Questions To Special Relativity

[Vmedvil2]

Can I understand this passage like this? You admit that these ships have the same time rate as their speed is same.

you know what **** you, you said they had a different velocity originally then changed it several times. This is why you are a crank you are no different than moronium or any of the others, but yes if they have the same velocity then they have the same rate of time, I said that for like 20 ****ing posts.

[TonyYuan2020]

you know what **** you, you said they had a different velocity originally then changed it several times. This is why you are a crank you are no different than moronium or any of the others, but yes if they have the same velocity then they have the same rate of time, I said that for like 20 ****ing posts.

 

Good，This is very important!

If the earth changes its velocity , will the time rate of the spacecraft change? 

 

 

Back to the story ：Is the earth the center of the universe? A benchmark for all time? 

Edited March 14, 2020 by TonyYuan2020

[Vmedvil2]

Good，This is very important!

If the earth changes its velocity , will the time rate of the spacecraft change? 

 

 

Back to the story ：Is the earth the center of the universe? A benchmark for all time? 

No, the time rate would not change if the earth's velocity changed only the object's velocity determines its time rate. I am done with you, you have wasted enough of my time!

Edited March 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[TonyYuan2020]

No, the time rate would not change if the earth's velocity changed only the object's velocity determines its time rate. I am done with you, you have wasted enough of my time!

 

“only the object's velocity determines its time rate. ”   Whose velocity is this relative to? Is there an absolute velocity in the universe?

[Vmedvil2]

“only the object's velocity determines its time rate. ”   Whose velocity is this relative to? Is there an absolute velocity in the universe?

Judging by the equation   What do you think that it is relative to, what travels at C?

Edited March 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[TonyYuan2020]

Judging by the equation   What do you think that it is relative to, what travels at C?

 

My God, we are talking about the speed of one object relative to another. How can you tell me that the speed is relative to C? Is C an object?

[Vmedvil2]

My God, we are talking about the speed of one object relative to another. How can you tell me that the speed is relative to C? Is C an object?

and this proves to me that you don't understand physics... the correct answer was light, photons travel at C.

[TonyYuan2020]

and this proves to me that you don't understand physics... the correct answer was light, photons travel at C.

 

There is a lot of light in the universe. They shoot in different directions. Which photon should I use as a reference.

[Vmedvil2]

There is a lot of light in the universe. They shoot in different directions. Which photon should I use as a reference.

Any of them they all have the same reference frame, all traveling at exactly C.

[TonyYuan2020]

Any of them they all have the same reference frame, all traveling at exactly C.

 

How is C measured? Whose speed is it relative to?

 

There is a group of people measuring the speed of sound in the plane. They measure it in different directions, and the speed of sound is constant. So they come to a great conclusion that the speed of sound is constant.

 

Measuring the speed of light on earth is always the same. Because light is trapped by a gravitational field.

[Vmedvil2]

 

How is C measured? Whose speed is it relative to?

 

There is a group of people measuring the speed of sound in the plane. They measure it in different directions, and the speed of sound is constant. So they come to a great conclusion that the speed of sound is constant.

 

Measuring the speed of light on earth is always the same. Because light is trapped by a gravitational field.

 

That's not how it works and I am really done this time, I will let someone else handle you.

[TonyYuan2020]

That's not how it works and I am really done this time, I will let someone else handle you.

 

Thank you very much for your reply. I will look forward to your results. Thank you, my friend!

[ralfcis]

This post has faulty reasoning which was later corrected by Popeye. The aberration of light is not seen from the ships' perspectives, only from the earth's perspective of the ships going away from it at .9c relative velocity.

 

Sorry I tuned out of this conversation so I don't know what you guys have been writing about but I woke up this morning with a related question of my own.

 

Suppose two WWI biplanes were flying parallel to each other at some distance apart so their relative velocity is zero. One tries to shoot the other one down so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his plane since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his tracer bullets always lag the other plane. So he compensates for wind speed and no longer misses the other plane because his plane's forward velocity gives the bullet a sideways velocity to keep up with the other plane's velocity. This is Newtonian physics.

 

Now the same scenario but with two parallel spaceships at .9c so their relative velocity is also zero.One tries to shoot down the other with a laser beam so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his ship since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his beam always lags the other ship. This time there's no wind speed to compensate for. The MMX proved there is no ether wind so why is the beam missing. Well, it's due to the relativistic aberration of light. He has to compensate for that in order to hit the other ship.

 

Unfortunately this action breaks the cardinal rule of relativity; there is no way in constant relative motion to tell you're moving. Your relative velocity to the other ship is zero but the angle of your laser gun says you're both moving relative to some absolute reference point because it would be at 90^o if you weren't. Unlike the bullets from a biplane, the speed of your ship can't push light sideways. I must be missing some fundamental understanding of relativity but to me the phenomenon of the aberration of light seems to disprove relativity which obviously can't be right.

 

I wish I could ask this question on the PSX but my ban is still in effect. Even if I could ask this question, it would immediately re-instate my ban because 99.999% of them are closed minded and can't understand my questions.

Edited March 15, 2020 by ralfcis

[Vmedvil2]

Sorry I tuned out of this conversation so I don't know what you guys have been writing about but I woke up this morning with a related question of my own.

 

Suppose two WWI biplanes were flying parallel to each other at some distance apart so their relative velocity is zero. One tries to shoot the other one down so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his plane since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his tracer bullets always lag the other plane. So he compensates for wind speed and no longer misses the other plane because his plane's forward velocity gives the bullet a sideways velocity to keep up with the other plane's velocity. This is Newtonian physics.

 

Now the same scenario but with two parallel spaceships at .9c so their relative velocity is also zero.One tries to shoot down the other with a laser beam so he sets the horizontal angle of his gun at 90^o to his ship since he figures their relative velocity of zero is the same as if they were just parked on a runway some distance apart. He fires but misses and sees his beam always lags the other ship. This time there's no wind speed to compensate for. The MMX proved there is no ether wind so why is the beam missing. Well, it's due to the relativistic aberration of light. He has to compensate for that in order to hit the other ship.

 

Unfortunately this action breaks the cardinal rule of relativity; there is no way in constant relative motion to tell you're moving. Your relative velocity to the other ship is zero but the angle of your laser gun says you're both moving relative to some absolute reference point because it would be at 90^o if you weren't. Unlike the bullets from a biplane, the speed of your ship can't push light sideways. I must be missing some fundamental understanding of relativity but to me the phenomenon of the aberration of light seems to disprove relativity which obviously can't be right.

 

I wish I could ask this question on the PSX but my ban is still in effect. Even if I could ask this question, it would immediately re-instate my ban because 99.999% of them are closed minded and can't understand my questions.

That is because relative to the light's velocity the objects are still moving, light only travels at C, it is not instantaneous the motion of the photons so you would have to correct for the time it takes the photons to reach the location, the photons are moving at 0 velocity in the direction they are moving .9C, light as a particle moves in a direction at C but not all directions. Basically it moves away from the source of it at C.

 

 

 

Basically, the resultant vector is V = C not the parts of the vector.

Edited March 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Yes but that's not my question. The relative motion of the ships whether they're parked on earth or both moving parallel to each other moving at .9c away from earth should be irrelevant because the ships are in zero relative velocity frames. Yet, the fact that in the parked scenario the gun is pointed at 90 degrees and in the "moving" scenario it's angled to compensate for the aberration of light means those two zero velocity frames are not equivalent. This seems to indicate earth has a low relative velocity to background space which indicates a preferred frame which is verboten in relativity.

[Vmedvil2]

Yes but that's not my question. The relative motion of the ships whether they're parked on earth or both moving parallel to each other moving at .9c away from earth should be irrelevant because the ships are in zero relative velocity frames. Yet, the fact that in the parked scenario the gun is pointed at 90 degrees and in the "moving" scenario it's angled to compensate for the aberration of light means those two zero velocity frames are not equivalent. This seems to indicate earth has a low relative velocity to background space which indicates a preferred frame which is verboten in relativity.

I dunno ralfcis there are some questions I cannot answer. It is something you will have to "discover" for yourself. As I have said before the preferred reference frame of special relativity is light's reference frame that's what its all based around.

Edited March 14, 2020 by VictorMedvil

[ralfcis]

Umm according to relativity you can't have relative velocity to the vacuum. Light has a relative velocity to the vacuum so by the transitive property, you can't have relative velocity to light which is backed up by the relativistic velocity combo law.