No postulate of light is violated in Galilean transformation.

[quantumdude]

Geistkiesel: Tom when I add an observers speed to the speed of an oncoming light beam, I do not change the velocty of the light beam.

Tom: You do change the velocity of the light beam, relative to that observer.

Geistkiesel: I disagree. I have notbooks of calulations and no evidence of ever having alteed any wavelengths..

First of all, altering we weren't talking about altering the wavelengths. We were talking about adding velocities. And second, you quite clearly do change the velocity of light relative to the moving observer, using the Galilean velocity addition formula. It's in your first post.

Geistkiesel: I make my chicken scratches on a piece of paper. I do so in order to count the measured frequency that the unperturbed wave length passing the plane of my eyes.[/color]

Tom: ...except you haven't made any real measurements.

Geistkiesel: that is correct, I have no lab, so sorry.

So you admit that the part in red[/color] is a falsehood then?

Geistkiesel: I cannot see how anything gets perturbed, that shouldn't be perturbed. I am making caluclations I am not compressing the oncoming wave train.

Tom: ...except you haven't done any real calculations.

Geistkiesel: Are you referring to some unreal calculations?

I am referring to the bogus calculations you do regarding the propagation of light, which completely exclude Maxwell's equations.

Tom: What does it mean for a photon to be dependent on the source? Do you mean the photon's speed? It's velocity?

Geistkiesel: Once emitted the motion of a photon is independent of the motion of the siource of the of the photon. Specificallt e source and photon velocities are completely independent of each other. The velocity of the photon s independent of the velocity of the source.

Do you realize that that is the speed of light postulate of SR, and that it is not consistent with the Galilean velocity addition formula you used in your first post?

Tom: What does it mean for a photon to remain Newtonionly moving invariantly in a straight line? Does it mean that the speed is the same? The velocity? The trajectory?

Geistkiesel: A particle motionoess or moving in a straight line will continue in that motion until acted upon by an outside source. I forget the number, but it is the first three of Newtons laws of motion. Or in a modern version computed motions will contiue until acted upon by programs not included the algorithmic structure ofthe computed motion.#2 a.b.c. yes,yes,yes.

Do you realize that the light does not continue moving in a straight line? The impetus that alters its motion is provided by the mirrors.

And as for your belief that you do not need to specify a reference frame in order for your statements to be physically meaningful, that is not true. The photon trajectory, for instance, is going to look different in every frame.

 

[quantumdude]

why are you so confused?

He's not. You are.

A can travel east at 20 miles per hour. B can travel west at 20 miles per hour. both cars have a speed limit of 20 miles per hour.

Yes, both cars can have a speed of 20 mph relative to the ground. No one disputes this.

you're telling me the maximum speed they can approach each other is 20 miles an hour,

No he isn't. Do you even read what anyone else writes? It seems that you do not. Janus posted the relativistic velocity addition formula on the first page of the thread. SR does not predict that the velocity of one car relative to another is 20 mph. It predicts that the relative speed is just a shade under 40 mph, and that for small speeds the difference between the actual relative speed and 40 mph is too small to detect.

which is patently untrue given if they're 40 miles apart and they both drive towards each other they can collide in an hour.

by any definition if you take A as a stationary object, B now travels 40 miles an hour towards A.

Not exaclty. As I said, B travels at just under 40 mph towards A, and vice versa.

"but light is different..."

BS.

You haven't learned a thing. No one here says that the kinematics of light is any different from the kinematics of cars. In both cases, the SR velocity addition formula holds.

 

[ram1024]

You haven't learned a thing. No one here says that the kinematics of light is any different from the kinematics of cars. In both cases, the SR velocity addition formula holds

then let's hear your logical reasons for why 5 + 5 = 4.999239582394...

 

[quantumdude]

then let's hear your logical reasons for why 5 + 5 = 4.999239582394...

I never said it did.

Next stupid question?

 

[ram1024]

that "stupid question" was derived from your "stupid answer" thankyouverymuch

Not exaclty. As I said, B travels at just under 40 mph towards A, and vice versa.

 

[quantumdude]

that "stupid question" was derived from your "stupid answer" thankyouverymuch

No, it wasn't. It came straight from your brain to your keyboard, and was unfortunately entered to PF to become yet another waste of bandwidth in this circus of a thread.

Persistent, hard-headed use of the Galilean velocity addition formula is your hangup, not mine. When I say that the velocity of one car as measured by the other is less than 40 mph, I am not saying that 20+20 does not equal 40. When you put words in my mouth like that, you make yourself look like a moron. And if you act like a moron, then don't be surprised when people treat you like one.

The SR velocity addition formula is in Janus' post. That is the correct way to add velocities in a Minkowski spacetime, which is an excellent approximation to physical spacetime for sufficiently low energy and momentum densities (IOW, when we can ignore GR effects).

 

[ram1024]

complete horsecrap. the only reason you ascribe to this "SR velocity addition" is because it conforms to your candy-land fantasy universe. there is NO logical reason a 20 mile per hour car approaching another car also traveling in the opposite direction at 20 miles per hour should NOT be able to consider himself stationary with the other car approaching at 40 miles per hour.

Let us look at the definitions of the terms we're using and we'll lay the groundwork for who is being completely unreasonable.

Speed: Covering a certain distance over period of a certain time.

20 miles per hour: given an HOUR worth of time, the object would travel 20 miles.

so here you have 1 car traveling 20 miles in one hour and the other car traveling 20 miles per hour. suppose they start 40 miles apart at the same time pointed right at each other. at 1 hour what happens? oh lo and behold, they freaking crash. not "from either of the driver's point of view they didn't crash because the other car only traveled 99.9999% of the distance towards him". they DO crash.

what was the total distance? 40 miles
what was the time for the experiment? 1 hour

what is 40 miles in 1 hour? 40mph = the speed at which they approached each other.

Sorry Tom, that filth won't fly.

 

[russ_watters]

complete horsecrap. the only reason you ascribe to this "SR velocity addition" is because it conforms to your candy-land fantasy universe. there is NO logical reason a 20 mile per hour car approaching another car also traveling in the opposite direction at 20 miles per hour should NOT be able to consider himself stationary with the other car approaching at 40 miles per hour.

Enter me to snap this thread back to reality...

Ram, you're absolutely right. It doesn't make logical sense in a Galilean universe. But what the others have been trying to tell you and you refuse to accept is that we do not live in a Galilean universe. Ram, I know its hard to accept, but that is reality.

All this bickering really has a simple reason and a simple solution. Someone's worldview is wrong. How do we know its your worldview that's wrong and not ours? Experimentation and data say so. Simple as that.

So, have you looked at any of the actual experiments we've posted? Now, the last time someone brought up actual experiments, you made a left turn and accused the experimenters of falsifying their own results. I shouldn't have to tell you that that isn't a good way to learn, nor is it a good way to win an argument. You have another shot at that choice. You can choose to ignore reality because you don't like it or choose to look at the experiments rationally and objectively, and accept what they say about reality.

 

[Janus]

complete horsecrap. the only reason you ascribe to this "SR velocity addition" is because it conforms to your candy-land fantasy universe. there is NO logical reason a 20 mile per hour car approaching another car also traveling in the opposite direction at 20 miles per hour should NOT be able to consider himself stationary with the other car approaching at 40 miles per hour.

Let us look at the definitions of the terms we're using and we'll lay the groundwork for who is being completely unreasonable.

Speed: Covering a certain distance over period of a certain time.

20 miles per hour: given an HOUR worth of time, the object would travel 20 miles.

so here you have 1 car traveling 20 miles in one hour and the other car traveling 20 miles per hour.

Relative to what? The ground, I assume, as measured from the ground or from the car whose speed you're measuring.

suppose they start 40 miles apart at the same time pointed right at each other.

As measured from where?, the ground or the cars? If this 40 miles is measured from the ground, then the cars will not be 40 miles apart as measured from either car, nor will the cars start at the same time according to either car..

at 1 hour what happens? oh lo and behold, they freaking crash.

As long as all measurements are made from the ground frame, yes

not "from either of the driver's point of view they didn't crash because the other car only traveled 99.9999% of the distance towards him".

Nobody said they wouldn't.

they DO crash.

Yes, they do crash according to all frames, and they crash at the same point on the ground according to all frames. The end results are not disputed by anybody. The cars just won't agree that their relative speed to each other was 40 mph or that both cars started at the same moment.

what was the total distance? 40 miles

As measured from the ground

what was the time for the experiment? 1 hour

As measured from the ground

what is 40 miles in 1 hour? 40mph = the speed at which they approached each other.

as measured form the ground

 

[quantumdude]

complete horsecrap. the only reason you ascribe to this "SR velocity addition" is because it conforms to your candy-land fantasy universe.

Wrong. I subscribe to it because it is in agreement with experiments done in the real world, which I cordially invite you to come back to.

there is NO logical reason a 20 mile per hour car approaching another car also traveling in the opposite direction at 20 miles per hour should NOT be able to consider himself stationary with the other car approaching at 40 miles per hour.

Actually, there is a logical reason. The reason is that the data say so!

Let us look at the definitions of the terms we're using and we'll lay the groundwork for who is being completely unreasonable.

That's easy: You are.

Speed: Covering a certain distance over period of a certain time.

20 miles per hour: given an HOUR worth of time, the object would travel 20 miles.

so here you have 1 car traveling 20 miles in one hour and the other car traveling 20 miles per hour. suppose they start 40 miles apart at the same time pointed right at each other. at 1 hour what happens? oh lo and behold, they freaking crash. not "from either of the driver's point of view they didn't crash because the other car only traveled 99.9999% of the distance towards him". they DO crash.

what was the total distance? 40 miles
what was the time for the experiment? 1 hour

what is 40 miles in 1 hour? 40mph = the speed at which they approached each other.

Sorry Tom, that filth won't fly.

What is your major malfunction? You just keep doing the same thing over and over.

1. Assume that Galilean relativity is correct.
2. Devise a thought experiment, predicated on #1.
3. Conclude that Galilean relativity is correct.

Can't you see how idiotic that is? You make no reference whatsoever to real experimental results.

And furthermore, you talk about logic? You haven't the foggiest notion of what logic is. The logic of SR comes from the fact that Maxwell's equations and Galilean relativity cannot both be true. Now we know that Maxwell's equations are right (ignoring quantum effects), and we know that Galilean relativity is wrong from independent experiments. But all of this is lost on you, because rather than look at any of the experimental results or logic, you would just rather sit there with your fingers in your ears, shouting at the top of your lungs that SR is wrong. It is really pathetic.

 

[ram1024]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

1. distance is immutable. in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

2. time is immutable. in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works. Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with. so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

 

[quantumdude]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

That is totally irrational. The data are the means by which universe reveals the rules of the game to us. We don't make them up.

1. distance is immutable.

Wrong. It depends on one's state of motion.

in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

The universe is under no duty to make sense to you. It is you who must conform your thinking to the experimental results.

2. time is immutable.

Wrong. It depends on one's state of motion.

in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

The universe is under no duty to make sense to you. It is you who must conform your thinking to the experimental results.

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works.

That's the only thing you've got right so far.

Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with.

Wrong. We do not fudge them, they are changed by one's state of motion.

so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

What are you babbling about?

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

You just don't get it.

The "experiments" and the "funky math" are done indepenently of each other. We observe things in the universe, and we write mathematical laws that describe them. We don't conclude that light speed is Lorentz invariant because of mathematics, we conclude it because of experimental results. If the results had contradicted SR, we'd have thrown it out. Simple as that.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

Try listening to someone who knows better for a change.

 

[ram1024]

Good work with that "delete post" thing you do, very mature way to behave.

The "experiments" and the "funky math" are done indepenently of each other. We observe things in the universe, and we write mathematical laws that describe them. We don't conclude that light speed is Lorentz invariant because of mathematics, we conclude it because of experimental results. If the results had contradicted SR, we'd have thrown it out. Simple as that.

but you DIDN'T do that. the experiments concluded one thing based on faulty assumptions, you saw that then decided to invent a whole system on the data, then when someone comes along and says "Hey, why the heck are you calculating all this unnecessary irrational CRAP" you tell them "F off, this is how the universe works"

SR is a hundred year blunder, why cling to something illogical, wrong, and tedious?

i pity you

 

[Janus]

I won't accept your data if you make your own rules for playing the game.

1. distance is immutable. in order to measure something you need to be able to measure it. If 5 of my-units equals 12 of your-units today but 84 of your-units tomorrow, what sense does that make?

2. time is immutable. in order to say WHEN something happens you need to be functioning on the same plane of existence or at least have a well thought out DIRECT method of translating your time-units into my-time. if 5 of my-time seconds = 27 of your-time seconds today but 13 of your-time seconds tomorrow, what sense does that make?

3. Speed is defined as distance over time. that's how it works. Now let us think for just a moment upon that subject. you claim light speed is CONSTANT to the viewer, but it can ONLY be so if you FUDGE with Distance and Time. the two VERY components of speed to begin with. so what gives? it's like me saying "monkeys eat bamboo", you saying "WTF they certainly do NOT", and me saying "well when i said monkeys i meant 'one of any animals that exist on this earth' and when i said bamboo i meant 'anything that can possibly be conceived as being edible'"

all of your "experiments" and "data" are great, but if you use funky math to come to the conclusions, it's all just wanking anyways.

try supporting something meaningful for a change.

You know, I think I've found someplace where you will feel right at home:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/FlatHome.htm

 

[quantumdude]

Good work with that "delete post" thing you do, very mature way to behave.

*Gawk* You make two consecutive garbage posts that have nothing to do with the thread, and you dare talk about my behavior?

but you DIDN'T do that. the experiments concluded one thing based on faulty assumptions, you saw that then decided to invent a whole system on the data,

The assumptions are only faulty based on your extremely narrow view of the world.

then when someone comes along and says "Hey, why the heck are you calculating all this unnecessary irrational CRAP" you tell them "F off, this is how the universe works"

That's because the fool telling me that it is irrational is demonstrably wrong.

SR is a hundred year blunder, why cling to something illogical, wrong, and tedious?

Because it is none of those things to anyone who understands physics.

i pity you

I'll take that as a complement.

This silly thread is done. None of the anti-SR people involved are either willing or capable of intelligent dialog on the subject.