Mordred

If you believe that then why do you struggle so hard with the use of the interval ? You still won't accept c-v and c+v which I further supplied a reference paper (albeit M&M that also tests Lorentz invariance in c) that uses equivalence to a moving rod in the experimental setup. Did you somehow miss that detail ?

It's directly related, you seem to have issues with accepting c as constant regardless of velocity of emitter. Here is a detail your missing here. It is not our job to convince you to believe in SR. Everyone one of us knows that's usually impossible to do with anyone that refuses to accept any theory or model. The onus of evidence or proof that such a well tested theory isn't our responsibility. The onus is on you to show that SR is incorrect in the face of all the evidence showing SR as being correct.

That's quite alright it's an archaic test but it does examine the speed of light in 2 directions and not deviate due to velocity. An old test for Lorentz invariance in the speed of light. Modern tests places Lorentz invariance down to an upper bound for any deviation from constant c at \[0.7*10^{-11}\] for any deviation from c due to motion of the emitter. This upper bound is through a wide range of experiments testing for speed of light deviations. A more well known example being the St-Ives experiment. So if you feel c isn't constant as per SR then you have a huge body of evidence against your belief

One of our rules is that all material pertaining to your theory be posted here as much as feasible. Our members should not need to go to another site to examine your model. Another rule is testable rigor, that will invariably involve the relevant mathematics. Judging from the above I'm going to assume you have little to none in that regard. However just from the above. If Ryton particles has a weak electromagnetic interaction then that would not match observational evidence relevant to dark matter. Your particles would have a tendency to clutter and will not maintain uniform mass distribution due to its charged nature.

you really missed the point I was making with the M and M experiment paper didn't you ? The point I was making was that the same c-v, c+v relation is being used and applied directly under an experimental basis. If that relation was incorrect then the experiment itself would have shown it as being incorrect. Yet you sit there and accuse us of religious convictions. Naturally we will believe observational evidence that shows an equation as being valid. We would be idiots not to. I can literally post dozens of professional peer reviewed articles involving light that will employ precisely the same relation between emitters in motion and static observers that use that same math relation. None of that will make a whoot of difference your mind is set. You will not agree with any of them. So ask yourself this who has the religious like conviction. Us that can recognize experimental evidence that supports an equation. Or yourself that denies the experimentally tested accuracy ? regardless so far the only thing you have proven is that your mind is set and thus a closed book on the subject matter of SR in general. Any effort to show you differently is literally a waste of our time. However just in case lets look at some kinematic on light papers https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/relativity_chap_1.pdf http://web2.ph.utexas.edu/spw/gleeson_071117.pdf https://cas.web.cern.ch/sites/default/files/lectures/chavannes-de-bogis-2013/rel1.pdf Yes these point out the loss of simultaneity we already covered that so no point repeating it. That's where SR steps in with the corrections. Ask yourself the following is it really everyone else in error including the thousands of tests performed, 100's of different studies done by countless different professional physicists in error over the course of over 100 years of intensive studies in numerous different experiments that's all in error Or is is yourself ?

That is a poor way to describe statistical mathematics. In point of detail any probability function has a very useful purpose. That purpose is to provide a full range of possible answers or account for the full possible set of outcomes. Some things in nature (in particular in the quantum regime) cannot be locked down to a single value answer but will have a likely-hood of a range of answers. Lets try an example. lets say your goal is to mathematically predict where a ball will stop and provide the exact location of where the ball will stop when you roll it down a gravel hill. With factors such rocks, gravel amount of initial force delivered to the ball, etc etc. The best you will be able to do is predict a range of possible locations of where that ball will stop you also would only be able to provide a range of possible paths taken by the same ball. Each time you perform the experiment the ball will choose a slightly different path and stop at different locations. this is where probability functions come into play, Another example is the Feymann path integrals, The Euler Langrangian gives the probability of all possible paths. Up to this point mathematically you can only provide a probability of possible outcomes. This is inherent in many classical systems as well as quantum systems. Once you perform the experiment. you have determined the path taken as well as the end point. So that probability function collapses into a determined mathematical state. in entanglement its identical. you do not know which entangled particle you have whether or not its spin up or spin down however you know you have a 50% probability it could be spin up or spin down. So you write that as a probability function. (the entangled superposition state). Once you measure the particle you know you have a spin up, and the other particle must be spin down. the probability function is no longer needed as you have measured a determined state.

Sigh lets try a different angle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelson-morley_calculations.svg see image here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment its in essence the same mathematics same relation you can see the image and how v-c and v+c is applied

photon propogator \[\frac{i}{k^2}[-g^{\mu\nu}+(1-\zeta)\frac{k^\mu k\nu}{k^2}]\] in Feymann gauge \(\zeta=1\) gives \[-\frac{i}{k^2}g^{\mu\nu}\] polarization states of photon \[\epsilon_1=\begin{pmatrix}0\\1\\0\\0\end{pmatrix}\] \[\epsilon_2=\begin{pmatrix}0\\0\\1\\0\end{pmatrix}\] normalization given by \(\epsilon_1 \cdot \epsilon_2=g^{\mu\nu}\) Electron/positron propogator \[\frac{i(\gamma^\mu q_\mu+m)}{q^2-m^2}\] delta function \((2\pi)^4\varphi ( p_1-p_2-q)\)

why would you believe the rod is not moving when it shows it directly in the math you just posted ? What do you think the v-c and v+c is all about. I even spent time telling you this yesterday. The rod length is static does not mean the rod isn't moving. The static implies what is now called Born rigidity. In other words he isn't applying the SR Lorentz contraction at this stage. At this stage he is directly examining Classical physics. You don't seem to get that/ \(Observer A (train direction given by- V)\longrightarrow Observer B\) does that help ?

You only get banned for violations of the Site rules. If a thread in speculations does not meet the requirements in the links I posted on page one. The thread gets locked. That is not the same as being banned.

Any wavefunction that describes a probability isn't real to begin with but mathematical. The superposition function of an entangled pair is such an example of a strictly mathematical wavefunction.

wow you simply refuse to see the math directly in front of you and how it pertains directly to the equation in section 2 of Einstein's paper. This has become a pointless waste of my time. Enjoy your misconceptions.

its not the rod length that's important in relativity of simultaneity. It is the interval length. For someone who claimed to understand SR better than I do I would have expected you to know and understood that as the interval length is involved in nearly every transformation of SR as well as Galilean relativity. for the record it also directly applies to normal everyday Doppler shift.

And that's just about enough attitude from one person I will tolerate. If you can't understand how the interval length is applied in Einstein's paper which myself and others have pointed out there is no point going further. You really should have studied Galilean relativity. You will not accept or understand what is contained in section 2 of the article. There is no strawman about it. The strawman argument is in your denials and attitude which I have had enough of Galilean transformations 101... \[\acute{t}=t\] \[\acute{x}=x-vt\] y=y z=z perhaps you should familiarize yourself with that while your at it study Galilean invariance

start of nucleosynthesis \[\rho_r c^2=\frac{3}{32\pi}\frac{c^2}{G_N}t^{-2}\] \[\rho_r c^2=\frac{3}{32\pi}(\rho c^2)_{PL}(\frac{t_{PL}}{t})\] \[K_b T\simeq 0.46 E_{PL}(\frac{t}{t_{PL}})^{-1/2}\] \[t_s\simeq \frac{10^{20}}{[T(K)]^2}\]\[\simeq (T_{bbn}=10^9 K)\] roughly \(10^2) seconds after BB

This directly applies to \[t_b-t_a=\frac{r_{AB}}{v-c},,,\acute{t_a}-t_b\frac{r_{AB}}{v+c}\] given in section2 of the article were discussing. https://www.physics.umd.edu/courses/Phys606/spring_2011/einstein_electrodynamics_of_moving_bodies.pdf though in my case I added a stationary observer M

Oh boy so you didn't consider the interval length ct .That's obviously why you didn't understand what v-c and c+v were being used for. It is the interval length being applied not just the length of the train. Perhaps we should examine that first under Galilean relativity. take your train lets place Alice (A) at the rear Bob at the front (B) and have observer at mid point M. The train is moving at V relative to observer M. As both observers agree on the velocity of c then they will disagree on the Relative length given by the interval. Hence \(T_{A}= c-v_A\) and \(T_{B}=c+v_B\) This is directly applied using Galilean relativity and not SR, where v is much less than c. When v approaches c then the relativity effects of SR come into play. I'm going to stop here to make sure you can at least agree on this under Galilean relativity. as the interval is \(ct\) it has dimensionality of length hence using the interval time in replacement of length. There is no point going further if your not clear on Galilean relativity itself.

no it is not misguided to use the mathematics of a theory correctly when examining that theory. You don't make judgements on a theory without correctly applying its mathematics. Anyway I will first enjoy my morning coffee before showing how this is examined correctly under SR.

If you stop to listen for a change you might get the answer. ThoughI have had to ignore your insulting behavior far too many times in this thread that I really don't know why I even bother. After I eat and have my morning coffee I will show how SR does the electrodynamics of moving objects which is the essence of the examination your applying here. Of course he applies classical physics but you chose to ignore where he deviates from Galiliean relativity transforms.

You mention SR being wrong numerous tunes here but you didn't correctly applying SR. You didn't properly do its transforms so naturally you were not getting the correct answers. Instead you provided judgments and claims of it being in error by making errors in your examination. Secondly you specifically asked a question. "What is the function of c-v and c+v which I specifically answered.

Your examination of SR is wrong because you are not correctly applying the transforms of SR.

Your analysis for starters is missing a key ingredient with the Lorentz transforms. Where is the length contraction ? There are no rigid rods in SR Its late atm so I will look at this further tomorrow but I will answer one of your questions now. t The functions v-c and v+c applies to the observer on the embankment and directly to gaining relativity of simultaneaty. take two flashes of light emitted from A and B the relativity of simultaneity to an observer on the embankment can be preserved using the Doppler shift relation you posted though this may be a better form to see that if you contract ct (part of the Lorentz transform being the length contraction)by the factor v-c the ct interval length is also dilated to the other emitter via v+c to the observer midway between emitters A and B to the observer at M on the embankment. If you ignore the length contraction aspects you will of course get the wrong answers. I will have more time to go over this in more detail tomorrow

Lol not quite there yet

There is getting to be a decent number of papers on the application. I've been running across them quite often. I haven't heard of any tests done yet. Largely still in the proposal stages.

That is the more common proposed methods to apply quantum entanglement cryptology that I have encountered. At this point in time quantum cryptology is more of a speculative application. Thus far I haven't heard of any actual tests of its use.