Science Forums

# The Preferred Frame And How It Works!

## Recommended Posts

I'm so excited that I have discovered the preferred frame, and I wanted to share it with everyone!

I've drawn a pic with equations and real numbers to outline the concept.

The pic shows how a light sphere expands as time elapses. In frame 1 the clock starts and the light sphere is emitted. In frame 2, .65 seconds has elapsed and the light sphere has that radius and hits the z receiver. Frame 3 the light hits the x receiver and mirror, and frame 4 the light is back at the source, which remained at the center of the cube at all times.

Please take note of the fact that, like shown in frame 2, the light sphere is only 70,352,296 meters away from the source after .65 seconds has elapsed. That means in the cube frame, light is moving in the x direction at .361c., which ultimately means Einstein's second postulate in SR, that all frames measure the speed of light to be c is wrong, which means SR must be discarded!! Finally, no more SR!!! As you will see, there is no length contraction or time dilation in my pic, and yet, the numbers add up perfectly!!

##### Share on other sites

Well it's been 9 years and still no reply.

I edited the post to delete the outdated link to the pic, and added the attachment of the pic.

##### Share on other sites

I suspect you have got no answers because you did was some calculations, not using SR, and got results that contradict relativity.   What you have shown is that Classical, "Galilean" relativity is consistent.  The problem is that it does not match EXPERIEMENTAL EVIDENCE.  So far, it is relativity that corresponds with current experimental evidence.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CountryBoy said:

So far, it is relativity that corresponds with current experimental evidence.

It took .65 seconds for light to travel a distance of .5 light seconds in the box frame. That proves that the speed of light is NOT measured to be c in the box frame. That means SR's second postulate is bunk, which means SR is bunk!

Notice how the speed of light in the box is measured to be different, depending on the direction measured? The speed of light to the z receiver is different than the speed of light to the x receiver. The distance from the center of the box to the receivers is the same, and yet it took different times to reach them.

The one way speed of light is different to the x receiver than returning from the x receiver to the center. Same distance, two different times.

##### Share on other sites

Then, again, did you do an experiment that actually measured that or did you calculate it?  If you calculated it what assumptions are you basing the calculations on?

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, CountryBoy said:

Then, again, did you do an experiment that actually measured that or did you calculate it?  If you calculated it what assumptions are you basing the calculations on?

I calculated it using 299,792,458 m/s as the speed of light, because the definition of the meter is the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. By definition the diagram is absolutely correct. Light traveled in the preferred frame, and due to the absolute velocity of the box the light was measured to be different in different directions.

##### Share on other sites

There is no absolute velocity and no preferred frame. You say that you calculated it and then you say it was measured.

Maybe now you know why nobody is bothering to reply?

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

There is no absolute velocity and no preferred frame.

The pic proves there is absolute velocity in a preferred frame. Now it's your job to prove the pic wrong. Good luck!

##### Share on other sites

Anybody can post a Physics Cartoon.

9 years? It's time to move this to silly claims.

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

Anybody can post a Physics Cartoon.

Yours is a cartoon.

Mine is a graphical depiction of the preferred frame and a box with absolute motion in the preferred frame, all the while the speed of light remains 299,792,458 m/s in the preferred frame. Clearly the speed of light in the box is not measured to be 299,792,458 m/s. It took .65 seconds for light to travel from the center to the z receiver, which is a distance of .5 light seconds in the box. It took even more time to reach the x receiver, which is the same distance in the box.

So while you post Garfield cartoons, I post the facts as defined by the definition of the meter and the speed of light.

Try harder next time. You failed to prove me wrong this time, and your cartoon is off topic.

##### Share on other sites

A cartoon is never off topic in Silly Claims. That's why your cartoon has been moved here. That is my last reply to you.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, OceanBreeze said:

A cartoon is never off topic in Silly Claims. That's why your cartoon has been moved here. That is my last reply to you.

You failed to prove me wrong, and you know you're incapable of doing so, that's why you moved this to Silly Claims and are done replying. Your abuse of priveledges is all you have left as a response. Typical!

## Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×