Mordred

Your essentially correct so far. However as I mentioned showing light as constant he refers to two works by other physicists. Lorentz and Maxwell. In section 3 he applies the Lorentz transformations. In later sections he applies the Maxwell equations, which at this time has already been shown by other research papers to follow Lorentz invariance and not Galilean invariance. In essence he refers to other research papers that have already shown light being constant. One of those tests being the null results of the M and M experiment for Luminiferous Eather. In that test it also showed zero deviation from c due to velocity of emitter or observer.

Just a side, more for other readers but its also useful. You recall I stated that often the mathematics are more important than the words spoken. This is a good example. in the first equation where he is defining synchronization he uses the equation \(T_a-T_b=\acute{T}_b-\acute{T}_a\) this immediately tells me that not only does this describe synchronization, it also shows the relation is commutative, and symmetric. What this means is the choice of observer A or observer B doesn't change the mathematics. Either observer A or observer B can be treated as at rest or alternatively the inertial frame of reference. (it tells me far more than that in terms of related mathematics but that's outside the scope of the discussion)

Fair enough we will stick to section 2. Let's express what section two does not describe. 1) it does not describe time dilation. 2) it does not describe length contraction. 3) it does not describe the ticks from the face of the clock as being slower or faster. What does it describe ? It describes classical physics and Galilean invariance using relativity of simulaneaity. Which existed since the late 1600's section two does not present any new physics for the time period. He does use c as a constant but that's one of the postulates of the paper. However the relevant math showing how that applies comes later in the paper. It is not contained in section 2. Section 2 in essence shows that one does not require an eather to describe Galilean relativity. Nor relativity of simultaneaityThe end of section 2 covers what he showed in the section. "So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system " We already covered the math where you see that in the stationary setup. The synchronous readings of clock A and Clock B was right in the middle between them. We also covered that in the moving system this is no longer true. That is what that quoted section is referring to.

Funny part is, if you use actual physics to toy model systems. You do end up learning far more than from lectures or reading literature or watching videos. However further discussion on the pros and modelling are outside the topic under discussion.

All good simultaneaity is highly important to understand. I certainly don't mind assistance. Sometimes a different angle on any topic opens the light of day.

Energy is simply the ability to perform work. Mass is the resistance to inertia change. Matter has the requirement of "taking up space" so via the Pauli exclusion principle only fermionic particles count as matter. Bosons do not. If you learn mainstream physics you will discover there is an answer to most of your questions. Without invoking personal theories.

Correct I'm still thinking of the easiest way to explain section 3. As section 3 gets more into the Lorentz transforms. Though naturally it will have to wait till after work (RL sux lol)

So now your adding quark generations? That won't work either once you apply the CKMS mass mixing angles. Little hint all particles except electron proton and photon were mathematically predicted before discovery. One might think it's as easy as simply describing some particle to have specific properties and then brute forcing the math to accept it. However it doesn't work that way. Certain relations of Fibonacci are already part of main stream physics so I certainly have no objection to its uses. It can certainly have its applications with wavefunctions but you need a bit more than just Fibonacci. Particularly when the path integrals become important. LOL you also shouldn't need to create new particles to make your theory viable. That sort of thing quickly gets overturned. If you cannot use Fibonacci with existing mathematics pertaining to particles then your theory requires work. Though doing so will require extremely intensive mathematics.

Ok keeping an open, even though you are showing math relations. Albeit primarily on graph. You will find on further examination what you have won't work once you try to incorporate the S matrix. The 3 quarks you have shown is only the valence quarks. In point of detail the proton or neutron etc have a probability function that will project a sea of quarks where valence quarks represent the charge requirement for the overall charge. What you have so far would only amount at best as a first order approximation however doesn't appear to include any reference to the probability function of the Schrodinger now Klein Gordon equations. Secondly simply because we can mathematically describe nature. That does not mean nature cares how we describe or measure it. Absolutely we can mathematically describe nature. However that does not mean nature is mathematical as a fundamental.

The constant velocity of massless particles such as photons regardless of the velocity of the source or receiver is not merely a postulate or math trick. It is observed by every related experiment as highly accurate. Its a tough pill to swallow but its one of the most tested theories in Physics. It is still being tested to higher and higher precision to this day. Course the other pill to swallow will be an equally well tested aspect of SR (time dilation). The two are related but that gets complex and does require remembering the mass definition I provided For the record I will never apply any eather in any physics discussion. SR and GR do not use the Eather in its theory either. anyways its late here Night

No idea on the down point.. any measure is relative to the observer in any physics. Regardless of model. As far as the measurements taken well There is a huge list ranging from observing stellar measurements of extremely fast moving stars. The CMB etc etc. To using extremely high speed cyclotrons, Historicaly though Jupiter was used along with the sun back in 1675 done in Paris by Roemer. He also included Jupiters 4 brightest moons. By knowing their orbit he measured different transition times over a long period of time and used that data to get the value of c. The value he got back then is pretty much the same. 186,000 miles per second. We have taken that to incredibly higher precision using extremely high precision tests. Some of which I posted earlier. Back when I mentioned error margins a few days ago. (one way speed of light/two way speed of light tests. The St Ives test etc etc all involve measuring c). With modern telescopes there are plenty of objects emitting light travelling at near c. We still measure the speed of light from them as invariant c edit just a side note all massless objects will have a velocity c. (mass is resistance to inertia change(or acceleration aka Newtons laws of inertia.). Knowing the definition of mass is essential to understand SR and GR or any physics theory it applies to all physics theories.

Any measurement taken of the speed of light will give the value of c. A measurement is defined as an Observer.

An observer can himself be at near c and still measure the velocity of a light signal as being c even if the ship with the emitter is also going near c. Regardless of the velocity of emitter or observer any measurement of the velocity will equal c. (this is the part where the length contraction and time dilation kicks in of the Lorentz transformations. ) This is also the point where the deviations occur from the classical physics. LOL is typically also the hardest to get people to accept. Hence all the research and studies, this required a huge burden of proof. So far its tested as true to extremely high precision

We cross talked while I was editing your correct in the section you quoted the rest of my above post contains an edit where I added details on the moving train. When the train moves Right down the middle is no longer true and we must now account for the train motion. All events (a term that includes observer-emitter-coordinates-signals ie light etc) are always relative to the observer. Yes an observer will measure the velocity of light at c regardless of the velocity of the emitter. This is an invariant quantity. It never varies regardless of observer Nor how fast the emitter is travelling. If your good up to hear I suggest to better understand the math of SR we cover principle of equivalence next. If you have further questions on this stage ask away. As we can see though there is only limited positions where the two clock are simultaneous and where those point lie will vary.

Oh I will try to keep the math as light as possible, Hence I'm also going to keep this in slow stages to make sure each stage is understood. lets start with a stationary rod. We both know light takes time to travel from A to B. So lets set a clock at each end. Now there is only one distance from each clock where an observer will read the same time on both clocks. Can you tell me where it is ? (classical physics only needed here). Yes this stage seems redundant but its important to understand relativity of simultaneity itself. The obvious answer is any point where the distance between the observer and both clocks are equal. It could be at the midpoint between each clock L/2 or it can be any distance where the length between observer and clock A =the length between observer and clock B. We just finished the related equations for when the train is in motion. That details how the trains motion will alter the previous relation. Now we have to account for the trains motion as well as c. Thankfully we just went through that. What this shows is that there are coordinates where an observer will agree on the time where each event occurs at the same time. This is extremely useful. So I'm going to stop here and make sure your good up this point.

Ok it takes a person of strong character to admit being in error and further more wanting to better understand to avoid future errors. So +1 on that. Now we can move onto Relativity of Simultaneity. As Swansont mentioned above its not explicitly shown in the paper. However you can trust me on one detail, its a topic that went through decades of contested debate in numerous papers and methodologies. Time was until then considered absolute. However studies started to show that this wasn't accurate. It wasn't even Einstein that first noticed this. Poincare also made note of it prior to SR. Anyways without going into the history per se. (lol we have numerous forum members far more familiar with the history than I ). It might be best to examine what relativity of simultaneity entails. For this we do not need any eather based theory though Lorentz himself was a supporter of eather. Its an unnecessary complication. Are you in agreement to stick with the moving rods for examination to ensure you understand relativity of simultaneity ? (keep in mind this experiment itself won't show time dilation ) as both observers are moving at the same velocity. Its used in the paper more of a reminder of what classical physics (Galilean relativity would show)

No but I'm glad he didn't draw a Feymann penquin diagram of his wife.... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_diagram

One of my past jobs was to test regulated radiation equipment for leakage for the Province I live in. Canucks here. Anyways though the job never entailed testing wifi or Bluetooth devices. Rather it more involved industrial and commercial equipment such as xray machines. I had access to the test equipment so had the curiosity to test the available Bluetooth and wifi devices in the lab. You can barely get a reading, I could get far greater radiation reading from the sun standing outside than I could any Bluetooth or wifi device. Due to tight regulations that typically applied to the industrial, medical and commercial x ray machines. Medical naturally has a higher risk while an image is being taken the exposure time is minimal. Subsequently a far lower risk than standing outside on a sunny day.

Yeah the first descriptive screamed crackpottery. An EMF wave (electromagnetic frequency) with no frequency. It got worse with describing it as a scalar field with propagation greater than c. The whole time travel without space is literal rubbish.

Then its not an electric field either. An electric has known and well understood properties if you change any of those properties its no longer the same field. From what I read though perhaps a terminology change might be order. Perhaps a monopole field though no monopolies have ever been discovered they are still viable. Better yet as it only contains your Ryton particles call it a Ryton field.

Lol he keeps mixing us up. But he doesn't seem to understand how it applies to a vector so I'm seeing if he can get the length of a vector when he is given velocity (v) and the duration of the velocity. (@Logicandreason hint hint) reminder the sl subscript is just an identifier. I posted what the identifier means previous.

Wow ok obviously you have never used vectors before. What determines the length of a vector with velocity as the vector ?

You already know the velocity of Light. You enter it where the c is then multiply that by time to get the interval length. So where is the issue in using that value for a vector ? If you have a velocity and you are graphing that velocity as a vector you require the length of the vector. Knowing the distance travelled by an object in a specified time frame and direction of travel is precisely how you graph a velocity as a vector. Do I assume you have never drawn velocity as a vector ?

You want this again I already did so but whatever. lets go through it again. Lets simplify it however use just one emitter and send the signal bouncing between two mirrors mounted on a moving rod. Forget all about observers we or relativity of simultaneity. mirror A back of the train mirror B front of the train. on a static train entire length of train to truly simplify the math lets say its the time it would take light 1 second to travel on a non moving train. Static velocity=0. now lets say the train travels at a velocity 0.5 c set the train moving from A to C. now send a quick signal pulse from B to A. time for signal to arrive at A from B is 1 second on a non moving train. However the train is moving while the pulse is in flight. It is moving at 0.5 c so the pulse will hit mirror A at 0.5 seconds and not 1 second because mirror A towards the signal while the signal was moving toward mirror A. (C-V) in math speak. 1-0.5=0.5 or more accurately \((ct_{sl}-v)\)where the subscript " sl " denotes the interval length it would have taken on a stationary train CLASSICAL VECTOR ADDITION....Forgot to add we already established the train length being the equivalent of d=1 light second so I simplified

100 percent correct. That math includes the c-v and c+v relation which you won't grasp how it's being used