<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 9 2017, 4:49 AM 


>>>In short, it is not possible, at all, within the framework of Einstein's
special relativity, to just go ahead and adjust measurements of distance
and time intervals to keep c constant, in all the cases

but when the cases demand more they add more voodoo math from general relativity

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 11 2017, 12:00 AM 










"but when the cases demand more they add more voodoo math
from general relativity".







Of course, they can add more voodoo!




happy.gif




They don't even need Einstein's general relativity for adjusting measurements
of distance and time intervals to keep c constant.


Because it's quite easy to add more voodoo to Einstein's special relativity, itself,
in order to make it possible to adjust measurements of distance and time intervals
to keep c constant, from the inside of it.


But they don't dare, even in their wildest dreams, to do any of that sort,
because they will have to encounter
a huge PROBLEM.


When this FitzGerald:

https://www.britannica.com/biography/George-Francis-FitzGerald

came up with the idea of length contraction, for adjusting measurements
of distance and time intervals to keep c constant,
it worked out of the box like a charm.


Why?


It's because, by adjusting measurements of distance and time intervals
to keep c constant, the anomaly of the second-order effect, which
Michelson & Morley couldn't find, disappears.


However, if Einstein or any of his followers were to try to do the same
with the Doppler effect, or light aberration, or the Sagnac effect,
for example, by adjusting measurements of distance and time intervals
to keep c constant, as George FitzGerald did, all those effects will,
magically, disappear as well.


And that is a big problem.


Because all of those effects have been observed, measured,
and verified by observations & experiments.


In other words, Einstein & his followers would never, ever, dare to adjust
measurements of distance and time intervals to keep c constant,
in any of those first-order cases.


Simply, because a total and complete adjustment of measurements of distance
and time intervals to keep c constant, necessarily, would make
every verified optical effect, known to man, vanish and disappear
in every relativity's textbook, here, on Planet Earth.


In short, Einstein & his followers are pretending, in words only.
to make the speed of light relative to moving frames of reference
equal to c; but their mathematical formulas and equations
are saying otherwise:

https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934






























 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 11 2017, 6:32 AM 


>>In short, Einstein & his followers are pretending, in words only.to make the speed of light relative to moving frames of reference equal to c; but their mathematical formulas and equations are saying otherwise:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0912.3934

yes but Einsteinians/relativists dismiss such things; just as they dismiss my friend Osmaston when he reported detection of ether at MOD, his website:http://osmaston.org.uk/#thiswebsite




 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 11 2017, 6:35 AM 

i.e. science/physics is supposed to be about evidence, but what can we do when there is a strong group (Einsteinians) with the agenda of ignoring the evidence

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 13 2017, 12:00 AM 










"yes but Einsteinians/relativists dismiss such things; just as they
dismiss my friend Osmaston when he reported detection of ether at MOD, his
websitehttp://osmaston.org.uk/#thiswebsite i.e. science/physics
is supposed to be about evidence, but what can we do when there is
a strong group (Einsteinians) with the agenda of ignoring the evidence".









Well . . .


I guess . . .


We shouldn't come down hard on them too much for dismissing
the reoported detection of the ether!



happy.gif



Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7


Should we?



[linked image]




Anyway, Einstein & his supporters did try their best to adjust measurements
of distance and time intervals to keep c constant.


As a matter of fact, they didn't leave one single optical effect of the first
order without modification or taking out from it the little bits of the second
order that George FitzGerald came up with.


And as a result, the values of relative speeds of light: [c + v];
[c – v]; & so on; are, always, less, by a very small amount,
in Einstein's relativity, than the values of relative speeds of light:
[c + v]; [c – v]; & so on;
in Maxwell's electromagnetic theory.


But that modification, of course, is still a far cry from a total
and complete adjustment of measurements of distance and
time intervals to keep c constant.























 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 13 2017, 4:55 AM 

>>>Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11406-016-9779-7
Should we?

Going by that, as a medieval intellectual we would dismiss Galileo's observations as extraordinary and never seen before; even going so far as to claim telescopes are faulty and should not be trusted.



>>But that modification, of course, is still a far cry from a total and complete adjustment of measurements of distance and
time intervals to keep c constant.

total adjustment comes from further bodging of measurements e.g. dismissing in error bars.









 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 15 2017, 12:00 AM 










"Going by that, as a medieval intellectual we would dismiss Galileo's
observations as extraordinary and never seen before; even going so far as to claim telescopes
are faulty and should not be trusted. total adjustment comes from further bodging
of measurements e.g. dismissing in error bars.".









That is right.


But it's still a great principle for dismissing
Einstein's theories & Bohr's theories as well!



happy.gif



Anyway, Copernicus' claim that the earth is, actually, moving,
in a huge circle around the Sun, was so extraordinary
at that time:

https://www.biography.com/people/nicolaus-copernicus-9256984


That is the reason why almost nobody took it, very seriously,
until about one hundred years later;
when this very innovative guy:

https://www.biography.com/people/galileo-9305220

came along & provided an equally extraordinary evidence
for it; i.e. THE TELESCOPE.


Of course, the telescopic evidence, for the Copernican theory,
wasn't quite extraordinary, at first; but, slowly and surely,
it has become so powerful and overwhelming, and so much so,
that even the most conservative religious sects,
in the world, can hardly afford, nowadays to raise
a whisper of protest against it.


And so, it seems, very likely, that extraordinary claims,
most of the time, do require extraordinary evidence.

















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

October 23 2017, 12:00 AM 











Hi; Ufonaut99:



Have you noticed that the Sun is getting higher and higher
and closer and closer to the city of Brisvegas
everyday?




[linked image]




…..............................................................................................................................................................................




""AAF: the speed of light relative to its moving source is,
always, equal to (c), only in Newton's corpuscular theory of light" ... ".





Well . . .


wink.gif


What should I say?


Mea Culpa?


Of course, not . . .




happy.gif




It might appear, at first glance, that the above thing called 'only'
is misplaced; but it is not.


And that is because Newton's corpuscular theory of light is the ONLY
theory, in which this statement: 'The speed of light relative to its
moving source is, always, equal to (c)'
is not an axiom nor assumption,
but, instead, a direct consequence of its ballistic speed of light.

















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 4 2017, 12:00 AM 









"Einstein asserted, time & time again, that the speed of light, relative to its
moving source, is, always, equal, exactly & precisely, to c; i.e., 299792458 m/s.."







That is, absolutely, true!




happy.gif




Albert Einstein did assert, over & over again, that the speed of light,
relative to its moving source, is, always, equal, exactly & precisely,
to c; i.e., 299792458 m/s..


However, Herr Einstein made the big mistake of going too far in that direction
and, wrongly, assuming that the speed of light, in the reference frame of every observer,
is , always, equal to c, as well, and regardless
of whether the observer is moving OR not.














 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 4 2017, 10:00 AM 


>>>However, Herr Einstein made the big mistake of going too far in that direction
and, wrongly, assuming that the speed of light, in the reference frame of every observer,
is , always, equal to c, as well, and regardless
of whether the observer is moving OR not.


Einstein left things ambiguous hence the confusion with people then ending up believing different things. He did not address the issue of observer in a specific reference frame versus observer not in that specific reference frame; would an observer make same claim of a specific reference frame if he was in it as opposed to not in it? I think the answer is he wouldn't, but a lot of people are misunderstanding as the observer would make the same claim on a specific reference frame whether the observer was "in" it or not.


 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 6 2017, 12:00 AM 










"Einstein left things ambiguous hence the confusion with people then
ending up believing different things. He did not address the issue of observer in a specific
reference frame versus observer not in that specific reference frame; would an observer make same
claim of a specific reference frame if he was in it as opposed to not in it? I think the answer is
he wouldn't, but a lot of people are misunderstanding as the observer would make the same claim on
a specific reference frame whether the observer was "in" it or not."








It's, certainly, true that Einstein left a lot of things ambiguous.


But we can't blame him too much for that;
can we?



happy.gif




That is because, pedagogically speaking, if a theory is built, from the start,
upon nothing else beside messing up the SI base units and messing around with
the meters and the seconds, nobody, in the world, will be able to make it less
ambiguous and more logical, no matter what.


However, it's, also, true that Albert Einstein, in the first few years of his career,
was trying to weasel out of the exact meaning of his postulate about the speed
of light, in order to appease the majority of physicists, who knew very well
how to teach, explain, and argue, quite effectively,
for the physics of the aether.


And as a result, Einstein, during those years, kept saying that his constancy
postulate means, only, the independence of the velocity of light of the velocity
of the light source, in 'vacuo'.


And, of course, physicists, in those days, had no problem with
that definition at all.






















 
 
jaquecusto

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 6 2017, 1:29 AM 

Coming back to the old whipping-top problem presented in May 2016 ...

[img] [linked image] [/ img]

The more a serious relativistic problem for the whipping-top is to stabilize in the second situation, that is to say: stopped whipping-top and all universe in circular movement

What would be the scalar speed of the edge of the universe?

How many "n" times the speed of light did the localized stars have to be spinning in relation to the whipping-top?

 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 6 2017, 9:12 AM 


>>>And as a result, Einstein, during those years, kept saying that his constancy
postulate means, only, the independence of the velocity of light of the velocity
of the light source, in 'vacuo'.

but that's ambiguous; there is the frame of the light source and there is the frames not of the light source, so which frame is the observer in when he says the lightspeed is c.

If he says it is c when in the light source frame for that light source frame then according to him still in that light source frame he will surely say that it should not c for other non-light source frames; but some people say it is c as well in this latter scenario. So, people have misunderstood that and some will say it is c and some will say it isn't c; all because Einstein didn't make it clear what he meant.


the 4 cases are:

observer in light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the light source frame?
observer in light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the non-light source frames?

observer in non-light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the light source frame?
observer in non-light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to his non-light source frame?

some people answer c for all cases, but that then means the non-light source frame is not moving relative to the light source frame, and really it is just the same frame!

 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 6 2017, 9:18 AM 

add on: and if it is just the same frame then that means he is talking about an absolute frame for all his observers regarding lightspeed. BUT he is supposed to be talking about relative motion between observers. So, he has messed up his comprehension of "absolute" and "relative"! By postulate 1 he is talking about relativity. But in postulate 2 is he talking of absolute motion not relative motion? He has not made it clear, and just left it an ambiguous mess.

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 8 2017, 12:00 AM 









"Coming back to the old whipping-top problem presented in May 2016 ...

[linked image]

The more a serious relativistic problem for the whipping-top is to stabilize in the second
situation, that is to say: stopped whipping-top and all universe in circular movement. What
would be the scalar speed of the edge of the universe? How many "n" times the speed of light
did the localized stars have to be spinning in relation to the whipping-top?"






Great questions!




happy.gif




According to Ernst Waldfried Josef Wenzel Mach, whenever you see a whipping top
in rotation, it's either that whipping top is, actually, rotating relative to the universe;
OR the universe is, really, rotating relative to the whipping top.


But the BIG problem, here, is that as the distance, from Mach's whipping top, gets
longer & longer and its numerical value approaches infinity, the tangential velocity,
the angular momentum, and the kinetic energy, in the latter case, become larger
and larger and their numerical values approach infinity as well.


And so, Mach's statement that the two cases, above , are equal and equivalent
to each other, in every respect, is, quite simply, not true.


And, of course, early in his career, Albert Einstein tried to interpret, in his own way,
Mach's idea, and to use it for his own purposes; but, in the end, he failed,
miserably, and gave up:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/5483/is-machs-principle-wrong
























 
 
jaquecusto

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 9 2017, 6:54 PM 

Thanks, AAF!

 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 10 2017, 12:00 AM 











"but that's ambiguous; there is the frame of the light source and there
is the frames not of the light source, so which frame is the observer in when he says the lightspeed
is c. If he says it is c when in the light source frame for that light source frame then
according to him still in that light source frame he will surely say that it should not c for other
non-light source frames; but some people say it is c as well in this latter scenario. "









Good point!




happy.gif




First of all, if the light source and the observer are at rest relative to each other,
THEN according to Einstein's theory, Maxwell's theory, and Newton's theory,
the speed of light, as measured by the same observer, is always equal
to c; i.e., 299792458 m/s.


But that, of course, is still an assumption; because it's quite possible that light
emitted by electrons, for example, has a greater speed than light emitted by protons;
or vice versa.


And so, obviously, physicists, all over the world, don't, really, know; and just want
to make their life a little bit easier by making the unverified and sweeping assumption
that light always comes out of its source at one and only single speed
equals exactly to 299792458 m/s.


That is, really, a huge leap of faith
on their part.


But they don't stop there!


For instance, Einstein's supporters go much further and assume that the speed of light,
which is already assumed to come out from all sorts of sources at the speed
of c = 299792458 m/s, is also equal to 299792458 m/s
relative to those various sources whether they are in motion or not;
and it's also equal to 299792458 m/s relative to all observers
whether they are in motion of not.


And that is, certainly, a humongous leap of faith
on their part.

















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 12 2017, 12:00 AM 









"So, people have misunderstood that and some will say it is c and some
will say it isn't c; all because Einstein didn't make it clear what he meant. the 4 cases are:
observer in light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the light source frame?
observer in light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the non-light source
frames? . . . "







Okay . . .


The first two cases, first!



happy.gif




With regard to the 4 cases above, Einstein's special relativity gives 2 different
answers to each one of them: One is verbal & one is mathematical.


Case #1: The observer in light source frame what does Einstein's theory
say light speed is relative to the light source frame?


A # 1: Verbally, Einstein's special theory says that if the moving light
source & the moving observer are in the same frame of reference (e.g. in
the M-M experiment), then the speed of light, as measured by the same
observer, is always equal to c.


A # 2: Mathematically, the Lorentz' equations of Einstein's special theory say,
loud & clear, that if the moving light source & the moving observer are in the same
frame of reference (e.g. in the M-M experiment), then the speed of light relative to
the light source & the speed of light relative to the observer must be borrowed from
Maxwell's theory, in exactly the same way as Hendrik Antoon Lorentz
did in his theory.


Case #2: The observer in light source frame what does Einstein's special
relativity say light speed is relative to the non-light source frames?


A # 1: Verbally, Einstein's special theory says that the speed light with
respect to the non-light source frames of reference, must be
always equal to c.


A # 2: Mathematically, the Doppler equations of Einstein's special theory say,
loud & clear, that the speed of light relative to the light source & the speed of
light relative to the observer must be borrowed from Maxwell's theory, and slightly
modified by using the Factor Gamma, [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5, in exactly the same
way as Hendrik Antoon Lorentz did in his theory.

Now, notice, please, that the Factor Gamma, [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5, itself,
is composed of Maxwell's relative speeds of light,
(c + v) & (c – v); i.e.,

Factor Gamma = [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5 = [(c + v)*(c - v) /c^2]^-0.5.
















 
 
AAF

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 16 2017, 12:00 AM 









". . . observer in non-light source frame what does he say light speed is relative to the
light source frame? observer in non-light source frame what does he say light
speed is relative to his non-light source frame? some people answer c for all
cases, but that then means the non-light source frame is not moving relative to
the light source frame, and really it is just the same frame!"








Case #3: The observer in non-light source frame what does Einstein's special
theory say light speed is relative to the light source frame?


A # 1: Verbally, Einstein's special theory says that the speed of light,
from a moving light source, as measured in every frame of reference, must be
always equal to c; i. e., 299792458 m/s.


A # 2: Mathematically, the Doppler formulas of Einstein's special theory say,
loud & clear, that the speed of light relative to the light source & the speed of light
relative to the observer must be imported from Maxwell's theory, and slightly modified
by using the Factor Gamma, [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5, in exactly the same way
as Hendrik Antoon Lorentz did in his theory.


Case #4: The observer in non-light source frame what does he say light speed
is relative to his non-light source frame?


A # 1: Verbally, Einstein's special theory says that the speed of light,
from a moving light source, as measured in every frame of reference, must
be always equal to 299792458 m/s.


A # 2: Mathematically, the Doppler equations of Einstein's special theory say,
loud & clear, that the speed of light relative to the light source & the speed of light
relative to the observer must be borrowed from Maxwell's theory, and slightly modified
by using the Factor Gamma, [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5, in exactly the same way
as Hendrik Antoon Lorentz did in his theory.


And once again, please, take into account that the Factor Gamma, [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5,
itself, is composed of Maxwell's relative speeds of light, (c + v) & (c – v);
and that is to say:


Factor Gamma = [1-v^2/c^2]^-0.5 = [{(c + v) x (c - v)} / c^2]^-0.5.


















 
 
roger

Re: You were right: Rotational motion is relative, too, Mr. Einstein!

November 16 2017, 7:45 AM 

>>>If he says it is c when in the light source frame for that light source frame then according to him still in that light source frame he will surely say that it should not c for other non-light source frames; ...........

if for instance an observer says that lightspeed is c relative to his frame, and he observes another frame moving at non-zero v in same direction as c, then surely he says that lightspeed relative to that other frame is not c but instead c-v where c-v


 
 
 
< Previous Page 117 18 19 20 21 Next >
  Respond to this message   
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Forum  
 Copyright © 1999-2017 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement