swansont

You might note that Einstein is saying there is no symmetry in Lorentz’s formulation, since you have a preferred frame. The symmetry is there in relativity because there isn’t - either frame gives a valid description.

Provide a link to where you got that. Did Einstein write it?

Projection. And the best defense is a good offense.

! Moderator Note I invite you to follow the rules, and post the material you wish to discuss. You’ve been told this before.

Patently wrong. What’s clear is that you don’t understand what’s going on. The redshift and blueshift should be quite obvious from the equations. The change from one to the other should be, too. I you move away from me, a signal from either one of us will be redshifted. If we move closer, the signal will be blueshifted. That’s in the equation; it’s from the sign of v. The signal that has not arrived yet does not “know” if you are moving toward or away from me. But if it’s already on the way, the transit time has already passed. As soon as you change direction, you’ll detect the signal that was just about to arrive.

Provide links to where Einstein made the claims you are attributing to him. I don’t think you can, because I think you’re just making this up, i.e. these are your misinterpretations of relativity.

Depends on the configuration, but one question to ask is how the nail and magnet got close enough for this to happen. Permanent magnets don’t turn on, and these objects don’t magically appear close enough to each other for this to happen.

Your demonstrated understanding of relativity is insufficient for you to properly assess this. People who understand it better have tried to correct you. Case in point: Since relativity is based on the speed of light being invariant, “changes speed relative to light” makes no sense. Any inertial observer will measure their speed relative to light to be c, because light always moves at c. (though it’s light moving at c; the observer can say they are at rest, and light does not represent an inertial frame)

The energy is insufficient to do that, and that’s not the source of the work - the magnetic field does not get depleted by attracting something. As I’ve pointed out before, something is holding, pushing or pulling the magnet. The magnet is like a chain used to lift something; it exerts a force, but that’s not where the energy comes from.

! Moderator Note This is soapboxing, a violation of rule 2.8. - you’re just repeating stuff, without acknowledging corrections offered by people who know what they’re talking about You can ask questions to improve your understanding but no more explanations from you on this topic.

Nope. That’s your caricature of the theory, but isn’t what it says. I know that Janus has posted gifs of the signals that demonstrate what’s going on. They might clear up your misconception if you can find them. “Aging” suggests there is some frame where we know the truth about the earth, and that’s not part of relativity, where there is no preferred frame. This brings to mind what I said about disentangling what one observes and what the theory says is going on. i.e. what you see and what you measure are not the same thing edit: I can’t find the animation, but here’s a worked example https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/51704-special-relativity-can-you-explain-the-paradox/#comment-563535

You can calculate the age without math? That’s a pretty neat trick. How is not consistent? There must be some incorrect prediction SR makes for one to deduce that.

Enough said, no?

You said the CMB is the rest frame, so we are not at rest wrt the ether. I notice you did not address why the M-M experiment got a null result.

A motor needs to be connected to a source of electricity, which provides the energy to run it. It’s not from anything stored in the wires.

Yes, it is. What happens is rather open-ended. What happens to what? Those are the results (sort of; “time changes its simultaneity” is a rather awkward phrase) What do you want explained?

Energy goes in through the input, and some smaller amount goes out through the output. You might note that after my initial commentary I stopped until there was an suggestion that this was an over-unity device; i.e. that stronger magnets would increase the power output in some way other than just reducing losses, and that turning the input rotor was not the source of energy in the device. You agreed that the system will not run on its own. These are contradictory statements.

Justified? With empirical evidence? So why do measurements like the Michelson-Morley experiment fail to measure the motion of the earth through the ether? I find links saying it’s not an absolute frame, as expected.

! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted, per rule 2.7

You’ve not shown a working device, only animations, so who is to say there is an energy exchange? I’m not convinced it will work as advertised.

Yes, AI can be discussed. But the arguments one makes in any discussion can’t be AI-generated. AI can’t be used as a source of information. IOW, you can’t support an argument with anything that’s equivalent to “ChatGPT said <something>”

You should open up a thread to ask questions. People could answer, or point you toward sources that would explain it. Of course, you could also pick up a physics textbook. You’d eventually find that a changing B field creates an electric field, and that can do work, and also that the energy in the magnetic field is fairly small, and is not the source of the energy. I’m explaining that the work in your device comes from whatever turns the rotor, not the magnets (which are just a substitute for a mechanical coupling, which would also not be doing work). You even acknowledge this, when you agreed that this device would not run on its own. Someone has to turn the crank. That’s where the energy comes from.

Lorentz theory is ad-hoc. There’s no independent evidence of an ether. Are we moving with respect to the ether, or are we stationary with respect to it?

It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests.

! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.