Logicandreason

You will never understand this subject, because its irrational nonsense. All the solutions are nonsense. Einstein's conclusions about warping time and distances and mass, is nonsense. This has been proven beyond doubt. You cant get rational science truth from a nonsense hypothesis. There needs to be an agreement by the majority of scientists that their dogma about Einstein is full of nonsensical claims and that there is most likely aa much better correct interpretation. But dogma belongs to religious belief and that's what Physics of Einstein is based on. Few are interested in truth, they prefer comfortable lies that sound like science fiction. Because that's more exciting. Like Santa and the tooth fairy, exciting but imaginary.

A recent Publication had this to say about Particle Physics: "The foundational theory of particle physics, the Standard Model, predicts that the universe should not exist!" That's how rational Particle Physics is. What Article? Oh nothing really, just a statement from Harvard. https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/frustrating-search-new-physics/ So you guys are trying to show where I'm wrong by citing half baked fringe science? When I'm just using axioms of the core of classical physics, that you all still say is valid?

So you caught a specific muon high in the atmosphere, tagged it, and let it go, and found that that same muon reached the earth surface? And if muons are reaching the surface at sea level, then this just shows that some muons have a longer life time than others. Or it might show that muons are not ALL created in the upper atmosphere, some are created lower down. Or it may show that you shortened the normal lifetime of a free muon during the process of capturing it in your cloud chamber after it passed through 14 inches of Perspex to SLOW IT DOWN. You see, here's the thing. ANY EXPERIMENT can be interpreted differently, depending on you prior beliefs. This is why experiment can NEVER PROVE YOUR THEORY. SO STOP GIVING ME ONE EYED EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS AS IF YOU WERE STATING FACT. It doesn't matter who Einstein copied his ideas from, it only matters that this concept is wrong. And I am saying that its impossible to "conclude that c is invariant" now. (but others also have done)

In Einstein's paper, he has no evidence other than a thought experiment. His math is wrong and his conclusions are wrong. So why do you imagine that his postulate that caused the errors in his paper, can be applied to particle accelerators today? (that measurement of light velocity is the same measurement is any frame)

But there is no such thing as "rest mass". there is only Mass. Look it up. What possibly aspect about moving, is going to add more Mass to a brick? Did you add more brick matter to the brick? Where do that come from? I thought you said the brick has shrunk in length? So how come there is now mare Mass? "Swansont has already addressed your mistaken beliefs concerning the supposed 'invariance' of length" No, he only repeated the same standard statements, that I've just shown are nonsense. A bricks length is relative to each end of the brick, and has nothing to do with any external frame. This is basic Newtonian Physics, which you said was still valid. We measure length of a brick for one end to the other. that length is invariant. If you are going to say "opposite to something", you need to state to what are you referring? Opposite to the light wave? we get doppler shift. Opposite to the source of the light? that's not a valid factor as we all have agreed.

Opposite to what? The length of an object is relative to the object itself, so never changes, nor does Mass. There is no such thing as "rest mass". So I am consistent. Not if Mu and Epsilon are relative to the frame. No, the results and conclusions have been disputed, no experiment is conclusive. I can say the same to you. And that is a pathetic failure to admit that fact that "constancy of motion" is not the same as a "measurement of that motion". Do you deny that this is true?

The ramifications are that measurement of light speed is frame dependent. Its not possible to devise any such experiment as you describe. Changes in the perceived frequency is caused by changes in relative speed. The wave length and frequency of the signal never changes, only the approach speed of the person taking the measurements. Because measurements of ANYTHING can only be FRAME DEPENDENT. No other option exists. Only if you have already proved that SR is correct, and you haven't done that. I'm sorry that you fail to understand simple Physics, and prefer to ponder fantastical pseudo science instead. No experiment has ever tested light speed of 300 million meters per second is the same in other frames. The idea of "invariant measurements" is nonsensical and opposite to Physics principals and rational thought. The observations of "invariant MOTION states " is logical and in keeping with those rules of Physics. The "difficulty" you are clearly having which prevents you from clear thinking, is because you can't separate the concept of "constant motion", from the "subjective measurements of motion". you think they are the same. The first is universal, the latter is necessarily reference frame dependent.

I see your angle. Ok. Yes, mu and epsilon both are frame dependent as is Energy measurement. But Mass, along with length is unaffected by relative motion, and is not frame dependent. You cant prove " invariance of c". The claim is irrational. In fact the opposite is true. Only the constancy of motion is invariant, but the subjective measure of speed is obviously and necessarily frame dependent.

How much energy did you say that large hadron collider consumes? Incredibly strong energy fields all over the place. You cant possibly imagine that this may just possibly have some influence on all particles within that contraption?

Indirect means you calculated from other results that you ASSUME are related. But even if your assumptions are correct, this is still all done in one frame, so its frame dependent. I don't agree with your assessment. But its not important. Maxwell's equations are claimed to reveal light speed from just mu and epsilon. There is nothing else to consider here. Epsilon is dependent on the value of Mu, and both these even if measured in real experiments, are necessarily frame dependent values according got he rules of Newtons physics which was the ONLY physics in Maxwell's day. No matter which way you try to twist things, mu and epsilon can only be frame dependent values. As far as those whizzing particles are concerned, they ARE in the same frame as the Lab. The measurement of the particles is reference to the Lab, You do not have any clue what those apparently sentient particles might be experiencing from their subjective point of view. EVERYTHING you are doing in that Lab is Labe referenced. No one has ever isolated a sub atomic particle and measured its life when it is "at rest". No one has isolated a single electron and studied its properties. Same with an imaginary Photon. Combine whatever you wish, but its all still frame dependent measures. You said, "light waves are still light waves even if there is motion of the source p\or detector" well duh, we all agree on that. That is a statement about the fact that Light waves move inertially. The motion is unchanging. But that is not the same as taking a measurement from differently moving locations, which must all get different results. Interesting that you say one thing but believe another. Because we use the fact that measurements of EM waves speed gives DIFFERENT results if measured from differently moving locations. The evidence to prove my case is Police radar speed detectors. BS. total BS. the observer who is observing a moving train considers that the train is moving in his frame, if it were not, then he cant take a measurement of it. This is really basic Physics here guys.

In Maxwell's equations, which use Mu and Epsilon, there is no such thing as "length contraction". SR will not exist if Mu and Epsilon are reference frame dependant. If SR doesn't exist, then you cant apply Lorentz transformations to the length of anything. You can apply Lorentz to waves frequency, but not to solid objects length. The Lorentz transformation doesn't change the length of objects, only the rate at which a length passes a point. Even thought Lorentz in a desperate attempt to keep his belief in an Aether, suggested that the M&M interferometer has shrunk one arm. But this could only be justified IF there really was an Aether. So your argument involving length contraction is invalid. I don't intend to engage you about the voodoo of Particle physics. It not in Maxwell's equation to calculate the speed of light. Particle Physics and the Standard Model has enough of its own issues without me adding my concerns. Anyway, nothing about Particle Accelerators are in different frames. The whole machine is in the one frame.

There is no observed invariance of c. Its assumed. and ε₀ will indeed change its measured value if measured from different frames, which has also never been tested. And Physics says nothing at all about the frame of reference for measurement of μ₀. Nothing. So you are just guessing. Swansont said: "Something that’s the same everywhere (and over time) in one frame is a constant". And I fully agree, but that's not what Einstein is talking about when he says that c is "constant". Einstein says that light is both constant in the way Swansont had defined, BUT light is ALSO "constant", that is, it is possessing the exact same measured values are measured BETWEEN reference frames that have different velocities. So the two examples here unfortunately use the same word, "constant". In this situation, Newton says that the measures speed of light will have to reflect the fact that the frames have a relative speed differential. So μ₀ is indeed a constant, having the same measured value, anywhere in the universe, as long as the measurement was conducted in an inertial frame. Every inertial frame will get that same value, as Newton Mechanics confirms. But if you measure μ₀ BETWEEN two frames that have a relative speed difference, so that the equipment has its origin on one frame and the thig being measured in that other frame, then you will not get the same measurement value. μ₀ value is referenced to the frame its being measured in. It can't be referenced to anything else. Measurement of μ₀ uses two parallel wires carrying a charge. One serves as the origin of the frame of reference for the other wire. But if you move one wire to a differently moving frame, then you must get a different result, proving that μ₀ is a locally frame dependant constant. Is this not true?

No this is false information. Relativity is 100% dependent on light speed of approx. 300 million meters per second, which for convince, we call "c". In Einstein's written words, " light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" , and in the second place where he repeats this second postulate he writes, " light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c," Now if Einstein meant to say "constant velocity" he would simple say this, but no, he said, "definite, determined velocity c". But also if he just meant that "light velocity was of consistent motion", as you claim, then he cannot develop his theory of relativity. It depends on the actual measured velocity for his theory to be possible. Because the constancy of the motion of light is noticeable by anyone anywhere, but measurements require an origin. Einstein's argument was that the light Source or the Aether medium was not the origin, so they only option was that every inertial frame would be suitable by virtue that the Laws of physics are applicable in all initial frames. And Light speed had already been measured and also calculated as a known value by Maxwell. And that is the determined and definite velocity of light in Einstein's day. No one has "observed" that light velocity is invariant between differently moving inertial frames of reference. Its never been demonstrated for the same reason you can't measure light speed in a one way experiment. However Light speed IS invariant when measured in the one frame of reference. And that is all your have ever "observed". Its a measurement that is demonstrably locally invariant, but according to the Laws of Physics, in the reference frames where "the equations of mechanics hold good", then according to those very same equations and laws, Light speed measurement must take into account the relative speed difference between reference frames. The words, "reference frames where "the equations of mechanics hold good" are used by Einstein in his paper, so you know he agrees with them. He called on them to define what an inertial frame of reference was. But you made the claim that the "magnetic constant is universal", but you have not shown that it actually is constant in all frames of reference.

I just realized you made another logical error. I was the one who said that Mu and Epsilon CHANGED, You claim they do not, so your next sentence makes no sense- you said, " as with E and m , they also change so as to keep c constant". Meaning that you now agree that perhaps Mu and Epsilon are NOT CONSTANTS, because like E and m, they also change values to "keep c constant". So pick a side here, whether you believe that Mu and Epsilon are constants or you don't.

Was I not talking about Maxwell's equation revealing Light speed from two universal constants? I never mentioned any theories that came later. All I'm saying is that from Maxwell's equations and Mu and Epsilon, you can not conclude that Light speed is a universal constant. Because Mu and Epsilon are not universal constants. From Maxwell, you can't get a constant in all frames light speed. In fact you get the opposite. It was Einstein's Postulate that Light speed was a universal constant, but we can now see that that postulate can not be accepted UNLESS you discard Maxwell's Equations. (because they indicate the exact opposite)

I said, a car moving at a constant velocity of ZERO, has no force to impart to the brick wall.

Mu naught is measured by noting the MOVEMENT of a metallic rod relative to the other metallic object. One of them is considered as the "reference object", the other is the "object in motion". So that "reference object", defines the frame origin for this measurement. Repeat the same measurement on a bus that has constant motion, and you will get the same value. According to Newtonian Mechanics. Because you have fixed the "reference object" be coincident with the whole bus. But if you put that "reference object" on the ground, and drive the bus with the "object in motion" then you will not get the same result at all. Therefore the measurement of "Mu" IS FRAME DEPENDENT. and can not be an identical result between frames.

With the measurement of Mu, the force we are talking about involves MOTION. Motion is the observation of change in location. and in this case, time is also a factor. So if you are taking note of POSITION, then that position only makes sense if it is relative to some origin, the origin of the Frame of reference. So its still relative to the frame, not to all frames.

But an object with velocity or zero (is also inertial) can't deliver any force, so your assumption is invalid. If your constants or variables for Mu naught involve any use of Force, then the constant is relative to the frame and thus not universal.

You work entirely with circular logic. You say that acceleration is not involved, then immediately give the equation that has FORCE directly used. "The units of μ₀ are N/A², i.e. force/current squared" Force is mass * ACCETERATION. and acceleration is frame dependant because it can only be calculated by observation of changes in position over time. DO YOU UNDERSTAND that a POSITION is frame dependant? Also, We were trying to figure out if Mu naught was correct, because its used to calculate the speed of Light c, and here you have a circular reference because c here needs to be written according to maxwell's equation that uses mu and epsilon. Because this is the topic we are discussing. What is c? its the value of 1 over the square root of the product of mu and epsilon. So if I plug that into the equation , I see that mu is not equal to mu. Also the fine structure "constant" is calculated using such dubious other constants, after making a measurement of something else. Assumptions must be made. I've just shown that Mu is frame dependant, so is not a universal constant. So that was an assumption about a constant that modern Physics got wrong. And there will be others.

Of course "observer and the observed phenomenon are all in the same frame of reference" but what is happening in the one frame of reference is NOT what Relativity is all about is it? So in that one frame, or in any frame we will still measure Mu naught and get the same results. But c is all about light speed being universal, not frame dependant. However, if I should observe the experiment that's being conducted in frame K, as it whizzes past me at some considerable velocity, then if I try to measure what's going on with that experiment being conducted in frame K (as it has to do with acceleration (F=ma) and having a final result in meters per second) then I need to adjust my measurements to account for the relative motion differences between frame K and my own frame. Therefore light speed is relative to the frame. You said, "Nothing in physics says that μ₀ is frame-dependent" but if its a measure, then where does that measurement have its origin? It can only possibly be the frame where the experiment is occurring. Every measurement has an starting point and a target. Are you really claiming that you can measure something but not have a starting point to make the measurement meaningful?

Thanks I already sorted this out with a bit more info and google searching.

If its measured, then then is an opportunity to get another measurement. In the frame where its measured, it may always be a constant. But if measured from another frame, then the relative motion between frames must be included, thus its necessary to calculate it as v + 0r minus the other frame velocity. Mu * Epsilon = seconds 2 And the units end up as Meters per second. But now that one of the two "constants" IS frame dependent, its only valid in that frame of measurement, the the end result must be that the speed of light cannot be frame independent.

Mu naught and epsilon zero can be used to calculate the sped of light, which is a universal constant. It requires that both Epsilon zero and mu naught are constants for light speed to be a constant. But from 2019, Mu Naught is no longer considered to be a constant. It is now a measured value, and as all measurements are relative their own frame of reference, and its possible to now get different values of Mu Naught even in that one frame, then its now not possible to claim that Maxwell's equations prove that light speed is constant, or that it is has the same value in all frames of reference. So you can not call on Maxwell to support Einstein's Special Relativity claims.

Ok I get it. I follow now after a bit more googling.