Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

[marcospolo]

Woah there hombre. ACCELERATION is one thing, the problem is COASTING.

 

ISS, not on some maintenance burn. Not looking out the windows. Just 4 dudes and 2 chicks floating in a can. What can they do?

 

First off, a quick reminder that the rules page can be quickly accessed via the bottom right of every single page. You'll see a nice little link labeled "Science Forums Rules" Kindly go read them, and consider how your last post is going a bit past toeing the line on a few of them. I'm more patient than Some of the other fellows, but you've already been on "stress leave" for an attitude. I politely and rationally request that you hakuna your tah-tas.

 

Second off,  I'm quite interested in both Logic and Rationality. They're integral to theory of mind, and I rather like 'Philosophizing with a Hammer" as well. Look it up some time, juicy read. Sadly I'm unsure why you resort to fallacy of character-attacks in response to a question. That would indicate to me you need to take a moment to reconsider weather your response is rational and responsible, or is merely lashing out irrationally. This brings us directly to:

 

Thirdly, you're failing at a key part of a fully functional psyche here. I mentioned Theory of Mind earlier. It's a bit of a digression from the main post but this is important. "because this proof has been described in this forum before" seems to indicate you fail to understand than my experiences and the things I have viewed directly are not those you have viewed directly. You're failing the Sally-Ann-task and you should probably work on that. No amount of sass will make up for such a cognitive defect if you wish to speak of rationality and logic. I don't read EVERYTHING here, I've got plenty of other things to occupy my attention. You and your talks are but a minuscule fraction of what I lay eyes upon. Once you realize this you'll stop failing a task most people master in childhood. I recognize you don't read everything I post and experience. So I'm pointing you to these things in good faith and reminding you of the rules for the same reason, despite how redundant the task is with how often I've done it with other individuals. That's called rationality, please drink the koolaid.

 

Beyond that, I see your sufficiently wide elevator idea, though I'm not precisely sure how you'd account for transverse gravitation (like that experienced next to mountains or particularly dense crust) which could easily swing a "sufficiently sensitive instrument set" in a "sufficiently wide box" well away from the overall barycenter towards the local one. Same way it would be hard to account for "burps" in fuel and uneven nozzle wear in an equally large accelerating box with a equally sensitive instrument set. That's the problem with simplistic thought-experiments: reality is far stranger than your mind can conceive unless you experience it yourself, and you must play by it's logic not the reverse. Still, I'll leave that in the box of brain-fu for now and allow you an ideal perfectly homogeneous and spherical planetoid in a perfectly straight and perfectly large box with perfectly calibrated and perfectly sensitive instruments being able to tell barycenter acceleration from a straight vector acceleration. The question still remains for the important one: Coasting at speed in a tin can, how do you define your speed? That's one of the important ones and the one I'm particularly interested in your answer for.

 

Ok, Ignoring the etiquette issues for a moment, I'll try to be civil in future.

So your not interested in an accelerating box vs box in gravity,  although it's sufficient for the exercise, as it shows that although the two should be the same at first glance, it is possible to tell which you are in given the right measuring equipment.

So we have to look at a box in space, and a box in free fall now?

OK, you can still tell which one you are in, although in accord with the claim, physics will give the same results in either case for a little while.

BUT, the way to tell which one you are in is to use TIME.  You wait a bit, if you don't smash into the source planet of the Gravity, then you are in deep space, floating. Otherwise, you are dead, as you were in the temporarily free falling box under Gravity.

But why do you argue that Einstein's equivalence principle is correct? Its openly admitted by Einstein mad professors that free fall is NOT equivalent to freely floating in space.

So Einstein's equivalence principle is a bit useless, and we should never talk about it again., because it's NOT PHYSICS. But of course, without this equivalence principal,  Special Relativity is dead.

Here's a quote from a web page created by the Albert Einstein Institute:

Speaking of the problem that free-falling is NOT identical to floating in space, they come up with this fudge;

"Within an infinitely small ("infinitesimal") spacetime region, one can always find a reference frame - an infinitely small elevator cabin, observed over an infinitely brief period of time - in which the laws of physics are the same as in special relativity. By choosing a suitably small elevator and a suitably brief period of observation, one can keep the difference between the laws of physics in that cabin and those of special relativity arbitrarily small.".

Infinitely small error, is NOT the same as Equivalence in anyone's book, and to get to this small error, they had to make the falling elevator "infinitely small", and the time period "infinitely small" as well.

This is a BS excuse in Physics. The only rational statement is that the Equivalence principal is NOT correct. Period.

Since when did the laws of Physics only work in infinitely small places over infinitely tiny time periods?

 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle.html

[marcospolo]

THIS is the second part of my reply to this guy, who seems to have removed his post.

See my post #46 for the first half of my reply.

 

Amplituhedron, on 04 Jun 2019 - 04:33 AM, said:

I want to deconstruct this one little post of yours to show why you are either invincibly stupid or a troll, or both.

 

As I have already explained to you, it was NOT Einstein who first said that the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, it was Galileo! Do you not have a memory, either?

 

Now what does that mean? It means that in any frame which is constant uniform motion, there is no experiment that you can conduct to prove that you are in motion, as distinct from being at rest. This has already been explained to you!

 

So Postulate One is from Galileo, NOT from Einstein! Understand? It is called Galilean relativity.

 

Only Postulate Two — that the speed of light is invariant as measured in all inertial frames — is from Einstein. This postulate is OBSERVED to be true.

 

It means — as has been explained to you! — that photons, lacking rest mass, do not obey Galilean additivity (addition of velocity calculation). From this, it automatically follows that relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction MUST occur.

 

The idea that the laws of physics are the same as measured in all frames is something that occurs WITHIN a frame. Even without Einstein, and with only Galileo, someone on the ground who watches a train rushing past will insist that someone inside the train who is bouncing a ball is bouncing it in a zigzag path! The rider, of course, will see the ball bouncing up and down — as he would at rest!

 

You see, WITHIN A FRAME, the meter stick does not shrink nor does the clock run slow nor does the ball zigzag — that is the whole effing point!

 

So your real beef, as I have explained to you, is with Galileo and not Einstein!

 

Now please don’t keep lying and say that no one has rebutted your garbage, troll. Thankfully, this crap thread has been removed from the standard science forum and placed in the trash heap where it belongs.

<<So Postulate One is from Galileo, NOT from Einstein! Understand? It is called Galilean relativity.>>

And I’ve already explained that its Einstein’s filthy corruption of Galileo’s excellent concepts of basic physics that is of interest.

 

<<Only Postulate Two — that the speed of light is invariant as measured in all inertial frames — is from Einstein. This postulate is OBSERVED to be true.>>

No, Einstein buggers up Galelios simple physics FIRST, then goes on to use that deception to twist how we think about Light, so that he can make a conclusion that is pseudoscience.

“Its easier to fool people that to convince them that they have been fooled”

And you have been fooled big time here.

Light can not be doing the same thing in “different reference frames”. Light is only doing what Light does, and that is moving at 3e8 meters per second IN THE MEDIUM OF A VACUUM.

This is NOT logically equivalent to claiming that other objects in the same vacuum, (a spaceship moving at 0.5c and a spaceship moving ain the opposite direction at 0.5 c )

Will each measure that light is travelling at c when they measure it.

The deception of Einsteini here is to swap “in the medium of a vacuum” with the incorrect statement of “relative to the observer”.

The two claims about light are incompataable.

Maxwell said “light speed relative to the medium”, and Einstein twisted this to being light speed relative to any observer”.

Light speed in air, water, glass, diamond, plastic or vacuum is all different values. Light speed is RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, never is it relative to the observer. Saying its relative to any observer creates an immediately self contradictory case, so is clearly wrong.

Lorentz and Einstein never needed to “fix” Maxwells equations, because they were never incorrect if velocity was considered. This is the first lie of Einstein and Lorentz.

Maxwells equations were said to be “not invariant”, BUT THEY ACTUALLY WERE!

Because Maxwell claimed correctly that Light speed was constant only RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM, in that case, it was the medium of a vacuum.

Where is the “absolute frame of reference” for a vacuum? ANYWHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE to suit your needs.

In any case, you are repeating a lie when you claim that light has been observed to be constant in any frame of reference. There is no experiment that demonstrates this claim, only false experiments based on false assumptions.

Whats next…ok…

 

<<It means — as has been explained to you! — that photons, lacking rest mass, do not obey Galilean additivity (addition of velocity calculation). From this, it automatically follows that relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction MUST occur.>>

 

You see your problem here? Where you use flawed logic to come up with a nonsense conclusion?

You just finished pointing out the Einstein was using Galileo’s simple mechanical, kinetic observations of falling balls, but then you add to that simple physics, a non physical, not understood property of Light, (which you pointed out has NOTHING to do with GALILEOS Physics) and you come up with a totally irrational claim, a moronic conclusion that Time must warp and things shrink!

Any simple-minded but rational person can see that it’s more likely that Einstein was wrong somewhere in his hypothesis rather than the whole cosmos must change to suit his weird claims!

 

<<The idea that the laws of physics are the same as measured in all frames is something that occurs WITHIN a frame. Even without Einstein, and with only Galileo, someone on the ground who watches a train rushing past will insist that someone inside the train who is bouncing a ball is bouncing it in a zigzag path! The rider, of course, will see the ball bouncing up and down — as he would at rest!>>

 

Another deception of the Zionist Einstein.

Here you contradict yourself without out even recognizing it.

First you say that the laws of physics being the same is ONLY VALID WITHIN THE FRAME where its measured! This is correct.

BUT then immediately you want to use Einstein’s wrong way of doing physics, which is to try to compare the measured results of one frame as taken by an internal observer, in comparison with measurement taken by an observer who is NOT in the frame of interest!

You only just finished saying they this is NOT the correct way! (“the laws of physics are the same as measured in all frames is something that occurs WITHIN a frame.”)

The golden rule of Physics is that “Perception is not necessarily reality’.

What the observer IMAGINES he is seeing, what SEEMS to be occurring, according to his subjective experience, is NOT necessarily reflectinig the true situation. While it can APPEAR that the ball is doing a zig zag, it is most certainly NOT.

The ball is moving up and down, as accurately recorded by the guy tossing it.

The other observer can only say, if he is HONEST, is that the airplane is moving at 500 mph and inside there is a guy tossing a ball, which is going up and down. The ball is goinig up and down while the plane is moving from left to right. Trying to delete the plane is LYING. The plane and its motion is CRUTIAL information. Einstein uses and relies on half truths to spin his deceit.

 

<<You see, WITHIN A FRAME, the meter stick does not shrink nor does the clock run slow nor does the ball zigzag — that is the whole effing point!>>

 

Here you are being ignorant without knowing it.

IF SR were NOT really causing an actual,  real effect, then we could book the whole nasty little scheme to fantasy.

But Einstein and all literature claims that the effects of SR are REAL!

The observer on the ship IMAGINES and FEELS that there is no difference, BUT HIS SHIP has really shrunk, his time really has slowed!

So with this statement you are not even being faithful to the theory you love dearly.

 

<<So your real beef, as I have explained to you, is with Galileo and not Einstein!>>

I have no clompalint with Galileo, as Ive pointed out earlier in this reply.

Its Einstein’s abuse of Galelio that’s the problem.

 

<<Now please don’t keep lying and say that no one has rebutted your garbage, troll. Thankfully, this crap thread has been removed from the standard science forum and placed in the trash heap where it belongs.>>

Well, here as I have just demolished every one of your statements line by line, I will continue to say that “NO ONE HAS ANSWERED my questions, rationally.”

But you are welcome to try again if you can muster up better arguments. This lot was crap.

 

And removing this topic to the “silly claims section” is NOT proving me wrong, is it?

[GAHD]

 

OK, you can still tell which one you are in, although in accord with the claim, physics will give the same results in either case for a little while.

BUT, the way to tell which one you are in is to use TIME.  You wait a bit, if you don't smash into the source planet of the Gravity, then you are in deep space, floating. Otherwise, you are dead, as you were in the temporarily free falling box under Gravity.

 

How is that different than a random asteroid strike against a free space box?

[marcospolo]

How is that different than a random asteroid strike against a free space box?

Are you still using sidetracking as a way to avoid the obvious fact that Einstein's SR is full of errors?

Please try to stick to the subject, and either solve the problems I point out or admit that Einstein is wrong.

Its not that hard to do. There are only two choices here.

 But OK to humour you while you wast my time with illogical questions, here is why its nothing like an asteroid strike.

If you could think for yourself you would know this anyway....

The asteroid strike is not going to happen in our thought experiment because we did not invent any asteroids in the scenario.

But even if we place our experiment in the real universe, where asteroids are a possibility here is why crashing into Earth is nothing like an asteroid crashing into the box in space.

An asteroid strike is a random event, but smashing into the source of the gravity is a certainty.

 

Now, make up your mind, answer my objections to Einstein or admit he is wrong. Stop ducking and dodging.

[GAHD]

Are you still using sidetracking as a way to avoid the obvious fact that Einstein's SR is full of errors?

No, I'm making a point. You seem to be stuck in "ideal simplicity" in your thoughts. As I pointed out earlier; the universe doesn't follow your logic, you must follow it's logic. This is what comes from recognising reality, and not living in some mental box where mind powers override cause and effect.

 

Keeping it simple is great, but you can't ignore relevant things.

 

The asteroid strike is not going to happen in our thought experiment because we did not invent any asteroids in the scenario.

But even if we place our experiment in the real universe, where asteroids are a possibility here is why crashing into Earth is nothing like an asteroid crashing into the box in space.

An asteroid strike is a random event, but smashing into the source of the gravity is a certainty.

I don't agree with this logic. That's only applicable in your very specific thought experiment. If I put an identical thought experiment forward with the tin can containing people on course to collide with an asteroid at equivalent terminal velocity with equivalent time I'm asking how those inside the tin can can tell the difference. That is the entire point of thought experiments: you check things logically and look for the truths you can glean without actually sitting there with calipers and beakers and sending people to death to check an idea.

You very specifically claim there are ways to tell the difference, I am asking for that method. If you can't provide it that's fine, but please recognize if your inability to do so is causing a cognitive dissonance event and making you angry and irrational at your own inability.

 

Now, make up your mind, answer my objections to Einstein or admit he is wrong. Stop ducking and dodging.

I think that's the point of asking you to explain what you're saying. I know a lot of things, they disagree with what you're saying. As per that earlier theory of mind and what I've learned of logic I recognize that you may be in possession of facts or views that I am not. You getting angry and confrontational when I ask for them undermines your ability to convince me. If you don't want to be challenged to provide specifics and whatnot, perhaps you should just stop talking and go play frisbee instead of pushing forth views in a public area without being able to provide the underpinnings of those views.

 

I'm still waiting for a "how" on the inertial scenario. You seem to be the one "ducking and dodging" when you don't provide and answer. Since you're using boxing references I've got on for you: you'll note my style is to lean in and take it on the forehead, since I do grasp what you're saying and allow an ideal situation you're not likely to encounter in reality like a perfect astral body without gravitational anomaly. That doesn't mean I can't swing at the same time asking for an equivalent point in inertial example, which you're unwilling to take on the chin like a good sport. How do those inside discover their speed? How do they know the difference?

 

As an analogy: Someone tells me humans can fly. The trick is very simple: "just aim for the ground and miss". I'm certainly going to ask for specifics on how to miss, and even then I'll try from a 2' chair instead of the top of an 18 floor parking garage. It's called logic and reason. Surely you can follow such things since you've gone off on others inabilities to do so.

Edited June 22, 2019 by GAHD

[marcospolo]

No, I'm making a point. You seem to be stuck in "ideal simplicity" in your thoughts. As I pointed out earlier; the universe doesn't follow your logic, you must follow it's logic. This is what comes from recognising reality, and not living in some mental box where mind powers override cause and effect.

 

Keeping it simple is great, but you can't ignore relevant things.

 

I don't agree with this logic. That's only applicable in your very specific thought experiment. If I put an identical thought experiment forward with the tin can containing people on course to collide with an asteroid at equivalent terminal velocity with equivalent time I'm asking how those inside the tin can can tell the difference. That is the entire point of thought experiments: you check things logically and look for the truths you can glean without actually sitting there with calipers and beakers and sending people to death to check an idea.

You very specifically claim there are ways to tell the difference, I am asking for that method. If you can't provide it that's fine, but please recognize if your inability to do so is causing a cognitive dissonance event and making you angry and irrational at your own inability.

 

I think that's the point of asking you to explain what you're saying. I know a lot of things, they disagree with what you're saying. As per that earlier theory of mind and what I've learned of logic I recognize that you may be in possession of facts or views that I am not. You getting angry and confrontational when I ask for them undermines your ability to convince me. If you don't want to be challenged to provide specifics and whatnot, perhaps you should just stop talking and go play frisbee instead of pushing forth views in a public area without being able to provide the underpinnings of those views.

 

I'm still waiting for a "how" on the inertial scenario. You seem to be the one "ducking and dodging" when you don't provide and answer. Since you're using boxing references I've got on for you: you'll note my style is to lean in and take it on the forehead, since I do grasp what you're saying and allow an ideal situation you're not likely to encounter in reality like a perfect astral body without gravitational anomaly. That doesn't mean I can't swing at the same time asking for an equivalent point in inertial example, which you're unwilling to take on the chin like a good sport. How do those inside discover their speed? How do they know the difference?

 

As an analogy: Someone tells me humans can fly. The trick is very simple: "just aim for the ground and miss". I'm certainly going to ask for specifics on how to miss, and even then I'll try from a 2' chair instead of the top of an 18 floor parking garage. It's called logic and reason. Surely you can follow such things since you've gone off on others inabilities to do so.

Ok, Since we are doing thought experiments, please explain the relevance to the study of Physics of the claim that "someone inside a sealed box doesn't know what's going on outside"?

This is really the crux of Einstein's Physics, subjective experience and perception, which are NOT related to Physics.

The deception of Einstein centres on this fact, that one observer has full knowledge of the situation, (that's the stationary observer) but the other guy in the ship is NOT allowed the same luxury. He must remain ignorant about his condition.

This is not how physics knowledge is gained, by insisting that one observer is kept in ignorance.

Please describe the thought experiment so that BOTH stationary and moving observer have identical equipment, and can both observe each other's clocks etc.  If you can still get Special Relativity under these fair and realistic conditions, that any serious Physics professor would need to be able to take meaningful measurements.

Can you provide such a thought experiment?

[GAHD]

Ok, Since we are doing thought experiments, please explain the relevance to the study of Physics of the claim that "someone inside a sealed box doesn't know what's going on outside"?

This is really the crux of Einstein's Physics, subjective experience and perception, which are NOT related to Physics.

The deception of Einstein centres on this fact, that one observer has full knowledge of the situation, (that's the stationary observer) but the other guy in the ship is NOT allowed the same luxury. He must remain ignorant about his condition.

This is not how physics knowledge is gained, by insisting that one observer is kept in ignorance.

Please describe the thought experiment so that BOTH stationary and moving observer have identical equipment, and can both observe each other's clocks etc.  If you can still get Special Relativity under these fair and realistic conditions, that any serious Physics professor would need to be able to take meaningful measurements.

Can you provide such a thought experiment?

You're the one that claimed "Now as its already been PROVEN that Einstein’s postulate that you can’t do any experiment to prove if you are moving or stationary, is WRONG."

I am asking HOW.

How do they know they are moving or they are stationary? You made a CLAIM, I am asking for the meat on that claim. I have NOT made claims towards you, I don't see why you are assigning me to prove something I have not made claims towards. I want your words to back up your words.

 

[marcospolo]

You're the one that claimed "Now as its already been PROVEN that Einstein’s postulate that you can’t do any experiment to prove if you are moving or stationary, is WRONG."

I am asking HOW.

How do they know they are moving or they are stationary? You made a CLAIM, I am asking for the meat on that claim. I have NOT made claims towards you, I don't see why you are assigning me to prove something I have not made claims towards. I want your words to back up your words.

 

Well If I'm in a box, shaped like a space ship, with space ship rocket engines, and I was in this box on the Earth launching pad one minute before, then a bit later I'm in space, after a mighty roar of the engines and awesome acceleration forces, then find myself free-floating in space with the ball Earth visible outside the window, then its a decent bet that I was moving, and now am in an inertial condition in space above Earth, which probably indicates that I moved and not the Earth. (the Earth cant have moved because another rocket took of the same time as me, from the opposite side of the Earth and he reports that he also seems to be the one moving. )

 

So there we have the proof that you can tell if you are the one moving or not.

 

Two boxes floating in space, moving apart, one or both are in motion, how to tell? Take readings from the background stars which were accurate enough to let the Apollo mission to find its way to the moon and back, Armstrong never once thought "We just need to sit here motionless and let the Earth come to us to get back home".

This is how you can tell, but my argument is that figuring out this question is NOT PHYSICS.

It's a curious situation that will be solvable by classical navigation principals and the application of common sense, "am I in a rocket that we previously fired" is a bit of a clue I would suggest.

 

Einstein is trying to make some deceptive argument over tricks of rhetoric, not over solid Physical laws.

 

Here is the crux of my claim:

 

So I'm saying that Einstein's argument involving how to tell if you are moving or not, is a trick of a person wanting to deceive you.

Especially as he forbids one observer from having any means to check or take reasonable measurements.

This is a one-sided setup here, please explain why it's essential that the guy in the rocket is forbidden from making the same quality observations that the stationary guy is allowed? Because if the ship guy was provided with the opportunity to check, he would come up with the exact same results as the observer on Earth, there can be no Special Relativity in this case.

Edited June 23, 2019 by marcospolo

[marcospolo]

You're the one that claimed "Now as its already been PROVEN that Einstein’s postulate that you can’t do any experiment to prove if you are moving or stationary, is WRONG."

I am asking HOW.

How do they know they are moving or they are stationary? You made a CLAIM, I am asking for the meat on that claim. I have NOT made claims towards you, I don't see why you are assigning me to prove something I have not made claims towards. I want your words to back up your words.

 

And here is another way to prove that your box in space is moving, (or not). Using your own laws of Physics:

 

How to tell if you are in a moving or stationary frame of reference. You cant feel anything as you are inertial, as in an airplane, but you still can tell if you are moving relative to something else.

 

Einstein said that light speed is independent from the motion of its source, so the source location or motion has nothing to do with the light we are measuring, it doesn’t matter if it’s from a distant star, or a bulb in front of your face. Light ALWAYS goes at c in any and every frame. We can detect the motioin of distant Galaxies from Red shift because of this principal.

 

So all we need to do is measure the wavelength of light from a light inside your box, if its blue-shifted then you are moving against the light, red-shifted means you are moving with the light. (nothing to do with moving toward or away from the light source) The light is totally independant of the source.

This proves that Einstein is wrong, we can detect by this other method if we are movign or not! Thats two ways now, how many do you want?

[GAHD]

So all we need to do is measure the wavelength of light from a light inside your box, if its blue-shifted then you are moving against the light, red-shifted means you are moving with the light. (nothing to do with moving toward or away from the light source) The light is totally independant of the source.

This proves that Einstein is wrong, we can detect by this other method if we are movign or not! Thats two ways now, how many do you want?

There ya go. Now do that experiment in your basement in the 4 cardinal directions at 0000 0600 1200 and 1800. Do tell me if you notice any shifting. :)

 

[marcospolo]

There ya go. Now do that experiment in your basement in the 4 cardinal directions at 0000 0600 1200 and 1800. Do tell me if you notice any shifting. :)

 

I don't know what you are all happy about if we do that we get no apparent red shift...  which in your book proves that we are not moving.

However, the redshift of distant galaxies proves that we ARE moving, and the distant galaxies are also moving.

 

But this experiment of a sealed box in space is supposed to be proving that there a way to tell if we are in a sealed box in deep space if we are actually moving or not.

The theory of redshift says that we must see red or blue shift unless we are stationary to all light.  Absolutely stationary.

 

But as we have learned from the distant galaxies, we see red shifted light, and we know that the light is not moving, its either the galaxy or us moving, or both the galaxy and us that are moving.

 

So in the sealed box, any light must show a red or blue shift, as it's been stated that there is nothing stationary in the universe, including our floating box.

So using this method, we can tell if we are moving.

 

Unless are you willing to claim that the floating box is absolutely stationary relative to all light?

Because that is what you are hinting at with you little test at 4 cardinal points. Proving that in our basement we are absolutely motionless, and the earth is the centre of the universe, which moves around us.

So which is it? Is everything moving? or are we motionless and the universe rotates about the stationary earth?

If we are moving then we must get redshift IF Einstein is correct about the absolute nature of light.

[marcospolo]

There ya go. Now do that experiment in your basement in the 4 cardinal directions at 0000 0600 1200 and 1800. Do tell me if you notice any shifting. :)

 

and Im also expecting that you should be able to pprovide the following:

Please describe the thought experiment so that BOTH stationary and moving observer have identical equipment, and can both observe each other's clocks etc.  If you can still get Special Relativity under these fair and realistic conditions, that any serious Physics professor would need to be able to take meaningful measurements.

Can you provide such a thought experiment?

[GAHD]

I don't know what you are all happy about if we do that we get no apparent red shift...  which in your book proves that we are not moving.

I don't think I've put a "book" forward to you on it here? 1st post 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

 

I just asked you to explain yourself and your claims. You say there should be observed shifting, which would let us tell an absolute speed. This would be a crazy awesome thing, and shouldn't need more than a basement and a few time-delayed measurements. Do it man, you'd be a laureate and a hero. ~How no one would have noticed such shifts in spectroscopy before now is obviously an appalling oversight!

[ralfcis]

Dear GAHD, you're like the most intelligent person on here and I'd love to get in a battle with you. So here goes.

 

It doesn't matter who is actually moving. It's impossible to draw relative velocity on a spacetime diagram anyway. There is always a background grid to which one or both of the participants move relative to. You can still calculate all effects relative to that frame. It takes someone to accelerate at some time to have differing relative velocities. If you've chosen the earth as the common frame, the math works out the same between two ships if both leave earth at 1/3c or 1 stays and the other leaves at 3/5c. In one case both have accelerated to move and in the other only 1 has but that makes no difference to their relative velocity. But Einstein made a mistake saying a ship taking off from earth is equivalent to the entire universe taking off from the ship because the energies required are vastly different. To accelerate the LHC around a particle requires vastly more energy than to accelerate a particle in the LHC. If Bob is depicted as stationary on earth and Alice does a 3ly roundtrip at .6c, the reverse analysis where Alice is stationary and Bob and the earth leave her and then she fires her rockets to catch up to them is not physically equivalent because she'd have to go at 15/17c relative to the earth to catch up with them. 

 

So relative velocity is the correct way to think of things but there's no way to do the math correctly without setting up a common background frame. So you guys are just arguing semantics although I'm sure Marcospolo would not be aware he's doing that.

[marcospolo]

I don't think I've put a "book" forward to you on it here? 1st post 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

 

I just asked you to explain yourself and your claims. You say there should be observed shifting, which would let us tell an absolute speed. This would be a crazy awesome thing, and shouldn't need more than a basement and a few time-delayed measurements. Do it man, you'd be a laureate and a hero. ~How no one would have noticed such shifts in spectroscopy before now is obviously an appalling oversight!

I don't believe in redshift is Doppler shift of light.

But you do. So I'm using your own beliefs to show that you can't have it both ways.

If you believe that light is absolute always c anywhere, and that redshift is because galaxies are receding, then you MUST believe that I should find the redshift in my basement, that's the logical consequence of your belief, it's not mine.

 

Ill check out the 5 places you cite, and let you know if you really addressed my questions.

[marcospolo]

I don't think I've put a "book" forward to you on it here? 1st post 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

 

I just asked you to explain yourself and your claims. You say there should be observed shifting, which would let us tell an absolute speed. This would be a crazy awesome thing, and shouldn't need more than a basement and a few time-delayed measurements. Do it man, you'd be a laureate and a hero. ~How no one would have noticed such shifts in spectroscopy before now is obviously an appalling oversight!

Ok, all those 5 citations involve you wishing to hear my explanation as to how a person in a free-floating box in space could determine if he was moving or not.

As we are discussing physics, the guy inside would need to use every possible method to figure this out.

So he could indeed determine his relative speed IF HE WAS ALLOWED TO EXAMINE THE REST OF the UNIVERSE, of which he was part.

 

That is the answer.

 

If you insist that this scientist must try to do science with no equipment or data, then YOU must explain why you are imposing this unrealistic restriction on him.

 

It seems as if you really think that ignorance about your surroundings is somehow allowing Physics to behave differently under conditions of ignorance, which is EXACTLY the total basis of Einstein's SR.  Enforced ignorance.

 

The reality is that once both observers are privy to ALL the available information, there CAN BE NO SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

[GAHD]

If you insist that this scientist must try to do science with no equipment or data, then YOU must explain why you are imposing this unrealistic restriction on him.

 

...The reality is that once both observers are privy to ALL the available information, there CAN BE NO SPECIAL RELATIVITY.

ahh yeah, so by your logic we should totally be able to see a diametrically opposed red/blue shifting in CMB to find an absolute frame. Well we got a Red/cold one...but no diametrically opposite hot one. ~Guess that's out of the window for an absolute frame then. ~Wonder why no one's tried this privy to all information one before? 

~How about your red/blue basement shifting?

I'm honestly trying to find something you're saying that can be tested in the same way stuff like GPS(or CMBR, or LIGO, or ATLAS) has been testing the standard model...

 

And really, I'd love to hear how you'd determine and absolute frame and "real" velocity not "relative" velocity even with all the outside info. I was trying to be kind to you by keeping it simple, but if you WANT to drag in more and more info...waiting on it.

 

As for "imposing an unrealistic expectation"...

So, you CAN do an experiment to see if you are in a box stationary on Earth, or in a box, in deep space, accelerating under inertial conditions, at 1 g.

So this destroys Einstein’s whole argument, does it not? (if you can do such an experiment)

That's you man. Your words. Don't tell me they're mine when you can look at them directly from yourself.

 

I wanted you to show the way you say it can be solved, and see some physical examples. One does not tell the universe how to exist, one learns about existence from the universe. So, basement light-shift experiment: do show?