Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[reilly]

Grounded -- Yes, I read #52. You will find your ideas expressed more clearly and succinctly in any freshman physics book -- or high school algebra book(Tom is going to Chicago at 90 mph. Phil is on the same road going the other direction at 59mph. At noon they are 247 miles apart. When do they meet? , going in the correct lanes. Feel free to incorporate the lengths of the cars if you wish. Why not check out the Doppler shifts for radio communication s between the two, and for sound communication -- this is in a world with frictionless planes. In other words, you are discussing Galillean transformations, well known to work in non-relativistic situations. You neglect the experimentally confirmed fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. given that Maxwell's eq's are invariant under Lorentz transforms(unknown to Maxwell) but not under Galilean transforms requires a very profound change in our notions of time and space and how they are measured. That is to say, your #52 is only true under limited circumstances -- again something known from countless experiments. Svitenti, above, points out that SR is more than messing around with frequencies and wavelengths, and has worked brilliantly for a century.

I ask you again to point out in my argument with a wave function, where i am wrong.
What about radiation theory, Cerenkov radiation, i.e. light going faster than the speed of light in matter, not vacuum, Larmour precession and the magnetic moment of the elctron, and on and on and on? These are all phenomena that require SR to be true (or, better, not false) I'll make you a deal. I taught SR quite a few times. If you can point out the flaws in my argument of a few posts ago, I'll send you my lecture notes so you can have a field day in pointing out my errors.

Just to give you a sense of how extraordinary Einstein's ideas were and are, refer to Bateman's Electrical and Optical Wave-Motion(Dover) written before Einstein's ideas were fully accepted. People did a lot of shucking and jiving over how best to deal with the electromagnetic fields of moving charges. Read some history, if only to see how widespread SR has become -- as I mentioned above, if you can come up with something better than SR, you will have your day in Stockholm.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[grounded]

Tom

If you divide the distance light has traveled by the amount of time you let it travel, why would you expect to get any answer other than the speed of light?

 

[quantumdude]

No it isn't, it is the speed of light relative to the source.

Actually, it applies to both. If I use the values of x and t as measured by me in my frame, then it does in fact give me the speed of light relative to me, as I said. But if I use the values of x and t as measured in the frame of the source, then that will be the speed of the light relative to the source.

It simply measures the amount of time it takes light to travel a specific distance determined by the location you detect the light.

Slight correction: It simply measures the amount of time it takes light to travel the distance determined by the location of the detector and the location of the source at the time of emission[/color]. It takes two points to determine a distance.

But yes, the formula takes the ratio of that distance and the elapsed time between the two events.

And that ratio is the speed of the light relative to me.

If you run into the light at a distance of 100,000 miles from the source, what does your speed have to do with anything as long as the experiment ended at 100,000 miles form the source.

The distance to the source is irrelevant. Speed is not defined by a distance, it is defined by a change in distance divided by a change in time.

Think about it... It doesn't matter how fast you are traveling when you end the test, all you are doing is marking a specific distance from the source and measuring how long it took light to get to that spot. If you traveled for two seconds, then no matter what your speed is, you will be 372,000 miles from the source.

All I did was take the distance the light covered and divided by the elapsed time. That is the speed of the light in my frame.

Why is that so hard to understand?

Does that make sense?

Not one bit.

edit to add:

I don't want to leave you with the wrong impression. I don't say that your statements make no sense because they are unintelligible, or because I don't understand you. I say it because they make no sense in the framework of what we know to be true about the world.

Your posts are perfectly understandable. They just don't describe the real universe.

 

[quantumdude]

Tom

If you divide the distance light has traveled by the amount of time you let it travel, why would you expect to get any answer other than the speed of light?

For Pete's sake, just look at the formula. It is not devised to always return "c", regardless of the values of the distances and times. Indeed, those distances and times are determined by experiment. If the Galilean velocity addition formula is true, then the relative speed will be calculated (by that very same formula) to be something other than 'c'. But we don't observe that. We observe what SR predicts, as I'm sure you must be aware by now.

 

[grounded]

For Pete's sake, just look at the formula. It is not devised to always return "c", regardless of the values of the distances and times. Indeed, those distances and times are determined by experiment. If the Galilean velocity addition formula is true, then the relative speed will be calculated (by that very same formula) to be something other than 'c'. But we don't observe that. We observe what SR predicts, as I'm sure you must be aware by now.

I don't understand how we can get anything but 'c' if all we are doing is measuring the distance between us and the source, and dividing it by the amount of time it took the light to get there.

Being serious, are you saying that because of SR we have to change the times and distances?

Can't we use that formula from a third perspective with no reletivistic effects since the location of the source, the locations of the spot the test ended, and the time it took the light to get there the same for the observer or someone on the source?

 

[grounded]

All I did was take the distance the light covered and divided by the elapsed time. That is the speed of the light in my frame. Why is that so hard to understand?

All the formula says is that light travels from the source at the speed of light. So in one second the ray of light will be 186,000 miles from the source and the observers speed cannot change this.

 

[grounded]

If you run into the light at a distance of 100,000 miles from the source, what does your speed have to do with anything as long as the experiment ended at 100,000 miles form the source.

The distance to the source is irrelevant.

How can you say that since the only distance we are measuring is the distance to the source? In fact the only thing we are measuring is the distance from the front of your spaceship to the source, and dividing it by the time it took to get there.

 

[quantumdude]

I don't understand how we can get anything but 'c' if all we are doing is measuring the distance between us and the source, and dividing it by the amount of time it took the light to get there.

What's not to understand? The formula contains independent variables. It's not as though they cooperate to trick us by always working out to be 'c'.

Being serious, are you saying that because of SR we have to change the times and distances?

Yes, the times and distances do change, but it is not "because of SR", it is "because that's the way the universe works". The absoluteness of the speed of light gives rise to the phenomena of time dliation and length contraction. Moving clocks tick slower relative to your frame, and moving yardsticks are shorter in your frame.

Can't we use that formula from a third perspective with no reletivistic effects since the location of the source, the locations of the spot the test ended, and the time it took the light to get there the same for the observer or someone on the source?

There are no relativistic effects in the formula for relative speed. The relativistic effects don't show up until you do precisely what you hint at here: Consider a third point of view. But we can't add that third perspective without way to transform coordinates between frames. So let's do that, using both Galilean relativity and Special Relativity.

Let a light source S be moving towards observer O at v=0.5c. Let S emit a pulse. Furthermore, let observer O' be at rest with respect to the source. This implies that the speed of light u' relative to him is c.

Again, let Event 1 be the emission of the pulse, and let Event 2 be the detection.

Question: What is the speed of light u as measured by O?[/color]

Here are two different answers, one from Galileo and one from Einstein.

1. In Galilean relativity, the transformation between spacetime coordinates (x,t) that O assigns to events, and those coordinates that (x',t') that O' assigns to events, are related by the following transformation:

x'=x-vt
t'=t

If we take the difference in distance Δx and Δ'x;', as measured by each observer, and similarly take the differences in time Δt and Δt', then each can compute the velocity of light relative to himself:

Δx'/Δt'=Δx/Δt-v.

Since Δx'/Δt'=u' and Δx/Δt=u, we have

u'=u-v

This is the Galilean velocity addition formula, which you are so fond of. Recall that u'=c and v=0.5c. Inserting them into the formula, we come up with a prediction of u=1.5c.

That is, Galilean relativity predicts that x₂, x₁, t₂, and t₁ will all be measured in such a way that the ratio of (x₂-x₁) to (t₂-t₁) will be 1.5c.

2. In Special Relativity, the transformation between spacetime coordinates (x,t) that O assigns to events, and those coordinates that (x',t') that O' assigns to events, are related by the following transformation:

x'=γ(x-vt)
t'=γ(t-vx/c²)

where γ=(1-v²/c²)^-1/2

If we take the difference in distance Δx and Δ'x;', as measured by each observer, and similarly take the differences in time Δt and Δt', then each can compute the velocity of light relative to himself:

Δx'/Δt'=(Δx-vΔt)/(Δt-vΔx/c²)

Dividing the top and bottom of the right side by Δt, we get:

Δx'/Δt'=(Δx/Δt-v)/(1-v(Δx/Δt)/c²)

Since Δx'/Δt'=u' and Δx/Δt=u, we have

u'=(u-v)/(1-uv/c²)

This is the velocity addition formula in SR. Recall that u'=c and v=0.5c. Inserting them into the formula, and solving for u, we get u=c.

That is, Special Relativity predicts that x₂, x₁, t₂, and t₁ will all be measured in such a way that the ratio of (x₂-x₁) to (t₂-t₁) will be c.

The only way to find out which is correct is to do the experiment, and collect the information on x₁, x₂, t₂ and t₁.

As it happens, SR is correct. The simple velocity addition formula of Galilean relativity does not work.

 

[quantumdude]

All the formula says is that light travels from the source at the speed of light. So in one second the ray of light will be 186,000 miles from the source and the observers speed cannot change this.

No, you are wrong. The formula doesn't say that at all. The formula contains quantities that are determined by experiment. Given (x₂-x₁), there is no way to know ahead of time what (t₂-t₁) is going to be.

 

[quantumdude]

How can you say that since the only distance we are measuring is the distance to the source? In fact the only thing we are measuring is the distance from the front of your spaceship to the source, and dividing it by the time it took to get there.

I already explained this to you. I say that the distances themselves are irrelevant, because it is only the change in distance that goes into computing the speed.

Look at the formula again:

v=(x₂-x₁)/(t₂-t₁)

The values of x₂ and x₁ (the distances) don't matter. What matters is their difference.

 

[wespe]

If you run into the light at a distance of 100,000 miles from the source, what does your speed have to do with anything as long as the experiment ended at 100,000 miles form the source. Think about it... It doesn't matter how fast you are traveling when you end the test, all you are doing is marking a specific distance from the source and measuring how long it took light to get to that spot. If you traveled for two seconds, then no matter what your speed is, you will be 372,000 miles from the source.

Tom Mattson has explained well, but just in case you are still confused..

OK, if distance is 100,000 miles, what value will you divide this by? You have to divide it by (detection time - emission time). How will you know the emission time? You can't measure it directly, because you are in the ship. The distance is also contracted due to SR effects, and it is difficult to see what the ship would directly measure as distance. These are additional complexities. To avoid them, my example did not include light emission time. It included two time values that you measured inside your ship. And the distance was again measured inside the ship. Divide and find the speed, v=dx/dt, should be simple enough.

 

[grounded]

Just so you know Tom...I really appreciate the time you have given up to respond to all my posts. Even though we don't agree, you still respond, thanks.

I do however have yet another question.

Given (x₂-x₁), there is no way to know ahead of time what (t₂-t₁) is going to be.

If I am given the location of the source (x₁), and I am given the location of the detector (x₂), isn't (t₂-t₁) equal to the amount of time it takes to travel (x₂-x₁) at the speed of light?

 

[quantumdude]

Just so you know Tom...I really appreciate the time you have given up to respond to all my posts. Even though we don't agree, you still respond, thanks.

I don't mind, because you are obviously sincere.

I do however have yet another question.

If I am given the location of the source (x₁), and I am given the location of the detector (x₂), isn't (t₂-t₁) equal to the amount of time it takes to travel (x₂-x₁) at the speed of light?

It will return the speed of light relative to me. The definition of relative speed--by itself--does not prefer the SR velocity addition formula over the Galilean velocity addition formula. If you go back to my example with the light source moving at 0.5c towards me, where I work out the prediction using both Galileo and Einstein, you'll see that the exact same definition of velocity is used in both cases. If Galileo is correct, then the time elapsed (t₂-t₁) will be such that the speed of the light in my frame is 1.5c. And if Einstein is correct, then it will be such that the speed is c.

So the experimental question is: When does the pulse arrive?

Hopefully you now see that the result is not guaranteed to be 'c' just by virtue of the definition of relative velocity.

 

[grounded]

OK, if distance is 100,000 miles, what value will you divide this by?

When I see this:

v=(x₂-x₁)/(t₂-t₁)

I see this:

v=(The distance between the source and the detector) / (The amount of time it takes light to travel from the source to the detector)

From my perspective the observers speed only changes the position of the detector, but we are still only calculating the amount of time it takes light to travel from the source to the detector.

 

[quantumdude]

When I see this:

v=(x₂-x₁)/(t₂-t₁)

I see this:

v=(The distance between the source and the detector[/color]) / (The amount of time it takes light to travel from the source to the detector)

The part in red[/color] is not quite right. Remember that Event 1 was defined to be the emission of the pulse. That means that x₁ is the location of the source when the light was emitted. The source may move after time t₁, and so x₂-x₁ is not the distance between the source and the detector. It is the distance between the emission and the detection.

In other words, it is the distance that the light travels.

 

[wespe]

All the formula says is that light travels from the source at the speed of light. So in one second the ray of light will be 186,000 miles from the source and the observers speed cannot change this.

Oh I now see why you are saying this. It's the syndrome: thinking in absolutes. You may be over this by now, but just in case..

You assumed that there is an absolute space (aether) out there, in which things can move. The speed of an object in aether (or wrt aether) can be known. Let's call this speed "absolute speed". Absolute speed of light is somehow known and is equal to c. Then of course you would say that an observer approaching an emitted light won't change light's [absolute] speed.

But, we are not talking about absolute speeds. In fact, there is no way to measure absolute speed, because there is no way to detect absolute motion. Therefore, the existence of aether has been denied. There is no evidence that aether even exists so let's forget about it, along with absolute speed.

So now we can only talk about relative speeds. Consider: when you approach something, it also approaches you with the same speed you approach it, right? That mutual speed is the relative speed. It doesn't matter who is really approaching who, relative speed between two objects has only one single value, unlike two objects having two different absolute speed values.

Still, we can measure two different values, if we consider the relative speeds of two objects wrt a third object. Then, using these two values, we can calculate relative speed of these objects wrt each other. Galilean relativity would simply add the two values as v1+v2, which is intuitive. But when the speeds are high, it turns out that the formula does not hold true.

And the rest is history.. LOL I wrote too much.

I hope this helped.

 

[reilly]

Grounded -- Not up to my challenge(#91), I guess.? Still, in preperation, I'm getting my SR lecture notes together. RA

 

[Chronos]

this has gotten totally out of hand. unless you are questioning the maxwell equations, you have no point. all einstein did was put it all together in a predictive model. is e=mc^2 a lucky guess, or is it reality? do lorentzian transforms work as a predictive model? how do you explain that future observations fit the math that predicted them? perhaps we do not have a 'perfect' model that explains all that is observed, but, it is a much better model than the kind of unsupported models proposed by quacks such as savov.

why is it such a contradiction to refine the mathematics of reality? the equations do not change without evidence in support of observation. no one is claiming we are infallible [aside from the quacks]. we adjust theory when it is supported and has the mathematical foundations to support observational evidence.

 

[grounded]

Grounded -- Not up to my challenge(#91), I guess.? Still, in preperation, I'm getting my SR lecture notes together. RA

I am willing to discuss anything, and want to, but you must realize that you all seem to be at the top of the ladder. You wrote that "I will need to master the conventional arguments", and I agree. My lack of education compared to you, Tom, Qeistkiesel, and others gives me an entirely different perspective, be it right or wrong. I wouldn't come here to waste your time teaching me something I could read in a book. In my opinion I have an extreme grasp on reality and physics. I have read many encyclopedias and books about relativity; I do admit that they are all written in laymen terms such as “Six easy pieces” and “six not so easy pieces” both by Richard P. Feynman. I understand the information I have read and responses people have given (with exception to Tom’s more educated response), but I also have to FULLY understand it in order to accept it.

Some people will call it ignorant, but before I accept something I must fully understand (for myself) why it works. Knowing the motor will start when I turn the key is not enough. I am one of those kids that just had to touch the flame to know it would burn me, knowing it would was not enough. I am not here to push my perspective; I am here more to find that missing piece that would make me understand why my perspective cannot be used, the piece that would make me say “oh, I see now!”. If that still doesn’t make sense then let me ask you this. How much respect would you have for me if I didn’t truly understand any of the information I held? If I conform without understanding, I would just be a walking textbook with a low self-esteem.

Like everyone, I am capable of understanding anything given the proper information. In order for me to understand the conventional arguments, I need to understand what the math is really saying. I have never been able to understand the purpose of using the square root. I mean I know what it does, it gives us a number that when squared equals the number we square rooted. But what does it really do?

For example: (frequency) * (length) = (speed)

This makes sense since if I am diving at 55MPH then I am in a sense driving 55 one-mile lengths per hour. If I drive 60MPH I am driving 60 one-mile lengths per hour.

Can you tell me in words what the square root does, and maybe an analogy?
This is the formula I am referring to.

(square root of –1) *( wavelength*x-frequency*t)

Also can you tell me if in the above formula x = (x₂-x₁) and if t = (t₂-t₁) as in the formula below?

v=(x₂-x₁)/(t₂-t₁)

 

[wespe]

I am willing to discuss anything, and want to, but you must realize that you all seem to be at the top of the ladder.

Grounded, I am no expert and that's why I thought I understood your view better that the experts here, I hope you were not offended by #106.

Can you tell me in words what the square root does, and maybe an analogy?

LOL, if you had a square shaped area, squareroot would convert the area value to the length of the side value (of course I know you know that). So it has something to do with dimension relations I think.

This is the formula I am referring to.
(square root of –1) *( wavelength*x-frequency*t)

I haven't seen that one before. Also there is no = sign so it's not an equation.

Also can you tell me if x = (x₂-x₁) and if t = (t₂-t₁) as in the formula below?

well, x is distance, and t is duration

Take care.

 

[grounded]

What I was originally looking for was a way to measure light while in motion and get a constant speed using traditional methods.

(LENGTH) * (NUMBER OF LENGTHS PASSED PER SECOND) = (SPEED) = (DISTANCE TRAVELED PER SECOND)

From my perspective (naive or not) SR says we can’t use this method because it will not yield the results of SR, and in order to measure it as constant, I have to measure it in a way that conforms to SR. If the speed of light is constant, shouldn’t I be able to use traditional methods to measure it? I still have not grasped the concept of having to use SR formulas to predict SR effects, which is probably why I have a problem accepting SR’s formulas as proof to SR.

The single concept that has led me to where I am today is this.

Using an interferometer we measure the wavelength of light while at rest relative to the source. If we take the same measurement while traveling towards the source and account for the distance we have traveled, we will not measure a change in the wavelength. Doing it like this we are just counting the number of lengths that pass us and multiplying it by their length. The reason I perceive this to be logical is because of the following.

When the distance between the observer and the source is decreasing, the amount of time it takes the light to complete one cycle will also be decreased, as measured by the observer compared to when the distance between the two are not changing.

An interferometer can be calibrated using a light source with a known wavelength. As long as the distance between the observer and the source are not changing, this will work. Since light travels 186,000 miles per second, the wavelength equals the amount of distance traveled, traveling at 186,000 miles per second, in the amount of time it takes the light to complete one cycle. If the distance between the observer and the source are decreasing, then the wavelength equals the amount of distance traveled, traveling at the sum of “186,000 miles per second” added to “the speed at which the distance between the source and the observer is decreasing”, in the amount of time it takes the light to complete one cycle. If we measure the wavelength in this fashion, we will not measure a change.

I realize this is the old way of calculating and it doesn’t include any of the modern formulas, but it is the only way to make the interferometer measure any ray of light and correctly measure its true wavelength, isn’t that what we want it to do? I know some of you don’t like the term true wavelength, but if I am measuring something I want to measure what it is, not what it perceives to be. I noticed that while in motion relative to the source, the change in distance between the source and observer is not being accounted for. Once accounted for, I realized that using traditional methods, the only way to measure the speed of light to be constant is to ignore the change in distance between the observer and the source.

The above is just so you can see my perspective. As of today, I don’t agree with SR, but even though, I am determined to understand it. Right now I’m going to try to make sense out of Tom’s #98 post.

 

[grounded]

I haven't seen that one before. Also there is no = sign so it's not an equation.

It refers to Reilly's post #59

The wave function is, typically, the exponential of

i *( lam*x-nu*t)

where lam is the wavelength and nu the frequency, and i is the squareroot of -1.

 

[quantumdude]

What I was originally looking for was a way to measure light while in motion and get a constant speed using traditional methods.

But that's just it: We do used traditional methods. The distance traveled divided by the time elapsed is the speed. It doesn't get any more traditional than that. What you aren't accepting is the fact that the "lengths passed" are different for different observers, in a way that has nothing to do with not including the relative motion between source and observer. The lengths are literally phsically contracted in frames other than the rest frame.

As to this:

The wave function is, typically, the exponential of

i *( lam*x-nu*t)

where lam is the wavelength and nu the frequency, and i is the squareroot of -1.

He is referring to the complex exponential function:

f(x)=e^ikx

It just so happens that this function is sinusoidal, as follows:

e^ikx=cos(kx)+isin(kx).

In other words, the function is a solution to the wave equation. But instead of using that, you could just use a combination of sines and cosines, that don't include the "i".

 

[quantumdude]

I realize this is the old way of calculating and it doesn’t include any of the modern formulas, but it is the only way to make the interferometer measure any ray of light and correctly measure its true wavelength, isn’t that what we want it to do? I know some of you don’t like the term true wavelength, but if I am measuring something I want to measure what it is, not what it perceives to be.

As long as you're still hung up on this, you aren't going to see your way through this problem. There simply is no such thing as a "true wavelength". You only believe this to be so, but in reality there is no reason to hold that position. When you make an observation, you simply cannot doctor up the measurment to fit your predisposed vision of reality. As I noted before, I appreciate your sincerity, but your biggest shortcoming as I see it is that your thinking is so rigid. If you are going to understand anything about science, then you have to be prepared to let the experimental evidence dictate your view of the universe. But what you are doing is exactly the opposite: trying to put a skewed interpretation on measured results so that they fit what you already believe. Simply put, that is anti-science, and anti-education, which is why I respond to all of your posts.

As someone who understands this problem inside and out, I can tell you this: You will be forever at odds with physicists on this "true wavelength" thing unless you can understand the more fundamental problem of the invariance of the speed of light. The difference in wavelengths in different frames are derived consequences[/color] of that fact. But I'm convinced that you do not yet understand why the speed of light postulate must be true. So in effect what you're doing with this "true wavelength" argument is arguing against a conclusion without understanding the premises used to derive that conclusion.

 

[ram1024]

when experimentation does NOT match logical and rational predictions you should look for the faults in your experimentation, not reinvent the universe to match your crazy results...

 

[quantumdude]

when experimentation does NOT match logical and rational predictions you should look for the faults in your experimentation, not reinvent the universe to match your crazy results...

And this, dear boy, is why you'll never be a scientist.

 

[ram1024]

i'm quite open to the possibility that something doesn't work the way i expected it to, but only after i rule out EVERY possible option that conforms to rational and logical approaches

 

[quantumdude]

i'm quite open to the possibility that something doesn't work the way i expected it to, but only after i rule out EVERY possible option that conforms to rational and logical approaches

Hiding behind a veil of "rationality" does not make your philosophy of science any better. The fact of the matter is that it only takes a single experimental counterexample to prove that a physical theory is false. Distorting the results in the name of logic is intellectually dishonest, and patently unscientific.

As to your prior statement:

when experimentation does NOT match logical and rational predictions you should look for the faults in your experimentation,

This is awfully presumptuous of you, and if I did not already know that it was borne of ignorance I would say that it is awfully arrogant of you.

Your method here requires that a scientist have an innate, a priori knowledge of the way the universe should[/color] work, so that he may have a "rational" standard to which he can compare his results. But who has this knowledge? Who is so all-knowing that he can tell what is "rational" apart from experimentation? You? Can you tell us the way the universe should work? Indeed, why do we need to do experimentation at all? I mean, you already know what is "rational", so why can't we just ask you?

not reinvent the universe to match your crazy results...

Your thinking is exactly backwards. Experimentation is our way of finding out how the universe really is. Twisting experimental results around so that they fit one's predisposed worldview is precisely what it means to reinvent the universe to match one's crazy ideas. I repeat: it is an intellectually dishonest, unscientific practice.

 

[ram1024]

The fact of the matter is that it only takes a single experimental counterexample to prove that a physical theory is false.

please do join me in the "Relativity dies today" thread then ;D

This is awfully presumptuous of you, and if I did not already know that it was borne of ignorance I would say that it is awfully arrogant of you.

i'm going to assume my "logic" is absolutely correct until I've exhausted every possible avenue of attack has failed. when challenging a well-known, globally accepted theory or law there is no other way to go about it. to be wishy-washy or half-assed will only lead to failure. it may be arrogant, but it doesn't make it any less "real" when something is disproven with these "tactics"

Your thinking is exactly backwards. Experimentation is our way of finding out how the universe really is. Twisting experimental results around so that they fit one's predisposed worldview is precisely what it means to reinvent the universe to match one's crazy ideas. I repeat: it is an intellectually dishonest, unscientific practice.

no one's doing any twisting... where are you reading that? :|

 

[quantumdude]

please do join me in the "Relativity dies today" thread then ;D

The others are kicking your butt just fine without me. ;D

i'm going to assume my "logic" is absolutely correct until I've exhausted every possible avenue of attack has failed.

That's a foolish choice. The only way to determine the truth or falsity of scientific propositions is by observation, not logic.

when challenging a well-known, globally accepted theory or law there is no other way to go about it.

How would you know? What scientific investigations have you ever conducted? (And no, the thread "Today SR Dies" does not count).

to be wishy-washy or half-assed will only lead to failure.

I can only assume from the context that "being wishy-washy and half-assed" means "granting epistemic privelige to empirical information over reason in questions of science".

If so, then again, your thinking is exactly backwards. Rationalism as a scientific method has done nothing but fail miserably, which is why it is dead. The empirical approach, on the other hand, has enjoyed astounding success. Indeed, the lack of a priori knowledge of the universe requires that our investigations be empirically driven.

it may be arrogant, but it doesn't make it any less "real" when something is disproven with these "tactics"

You are so mistaken. There is no way--none whatsoever--to disprove any scientific theory which is internally consistent using only logic. The only "real" way to disprove it is by experimentation.

no one's doing any twisting... where are you reading that? :|

Right here:

when experimentation does NOT match logical and rational predictions you should look for the faults in your experimentation, not reinvent the universe to match your crazy results...