- #36
PRyckman
- 134
- 0
yea i think he's got you there. And if shining a light from that .99 ship ahead of you, to an observer on Earth seeing that light shone on them, it should be significantly blue shifted correct?
Exactly, you are almost as smart as me.master_coda said:Of course. Because when faced with the possibility that either:
A) You are wrong.
- or -
B) You are smarter than everyone else in the world and so nobody else can comprehend your brilliant ideas.
then the answer is clearly B. Possibility A is clearly impossible.
2clockdude said:['protonman' asked:]
Why is the speed of light invariant in today's view?
(paraphrased)
['selfAdjoint' replied:]
... Second, it turns out to be a Lorentz scalar, meaning it is
preserved under Lorentz transformations, meaning in turn that
it's the same in all inertial frames. ...
[2clockdude replies:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.
And the answer is simple, as follows:
It's because Einstein forced it to be by definition, so this
case of Lorentz invariance has nothing to do with physics (or
with the nature of nature).
Further explanation:
If I decide to force two clocks to obtain one-way light speed
invariance, then of course they are going to obtain it, and of
course my math (in this case, the Lorentz transformations) will
faithfully (if stupidly) reflect this; however, this clearly
has nothing to do with physical science (or with the nature of
nature) because it is a mere convention (just as is the length
of an inch).
Even further explanation:
Forget about the Lorentz transformation math, it merely reflects
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, which has no basis
in either theory or fact. Forget about Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization because it is not physics, it is only a
convention. Also, it produces absolutely asynchronous clocks.
Forget about the so-called theory of special relativity - it is
not really a scientific theory but is merely a definition of
clock synchronization. (SR is based solely on Einstein's definition
of synchronization.)
In conclusion:
To answer my paraphrased version of 'protonman's' important
question, I can say that the one-way light speed invariance in
today's view is irrelevant because it was not given by nature,
but was merely forced by man via a synchronization definition.
You're not in junior high...or are you?Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
2clockdude said:[2clockdude wrote:]
Thinking people would want to know why light's one-way speed
is Lorentz invariant.
[Tom Mattson noted:]
You can think about it all you want, the question has no known
answer. And as has been noted, even if we did have the answer,
that explanation would have some unexplained phenomenon behind it.
... Einstein did not have the power to force the speed of light
to be absolute, "by definition", or any other means. The speed of
light is a Lorentz scalar because that's what it is measured to be.
[2clockdude replies:]
You need to read Einstein's 1905 SR paper before trying to
comment on his "theory."
Here are his own words (which you are probably now reading for
the very first time):
"2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system
of coordinates with the determined velocity c, whether
the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Hence
velocity = light path/time interval
where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the
definition in Section 1."
Did you see the word "definition"?
If you will read Einstein's definition, then you will see that it
merely forces one-way invariance. (John Wheeler's book, Spacetime
Physics_, gives a good description of how clocks are forced to
obtain Einstein's baselessly chosen one-way invariance; I highly
recommend that you add that to your required reading list.)
I haven't got time to educate every Tom, Dick, and Harry about SR.
[Tom Mattson noted:]
... Whether you measure the speed of light one-way or two-way, you
get the same result, namely that the speed of light is a Lorentz
invariant.
[2clockdude replies:]
News Flashes to Tom:
You cannot measure light's one-way speed without two clocks, and
you cannot use two clocks to measure any speed unless they have
been correctly synchronized. Tell us how to correctly synchronize
two clocks.
As of today, no one has ever used two clocks to measure light's
one-way speed, so your above one-way claim is as bogus as the
day is long.
russ_watters said:They are a reality, but like velocity, you can only measure it in relation to someone else. To date, there is no evidence of this "something" causing the motion of matter to slow. It is certainly possible, but without any evidence, it can't be assumed or even theorized. And it works perfectly well to use the current explanation: that time itself is slowing.
All of the laws of the universe 'just are' - either that or they were made by God for a reason only he knows. Either way, you do have to live with that answer.
protonman said:I don't care about getting them published. Besides the world is probably not ready for my ideas and would most likely reject them due to their ignorance.
2clockdude said:[2clockdude replies:]
I know what you were saying, and (as even 'russ_watters' openly
stated), Einstein's definition of clock synchronization yields
merely foregone conclusions (which of course have no place in
science, either theoretical or experimental).
[2clockdude continues:]
As both I and 'russ_watters' know, the critical goal is two
correctly (or absolutely) synchronous clocks, and we can be
sure that Einstein failed to find such things because he
admitted that he could not determine absolute simultaneity.
2clockdude said:[Tom Mattson noted:]
[2clockdude replies:]
I know what you were saying, and (as even 'russ_watters' openly
stated), Einstein's definition of clock synchronization yields
merely foregone conclusions
[2clockdude replies:]
You misread me; at no point did I even hint that the Taylor/Wheeler
'team' had 'de-bunked' SR; what I did say was that they had presented
an excellent description of Einstein's clock synchronization process,
a description which clearly shows the circularity involved. In other
words, Wheeler shows exactly how Einstein's clocks are merely forced
by man to obtain one-way light speed invariance. (Here is why this
is circular: If I force clocks to obtain one-way invariance, then,
by George, they will most certainly obtain it!)
[I can't afford their latest edition. I have the 1966 version, and
in it, said description starts on page 18 of the section entitled
"The Geometry of Spacetime."]
[Tom Mattson noted:]
Actually, the one-way speed of light has been measured, with decaying
pions, just as I said. See T. Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260
(10/1/64).
[2clockdude responds:]
Nope, that was merely a source-independency test.
[See http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html --
Section VII.]
[2clockdude continues:]
As both I and 'russ_watters' know, the critical goal is two
correctly (or absolutely) synchronous clocks, and we can be
sure that Einstein failed to find such things because he
admitted that he could not determine absolute simultaneity.