swansont

Worked out for Wolfgang Pauli

! Moderator Note Here’s my feedback: Stop violating the rules. Your previous thread on this was locked because you advertised a youtube channel and didn’t post details here. Nothing has changed, so the result won’t, either. Locked. DON’T BRING THIS UP AGAIN.

More than that. It’s not a flat geometry in the presence of mass. No. Because various effects scale differently, e.g with different powers of length. A structure of one size will usually collapse if simply scaled up. Mass and structural strength scale differently.

Yes. That addendum (God did it) makes it dogma, and removes it from the realm of science.

So that’s our speed relative to Leo. But one can just as validly say Leo is moving toward us. There is no difference in the physics Which has no practical effect on the topic.

! Moderator Note You were told to stop

It’s not a theory. At best, it’s an interpretation (i.e. how to make sense of quantum physics). But I don’t think it’s even that.

What is your model? You haven’t even gotten that far. What predictions can you make? How do we test your “theory”?

Motion is relative. How do you determine who is moving? What effect does this motion have? Pick a some terrestrial experiment and calculate the effect. Then explain why knowing this to better than 10% is necessary Are you able to do this?

IDoNotCare has been suspended for multiple rules violations, including abusive posts and soapboxing

! Moderator Note Argument-by-word-salad does not meet our standards for rigor

! Moderator Note This isn’t your blog. Posting a video must be accompanied by sufficiently descriptive text to facilitate the discussion. ! Moderator Note Bad faith arguments are also against the rules

What are the error bars on the Silvertooth experiment? Ultimately SR is math, and if you can show that algebra isn’t internally consistent, you could make some real noise. You can’t legitimately claim anything agrees with an experiment that was not properly executed. (specifically those error bars) So, not published in the scientific meaning of the word

The linear speed is irrelevant since inertial frames are equivalent. Distance isn’t the variable in the relativity effects. Speed is. The only error term here is the deviation from a linear velocity, which is very small. Feel free to calculate the Sagnac effect results and see for yourself. And if it’s small, the exact value doesn’t matter, since it can be ignored. On the contrary, claiming that errors that are demonstrably smaller than your precision matter is what’s silly. As with the numbers Janus used - if you are looking for a 100k LY effect, not accounting for 1.5 LY isn’t going to matter.

In experiments we get quantified results, with a limit on the precision. If the effect is smaller than that limit, it will not affect the answer. IOW, if your result is e.g. 114 +/- 1, an effect that would change this by 0.001 can be ignored.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

All inertial frames are equivalent. Anyone in an inertial frame can assume they are at rest. Non-inertial motion is not relative, but can be ignored if the effects are small.

Bob is stationary in his frame. You always need to realize what frame you are in when analyzing.

A) That’s not appeal to authority B) Semantics, regarding repeating the experiment. C) There is no “physics establishment” that decides what experiments to do. It’s researchers, and it’s contingent on being able to do the experiment (desire and funding, among other factors). Part of the reason it took until ~1970 to do the Hafele-Keating experiment is that it wasn’t novel enough for the agencies that funded basic research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment “[Hafele] spent a year in fruitless attempts to get funding for such an experiment, until he was approached after a talk on the topic by Keating, an astronomer at the United States Naval Observatory who worked with atomic clocks.” From what Eise’s link says, the Silvertooth experiment was never reported as an actual experiment, and the follow-up suggests it was all bias - a careful experiment (one that quantified the experimental errors) would give a result consistent with zero. It’s not something you can point to that has a definitive answer.

! Moderator Note I want to point out to IDoNotCare that this is in fact a rule (2.7) that you can’t just post videos as your argument. The substance must be written out, here.

If you want Bob’s numbers, you either analyze the experiment in his frame, or transform from Alice’s frame. One thing we know is the answers will be different in each frame. In Bob’s frame, the trip will be about 3LY and consequently take about 3 years.

The aether was a model. It was wrong and ultimately discarded, but it was not an unreasonable position given what was known about waves. In what way is QM not in extraordinary agreement or not internally consistent? What experiments disprove QM? How does the CMBR measurement disprove relativity? There is no mechanism in QM; that’s a factual statement. QM is the best model we have for the phenomena within its realm. Thus, we know of no mechanism. Those statements do not disagree or conflict with each other.

Or it doesn’t matter, since it’s a relative speed, and both Alice and Bob will agree on it.

All calculations of distance and time have to be done in the same frame. You use the transforms to get the values in the other frame. You have done the calculations in Alice’s frame. If you want the distance and/or time in Bob’s frame, you do the transform.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction