway.

So there are only 3 possible options…

People are highly perverse and would rather argue about everything under the sun than point out the obvious flaw they can see in my reason, like they are sword fighting with their strong arm behind their back.

People are right that I am wrong, but no one can see how, or use words to explain this fact mysteriously.

Or I am right and they have no other recourse than to make attacks of distraction since they are unwilling to agree with or believe in the truth.

[mythoughts]

@Truman_Burbank

"WARNING!!!
IF I am wrong, I am setting science backwards since I am encouraging people to believe something wrong. "
Dude, this is VERY grandiose, imagining you have this sort of influence in the world. . Also, you claim to be a physicist (who doesn’t do math).
HOW exactly do you claim that the title of physicist is honestly yours to claim? Education? Profession? Just incredibly smarter with a smattering of exposure to physics? What are your credentials?

It was a challenge to get someone to address my thought experiments not make stupid irrelevant personal attacks as you are doing.

It was actually an admittedly disingenuous exaggeration on my part to manipulate people to actually stay on topic. Fight fire with fire.

[mythoughts]

@pancakes3

Oh good. The pit.

WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR GODDAMN POINT?

also,

galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/time_dil.html

answers all of your questions already because it’s part of a sophomore physics class curriculum and it does so with no math.

I actually checked, nope it doesn’t address my experiments at all. Shocker.

[simster]

@mythoughts

So there are only 3 possible options…

People are highly perverse and would rather argue about everything under the sun than point out the obvious flaw they can see in my reason, like they are sword fighting with their strong arm behind their back.

People are right that I am wrong, but no one can see how, or use words to explain this fact mysteriously.

Or I am right and they have no other recourse than to make attacks of distraction since they are unwilling to agree with or believe in the truth.

4hth option - and the honest one - you have been continually shown what is wrong in your scenarios and you refuse to accept or acknowledge it.

[Shodan]

@mythoughts

It was a challenge to get someone to address my thought experiments not make stupid irrelevant personal attacks as you are doing.

Your thought experiments don’t prove anything, because if you actually conducted them, you would not get the results you think they would.

You cannot say “if I shine a light at a rotating wheel, it would move faster than light” and then claim to have disproven anything until you actually shine the light and measure the speed. Until you actually do something besides making stuff up and claiming it would behave in some way, you haven’t proven anything.

Regards,
Shodan

[Trinopus]

@Napier

I am an actual, real, degreed physicist. While relativities are not my main work area, and school was a long time ago, I did know the math. We worked through together the derivation of E=MC^2 starting with the observation that light always goes at the same speed no matter how fast the observer moves. I don’t know the math any more, but I still have the paperwork on my shelf in a thick manila envelope, and I can remember knowing it, and can remember how exciting and satisfying it was to work out. . . .

Isaac Asimov went through it in one of his books – I believe it was “The Intelligent Man’s Guide to the Physical Sciences.” He made it straightforward and simple, and the only “advanced” math tool needed was the square root.

Damn, I miss Asimov! He could even make the uncertainty principle clear! There was a science popularizer!

[AtomicDog]

Him and Sagan.

I bet that Asimov could even explain the infield fly rule!

[Truman_Burbank]

I’m not making a personal attack. Delusional people exist, this is a fact, and it is one possible explanation for your plight. Much more likely. You keep complaining that no-one has addressed your errors, if they exist. They have, you just won’t recognize it. That’s not science any more. Of course delusion, and Dunning-Kruger, offer limited opportunity for their victims to ID correctly the nature of what is going on in their interactions.
In all seriousness, check yourself as best you can. You are resorting to conspiracy theory to explain why your hypothesis is receiving the response it is getting.

[mythoughts]

@Pasta

Hopefully you recognize that I am looking to locate them, with your help, even though that requires we take it slow to make sure we both understand what you are saying at each point along the way.

Pasta, I DO!

I have you in my books as the only person besides me in this thread I am sure is being genuine and my disgust at the others in no way is reflection on how I view you.

So let me say a big THANK YOU! You restore my faith in humanity. (not sarcasm)

Post #250 in this thread is the current status, where I seek justification for your claim that that light clock experiment is not what it seems to be. Could you explain your logic there, or provide a citation that I could look at?

Please follow me step by step, I can only make it shorter by not going slow or clear or by making a conversation that goes so slow that it will be lost track of before we get anywhere. If you get stuck somewhere, lost, dazed and confused by anything other than how SR can survive this attack please express where it is that I lost you, or what assertion you disagreed with and I will see if I can help you out or conversely learn something from your point.

My realization was a result of seeing that in case of the experiment at the start of ‘this’ thread (not the merged threads) what I assume is still post 1 and what I was going to explain to you with the train are related to the clock experiment.

The difference is that they are framed differently leading to different but agreeing views! Albeit a view SR would seemingly object to.

The original light clock experiment (wiki’s) presupposes that the speed of light is C in each frame, and then has the moving observer notice that the ‘stationary’ observer’s clock runs slower than his and this sounds like it is in keeping with SR, speed of light constancy and time dilation.

In my experiment the stationary observer notices that the moving observer’s clock is expected to run slow under GR and or SR and also notices that it would need to be seen to do the opposite and speed up if the speed of light was to be measured to be constant by the moving observer due to the longer path it would have to take.

The other difference is my experiment did not involve mirrors but is one shot, but that does not change it in any important way.

So SR’s example and mine actually fit up, if the moving observer notices his clock is moving faster as SR claims then it fits that the stationary observer expects to agree that the moving frame has a faster rate of time, this is sane, but it gives the answer of observed acceleration of time when the stationary observer views the moving observer.

And SR never makes any such claims of time acceleration in this manner.

But we can add a second wrinkle if the paradox of the rotating clock keeping simultaneously faster and slower time seems sane, what if the light bouncing between the mirrors is of 2 different types, let’s say the stationary frame has a blue photon (or a tight pulse of many) that is sees as taking a short non angled path.
And let’s have the moving frame release a red photon that it sees as taking a direct route, but which the stationary observer would view as angled.

Now we have both frames in symmetry, both have a photon they see bounce directly between the plates, and both have one that has to them a longer angle and hence a lower frequency of reflection, only they disagree which is which!

The stationary observer observes almost twice the number of bouncing off the mirror for the blue than the red, and the moving observer sees twice the number of reflections for red than blue.

Since their observations disagree we will place 2 large transparent sensors that detect which colour and record how many of each type of photon, they will be right next to each other (.1mm separation) but one occupies each of the frames.

Imagine plugging into these 2 sensors, you would note that not only do they disagree in how many photons of each colour has passed, they can’t detect the same photon at the same time.

And then let’s say we can actually place a sensor on the mirror so that we can see the electrical echo that could occur from the event (let’s just assume) of reflecting a packet of electromagnetic energy (photon), so now the mirror has a preferred reference frame and has an opinion of how many times it has reflected each colour of light, it would seem very odd that it could reflect light it couldn’t detect!
And there is nothing to say that each mirror has to be in the same frame either, they could be one in the ‘moving’ observers frame and one in the stationary observers frame.

So now you could have one mirror report it’s been served 200 blue photons and the other report that it has only served half this number.

Additionally we can make these mirrors and sensors very long to increase the duration of the observation or bend it into a circle to have it continue forever.

Indeed the experiment could be done with the moving observers being substantially stationary but vibrating side to side with enough momentary velocity the photon path looks like a zigzag.

So the argument that one is suddenly very far away and an issue on non-simultaneity exist can’t be supported, any tiny difference that would exist over a short distance can’t be used to explain a growing discrepancy in clocks!

Normally non-simultaneity grows as the duration of time discrepancy grows, but when we stop non-simultaneity from growing as a time discrepancy becomes very much larger.

I know you have a lot of conversations going on at once, but if you are interested in fleshing out these thoughts, perhaps you could ignore the noise for a short while, so we can have a more efficient back-and-forth. (This would also be a moratorium on new threads. The discussion make take a clear route.) I really am trying to isolate the hole in either your reasoning or everyone else’s.

I will reduce the noise by stop paying it any attention, I am glad it is clear to you that it is just noise!

Ok, just you and me! Deal.

[Czarcasm]

I bow to your scientific genius.

[Pasta]

The original light clock experiment (wiki’s) presupposes that the speed of light is C in each frame, and then has the moving observer notice that the ‘stationary’ observer’s clock runs slower than his and this sounds like it is in keeping with SR, speed of light constancy and time dilation.

It does sound like it, which I will take to mean that it is. However, I thought you were saying that the light clock did not imply time dilation? (It is a separate point entirely what a different experiment will do.) I want to confirm that you agree that a constant speed of light implies time dilation according to the light clock.

As I mentioned, you should assume that I haven’t read anything posted days before I started in, because it was both too much material and because I didn’t understand the points you were making. Glancing back at Post #1 in this thread, though, you have a thought experiment that involves general relativity. Why is general relativity involved now? I thought we were just addressing whether the logic of special relativity fails when showing time dilation is a consequence of a constant speed of light. If that SR logic fails, would you agree that it should be possible to show where it fails within the chain of its own logic? That is, shouldn’t it be possible to show why the SR logic fails without bringing in new physical ideas (ideas that might be right, but are unrelated to whether SR works or not on its own)?

And SR never makes any such claims of time acceleration in this manner.

Is this, then, your argument why SR is broken – namely, that it does not predict a phenomenon that you conclude must happen based on the “spinning CD” experiment? (Since that experiment involves GR, we’d have to say “SR+GR” is broken, but okay.)

I haven’t granted that the conclusions of what happens in the spinning CD experiment are correct; just making sure I understand the framework of your argument.

what if the light bouncing between the mirrors is of 2 different types, let’s say the stationary frame has a blue photon (or a tight pulse of many) that is sees as taking a short non angled path. And let’s have the moving frame release a red photon that it sees as taking a direct route, but which the stationary observer would view as angled.

Good so far.

The stationary observer observes almost twice the number of bouncing off the mirror for the blue than the red, and the moving observer sees twice the number of reflections for red than blue.

Good so far.

Since their observations disagree we will place 2 large transparent sensors that detect which colour and record how many of each type of photon, they will be right next to each other (.1mm separation) but one occupies each of the frames.

Imagine plugging into these 2 sensors, you would note that not only do they disagree in how many photons of each colour has passed, they can’t detect the same photon at the same time.

It seems to me that how the comparison gets made is an important part of the experimental description. Is each of the four sensors (stationary-blue, stationary-red, moving-blue, moving-red) recording its detections on a little “odometer” or something? Is that odometer moving along in the same frame as the sensor it is recording from? At some point, I would want to compare odometers to see how different the counts were, but I need to transport them to the same location or use light beams to carry signals. Either of these cases requires analysis. Does the moving system stop and turn around to come back to meet me, thereby living in a third reference frame for a little while (i.e., one moving the other way)? Do the light pulses cease before this portion of the experiment, or do they continue the whole time? If they cease, when do they cease as measured by the two observers (so we know when to consider the counting over with) – when a certain number of blue photons have bounced or a certain number of red photons?

With complete sincerity, I’ll ask if you’ve had a chance yet to think through these (rather annoying) measurement nuances and consequences in your analysis of this two-color experiment. They would be subtle to think through in their entirety, so no worries if you haven’t.

And then let’s say we can actually place a sensor on the mirror so that we can see the electrical echo that could occur from the event…

I didn’t follow this section. But, there’s enough meat above already.