Strange Claims About Relativistic Time Split From A Alternative Theories Thread

[freeztar]

Do you know that the speed of light can be defined by both Galilean system and relativistic system? The Galilean version of the speed of light is not a constant while the relativistic version is constant. You can use the relationships between Galilean system and relativistic system I presented on my papers to do the conversions. The two definitions of the speed of light are mathematically equivalent.

 

Both Galilean and relativistic systems are logically intact. The clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted to Galilean time (faster than the corresponding relativistic times on individual satellites) because they are all synchronized to the ground clocks while relativistic time can never be used to synchronize clocks with relative speeds. We are all using Galilean time and relativistic time is just an artificial variable introduced to produce an artificial constant speed of light.

The constant speed of light is not artificial. It can be measured. In fact it was measured to a high degree of accuracy before SR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

[xinhangshen]

The constant speed of light is not artificial. It can be measured. In fact it was measured to a high degree of accuracy before SR.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html

Yes, the speed of light can be measured, but the measured one is defined by Galilean length and Galilean time, though in the measurement system stationary with local aether the measured results of relativistic speed of light and Galilean speed of light are the same.

Edited September 10, 2016 by xinhangshen

[sluggo]

 

xinhangshen;

 

The drawing relates to the MM experiment from the lab frame moving at .6c.

On the left the expected result, with x length = p length, p at 90 ° to x.

The ct values in parentheses are time dilated for the lab.

On the right the actual result, with length contraction as the explanation.

 

Using Galilean light speeds (relative to the observer) as shown, how would you explain the results without using SR length contraction?

[A-wal]

Yes, the speed of light can be measured, but the measured one is defined by Galilean length and Galilean time, though in the measurement system stationary with local aether the measured results of relativistic speed of light and Galilean speed of light are the same.

There is no aether in Galilean relativity. Movement can only be defined relative to other objects.

 

SR includes the fact that the speed of light is constant rather than depending on the relative velocity of the source and the result is length contraction and time dilation.

[xinhangshen]

p&r11.gif

 

xinhangshen;

 

The drawing relates to the MM experiment from the lab frame moving at .6c.

On the left the expected result, with x length = p length, p at 90 ° to x.

The ct values in parentheses are time dilated for the lab.

On the right the actual result, with length contraction as the explanation.

 

Using Galilean light speeds (relative to the observer) as shown, how would you explain the results without using SR length contraction?

There are two scenarios: 1) if M-M experiment shows no fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to aether; 2) if M-M experiment does show fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to the local aether.

 

As there is no such an experiment done in the outer space yet, we don't know which one is the real scenario.

 

In the first scenario, according to the formula on my paper, the Galilean length of x is equal to the relativistic length of x divided by gamma (i.e. the length is indeed contracted when moving against aether), then your right figure shows exactly Galilean result, while relativistic result uses c for all paths. There is no difference in fringe shifting between Galilean and relativistic results. Here relativistic time for the entire path is 2 and Galilean time for the entire path is 2.5 because Galilean time equals relativistic time multiplied by gamma at the origin.

 

In the second scenario, then we should know the fringe in order to compare the results. They should be always the same.

 

 

Here is the relationships between Galilean system and relativistic system:

 

In an inertial reference frame stationary to the local aether,

   

                            X = x  

                            T = t

 

where capital letters represent variables in Galilean system and lower case letters in relativistic system.

 

In an inertial reference frame with a velocity v relative to the local aether:

 

                            X' = x'/γ

                            T' = γ(t' + x'v/c²)

 

With these relationships, all so called relativistic kinematic calculations can be finally converted to Galilean kinematic results. That is, all so called relativistic effects in kinematics can be explained by Galilean kinematics with the aether model.

Edited September 12, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

There is no aether in Galilean relativity! Objects can only define movement relative to other objects. That's why it's called relativity! It assumes either instantaneous light propagation or a velocity that depends on the source of the emitter.

For the aether model you're using to be true it would require that the test bodies in every experiment were moving at just the right velocity relative to the local aether to make the speed of light seem constant. That's very silly.

 

There are two scenarios: 1) if M-M experiment shows no fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to aether; 2) if M-M experiment does show fringe shift when the setup moves at 0.6c relative to the local aether.

3) The aether is bollocks.

 

It's 3.

[xinhangshen]

There is no aether in Galilean relativity! Objects can only define movement relative to other objects. That's why it's called relativity! It assumes either instantaneous light propagation or a velocity that depends on the source of the emitter.

 

For the aether model you're using to be true it would require that the test bodies in every experiment were moving at just the right velocity relative to the local aether to make the speed of light seem constant. That's very silly.

 

3) The aether is bollocks.

 

It's 3.

In Galilean system, the speed of light is just the same as the speed of sound, which follows Newton's velocity addition formula. Like sound with air as its medium, light has also its own medium aether in Galilean system. It's not an assumption but a conclusion. If you can't understand the mechanism of light with aether, then you just can't understand sound with air. It's not the problem of the physics, but the problem of your limited intelligence.

Edited September 13, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

Of course I can understand the model of light moving through a variable medium. Like I said that would require that all tests of the velocity of light just happened to be performed at exactly the right velocity relative to this stupid, made up, undefined frame of reference. All frames are equivalent, there's no need to make one special. It's less simple than sr and is proven false by the constancy of the velocity of light.

 

Sound doesn't depend on the relative velocity of the source either, you can overtake your own sound waves. If light were to move the same way that sound moves then light would have a constant velocity relative to your imaginary aether.

 

The whole point of Galilean relativity is that there is no special frame, no aether!

 

The aether is for people who can't wrap their heads around relative motion and can't admit that their it's thinking that falls short rather than the model.

[xinhangshen]

Of course I can understand the model of light moving through a variable medium. Like I said that would require that all tests of the velocity of light just happened to be performed at exactly the right velocity relative to this stupid, made up, undefined frame of reference. All frames are equivalent, there's no need to make one special. It's less simple than sr and is proven false by the constancy of the velocity of light.

 

Sound doesn't depend on the relative velocity of the source either, you can overtake your own sound waves. If light were to move the same way that sound moves then light would have a constant velocity relative to your imaginary aether.

 

The whole point of Galilean relativity is that there is no special frame, no aether!

 

The aether is for people who can't wrap their heads around relative motion and can't admit that their it's thinking that falls short rather than the model.

It seems that your intelligence can't distinguish between postulates and facts. Please be aware that the constant speed of light is only a postulate, not a fact!

Edited September 13, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the speed of light is independent of the relative motion of the observer and the source and independent of any particular reference frame.

 

For it to be subject to Newton's velocity addition would mean that it works nothing like the way that sound works so I have no idea what you're on about there.

 

For it to move at the same velocity relative to an imaginary medium that has it's own relative velocity is a stupid idea because it's a purely hypothetical addition that isn't needed to explain anything and it would require that every experiment on the velocity of light had the test objects moving relative to each other but moving at the same velocity relative to the aether.

 

SR is based on the knowledge that the speed of light is constant, not the other way round.

[xinhangshen]

It's been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the speed of light is independent of the relative motion of the observer and the source and independent of any particular reference frame.

What are you talking about? All we are doing here is to disprove STR. How can you just use one word "reasonably" to assert it? 

Edited September 13, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

Why did you ignore this paragraph?

For it to move at the same velocity relative to an imaginary medium that has it's own relative velocity is a stupid idea because it's a purely hypothetical addition that isn't needed to explain anything and it would require that every experiment on the velocity of light had the test objects moving relative to each other but moving at the same velocity relative to the aether.

You're not going to disprove sr because there's nothing wrong with it.

 

Also you have some major misunderstandings you need to deal with. Galilean relativity doesn't include an aether, all motion is relative, that's the point. You keep comparing light to sound moving through the air but claim that light follows a velocity addition formula, meaning you don't even understand how sound moves the the air. You keep trying to assert that consistency of the speed of light is based on sr when in reality (look it up) sr is based on the fact that experiments show that the speed of light is constant.

 

You're not rational, your not in any way right and you need to crawl away now.

[xinhangshen]

Why did you ignore this paragraph?

You're not going to disprove sr because there's nothing wrong with it.

 

Also you have some major misunderstandings you need to deal with. Galilean relativity doesn't include an aether, all motion is relative, that's the point. You keep comparing light to sound moving through the air but claim that light follows a velocity addition formula, meaning you don't even understand how sound moves the the air. You keep trying to assert that consistency of the speed of light is based on sr when in reality (look it up) sr is based on the fact that experiments show that the speed of light is constant.

 

You're not rational, your not in any way right and you need to crawl away now.

 Of course, sound speed follows Newton's velocity addition formula, so does light according to Galilean system. Please stop nonsense! 

Edited September 14, 2016 by xinhangshen

[A-wal]

I didn't say Newton's formula. Sound moves through air at the same speed regardless of the velocity of the source. That's how objects can create a sonic boom when they move faster than the sound they're generating. Light behaves very differently because it always moves at the same speed relative to the observer. Light follows a velocity addition formula but not Newton's. In either case, the velocity of the source has no effect of the velocity of the wave.

[xinhangshen]

I didn't say Newton's formula. Sound moves through air at the same speed regardless of the velocity of the source. That's how objects can create a sonic boom when they move faster than the sound they're generating. Light behaves very differently because it always moves at the same speed relative to the observer. Light follows a velocity addition formula but not Newton's. In either case, the velocity of the source has no effect of the velocity of the wave.

A-wal, the constant speed of light is a postulate, not a fact. You should never use the postulate as a fact to disprove other people's reasoning.

[A-wal]

It's a postulate in the sense that sr is based on it but it's not an assumption. Sr came in response to the discovery that the speed of light is constant!

[xinhangshen]

It's a postulate in the sense that sr is based on it but it's not an assumption. Sr came in response to the discovery that the speed of light is constant!

You need to spend more time to learn English first because "postulate" is "a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief" according to Google.