Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Relative velocity of frame and photon consistent with laws of physics.detrmination

  1. Jul 12, 2004 #1
    The dispute over the truth of SR or not is passionately described in the context of relativity and the measurement of the speed of light. SR theorists impose the impossible physical consideration that in measuring the relative velocity of frame and photon that the frame is considered stationary.

    The earth frame is sufficiently at rest with respect to all measurements of the relative velocity of photons and earth platform. This result follows even though the earth has a known sun orbital velocty of 30km/sec. There is complete agreement between the laws of physics and relativity when the moving frame also determines that her velocity relative to the to the earth platform is not dependent on the orbital or daily spin velocity of the earth inertial platform.

    Therefore, using the earth as a common inertial frame to photon and moving rame we may determine the combined relative velocity of photon and moving frame with respect to the inertial platform earth. Simply said, the relative velocity of photons and material frames may be be easily determined by using the earth frame as common zero velocity frame.

    Determining the relative velocity, Vrel, of photon, C, and frame, V, where C and V both are moving in the same direction,

    Vrel = |C| - |V|.

    When photon and frame are moving anti-parallel the relative velocity of photon and frame is

    Vrel = |C| + |V|

    a measure the relative (expanding velocity) of photon and frame. As C is > V always, we use the convention of taking the relative vector velocity direction parallel to C.

    All the postulates of light are protected here as are the concepts of relativity. The only difference is that our solution does not require the insertion of time dilation or frame contraction to arrive at the measurement of C = 3x10^8m/sec. Hence the current model is SR defect free.

    Of particular importance is the fictional [where 'fictional is understood to mean 'impossible'] consideration of zero frame velocity is avoided when determining the relative velocty of photon and frame. This consideration is particularly destructive to a rational interpretation of experimental results by the arbitrary mathematical contrivance of considering the moving frame velocity as stationary.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 12, 2004 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Give it up already

    In many cases, I am not by any means a spiteful person. While my first post did seem quite indicative of that, I am not the general type to ridicule, berate, or criticize anyone for what the they think, suggest, and offer.

    However, in this case, as you've decided to revive a thread that had been declared dead, and not understanding WHY it was declared dead in the first place, I believe that I shall make a special exception just for you.

    While I tend to lurk around the boards, what has attracted me to your posts like a moth to a lightbulb has not so much been your radiant brilliance as much as it has been the searing pain that has inundated my head whenever I read your pitiful blather. Debate is fine for anyone, and is encouraged whenever possible, but what's been coming from your keyboard for the last few weeks has been the broken record on a bad acid trip. No one, and I mean no one, has the correct mentality or wants the correct mentality to read, attempt to understand, much less retort your arguments, mainly because they know that self-induced brain aneurisms are generally not covered by their respective HMOs. However, for both our sakes, I will outline certain...mental deficiencies that you have demonstrated in the realm of understanding. With any luck, you will see the light of these minor, minor points, and hopefully not send the lot of us to the hospital because we unwittingly stumbled onto one more of your God-forsaken threads.

    Issue #1: Special relativity.
    If you need this explained, just go view any of your posts. I think the replies stated by everyone else should give you whatever information you need.

    Issue #2: Galilean relativity.
    While this is the very thing that you trumpet over the above, my current problem is that you are trying to extol something that even you don't have a full understanding of. While it is not my fault that you can't picture the train at rest while the platform is moving, it can be my fault if I didn't try to point that one out to you with the equivalent of a big neon sign. To use a certain someone's turn of phrase, I can chalk this up to your "extremely narrow world view".

    Issue #3: The logic of science.
    Scientific knowledge is based on experiments. That is both our proof of existence and our biggest challenge. However, when experiments are made, and their data verified, we cannot simply just discard the facts and instead believe our theories. Calling them "scientific junk" simply demeans the researchers and the scientists who've spent so much time working in their respective fields in the first place. That having been said, in the face of overwhelming evidence, you still grasp at any straw possible to prop up your claims. If SR is wrong, how is antimatter explained? What about the CPT theorem, or electron spin? (I could question whether you know what they are in the first place, but I'm trying to prevent another heart attack here.) These are things that we have evidence to support, and no thought experiment can disprove them, because they're REAL.

    Issue #4: Elementary logic.
    On that note of thought experiments, I further expand on it and say that you can't take a postulate of Galilean relativity and expect to use that to prove SR. If you already assume a contradiction, don't be surprised to find one later. This is akin to us saying that all squares have four sides, and you replying "That's complete b$, let's imagine a square with three corners. It clearly has three sides". Hopefully, this very simple example can achieve comprehension through your very simple mind.

    Issue #5: The meaning of Common Sense.
    Unfortunately, SR cannot be observed in our ordinary experiences because of the fact that it's counter-intuitive. Things happen that though they are explainable at a deeper level, you can't just use a surface argument and simply assume that's going to happen all the time. For instance, let's take a lump of coal. It's a lump of coal at normal conditions, isn't it? Now, if I double the atmospheric pressure, it's still a lump of coal. If I see the same thing at five, ten, and twenty atmospheres, then common sense says that it'll still be that same lump of coal at whatever pressure I select. However, at a million atmospheres, it turns into diamond. Common sense didn't predict that one, did it? Well then, don't assume it'll work totally for SR.

    Issue #6: Common courtesy.
    I will backtrack here and say that though I have created this list, there is no force in the world that can make you either acknowledge of or ignore it. That is always up to you, and I respect the ability of anyone to make the judgement for themselves. The debate of SR, though many times frustrating, is always allowable, because we may just learn something along the line. Einstein himself debated QM for his entire life, and though he was wrong at times, his contributions were still meaningful and led to QM's advancement to what we know today. That having been said however, to sneer and gloat with virtually every post that you've single-handedly destroyed SR, to blatantly disregard a hundred years of physics for your own whims, to shove your gallant crusade against the ignorant masses in the face of blistering opposition and total disregard of the replies from others...to deny the mentors the courtesy and the respect that they so rightly deserve, simply makes you a crank.

    Issue #7: Not understanding issues 1 thru 6.
    Again, I cannot force you to understand and acknowledge what I have brought up. The idiots of the world will never say that they are idiots, but simply say that the rest of the world is made of idiots. I am by no means righteous for making this post, but when you simply push your idiotic, stupid, and undeniably moronic claims again and again and again, without being any closer to truth, that crosses a line that no one must cross.

    As I've observed that you like quotes and drama, go not until I've set up a glass that where you can see the innermost part of you.

    http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame78.html [Broken]

    Any further discussion by anyone on the subject of SR with you is less than pointless. One might as well start yelling at a brick wall, but then that's an insult to the brick wall that it doesn't deserve. Don't expect me, or anyone else who respects their time, profession, and intellect to reply to your next post with anything other than a statement to shut up. If you decide to take this as a victory, by all means go ahead, and add delusion to the list of things your psychologist should worry about. In this place, however, that victory will be as meaningless as the thought experiments you've used to try to prove you right. And one last thing - don't bother trying to whine and ***** about my being arrogant. Those who try to be arrogant and show contempt at arrogance thrust upon them have little right to do so. I would compare you to the blathering of some spoiled brat, but at least he'll grow up. Assuming that you're not some four-year-old with exceptional writing skills for someone his age, you never will.

    Good day, geistkiesel. McNeil Consumer Pharmaceuticals salutes you, for all the Tylenol you've forced the many of us to buy.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  4. Jul 12, 2004 #3
    Yes, it's really that simple. Invariance of light and other physical phenomena are implicit from Galilian's version of the principle of relativity and are affirmed by all experimentation- just because some people didn't know how to add and subtract the relativity velocity between inertial frames to arrive at this invariance and instead had to invent a torturously difficult method of achieving the same purpose doesn't mean that it is wrong.
  5. Jul 12, 2004 #4

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The locking of the other thread was not intended to be a cue for you to start another one. All of your arguments have been debunked, and we are not going to waste the server space doing it again.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook