Einstein was Wrong: My Theory of Relativity

Science and Technology
101

kkwan, one posting before you said that using a clock instead of measuring time ‘directly’ is a flaw of MMX like experiments, and now you say that not using a clock is a flaw of these kind of experiments.
The LT just do not allow for causes to happen after their effects. If you think it does, then show me. Order of events must be preserved, not their timely distance. Show me time must be constant for the preservation of causality.
Latenight edit:
Just found this pearl here]:

In a 1964 paper, Erik Christopher Zeeman showed that the causality preserving property, a condition that is weaker in a mathematical sense than the invariance of the speed of light, is enough to assure that the coordinate transformations are the Lorentz transformations.
End of edit. Are you imagining effects overtaking their causes on the universal all pervading motorway of events? %-P Without time dilation and length contraction, classical mechanics and electromechanics are inconsistent. So now, what is your stance? Are SR and LT valid? Do you understand that time dilation and length contraction are mathematically derived from the LT (i.e. follow logically from the LT), and that in SR the LT are derived from the simple principle that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in inertial frames? Sorry kkwan, this is all such unsound reasoning. You are just googling counterarguments, without any understanding of what you are arguing against.
102

Gdb,
I understand relativity very clearly and have read extensively on it! You are begging me to accept it. I clearly understand where you think you are coming from. You assert that there is no NEED for assuming a fixed frame of reference. This is causing all the problems in theoretical physics because the perception it ironically “fixed” in your mind to work. The problem is that with this assumption, it blinds you (and others) from ever being able to see nature appropriately and more rationally. What you are not aware of yet is how I am able to construct an argument with the assumption of nothing to what particles actually look like. Things like the double-slit experiment present today’s scientists with a strangeness that actually isn’t strange at all: that light is a particle and a wave and why; that light doesn’t travel in simply in a translation but in a real altering direction also; why it appears to be in multiple locations at once. I was shocked to discover that the Uncertainty Principle was more literal than simply a practical presumption of our mere capability to determine something! This irrationality, again, is due to the false assumption applied to the Non-Perfect Cosmological Principle, the fixity of space, and abandonment of foundational logic due to Godel’s Incompleteness theorem.
Other things that you aren’t ‘aware’ of is the impact of the cultural influences on the philosophical underpinning of science that developed in the early part of the last century that brought about these mindsets. Thomas Kuhn recognized these as “paradigms”. Prior to that, Popper proposed that science, for instance, should be about falsification. He recognized the problem with induction and thought that this alone should fix it. Scientists jumped on the bandwagon because it seemed simple to demarcate science from pseudo-science, added the other philosophical arguments they appreciated and closed the door to further philosophical and logical fault analysis.
In the sixties, when it was discovered that there existed a background radiation, they presumed falsely that it could only have one possible explanation. They base it on the assumption that what they are detecting is heat from the presumed inflation of the Universe rather than, say, the possibility that the radiation represents even further galaxies and stars.
The determination of the age of the Universe itself is flawed on the assumption that space expands linearly. Even plain math can demonstrate that if the Universe is expanding linearly from our perspective, it must have a space that expands exponentially. Yet, only recently (1999) did they even have evidence to assert acceleration.?.
I haven’t proven anything here yet as I eventually will. But my point is that there are way too many conclusions based on those very primal assumptions that are collectively causing a delusional set of explanations that cannot be reconciled. In order to fix these, it is essential to go back and find an approach that combines the disconnected explanations and resolves them to a common cause.
Whether you want to admit it or not, fixed space is empirically superior to claims that base themselves on NON-INTUITION (which contradicts our own capabilities of reasoning by our senses and logic). Instead of approaching reality with the assumption that it is okay to accept the weird explanations, isn’t it wiser to redress the issue with explanations that fit with normalcy? It pisses me off when I see the scientific community feign rationality over the religious and pseudoscientific but use the same faulty reasoning. You don’t say, yeah, those six-thousand-year-old-Earth people are crazy to assume such a young Earth, then turn around and say, well, the Universe is only three times older than the Earth itself! They’re making the same error in a secular way. Why not say, though things appear the way it does, is it more reasonable to NOT derive a story (like the Big Bang), assume that there is a more rational unknown explanation that provides justice yet to be found?
And to credit math with its power, it requires accepting that something intrinsic about it is real – something that the science philosophers of the last century deemed unreal! You can’t have your cake and eat it too. If observation via the empirical method is all that science should be about, then those who believe that should just stick to it without trying to justify it and leave it to those of us who believe in the necessity of logical analysis in the approach to truth to theorize.

103

Scott,
Instead of reacting on my arguments, you start a rant against the blindness of the scientific community. You refer to an argument you have not given yet (and the small part you gave was simplistic and wrong). Now, additional to just a ‘small correction’ of the concepts of ‘Einstein’ (which you say does not touch the math, but you are preparing a mathematical proof that it is wrong), you refer to the double split experiment, the age of the universe, and the cause of the background radiation, and that the scientific community is completely wrong about it. And you refer to Gödel, as if Gödel’s incompleteness theorem has had any impact on on any empirical science (you can be sure, it hasn’t). Again you claim that your ideas (which we haven’t seen yet) are ‘empirically superior’ but you do not refer to any empirical data which show that would be the case. Instead, you just are saying that ‘fixed-space’ is in contradiction with ‘NON-INTUITION’, as if science would bother about that. Science must explain a maximum of empirical data as detailed as possible, based on as little assumptions as possible. When intuitions or common sense do not fit these, then these intuitions are wrong.
Also your remark about math is fully beside the point. Mathematics is applied logic: on mathematical concepts. If we find a phenomenon in nature that fits certain mathematical concepts, then we can immediate harvest the logical conclusions that mathematicians already made (but the results are then empirically tested whenever possible). That has nothing to do with mathematics being ‘real’. Physicists can be mathematical platonists or not, that does not matter. Math just works because it is based on logic.
To call scientific reasoning as ‘faulty as religious reasoning’ totally misses the point that established theories are empirically proven, the best proof being that you and me are using technology that is based on these theories. On the contrary, it is you that has no empirical support for your ideas, just faulty reasoning. It is you who present yourself as religious zealot.
DarronS is absolutely right in his posting here], and you made it even worse by mentioning all those other theories that are also wrongly interpreted.

104
Scott, Instead of reacting on my arguments, you start a rant against the blindness of the scientific community. You refer to an argument you have not given yet (and the small part you gave was simplistic and wrong). Now, additional to just a 'small correction' of the concepts of 'Einstein' (which you say does not touch the math, but you are preparing a mathematical proof that it is wrong), you refer to the double split experiment, the age of the universe, and the cause of the background radiation, and that the scientific community is completely wrong about it. And you refer to Gödel, as if Gödel's incompleteness theorem has had any impact on on any empirical science (you can be sure, it hasn't). Again you claim that your ideas (which we haven't seen yet) are 'empirically superior' but you do not refer to any empirical data which show that would be the case. Instead, you just are saying that 'fixed-space' is in contradiction with 'NON-INTUITION', as if science would bother about that. Science must explain a maximum of empirical data as detailed as possible, based on as little assumptions as possible. When intuitions or common sense do not fit these, then these intuitions are wrong.
First of all, I was reacting to your 'argument'. The problem is, it seems that I'd have to go way back on particular issues of which you are apparently blind to. Yes Godel did have a significant impact. What the foundationalists and then the logical positivists were trying to do was to show that logical analysis was the significant way to approach the theoretical aspects of science until Godel's argument, one of Turing's argument on the inability for a machine to be able to compute a perfect logical base (since it's discreet) and the Uncertainty Principle are some of the illogical concepts that enabled a push towards the acceptance of the non-intuitional concepts of science. [Don't bother pointing out that Einstein published earlier. I'm aware.] This irrational mindset was produced in the mind to preserve concepts that were meant to achieve a savings of a Deistic God. It's politics and you as well as anyone who adapts this without appropriate skepticism are suckers and feeding into this crap!
Also your remark about math is fully beside the point. Mathematics is applied logic: on mathematical concepts. If we find a phenomenon in nature that fits certain mathematical concepts, then we can immediate harvest the logical conclusions that mathematicians already made. That has nothing to do with mathematics being 'real'. Physicists can be mathematical platonists or not, that does not matter. Math just works because it is based on logic. To call scientific reasoning as 'faulty as religious reasoning' totally misses the point that established theories are empirically proven, the best proof being that you and me are using technology that is based on these theories. On the contrary, it is you that has no empirical support for your ideas, just faulty reasoning. It is you who present yourself as religious zealot.
Obviously, you can't follow straight logic. You keep blurting out that all the proof, since it was empirically established, certifies that the theoreticians that explain them MUST be correct. I've already given you and Darron pure logical justification for skepticism. I've also pointed out numerous times that the explanation (the theory) can fit as a story to the empirical evidence or presumptions as well as be verifiable and apparently supportive by its predictable powers. It doesn't follow that those explanations are correct nor do they assure only one unique explanation other than the limits of one's imagination. The logic has been glazed over for preserving particular favored heroes without respect to proper criticisms. If what I say is true, a lot of scientific research would be closed in certain physical areas because with the empirical evidence they do have, it points to what I know better than the superstitions and purposeful neglect of true and real empirical capacities. For example, Inflation Theory is totally ad hoc explanation to create a story for why the Universe appears to be so young. It's traditional filling-in-the-gaps that those same supporters only point to religious people to use. The biggest joke is the finale of the claim that background radiation closed the issue with respect to the Static State hypotheses without warrant. With respect to Relativity, the issue I brought up in this thread as my first argument of my greater theory, I showed how the 'intuitional' aspects of Einstein's thoughts are (A) Historically developed with respect to previous misunderstood rationalizing with observations and experiments, such as those that supposedly PROVE that there is no aether. And each new discovery, rather than fix older mistakes, they build on to them in an evolutionary way that is meant to preserve the credibility of the previous theories rather than throw them away and restructure from the bottom up. It's as if (and no doubt, real) that the institutions are safeguarding those individuals from being forgotten. Emphasis on research and other scholastic ventures place it on authorities. It's like Disney trying to update their copyrights on what should be public domain for the sake of a continuous profit. (B) Though we in the skeptic community question other things with respect to Occam's razor and the oddities of realities that don't fit our present personal capability of everyday reasoning, it's given a protected status for particular things at the extremes of science. "Worm holes" come to mind! And though intense gravitational objects that are so strong that they keep light from escaping is absolutely reasonable without a Hawking to have presented it, the strange assumptions keep adding on. It is claimed that nothing can ever escape a black hole, but I anticipated energy jets that should resolve this, and sure enough, this is determined and yet the explanation is brought up separately as if that energy had nothing to do with the matter.?? No fixed background to space? This rationally says that not even matter itself should have any fixed physical properties that we can identify. We should have electrons all varying sizes everywhere if this were true. We should have planets and stars infinitely varying in size and yet act as if its rules were relative to it. It would have to be chaotic. And if you want to be specific to a true empirical experiment that justifies Einstein? Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won't survive. And if this is already agreed to, and yet it is argued that since it is impossible to do those experiments, then you've immunized your theory from falsification! It's impossible to disprove theories when you are told which ones require impossible empirical justification and which people should just simply be ignored as "nuts" or "pseudoscience" unless they can do the impossible! Einstein's relativity faults: A) The assumption, cleverly misrepresented as being complete, The Cosmological Principle. It's interesting to note how the title itself requires the normal complete principle to be presented as The Perfect Cosmological Principle.
Special relativity is based on two postulates which are contradictory in classical mechanics: 1. The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity). ...
This doesn't point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work. But it opens the door to stories about how things were so different in an early Universe. Then why not allow other magical explanations? In the beginning, all was chaos, and light was everywhere and it was too hot for matter to exist the way we EMPIRICALLY observe it in this day!! And how can these explanations be 'connected' as evidence to the way we see things today? It's logically impossible to assert. Where's the predictably in such claims, if it is to be tested? Time travel? Space travel? It's well placed beyond anyone from trying to disprove. If this first postulate is to be logically valid, it is stated without sufficient quantifiers to determine which of the possible meanings it is supposed to apply to. "The laws of physics..." ? All laws, some particular laws, or, merely the apparent laws? I understand it only works for assuming what is apparent, not necessarily what is in reality. ...and...
2. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or of the motion of the source of the light.
"Light", here, is again improperly quantified. "...the light", for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is "the" light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one's understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same. It is like Anslem's Cosmological Argument. You know, define a concept meaning absolutely all, call it God, and then declare God in all it's variant meanings are the same, and voila, He exists! It is one certainty that with such obscurity, an infinite set of explanations both more bizarre and more down-to-Earth can all equally be envisioned. It should be up to you to tell me exactly the terms being used in a theory specifically apply to. I got this above quote from Wikipedia yet I have still found nowhere that these have been explained better. And these do NOT require a mathematical formula to explain. They require logical/philosophical definitions of the terms which everybody can follow up front -- not requiring you to have twenty irrelevant courses in other aspects of science to qualitatively decide if its worth the investment to study. By the time one has invested such time (and money), they are psychologically so invested that they feel they must justify that investment with the credentials they've earned. My original posting demonstrated that any particular defined concept of light from one perspective is lost from another perspective. The program signal that I used as a defining concept of light from one particular inertial frame is not the same as that from another different inertial frame. What one defines as "the light" that they measure, is a different phenomena from different inertial frames. So, if I sent out a specific wavelength, like red, for instance towards a ship that then measures that very same wave from their vantage point will be shifted and no longer be red. Thus, they are different phenomena. This is empirically true as well. Otherwise, shifting couldn't rationalize the universe expanding. This is an absolute logical disproof of relativity because they are the underlying postulates that make the rest of the theory true. If you can't follow it, then I say that there is something wrong with your capability to reason logically. And I don't care if the whole world but myself recognizes this. I know they do. But change doesn't come easy. The 'paradigm' has its own inertia and may require the old hats to die out before something new can be accepted. Too much real investment in projects based on these assumptions employ too many people to be just abandoned by the most logical assessment. And so, I may be your looney here and now, but time will prove me right.
105
This irrational mindset was produced in the mind to preserve concepts that were meant to achieve a savings of a Deistic God. It's politics and you as well as anyone who adapts this without appropriate skepticism are suckers and feeding into this crap!
Sigh... You are getting higher and higher on the crackpot scale...
It's as if (and no doubt, real) that the institutions are safeguarding those individuals from being forgotten. Emphasis on research and other scholastic ventures place it on authorities.
Still higher...
Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won't survive. And if this is already agreed to, and yet it is argued that since it is impossible to do those experiments, then you've immunized your theory from falsification!
You forget that it is your theory that is immunised against falsification. The experiments that can be done all point to the fact that SR is correct.
It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.
Higher...
Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is "the" light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one's understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.
It says 'speed of light', not its frequency or amplitude. Do you have any empirical proof that the speed of light in vacuum differs dependent on its frequency?
So, if I sent out a specific wavelength, like red, for instance towards a ship that then measures that very same wave from their vantage point will be shifted and no longer be red. Thus, they are different phenomena. This is empirically true as well.
This is just relativistic doppler shift, which can perfectly be derived from the LT, accords with experimental evidence, and is based on the constancy of the speed of light for every observer.
And I don't care if the whole world but myself recognizes this. I know they do.
...highest category on the crackpot scale reached! I suggest you try to refute the simple argument with the light clock here], and then come back. Really, it is a very simple proof, no higher, impressive math needed. Also, take note of the experimental evidence mentioned in the article.
106

I used a perfectly logical deductive style to show how relativity fails on its premises. It is a flawless argument. In this regards, it isn’t even required of me at this point to present the positive aspects I add on it. How, at this point in the argument, can a logical argument that presents a flaw absolutely be required to be falsifiable? This criterion couldn’t even be relevant here.
Again, no experiment in the empirical system can “point to the fact that [any theory] is correct.” The most it can do is to support it. It doesn’t rule out other equally valid ways of describing the theory using the same math.

It says ‘speed of light’, not its frequency or amplitude. Do you have any empirical proof that the speed of light in vacuum differs dependent on its frequency?
Your changing the argument from my emphasis on the non-quantified factor of the terms to the definition of "speed of light". I took a step back in the last post to argue the first part, that Einstein's theory is wrong on logical grounds. Ignore my positive addition for the time being because it is a different argument on its own. As to the specific wavelength example I understand that the Doppler shift is the valid explanation and that the math accounts for this very well. But it is a Relativistic Doppler you point to and it implies that the actual information of the light goes at the same actual speed, not merely its perceived or measured speed. Pulses of red light X seconds long with Y second intervals cannot transmit its content equally in all directions (why I used the program example to demonstrate.) The light will appear shifted from those different directions, but if you measured the total length of the information divided by its time, those values will also be different. This means that those measured durations represent the speed of the very exact same light not to be 'c'. Otherwise, you lead into an even stranger phenomena: that information can be determined before it can reach the destination for measurement. If I send out a stream of information that is 1hr long while you are speeding at close to the speed of light away from it, you cannot know the full program from beginning to end if the end hasn't even reached you yet. The perceived program length divided by the actual length (1hr) is the same as its measured speed for the wave at a point. (...because the speeds we are all dealing with here are constant, so the average velocity equals its instantaneous velocity.) Whether you look at time as slowing down from the observer on the ship moving away or, as I would put it, matter itself slowing down due to its translation through fixed space, these identical ways of looking at it doesn't solve the problem. The limitations of the devices to detect and inform the observer of its measure points not to the actual fact of the information because they contradict each other when the same message is sent in exactly the same way from the other direction. That is, the hour-long program being sent from ahead of the ship will pass through the receiving antenna within a very short period of time, while the program from the opposite direction still has a relatively long time until its completely capable of being received from the antenna. Thus the information of the actual [wave] lengths cannot be measured the same. If you measured the speed of a wavelength at the point you received the program from the front of the craft, a measure of the program from behind cannot be measured until its information reaches you. This means that if in fact you measure a speed of a light segment from the ship and find that it is both "c" from either direction, the perception of the phenomena is certainly only a perception and must not represent what actually occurs. So the perception of the reality of any measure isn't the actual measure of the phenomena. It has to be inferred with the known facts. Also, when you use a source of light that is on the ship, you have to consider that it is itself being created by the matter in translation with the ship. It limits the created light to the time of the ship. This light is not created equally: the light created from a different inertial frame is not the same phenomena. A photon created at a ship going infinitely close to the speed of light, would take an infinite time to be created while one from the background frame is able to create an infinite photons in the same time. Compare: zero photons created vs. an infinite. Clearly, they are different phenomena within the same universe.
107

Extention:
If the universe has no fixed point, then every frame of reference has real frames that exist that are both in a higher velocity and one in a slower velocity relative to it. But then this implies that if a craft moving close to the speed of light with respect to one inertial frame has the potential to never be able to create a single photon from that ship while the relatively stationary frame can create an infinite photons, then, the slower relative frame to that should have an infinite times an infinite capability to produce photons.
That slower frame will also have another slower frame of reference that can produce an infinite X infinite X infinite capabilty to produce photons. This process would have to continue infinitely and is absurd.
Therefore, the assumption that space can be considered ‘relative’ leads to a contradiction and is therefore false. Thus, the only other alternative is to assume a fixed space.

108

Positive Proposal: (My Theory part of the argument)
With the establishment of fixed space, then nothing can go faster than the speed of light with relation to itself and using the same math that determines another relative frame faster than it tells us that as matter speed up, its translation through space unravels it until it is pure energy at “c”. Then the contextual information that contains matter as it transforms to energy or vice versa is constant. This can only happen if each point of space itself is traveling at one unique speed. So nothing can go slower than “c” either. As instantaneous points of matter represent a relative fixed and contained reality compared to other energy forms, then whatever it is made of is cyclic and suggest that they be points made up of curved directions.
This establishes my positive theory: that every point in space has one fixed speed in a fixed space. Since we measure the fastest speed in relation to a vector linear direction, then that constant is either “c” as measured by the speed of light, or approaches a limit slightly faster than that.

109

Sorry, Scott, I haven’t seen any flawless argument of you, only a lot of mixup of concepts, or unclear concepts.
Show me where the error here] is, and we might be able to talk.
In you last posting, you get out what you put into it. By defining some frames of reference slow and others fast, you get at the conclusion that there must be a fixed frame. Your example with the photons does not make any sense. Again, you see all from just one frame of reference.

110
Sorry, Scott, I haven't seen any flawless argument of you, only a lot of mixup of concepts, or unclear concepts. Show me where the error here] is, and we might be able to talk. In you last posting, you get out what you put into it. By defining some frames of reference slow and others fast, you get at the conclusion that there must be a fixed frame. Your example with the photons does not make any sense. Again, you see all from just one frame of reference.
I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation. You can't go further than that unless you show why my particular logic is flawed. Informing me that you cannot make sense of it only confirms that you do not follow its logic without telling me why. If you are going close to the speed of light, under relativity, is this time frame not slowed down relative to the background (or last) inertial frame? So doesn't this assure us that the atoms and molecules that make up all objects within that faster frame also slow down? Why or why not?
111
I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation.
Which logic? That from the beginning of the thread? You are hopelessly confused there. What time dilation says is that when I look at the rocket flying by that I see all clocks and processes on board going slower. This has nothing to do with your observation that a one hour program sent from behind takes longer to be received by the rocket, and that the same one hour program goes faster when sent from the front. If you do the calculation, taking everything into account (speed of light, speed of the rocket relative to me, time dilation of the rocket relative to me), then you will see that for the crew the program from behind takes (T is duration of the program, t is the time for the crew): t = T * sqrt(((1 + (v/c))/(1 - (v/c))) And from the front: t = T * sqrt(((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c))) As example, take v = 0.6*c then from the front the program is finished twice as fast, from behind twice as slow. From my perspective however it took 2.5 times longer from behind, and 0.625 towards the rocket. (t = T / (1 - (v/c)), t = T / (1 + (v/c)) respectively, i.e. the values without taking time dilation into account). It is also not the case that the processes themselves slow down. It is only that for me, seeing the rocket fly by, all the processes on board seem to slow down, and all the objects seem shortened in the direction of flight. For the crew of the rocket nothing changes, and every electromagnetic experiment they do on board, including the measuring of the speed of light, gives exactly the same answers as when I do the experiments. I would find that their clocks are running slow, and their measuring rods are funny short, but if they divide these for me shorter distances with their slower times, they find that the speed of light is c. And of course, the crew of the rocket sees me flying by, and finds my clocks are slow, and my rods are short, but they will see that my measuring of the speed of light with my clocks and my rods again is exactly c. The shortening of rods and slowing down of clocks is not a physical effect, but a coordinate transformation I must take into account when observing objects that are moving relative to me.
This doesn't point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.
Should that count as a logical refutation of the principle of relativity??? You are joking!
"Light", here, is again improperly quantified. "...the light", for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is "the" light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one's understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.
Again, it is about the speed of light, not its frequency. The frequency transformation is accounted for in the relativistic doppler shift.
No fixed background to space? This rationally says that not even matter itself should have any fixed physical properties that we can identify. We should have electrons all varying sizes everywhere if this were true. We should have planets and stars infinitely varying in size and yet act as if its rules were relative to it. It would have to be chaotic.
What is this for BS. SR shows how we must transform the properties of objects that are in rest to us to their properties when they are moving relative to us.
Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won't survive.
So what according to your theory would happen to protons and atomic nuclei when brought close to the speed of light? Why do they survive? The way you see connections with the cosmological principle, the age of the universe, the uncertainty principle, etc. are ridiculous. You do as if the whole of science is one big conspiracy to hide their errors.
112
I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation.
Which logic? That from the beginning of the thread? You are hopelessly confused there. What time dilation says is that when I look at the rocket flying by that I see all clocks and processes on board going slower. This has nothing to do with your observation that a one hour program sent from behind takes longer to be received by the rocket, and that the same one hour program goes faster when sent from the front. If you do the calculation, taking everything into account (speed of light, speed of the rocket relative to me, time dilation of the rocket relative to me), then you will see that for the crew the program from behind takes (T is duration of the program, t is the time for the crew): t = T * sqrt(((1 + (v/c))/(1 - (v/c))) And from the front: t = T * sqrt(((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c))) As example, take v = 0.6*c then from the front the program is finished twice as fast, from behind twice as slow. From my perspective however it took 2.5 times longer from behind, and 0.625 towards the rocket. (t = T / (1 - (v/c)), t = T / (1 + (v/c)) respectively, i.e. the values without taking time dilation into account). I'm unclear as to what you think I'm in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly. You're not seeming to see the relevance of the difference between the determination due to perception and the conclusions drawn to actual reality due to them. I'm seeing that you understand what I understand and yet you're missing how the definitions, logic, and the language shift in meanings as the theory of Relativity from Einstein proceeds. You observe, A, B, &, C, that deductively infer conclusion D. But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition. While it is true that in deduction, the premises guarantees the conclusion, if it is questionable to reality (by appearance), then it is possible that one or more of the premises are disconnected by some linguistic error, relevance issue, or missing premises, among others issues unexamined. If sufficient data is missing, is it best to consider the functional validity of the conclusion, even if it has predictable capacity that you can induce later, or is it best to suspend the whole argument from absolution and investigate a new way to fix the argument itself? For practical reasons, while it may be wise to continue with the theory on a tentative basis, it is still best to investigate the logical means of explanation until an explanation provides a match of the conclusion with the same capacity of the observers with respect to the premises. That is, we must forcefully find an interpretation that completely takes the discomfort of the rationale from our ordinary means of understanding. There is a real reason why a conclusion can appear to be true and yet is contrary or contradictory to our sensibility. While nature has no imposition to make sense to our rationality, it makes better sense to remain skeptical and try to resolve this rather than just accept it fact for its practical implications.
It is also not the case that the processes themselves slow down. It is only that for me, seeing the rocket fly by, all the processes on board seem to slow down, and all the objects seem shortened in the direction of flight. For the crew of the rocket nothing changes, and every electromagnetic experiment they do on board, including the measuring of the speed of light, gives exactly the same answers as when I do the experiments. I would find that their clocks are running slow, and their measuring rods are funny short, but if they divide these for me shorter distances with their slower times, they find that the speed of light is c. And of course, the crew of the rocket sees me flying by, and finds my clocks are slow, and my rods are short, but they will see that my measuring of the speed of light with my clocks and my rods again is exactly c. The shortening of rods and slowing down of clocks is not a physical effect, but a coordinate transformation I must take into account when observing objects that are moving relative to me.
This doesn't point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.
Should that count as a logical refutation of the principle of relativity??? You are joking!
Yes, in regards to the whole argument in context. If a premise lacks clarity by fault of its inability to determine a precise definition that makes the meaning of it insufficiently unique, then the conclusions based on it can only be just as obscure.
"Light", here, is again improperly quantified. "...the light", for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is "the" light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one's understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.
Again, it is about the speed of light, not its frequency. The frequency transformation is accounted for in the relativistic doppler shift.
This is an example of the obscurity imposed. You are following the unstated assumption that "light" in this understanding is a perfect point with the contextual information of its particular wavelength embedded in it. A wave as understood by you and others is as a magical entity that you simply label as "transcendent" and can travel through an essence you label as "nothing"; "space" is confusingly both something AND nothing, certainly illusive and real, at the same time. [Although waves can be described as having perpendicular way of propagating that is different to compression, the label, "transcendent", should alert you to how the originators applied it to the way they see light.] "Speed of light" means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as "fixed". Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects. Another way of this saying this: Everything is uncertain, except the certainty that nothing is certain. This rationality assures that whatever anyone can say about reality is true and false in exactly the same universal way. Paradoxes exist as reality to this mentality. I go on the assumption that paradoxes don't actually exist but that contradictions themselves are relative perspectives of illusion to a reality that has a solution elsewhere undetermined (as yet).
The way you see connections with the cosmological principle, the age of the universe, the uncertainty principle, etc. are ridiculous. You do as if the whole of science is one big conspiracy to hide their errors.
It's obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete). I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I'm not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.
113
I'm unclear as to what you think I'm in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly.
No, you don't:
Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.
Bold by me. That statement is wrong. You cannot say that we have the same understanding, and at the same time write what you did in your first posting. At 0.6c the program sent from behind is seen by the crew as taking 2 hours, instead of 1. (Which btw also means that they must tune in on half of the frequency in order to receive it, and they see the program going at hhaallff ooff tthhee ssppeeeedd, if you know what I mean... Both effects are phenomena of the doppler shift.)
But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition.
Exactly. But not with any empirical data. Too bad for our regular intuition. In our daily intuition we only are used to velocities << c, so we do not notice these effects.
If sufficient data is missing,...
Which data is missing? Even the twin 'paradox' has been empirically confirmed.
Yes, in regards to the whole argument in context. If a premise lacks clarity by fault of its inability to determine a precise definition that makes the meaning of it insufficiently unique, then the conclusions based on it can only be just as obscure.
I don't know what is unclear about the relativity principle: applying it to Maxwell theory it leads to the Lorentz transformations which were confirmed, and are used in technology every day. Particle accelerators, GPS, existence of anti-matter, explanation of nuclear energy thanks E=mc², etc.
A wave as understood by you and others is as a magical entity that you simply label as "transcendent" and can travel through an essence you label as "nothing"; "space" is confusingly both something AND nothing, certainly illusive and real, at the same time. [Although waves can be described as having perpendicular way of propagating that is different to compression, the label, "transcendent", should alert you to how the originators applied it to the way they see light.]
This is complete rubbish you write here.
"Speed of light" means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as "fixed".
What is your problem? If I do an experiment to determine the speed of light I do that in a laboratory that is in rest in my frame of reference. Then I find c. 'Fixed' means 'fixed in my frame of reference'. There is nothing problematic to that (or subjective!).
Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects.
What a rubbish again. I have already written once that Einstein regretted that he had called his theory 'relativity theory', that he'd better called it 'invariance theory'. For every observer observing an event the 'pythagorean distance in space-time' is exactly the same (x² + y² + z² + w² = d², where w = -ict (x, y, z, t being the coordinates of a single observer), and d the space-time distance. So all events are just as real as before, but to find the coordinates for another observer, one must take the relative velocity into account. There is nothing subjective about that. Again: you have not even started to understand what is relativity about.
It's obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete).
You will never complete it. Think about what you should be able to accomplish: - basing your theory on less basic principles, or at least as much (but then more according to daily intuition...), - do not add any new entities (Occam's razor), especially if we cannot detect them independently (ether, 'fixed space'), - derive from these principles all the confirmed experiments and applications of relativity, - predict phenomena in which your theory deviates from relativity, that can actually be measured. Beside the point that I am sure you are wrong anyway, you will never succeed in mastering the higher mathematics like tensor calculus that you need for a thorough presentation of your theory: when you already fail to give a correct mathematical description of your own example, the rest will surely be way too complicated for you. But: I hereby already give my excuses in case you get the Nobel price. I will confess for everybody how I underestimated you!
I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I'm not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.
No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don't, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to 'does not fit my intuitions'. Your remarks about the physics community hiding their errors shows what you really are: a physics crackpot.
114
I'm unclear as to what you think I'm in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly.
No, you don't:
Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.
Bold by me. That statement is wrong. You cannot say that we have the same understanding, and at the same time write what you did in your first posting. At 0.6c the program sent from behind is seen by the crew as taking 2 hours, instead of 1. (Which btw also means that they must tune in on half of the frequency in order to receive it, and they see the program going at hhaallff ooff tthhee ssppeeeedd, if you know what I mean... Both effects are phenomena of the doppler shift.) This is funny...you misread my accent. The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant: that is, the message would have to be received that way (an hour long per hour-long program) if its signal, being represented as an analogue is consistent with the time dilation that may be argued to still be measured the same because your slower perception of time could still enable you to actually see the program an hour long. If your time (on ship) slows down so that an hour of your perception is doubled compared to the other frame, and the length of the program stream is stretched to double, you would see the program running in apparent real time. I was building my case and this sentence anticipated what one might at first assume believing in this. I followed it up afterwards by showing how such assumption could not be acceptable even on this (false) assumption because, even if this could be true, the message from the front would be mismatched: the full quote continued with this:
... But wait...since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long.
In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be "c" regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn't possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above). The Doppler shift works precisely because of these differences. The Doppler shift, here, is in direct relation to its relative speed differences at the ship, not an independent factor of light that just happens to cooperate in sync with its speed. So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn't constant. Your time on the ship doesn't alter depending on which direction you face; you either slow down or speed up, not both.
But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition.
Exactly. But not with any empirical data. Too bad for our regular intuition. In our daily intuition we only are used to velocities << c, so we do not notice these effects.
Why should the restriction to velocities "<<c" now be allowed? According to the theory (SR), we still couldn't possibly notice these effects because it assured us that the physics in those frames will appear the same, regardless. I assure you that no experiment done so far is even capable of showing, let alone possible to demonstrate a clock that can be accelerated to close to c, yet decelerate back to Earth, remain molecularly whole (No physical change in ALL its properties (mass & structure) should occur relating its original sendoff to the final return.) If this experiment could possibly be done, the clock would no longer be of the same exact physical form and the closer it approached c, the less likely it would be anything more than a highly radiated clump of matter unrecognizably reduced by fission.
If sufficient data is missing,...
Which data is missing? Even the twin 'paradox' has been empirically confirmed.
Just answered. The experiments are insufficient to determine what I proposed above. Notice in the link how it slights over the fact that the one twin (or organism) who travels would be physically altered. Re: "If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. ..." For Relativity to be consistent, nothing external from the moving twin could cause it to change because this would assure that the physics from the perspective of the moving twin would be different. Even if the acceleration/deceleration factors were accounted for all damaging effects, there would still be damage through the constant velocity travel period through space. The SR/GR theory implies this thought experiment: Imagine if you had created a formula given identical components to construct two identical objects. One person with the formula and copy of components accelerates to 99.99% c while another remains at home. If they both set their watches to enable the person in the moving craft to finish acceleration, and then they both built their twin objects, the twin object in constant motion steals away the excuse of gravitational or acceleration effects. These objects would then make the paradox real under Einstein's conditions. To make this sink home better, assume that the objects in question are created as conscious beings and that their creators both die off before telling these twins about each other. Then if they could somehow perceive each other in their different frames of reference, by SR, they should not be able to tell which one of them is moving relative to the other. Does this lack of knowledge assure that they would not be able to determine their truth (that one of them is at a faster velocity relative to the other?) Not only is this absurd, I predict that the twin object in relative motion would sincerely still be physically altered. It's transition through more space/unit time would certainly assure more radioactive destruction from the massive rays it would encounter. That is, the more relatively fixed background DOES affect the two twins differently inferring a fixed space.
115
No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don't, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to 'does not fit my intuitions'.
He keeps repeating that, even though multiple people have told him the universe is under no obligation to conform to our intuitions. Scott, please explain how Global Positioning Systems work.
116
This is complete rubbish you write here.
Oh.. and I forgot to point out that in the last post that the paradox would still appear as the age of one of the created twins of my example would still be aging different too! If they both, without the knowledge of their prior history decided to accelerate together at the same time to meet each other in a common frame of reference between the two, there ages would still differ and provide the proof that there does exist a fixed background.
"Speed of light" means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as "fixed".
What is your problem? If I do an experiment to determine the speed of light I do that in a laboratory that is in rest in my frame of reference. Then I find c. 'Fixed' means 'fixed in my frame of reference'. There is nothing problematic to that (or subjective!).
Likewise, my created twins can do this experiment and find the measure of light to be the same. But you certainly couldn't deny the evidence of their age differences should they meet up!
Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects.
What a rubbish again. I have already written once that Einstein regretted that he had called his theory 'relativity theory', that he'd better called it 'invariance theory'. For every observer observing an event the 'pythagorean distance in space-time' is exactly the same (x² + y² + z² + w² = d², where w = -ict (x, y, z, t being the coordinates of a single observer), and d the space-time distance. So all events are just as real as before, but to find the coordinates for another observer, one must take the relative velocity into account. There is nothing subjective about that. Again: you have not even started to understand what is relativity about.
I'm hoping by what I've already replied to that you can see that I do understand this and that I've shown what is wrong about it using my extended version of the paradox.
It's obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete).
You will never complete it. Think about what you should be able to accomplish: - basing your theory on less basic principles, or at least as much (but then more according to daily intuition...), - do not add any new entities (Occam's razor), especially if we cannot detect them independently (ether, 'fixed space'), - derive from these principles all the confirmed experiments and applications of relativity, - predict phenomena in which your theory deviates from relativity, that can actually be measured. Beside the point that I am sure you are wrong anyway, you will never succeed in mastering the higher mathematics like tensor calculus that you need for a thorough presentation of your theory: when you already fail to give a correct mathematical description of your own example, the rest will surely be way too complicated for you. But: I hereby already give my excuses in case you get the Nobel price. I will confess for everybody how I underestimated you!
I realize the apparent arrogance of what I'm claiming is not the best desirable trait to have on me. My confidence will persuade you differently in time -- assuming I can do the job before I die. I'm assuming though that even if I succeeded, I'm guessing that other people's love for me wouldn't improve. The Nobeler's might even find some way to delay a reward for me until I'm dead. Your advice is heard. I'm ahead of you on the first one: I assume literally nothing in my formal presentation except for the attention of the reader (listener) to be able to follow. When and if I develop my mathematical aptitudes better, it will only add to the strength of the arguments. The foundational principles are what will matter since I will mostly be able to provide an intuitional understanding of the math without difficulty or prerequisite of the reader to have a prior degree to read the present language.
I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I'm not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.
No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don't, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to 'does not fit my intuitions'.
So far, I haven't even required any "intuition" beyond anything most of us humans here are already capable of What did my prior arguments claim that go beyond this? And don't pervert my use of the term, "intuition" beyond the instinctual knowledge that one has developed due to experience alone! I don't believe in innate knowledge coming from metaphysical forces or realities. My use of the term, intuition, is the scientific one, not my mother's.
Your remarks about the physics community hiding their errors shows what you really are: a physics crackpot.
Where the hell was this you accuse me of, and how is it relevant if it were? Even if I were to hypothesize the nature of a group of physicists capacity to mislead or be conspiratorial, it has no relevance on my arguments at hand. (See my recent post On the Nature of Conspiracy])
117
The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant:
And that is just wrong. Under the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light, time is dilated according to t = T/(1 - (v²/c²)), and together with the rocket flying in the same direction, the one hour program will take longer than one hour.
In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be "c" regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn't possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above).
The programs are not in sync, even that the velocity of light is the same for all observers. Your application of the constancy of the speed of light is completely wrong. The program going twice as fast does not mean that the speed of light is higher: it only means the program is 'blue shifted', and everybody talking in the program does it twice as fast. But if the crew would measure the speed of the signal, i.e. the light, they would measure c. Just note that the relativistic doppler formula differs from that of e.g. sound, where there is a medium. Sound: Light: Note that for sound the velocity relative to the medium plays a role (and different for source and receiver!), which it does not with light.
So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn't constant.
This is so wrong... Red light is slower than blue??? In vacuum? Empirical support, please!
Why should the restriction to velocities "<<c" now be allowed? According to the theory (SR), we still couldn't possibly notice these effects because it assured us that the physics in those frames will appear the same, regardless.
Allowed? What are you talking about?!? The fastest thing I see in my life are cars and planes: that means, they move so fast relative to me. Together however we move with the earth about 30km/s, but we do not notice. Do you have a problem with the fact that velocities are always relative to something else? If I say v << c, what is then unclear about v still being velocity relative to something else? Your logic is flawed to the bottom. And of course we can see the effects: when another frame of reference is fast enough, for example. How do you explain that the short lived muons, that live too short that even at their nearly light speed, could not reach the earth, but they still do? And why are they not transformed to unrecognizable energy, as should happen according to your theory? How do you explain the empirical confirmation of the twin paradox (see the Hafele–Keating experiment]).
If this experiment could possibly be done, the clock would no longer be of the same exact physical form and the closer it approached c, the less likely it would be anything more than a highly radiated clump of matter unrecognizably reduced by fission.
I am missing your explanation why atomic nuclei are not destroyed by their near light velocity.
Does this lack of knowledge assure that they would not be able to determine their truth (that one of them is at a faster velocity relative to the other?) Not only is this absurd, I predict that the twin object in relative motion would sincerely still be physically altered.
Who is moving??? Are they both in inertial frames? With the explanation of the twin paradox, you should be able to answer the question yourself. Hint: it boils down to taking only part of the trip, as depicted in the Minkowksi diagram, and who will stop, i.e. changes from his inertial frame to the one of the other.
118
Oh.. and I forgot to point out that in the last post that the paradox would still appear as the age of one of the created twins of my example would still be aging different too! If they both, without the knowledge of their prior history decided to accelerate together at the same time to meet each other in a common frame of reference between the two, there ages would still differ and provide the proof that there does exist a fixed background.
Wrong. If one adapts to the inertial frame of the other, their ages will differ. If they meet by decelerating at exactly the same way, and meet in the reference frame of the person who saw them created simultaneously, they will see each other having the same age.
I'm hoping by what I've already replied to that you can see that I do understand this and that I've shown what is wrong about it using my extended version of the paradox.
No. Not a bit.
I'm ahead of you on the first one: I assume literally nothing in my formal presentation except for the attention of the reader (listener) to be able to follow.
Well, you did not succeed. We only notice that you do not understand relativity. You have shown no sign that you know what your are arguing against.
And don't pervert my use of the term, "intuition" beyond the instinctual knowledge that one has developed due to experience alone!
No, I don't. I only tell you that you have no experience with systems that move with a speed close to that of light. Therefore your intuitions fail.
119
He keeps repeating that, even though multiple people have told him the universe is under no obligation to conform to our intuitions.
Exact.
Scott, please explain how Global Positioning Systems work.
He can't. He cannot even do the math of his own examples correctly...
120
The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant:
And that is just wrong. Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it's because we are in different frames of inertia? :coolhmm:
Under the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light, time is dilated according to t = T/(1 - (v²/c²)), and together with the rocket flying in the same direction, the one hour program will take longer than one hour.
It's been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of "c" as the fixed speed of light. I think I got that the apparent velocity = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²). I also derived E = mc² from Newtonian mechanics, assuming a fixed speed, c, and assumed that if c is the maximum something could go, then in one second, the fastest it could possibly accelerate is at a factor that limits it to that maximum velocity. (F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.) I don't think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do? Demonstrate my understanding of the math and science by rehashing my education with proofs from scratch? You are merely trying to place an unnecessary burden on me because I don't have the formal University degree to certify the knowledge. It's authoritative and I can at least assure you that my self-education had a stronger motive to make sense of things than those many who merely pass exams by remembering their formulas by rote memory. Cudos to them and better for those who are also self-motivated to figure things on their own. Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by. (I even began by getting the syllabi for the courses that the Universities actually used, even purchasing the same texts, mostly from the UofS(askatchewan) bookstores.
In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be "c" regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn't possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above).
The programs are not in sync, even that the velocity of light is the same for all observers. Your application of the constancy of the speed of light is completely wrong. The program going twice as fast does not mean that the speed of light is higher: it only means the program is 'blue shifted', and everybody talking in the program does it twice as fast. But if the crew would measure the speed of the signal, i.e. the light, they would measure c. Just note that the relativistic doppler formula differs from that of e.g. sound, where there is a medium. Sound: Light: Note that for sound the velocity relative to the medium plays a role (and different for source and receiver!), which it does not with light.
Already learned and irrelevant to the arguments I needed to present thus far. How many times do I have to repeat this? The math is still valid in these cases. What and how do they present justification to assert the uniqueness of the Einstein's theory over any other possible one? Why is it favorable to preserve one explanation that demands picturing reality non-intuitively because that interpretation preserves the assumptions that are not necessary rather than one explanation that IS intuitive, and works with more sensible assumptions? It's like you favor that I give you particular directions to find a specific location relative to where you are rather than simply give you my address. Both methods will get you there but one of them requires less effort to explain and the other has the consequence, intended or not, of losing clarity by assuming everyone comes from the same kind of places or similar environments.
So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn't constant.
This is so wrong... Red light is slower than blue??? In vacuum? Empirical support, please!
I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each 'string' even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums. I have to go. I'll come back later to finish.