"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"

James R said:
Your theory has been proven false by literally thousands of experiments. And it's not even an original theory. It's just basic Galilean relativity with a preferred frame tacked on.
Click to expand...

Wrong James, those experiments measure light in the wrong direction. Science has created such a tangled MESS that it can no longer see the light. You have absolutely zero chance of making that mess jive with reality.

If it's not an original theory then why is it that I am the first person in the history of the world to be able to determine absolute velocity?
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
Wrong James, those experiments measure light in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Which experiments? Citations, please. And explanations of where they went wrong.

And what? All of the thousands upon thousands of experiments got it wrong? And in exactly the same way? Gosh! All those scientists and students must be idiots. I'm so glad we have you to tell us how things really are, with all your own many experimental... er... oh, but I forgot, you don't have a single experimental result that supports your views, do you?

If it's not an original theory then why is it that I am the first person in the history of the world to be able to determine absolute velocity?
Click to expand...

You're not. There are dozens just like you, on every internet science forum, including this one. Physicists receive dozens of letters from people just like you every year, and have been receiving them for over 100 years. I know many Professors who keep a crank file bursting with repeats of your claim to be the first person in the world yada yada yada.
 
James R said:
Which experiments? Citations, please. And explanations of where they went wrong.
Click to expand...

What's a citation? LOL ;)


James R said:
I'm so glad we have you to tell us how things really are...[snip]
Click to expand...

Well thanks, James, I'm glad to be of service. I wonder how long the non-sense would have continued if not for me...



James R said:
You're not. There are dozens just like you, on every internet science forum, including this one. Physicists receive dozens of letters from people just like you every year, and have been receiving them for over 100 years. I know many Professors who keep a crank file bursting with repeats of your claim to be the first person in the world yada yada yada.
Click to expand...

Come on, James, you're pulling my leg. Do you honestly believe that anyone in the history of the world has been able to determine absolute velocity as I have shown? That's a claim that you simply must provide justification for. You are claiming that someone beat me to it. I seriously doubt it, but I'm certainly interested in seeing your supporting documentation for that claim.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Come on, James, you're pulling my leg. Do you honestly believe that anyone in the history of the world has been able to determine absolute velocity as I have shown?
Click to expand...
You haven't shown anything except a refusal to learn basic math and science. As explained before, there is no absolute velocity. Continually denying the facts given to you does not make you special.

That's a claim that you simply must provide justification for.
Click to expand...
It's been given, dozens of times that I've seen. Asking to see more is pointless, since you haven't examined any of what folks have already given you. GPS was given to you as a working example of the application of SR and GR, and I have never seen you grapple with that.

You are claiming that someone beat me to it.
Click to expand...
Galileo "beat you" in his explanation of relativity, and he, Copernicus and Newton beat you in laws governing planetary motion, which you have repeatedly scoffed at, without ever attempting to learn.

I seriously doubt it,
Click to expand...
Your only problem is self-doubt. For some reason you have convinced yourself that you can't learn the axioms of geometry. Having been deprived of that kind of knowledge, you have no viable logic to guide you forward in math and science. It's become a guessing game, and you seem to think that once you've convinced yourself of something without having to learn how or why it's true or false, then you can just pretend to know the answers, so you keep posting falsehoods and fallacies. You have no tools to understand and debug your errors.

but I'm certainly interested in seeing your supporting documentation for that claim.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt that. There are three documents you would need to read and understand as a bare minimum in order to even fathom what this thread is about:

(1) Galileo's Dialogue Concerning Two Chief World Systems, 1632. (The discussion on relativity.)
(2) Newton's Principia Mathematica, 1687. (Pick any 10 pages in the last half of the text.)
(3) Einstein's On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905. (Unfortunately you are not prepared for this.)

Or, you can just take a few years of college level math and science and you'll get all of this incorporated with a whole lot more. Most of all, more than reading, you would need to correctly formulate and solve very basic problems in math and science. Without that foundation, you're simply lost and making it up as you go. And you have no hope of being able to understand the principles and solutions explained to you.
 
Motor Daddy said:
That's a claim that you simply must provide justification for. You are claiming that someone beat me to it. I seriously doubt it, but I'm certainly interested in seeing your supporting documentation for that claim.
Click to expand...

What's a citation? LOL ;)
 
Motor Daddy said:
As James previously posted, this will give you a solid basis to start. Once you have understood all that I explain in that thread and you STILL don't understand then I will entertain any further specific questions you have.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I asked for.

I asked you to prove the universe works as you claim it does, which is what you have asserted. Giving me your model doesn't do anything to prove it is the one and only way reality can work. For instance, if I just repeated to you what special relativity says would that prove reality works as described by special relativity? Of course not. As such you doing likewise for your 'model' doesn't cut it.

So I'll ask you again. Can you prove your claim that not only does reality behave as you claim it does but it isn't even logically possible to have the laws of nature be anything else. Let me make it clear, repeating your claims doesn't demonstrate reality works that way. You need to provide experimental evidence reality works as you claim and then you need to provide a sound logical argument about why reality couldn't be anything else.

Here's a tip for you about how to present your case. If your argument is such that you wouldn't accept special relativity if James or I used it to try to convince you of special relativity then it means your argument to try to convince us of your claims is insufficient. More specifically, just as James or myself repeating special relativity's model to you doesn't demonstrate special relativity's accurate modelling of reality (we need to include experimental data for that) you simply repeating your claims doesn't demonstrate they accurately reflect reality.

But then you should be aware of this hypocritical behaviour you have, as you regularly demand people provide proof or experimental evidence for special relativity but then refuse when people ask the same of your claims. If you really had a valid and solid position to argue from you wouldn't need to engage is such dishonest behaviour.
 
I can't prove it because I am ignorant of the scientific method and I don't have the educational background to properly present my case in a formal way. That is why I presented my case to this site the best I could, in hopes that someone like you AN would understand my model enough to see it is correct, and take the ball and run with it.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I can't prove it because I am ignorant of the scientific method and I don't have the educational background to properly present my case in a formal way. That is why I presented my case to this site the best I could, in hopes that someone like you AN would understand my model enough to see it is correct, and take the ball and run with it.
Click to expand...
I'm sympathetic to your cause MD. I suspect many physicists would rather have a world which was more closely aligned with our every day experience, but evidence demands this isn't the case.

Curious, but how would you explain the following? Please study it. The light from binary star systems is continuous and (except for red/blue shifting) reaches us "in the proper order" corresponding to when it was emitted. I don't believe your baseball/photon analogy can account for this. In other words, your world falls apart under accelerated light sources.

View attachment 6090
View attachment 6089
 
Motor Daddy said:
What does the small + and the black solid "wall" represent?
Click to expand...

The "+" is a second star which the first is orbiting, and the black wall is the observer sitting far away. Under even a slightly accelerated light source you can see that at an adequate distance away the photons would reach an observer in the wrong order under emission theories. The orbiting star would appear to be jumping all around rather than to appear to be continuously moving.
 
RJBeery said:
The "+" is a second star which the first is orbiting, and the black wall is the observer sitting far away. Under even a slightly accelerated light source you can see that at an adequate distance away the photons would reach an observer in the wrong order under emission theories. The orbiting star would appear to be jumping all around rather than to appear to be continuously moving.
Click to expand...

The "+" is the center of the light sphere in the absolute frame, it is not an object. Do you agree?
 
Motor Daddy said:
The "+" is the center of the light sphere in the absolute frame, it is not an object. Do you agree?
Click to expand...
No, the "+" is intended to be one of two stars and is not technically at the center of anything since it is orbiting its partner. It is motionless in this picture for convenience sake, so you can consider it to be much more massive than the other star.
 
RJBeery said:
No, the "+" is intended to be one of two stars and is not technically at the center of anything since it is orbiting its partner. It is motionless in this picture for convenience sake, so you can consider it to be much more massive than the other star.
Click to expand...

You've contradicted yourself at the start, something science is all too familiar with.

I will make it a little more clear, the center of a light sphere is motionless in the absolute frame. You see the word "motionless" I highlighted in your statement?

So, again, the "+" is the center of the light sphere, do you agree?
 
Motor Daddy said:
You've contradicted yourself at the start, something science is all too familiar with.

I will make it a little more clear, the center of a light sphere is motionless in the absolute frame. You see the word "motionless" I highlighted in your statement?

So, again, the "+" is the center of the light sphere, do you agree?
Click to expand...
OK, I'll do what I can to speak MD-ese, but the + cannot be continuously motionless in the absolute frame because it is moving in circles around the other orbiting body.

In other words, the + is the center of "a" light sphere, and the black circle is the center of "another" light sphere at certain intervals. The red circles are propagating photons emanated by the black circle at those respective intervals, making their way to the Earth.
 
RJBeery said:
OK, I'll do what I can to speak MD-ese, but the + cannot be continuously motionless in the absolute frame because it is moving in circles around the other orbiting body.
Click to expand...

If it is moving in circles then are you saying that the wall is also moving in circles, since the distance between them is the same at all times? If the wall is too moving in circles does that affect how the photons hit the wall? Certainly it does, right? Then, if something is "moving in circles" that means that "something" is orbiting a point in the absolute frame, right? The distance from the point to the "something" being called the radius of that circle?

RJBeery said:
In other words, the + is the center of "a" light sphere, and the black circle is the center of "another" light sphere at certain intervals. The red circles are propagating photons emanated by the black circle at those respective intervals, making their way to the Earth.
Click to expand...

You've dug such a deep hole already, RJ that you need to start from the beginning. Seriously.
 
Motor Daddy said:
If it is moving in circles then are you saying that the wall is also moving in circles, since the distance between them is the same at all times? If the wall is too moving in circles does that affect how the photons hit the wall? Certainly it does, right? Then, if something is "moving in circles" that means that "something" is orbiting a point in the absolute frame, right? The distance from the point to the "something" being called the radius of that circle?



You've dug such a deep hole already, RJ that you need to start from the beginning. Seriously.
Click to expand...
No problem, let's reboot.

Let's say the "+" is absolutely nothing except an arbitrary point about which a very fast rocket is circling. It is at absolute rest in MD's absolute frame. The observer is also at absolute rest in MD's absolute frame. The observer and the center "+" point are at a constant distance from each other. The observer is looking at light coming from the rocket, and the red circles represent some time interval (let's say every second). You should be able to see that the photons being emitted from the rocket are not going to reach the observer in the expected order!

Actually...this isn't quite right. Your emission theory differs in that your claim is that light only propagates at c in the absolute frame doesn't it? Therefore this would only be true if the rocket's tangential (absolute) velocity were > c, which is technically possible in emission theories. Does your world view allow for absolute velocities > c?
 
Motor Daddy said:
It is impossible to violate causility in my method. I'm not saying that it's possible for an object to travel greater than c, but if something does, I am there to save the day!
Click to expand...
OK, can you explain what the mechanism is which prevents objects from absolutely traveling faster than c? Or are you simply making a proclamation, like "Motor Daddy forbids this"?
 
RJBeery said:
OK, can you explain what the mechanism is which prevents objects from absolutely traveling faster than c? Or are you simply making a proclamation, like "Motor Daddy forbids this"?
Click to expand...

I don't "prevent" an object from traveling faster than c any more than redline prevents you from over revving your engine. If you want to spin it up past the redline, be my guest, the tach is capable of handling any RPM, but the rods are going to break long before you ever get close to infinity. My model doesn't have a speed limit, it is simply an infinite tach.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I don't "prevent" an object from traveling faster than c any more than redline prevents you from over revving your engine. If you want to spin it up past the redline, be my guest, the tach is capable of handling any RPM, but the rods are going to break long before you ever get close to infinity. My model doesn't have a speed limit, it is simply an infinite tach.
Click to expand...
But the tach isn't infinite. If we were at "absolute rest" we can measure c to have a specific value. What would happen if we chose to continuously accelerate such that, from the absolutely resting observer's frame we approach and theoretically exceed that measured value of c?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top