I was all set to show how, as I assume, you wont get any information about the originating frame this way unless you already know the frequency, in which case you don’t need to make more than one measurement of frequency anyway, and then I realized how I needed to take relativity into consideration when calculating the velocity differences between the various observers in addition to relativistic doppler shift, and now I regret not going to bed as I should have an hour ago.
Yes, I agree that it IS a postulate/axiom of Special Relativity.
Which is short for saying that it assumes it is so, but does not try to explain it.
And then you say that Lorenz transformation explains it, but it doesn’t and can’t. Lorentz merely explained why the 2-way speed of light may be measured to be C despite motion.
Lorentz does not claim that the speed of light IS C, it argues that the one way speed of light is not C, but that the 2 way speed of light as measured by Michelson-Morley could be measured to be C.
And that makes sense, Lorentz does explain perfectly how the 2 way speed of light can be found in the M-M experiment to be C.
It just does not and can not explain how the actual speed of light can be C!
It just makes the average speed of light C by actually making the light in one direction even faster.
This is utterly, absolutely wrong. SR states— as a postulate— that speed of light in any inertial frame is exactly c. It’s not faster in one direction and slower in another; it is exactly c in every such frame. If you write down the transformations between frames necessary to make that work, you get exactly the Lorentzian transformations.
It’s one thing if you don’t believe that SR is correct, but you’re arguing against something that isn’t even SR, and is in fact something that’s directly contradictory to SR.
You already knew that I could not follow your mathematical argument before you replied.
And when I said that I was unable to follow your mathematical unless or until I learnt a great dial more about math, you claimed I ‘refused’ to reply to your mathematical argument.
Which occurred to me as the most baled faced interlectually dishonest argument anyone has ever made about anything and if you said it with a straight face, you are made of stone.
Yes, I know.
The ASSUMPTION.
It dos not explain how length contraction or time dilation can slow a photon that is going too fast.
It does explain the 2 way (average trip) of the speed of light, and it does explain the constance of the speed of light that is orthogonal.
But it does not even attempt once to explain how any transformations can make a photon to be seen as C despite motion toward it!
Saying that they just don’t add is not good enough.
It must be able to explain HOW something that seems to be at one place at any time and moving can be seen to be C despite different velocities.
Just saying that light has some mystical magical thinking allowance to be seen as C from all frames without explanation is not science.
So to be valid SR must have some way to have the observer who’s velocity is adding relative velocity to the speed of light (as seen by other observers) to still measure the speed of light to be constant.
Only, it doesn’t.
it simply asks you to notice that the average is the same.
Can you explain how time dilation or length contraction could make such an observer measure the speed of light to be C?
Nope, these things increase the velocity difference. Would would need length expansion and time acceleration to explain it, well in one direction only.
I don’t expect your brain will allow you to acknowledge this, so
On the contrary, I claim to understand SR very well, better than many I have been discussing with. Indeed several times Asympotically fat has sided with my interpretation of SR against multiple people arguing the opposite.
He may not agree with any of my paradoxical conclusions, but he has agreed with most things up to that point.
On the contrary, I have expressed that to find a flaw in SR you must know the theory very well and for a reasonable length of time, if you don’t know it your objections will be non-sense, and if you have recently learnt it, your brain will select arguments that SR can answer.
Really, oh gosh.
It does Mister?
Yeah, I know it is based on precisely that assumption.
I am arguing that it can’t explain HOW such can be without just taking it on faith.
Yes I am.
I do, except when Ronald Raygun said that light can be found to move faster than C in certain circumstances, then sure, it becomes hard to know what SR stands for.
Or the paper that proposes how SR could support velocities greater than C.
Read many, thanks.
Incorrect thought experiments that you are avoiding dealing with and doing math on your own examples instead!
Yes, as a postulate, as an unfounded assumption would be a more verbose form of the word postulate in this case.
Except when it is measured to be otherwise such as the Sagnac effect.
Again you are totally misrepresenting what I am saying!
I am saying that SR insists that the speed of light is C, but does not explain HOW (outside of the Sagnac effect where it is suddenly ok to exceed C).
But you have no ammo unless you misrepresent what I say.
Why don’t you post more math I can’t read and then tell me I am refusing to read it!
It is ASSUMED to be exactly C in every frame.
You seem to think that this can be enough, just say it and it becomes true.
No need to explain HOW it can be.
There are no possible transformations that can allow that to work!
Except for simultaneously slowing down and speeding up the same clock and simultaneously making the same ruler longer and shorter.
But that isn’t Lorentz transformations. Those are the ones I proposed in jest in the superior SR thread.
The only other option is to have each inertial frame see a different photon that matches it’s expectations.
No, you are arguing against made up things I am not saying since you can’t win against what I am actually saying.
Of course that might be giving you too much credit and maybe you really do not understand me any more than I understand you equations.
Unfortunately, he’s too fucking stupid to realize how fucking stupid he is. He believes that secret technology to manipulate the ether is being manipulated by drug, cell phone, and cigarette companies. He can’t handle high-school algebra, but his scattershot thought-experiments and tedious rants about unthinking zealots are just as good as fancy physics papers or experiments.
If it isn’t too much math for you, please refer back to post #213, wherein Askance helpfully links to the Dunning Kruger Effect. You lack the knowledge and self-awareness to understand that you don’t understand this subject.
I’m not going to go through your drivel line by line, but:
Yeah, there are: the Lorentz transformations (also known as the Lorentz group, or O(1,3)). I don’t know how to prove that to you to without using the dreaded math, and I don’t know what could possibly prove that to you in general. In fact, I don’t know why you’re still posting on this thread, considering that you’re obviously not interest in learning from anyone else, and everyone else here has dismissed your ideas for the worthless crackpottery they are.
Look, mythoughts. I understand you’re interested in science and you think you’re good at it. Unfortunately, you suck at it. You aren’t a physicist. I don’t mean merely that you lack the degree, education, or background to be a physicist; I mean you’re a fucking idiot. There are many people who are much better physicists than you but know absolutely nothing about special relativity. The difference between you and them is that they can learn. They can read books (and, more importantly, actually understand them, which you obviously have not); they can understand when people correct them instead of flying into a sputtering, incoherent rage or ranting about zealotry and closed-mindedness; and they can eventually understand the subject.
You will never understand relativity because you are a goddamn idiot. Learn to accept your limitations: you just suck at science. Maybe you’re good at other things, but this is not something you have any knowledge in, and your opinions on the subject are utterly worthless. There are all sorts of scientists on this board: physicists, mathematicians, chemists, biologists, astrophysicists, etc.— and they are all so much better than you at science. Do you honestly believe that you’re smarter than all of them and that they’re not instantly jumping to your viewpoint they’re scared of going against the orthodoxy? Seriously: Do you honestly believe that you’ve countered every argument perfectly and have an air-tight refutation of SR, but that people are just too stupid to handle it?
You can’t do any of the math because you are a fucking idiot. You can’t produce a valid experiment, as opposed to page after page of unnecessarily complicated, rambling nonsense, because you are a fucking idiot. You haven’t been able to convince anyone with your arguments because you are a fucking idiot. You can’t show a proof, computation, experiment, or any other modicum of evidence in favor of your ill-defined theory because you are a fucking idiot. You’re not merely ignorant, uneducated, misguided, or mistaken; you are a fucking idiot. And you’ll always be a fucking idiot, because you’re too stupid to realize how much of a useless, incompetent, incoherent, utter waste of time you are.
Dunning Kruger, indeed. I’m reminded of The Princess Bride…
Vizzini: I can’t compete with you physically, and you’re no match for my brains. Westley: You’re that smart? Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Westley: Yes. Vizzini: Morons.
What, exactly, do you think this means? It’s “word salad.” The terms are all perfectly valid, but the actual statement says…??? What?
You keep putting this kind of thing forward, but it is of no value here, because it doesn’t actually mean anything. It’s as if you’re randomly choosing phrases from a physics text and cutting-and-pasting them in no coherent order.
I… I don’t really want to get much deeper into this but I think mythoughts is trying to articulate that if a spaceship leaving earth and “releases” a photon much like someone releases a guppy into a pond, that guppy will leave the spaceship at one relative velocity, which would be different than the relative velocity from that guppy to earth. If it’s the same speed, then the question begs the question:
a) how does physics know to adjust for time dilation for 2 separate instances (guppy-ship and guppy-earth) instantaneously?
b) how can you reconcile the time dilations for guppy-ship, guppy-earth, and earth-ship?
There are two frames here: the earth frame F, and the spaceship frame F’. For simplicity (namely, to avoid having to set up a bunch of integrals), let’s take F to be fixed and F’ to be moving at some constant velocity v < c with respect to F.
The point of relativity is that observers in F will measure the photon-guppy to be travelling at speed exactly c, not v + c. There are basically three ways of showing that:
This is the fundamental axiom of SR, so just take it as granted. In order to make the observations work out for sub-c speeds, we have to introduce time dilation, length contraction, etc. But the photon travels at speed c, so we can just directly appeal to the axiom.
Experimental results suggest that the speed of light is in fact constant in every inertial frame, so it travels at c in both F and F’.
We can write down the exact transformation between space-time coordinates in F and F’. When you do so, it turns out that the speed of the photon is c in both F and F’. I don’t know how to derive that without math (unless, again, you note that the Lorentz transformations are exactly there to enforce this requirement*), but you can go through the math yourself, or follow what I did in a previous post.
I’m not sure what exactly you’re asking in either point, but you can do the calculations yourself and show that the answer is still c. It may be useful to consider what happens when the guppy is still relativistic but travels at less than c; the details are here, for example.
I have to admit that I was skeptical at first, but then I read that mythoughts could create a magical non-physical cosmic energy, and I thought, “Wow, that is certainly someone who knows a lot about physics, and also is totally not a crackpot!”
