The Relative Simultaneity Of Special Relativity Is Only Plausible To Solipsists

[JMJones0424]

  No experiment has ever shown that c IS the same in all inertial frames, A-Wal.  None.  Ever

 

This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light

 

I have read through all twelve pages of crap, moron.  I am not a physicist, and readily admit that you may be more knowledgable than I am.  However, I do not resort to lies to support a claim.  I have found that there is more literature than I expected regarding the idea of a preferred frame.   However, like you, the proponents seem to be unable to provide any evidence that supports their claim.

 

As you know, the claim that there is no preferred frame is unfalsifiable.  The claim that the CMB is a preferred frame is ludicrous, and I find this claim frequently made by those that are proponents of PFT.  The CMB is simply an artifact of the history of our universe, and it is no more a preferred frame than your inertial frame is.  It is simply a frame that is more easily referenced than your frame.  When you are giving someone instructions on how to get to a place, it would be silly to give instructions based on where you are, instead you give instructions based on mutually recognizable landmarks.  The CMB is the best we can get to a mutually recognizable landmark.  It is not, and there is no reason to expect it to be, a preferred reference frame, as nothing that we understand to describe physics requires such a thing.  You are claiming otherwise.

 

This is the meat of the problem.  You claim that a thing exists, but all evidence suggests it doesn't.  You claim it must exist, but in support you only lie about the observations made over the last century.

 

Let's take it from a different point of view.  Let's assume that there exists a preferred frame of reference.  What experiments do you propose to test this claim?

Edited May 23, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light

 

  

Cut and paste the precise passage(s) of this article which you think shows a "lie," eh, JM?

[JMJones0424]

Read the gd citation idiot.

 

You made a claim that was false.  I cited a source that claimed it to be false.

[JMJones0424]

What experiment do you propose to test the claim that there is a preferred frame?

 

Here's a hint.  If you read the last wikipedia citation, then you should be able to come up with a few.

[Moronium]

This is a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light

 

 I am not a physicist...The CMB is simply an artifact of the history of our universe, and it is no more a preferred frame than your inertial frame is.  

 

Nobel prize winner Geo Smoot (physics professor at Berkeley), who I have quoted for you, and virtually every other theoretical physicist alive today, disagrees with you, JM.

 

Maybe you should go school them all, eh?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

Read the gd citation idiot.

 

You made a claim that was false.  I cited a source that claimed it to be false.

 

 

Your "source" made no such claim, fool.

 

This your standard "argument."  You read some article, come away with a half-baked, completely mistaken impression of what it says, and then just keep saying "read the article."

 

Suggestion:  YOU read it.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

Holy **** if you aren't an idiot then you are a charlatan.  You are most certainly a liar, and you continue to lie.

 

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity#Constancy_of_the_speed_of_light

 

Constancy of the speed of light[edit] Interferometers, resonators[edit]

 

Michelson-Morley experiment with cryogenic optical resonators of a form such as was used by Müller et al. (2003), see Recent optical resonator experiments

See also: Recent Michelson-Morley experiments and Recent Kennedy–Thorndike experiments

Modern variants of Michelson-Morley and Kennedy–Thorndike experiments have been conducted in order to test the isotropy of the speed of light. Contrary to Michelson-Morley, the Kennedy-Thorndike experiments employ different arm lengths, and the evaluations last several months. In that way, the influence of different velocities during Earth's orbit around the sun can be observed. Laser, maser and optical resonators are used, reducing the possibility of any anisotropy of the speed of light to the 10⁻¹⁷ level. In addition to terrestrial tests, Lunar Laser Ranging Experiments have also been conducted as a variation of the Kennedy-Thorndike-experiment.^[4]

Another type of isotropy experiments are the Mössbauer rotor experiments in the 1960s, by which the anisotropy of the Doppler effect on a rotating disc can be observed by using the Mössbauer effect (those experiments can also be utilized to measure time dilation, see below).

No dependence on source velocity or energy[edit]

 

The de Sitter double star experiment, later repeated by Brecher under consideration of the extinction theorem.

Emission theories, according to which the speed of light depends on the velocity of the source, can conceivably explain the negative outcome of aether drift experiments. It wasn't until the mid-1960s that the constancy of the speed of light was definitively shown by experiment, since in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive, and therefore compatible with both special relativity and emission theory.^[9][10] More recent experiments have definitely ruled out the emission model: the earliest were those of Filippas and Fox (1964),^[11] using moving sources of gamma rays, and Alväger et al. (1964),^[12] which demonstrated that photons didn't acquire the speed of the high speed decaying mesons which were their source. In addition, the de Sitter double star experiment (1913) was repeated by Brecher (1977) under consideration of the extinction theorem, ruling out a source dependence as well.^[13]

Observations of Gamma-ray bursts also demonstrated that the speed of light is independent of the frequency and energy of the light rays.^[14]

One-way speed of light[edit]

Main article: One-way speed of light

A series of one-way measurements were undertaken, all of them confirming the isotropy of the speed of light.^[5] However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured, since the one-way speed depends on the definition of simultaneity and therefore on the method of synchronization. The Poincaré-Einstein synchronization convention makes the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. However, there are many models having isotropic two-way speed of light, in which the one-way speed is anisotropic by choosing different synchronization schemes. They are experimentally equivalent to special relativity because all of these models include effects like time dilation of moving clocks, that compensate any measurable anisotropy. However, of all models having isotropic two-way speed, only special relativity is acceptable for the overwhelming majority of physicists since all other synchronizations are much more complicated, and those other models (such as Lorentz ether theory) are based on extreme and implausible assumptions concerning some dynamical effects, which are aimed at hiding the "preferred frame" from observation.

Isotropy of mass, energy, and space[edit]

 

⁷Li-NMR spectrum of LiCl (1M) in D₂O. The sharp, unsplit NMR line of this isotope of lithium is evidence for the isotropy of mass and space.

See also: Hughes–Drever experiment

Clock-comparison experiments (periodic processes and frequencies can be considered as clocks) such as the Hughes–Drever experimentsprovide stringent tests of Lorentz invariance. They are not restricted to the photon sector as Michelson-Morley but directly determine any anisotropy of mass, energy, or space by measuring the ground state of nuclei. Upper limit of such anisotropies of 10⁻³³ GeV have been provided. Thus these experiments are among the most precise verifications of Lorentz invariance ever conducted.^[3][4]

Time dilation and length contraction[edit]

 

Ives–Stilwell experiment (1938).)

Main articles: Confirmations of time dilation, Ives–Stilwell experiment, Experimental testing of time dilation, and Confirmations of length contraction

The transverse Doppler effect and consequently time dilation was directly observed for the first time in the Ives–Stilwell experiment (1938). In modern Ives-Stilwell experiments in heavy ion storage rings using saturated spectroscopy, the maximum measured deviation of time dilation from the relativistic prediction has been limited to ≤ 10⁻⁸. Other confirmations of time dilation include Mössbauer rotor experiments in which gamma rays were sent from the middle of a rotating disc to a receiver at the edge of the disc, so that the transverse Doppler effect can be evaluated by means of the Mössbauer effect. By measuring the lifetime of muons in the atmosphere and in particle accelerators, the time dilation of moving particles was also verified. On the other hand, the Hafele–Keating experiment confirmed the twin paradox, i.e. that a clock moving from A to B back to A is retarded with respect to the initial clock. However, in this experiment the effects of general relativity also play an essential role.

Direct confirmation of length contraction is hard to achieve in practice since the dimensions of the observed particles are vanishingly small. However, there are indirect confirmations; for example, the behavior of colliding heavy ions can only be explained if their increased density due to Lorentz contraction is considered. Contraction also leads to an increase of the intensity of the Coulomb field perpendicular to the direction of motion, whose effects already have been observed. Consequently, both time dilation and length contraction must be considered when conducting experiments in particle accelerators.

Relativistic momentum and energy[edit]

 

Bucherer's experimental setup for measuring the specific charge e/m of β⁻ electrons as a function of their speed v/c. (Cross-section through the axis of a circular capacitor with a beta-source at its center, at an angle α with respect to the magnetic field H)

Main articles: Tests of relativistic energy and momentum and Kaufmann–Bucherer–Neumann experiments

Starting with 1901, a series of measurements was conducted aimed at demonstrating the velocity dependence of the mass of electrons. The results actually showed such a dependency but the precision necessary to distinguish between competing theories was disputed for a long time. Eventually, it was possible to definitely rule out all competing models except special relativity.

Today, special relativity's predictions are routinely confirmed in particle accelerators such as the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. For example, the increase of relativistic momentum and energy is not only precisely measured but also necessary to understand the behavior of cyclotronsand synchrotrons etc., by which particles are accelerated near to the speed of light.

Sagnac and Fizeau[edit]

 

Original Sagnac interferometer

Main articles: Sagnac interferometer and Fizeau experiment

Special relativity also predicts that two light rays traveling in opposite directions around a spinning closed path (e.g. a loop) require different flight times to come back to the moving emitter/receiver (this is a consequence of the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source, see above). This effect was actually observed and is called the Sagnac effect. Currently, the consideration of this effect is necessary for many experimental setups and for the correct functioning of GPS.

If such experiments are conducted in moving media (e.g. water, or glass optical fiber), it is also necessary to consider Fresnel's dragging coefficient as demonstrated by the Fizeau experiment. Although this effect was initially understood as giving evidence of a nearly stationary aether or a partial aether drag it can easily be explained with special relativity by using the velocity composition law.

Edited May 23, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

This is just one passage from your article which you failed understand:

 

...in 1965, J. G. Fox showed that the effects of the extinction theorem rendered the results of all experiments previous to that time inconclusive...

 

 

 

Fox's finding were NOT limited to an emission theory. He said:

 

Double stars,especially close binary pairs, are surrounded by a common envelope of gas which may contain enough matter to extinguish the direct light from the stars.Thus de Sitter's proof of the constancy of the velocity of light may not be conclusive. It is concluded that there may not exist any sure experimental evidence for the second postulate of special relativity.

 

 

 

https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.1941992

 

Fox was talking about the known phenomena of light extinction, not an emission theory.

 

When light traveling in vacuum enters a transparent medium like glass, the light slows down, as described by the index of refraction. Although this fact is famous and familiar, it is actually quite strange and surprising when you think about it microscopically...

Special relativity predicts that the speed of light in vacuum is independent of the velocity of the source emitting it.....Unfortunately, the extinction length of light in space nullifies the results of any such experiments using visible light, especially when taking account of the thick cloud of stationary gas surrounding such stars.

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewald%E2%80%93Oseen_extinction_theorem

 

 

In any event, the passage in question does NOT deal with a constant speed of light to begin with.  It is merely trying to see if the speed of light is dependent on the motion of it's SOURCE.   The speed of ALL waves (sound, water, etc.) is independent of the speed of its source.  Nothing new there.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[JMJones0424]

**** off with your bullshit.  Don't tell me what I don't understand when you claim two things to be true that are observably false.

 

It is false to claim that two syncronized accurate clocks will measure the same time if they move at different velocities

 

It is false to claim that the speed of light has not been shown to be invariant regardless of the velocity of the one making the measurement.

 

Your entire premise rests on lies.  Despite my idiocy, I can see this.

 

You have yet to describe, as Popper would require, a test that could falsify your claims.  You have, however, lied about every test that shows your explanation to be false.

Edited May 23, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Heh, leave it to you to just repeat the whole article, JM.  I told you to cite the particular passage(s) which you think proves a lie.  You can't do it.

[JMJones0424]

You claim two things that are demonstrably false to be true.  You are a liar.  Your claim is falsified.

 

What experiment do you propose to test your claim?

Edited May 23, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

Read this (from post 196) again, eh?

 

 

Quote

Summarizing these results we may say that the following statement is in perfect agreement with all experimental evidence: A preferred system of reference, the ether system, exists. Clocks are slow when moving with respect to the ether system and measuring rods shrink. As seen from a moving system clocks in the ether system are fast and measuring rods elongated.

 

http://ivanik3.narod...I/MANSOURI1.pdf

 

That quote is not from some "crank" and it is not "false." 

 

That statement is affirmed by both modern and historical theoretical physics.

 

Put another way, LR has been confirmed millions of times.

 

Why do I suggest that you read something?  It does no good to read something if you can't understand it.

 

If you really wanted to get some rudimentary grasp on the issues involved, you would read the entire paper I cited here.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

You claim two things that are demonstrably false to be true.  You are a liar.  Your claim is falsified.

 

 

 

Heh.  Yeah, right, eh?  SCREAM that 10,000 more times, why doncha?  Surely that will prove you're right.

[JMJones0424]

Despite the fact that this source directly contradicts your previous claims?  I will read again, but if you are changing your claims, then you should do me the courtesy to say so.  BTW, I do not understand your insistence that Lorentzian Relativity is a thing that is different than Special Relativity.  But again, I am not schooled in this area and you have already shown a propensity to rely on falsehoods to support your claims, so I am wary.

 

You have not yet answered my question, "What experiment do you propose to test your claim?"

 

My screaming is only a futile attempt to get you to address the fact that you continue to claim that which is false is true.

Edited May 23, 2018 by JMJones0424

[Moronium]

 BTW, I do not understand your insistence that Lorentzian Relativity is a thing that is different than Special Relativity.  

 

 

I have explained that many times already, JM, in many different ways, in many different threads.  You should read this thread, rather than just falsely asserting that you've read it.

 

It's precisely because you don't understand this difference that you think your wiki article is "proving" something which it explicitly denies that it is proving.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

If and when you ever understand what this part of your wiki article is saying, then you might be in a position to intelligently discuss the topic instead of just emotionally shouting "LIAR!"

 

However, it should be noted that only the two-way speed of light (from A to B back to A) can unambiguously be measured, since the one-way speed depends on the definition of simultaneity and therefore on the method of synchronization. The Poincaré-Einstein synchronization convention makes the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. However, there are many models having isotropic two-way speed of light, in which the one-way speed is anisotropic by choosing different synchronization schemes. They are experimentally equivalent to special relativity because all of these models include effects like time dilation of moving clocks, that compensate any measurable anisotropy

 

. 

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium

[Moronium]

The wiki article you cite contains many references.  You read NONE of them and come away with a half-baked understanding of what the article you are reading is even saying (just like you did with the wiki article on Popper's falsifiability criterion).  For example, in your article there is a reference to another wiki article dealing with the one-way speed of light.  Read it.  Here's a brief excerpt:

 

When using the term 'the speed of light' it is sometimes necessary to make the distinction between its one-way speed and its two-way speed. The "one-way" speed of light from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector....

 

Experiments that attempted to directly probe the one-way speed of light independent of synchronization have been proposed, but none has succeeded in doing so....In general, it was shown that these experiments are consistent with anisotropic one-way light speed as long as the two-way light speed is isotropic

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light

Edited May 23, 2018 by Moronium