Hijack from Speed of Time

[Logicandreason]

Another  way of looking at what I'm saying, is to examine the First Postulate.  Its affirming the Laws of Motion, of Kinematics, etc.  But please tell me one example of any Law of Kinematics, of Mechanics, that is claiming that a MEASURED result, IS A LAW.    Never.  So Einstein's statement that "the Laws of Physics", (Kinematics in this case) are identical in all inertial frames, is totally correct.  The Laws ARE equally applicable.  BUT,  a MEASUREMENT is NOT A LAW!

On 6/7/2023 at 11:07 AM, swansont said:

It’s pretty simple. If c is invariant and the laws of physics work the same way in all inertial frames, then time and length are relative to the frame you are in.

 

You got that about face.  It's actually: Time and Length CONCEPTS are "Laws of Physics", so MEASUREMENT of speed is relative to the frame you are in.

Subjective Measurements can never be LAWS of Physics.

This is rational , your claim is irrational.  ANY measurement of ANY objects speed is necessarily RELATIVE.   Show me where Einstein stipulates the reference for 298,000 mps...(c) . PLEASE.

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It insults your commonsense, but Nature does that all the time. 

Oh but there is a massive difference between "insulting my common sense" or being "unintuitive" and it being totally irrational and without Logic.

Anyway, your comment doesn't address the problem I've raised does it?

So you are saying that "Yes, SR doesn't make any sense, but its true anyway, but I cant explain why or address your issues.  SR is just correct and so you have to live with it.

[Mordred]

Well regardless of your opinion, the constancy of c is well tested. I'm positive you have heard that before.  Seems you would rather ignore the mathematics or recognizing a paper doesn't need to cover commonly applied mathematics in that SR paper in a verbal descriptive. Quite frankly that's your hangup not mine.

 The resultant time dilation due to the speed limit of information exchange is so well tested that none of our opinions truly matter lmao.

So regardless of opinions of any forum or forum members the mathematics of SR and GR obviously work how they are verbally described is simply interpretations.  So railing because such and such paper doesn't verbally describe something to conform to your opinion is meaningless.

It also seems to me your arguments are more in line with metaphysical arguments and they bore me. Always have always will.

 If the mathematics accurately describe a theory. I don't bother with verbal descriptives

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well regardless of your opinion, the constancy of c is well tested. I'm positive you have heard that before.  Seems you would rather ignore the mathematics or recognizing a paper doesn't need to cover commonly applied mathematics in that SR paper in a verbal descriptive. Quite frankly that's your hangup not mine.

 The resultant time dilation due to the speed limit of information exchange is so well tested that none of our opinions truly matter lmao.

So regardless of opinions of any forum or forum members the mathematics of SR and GR obviously work how they are verbally described is simply interpretations.  So railing because such and such paper doesn't verbally describe something to conform to your opinion is meaningless.

 

You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis. If I hypothesized that the moon was made of cheese, would you embark of a manned expedition to the Moon and set up a cheese mining company on the strength if my claims?

Maybe you would. 

But rational scientific Papers MUST stand up to rational scrutiny.   And I've just shown that it doesn't.  You response is to ignore what I'm saying and just point to some interpretations of experiment.  

But as I'm right, then there WILL be alternative interpretations for all those experiments that do not break the Laws of Physics as Einstein's theory has to. 

Really, think about it.  Einstein's theory means that if something just moves really fast, and you observe it, it will really physically shrink, but only in one direction, and while its losing volume, it gains Mass from nowhere, and also Time gets to distort but not for everyone. And if 1000 observers that each have a different state of motion, watch that same object, they will all see something totally different. 

Doesn't sound fishy at all. 

But my claim is that rational Physics (Classical Physics) is not only totally rational, totally logical, with sane sets of Laws, whose application is clearly working in our real experience, and Time, Distance and Mass standards are the same for everyone. 

Do you not at least agree that Classical Physics is a far simpler, Mathematically correct, system that deserves the right to critically review Einstein's proposals? 

There are no indisputable observations that can only be explained by Einstein's Relativity, that cant be explained by other means.

No one can claim to have indisputably demonstrated Time Dilation, or Length Contraction or even the invariant result of light speed.  Never been done. Every experiment requires a lot of prior assumptions to be considered as TRUE, and as always, there are other interpretations possible. That's why they say that you can never offer an experiment as PROOF for a theory. You have to have a solid HYPOTHESIS as the main claim.   Not rely on experiment interpretation.

[StringJunky]

37 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis. If I hypothesized that the moon was made of cheese, would you embark of a manned expedition to the Moon and set up a cheese mining company on the strength if my claims?

Maybe you would. 

But rational scientific Papers MUST stand up to rational scrutiny.   And I've just shown that it doesn't.  You response is to ignore what I'm saying and just point to some interpretations of experiment.  

But as I'm right, then there WILL be alternative interpretations for all those experiments that do not break the Laws of Physics as Einstein's theory has to. 

Really, think about it.  Einstein's theory means that if something just moves really fast, and you observe it, it will really physically shrink, but only in one direction, and while its losing volume, it gains Mass from nowhere, and also Time gets to distort but not for everyone. And if 1000 observers that each have a different state of motion, watch that same object, they will all see something totally different. 

Doesn't sound fishy at all. 

But my claim is that rational Physics (Classical Physics) is not only totally rational, totally logical, with sane sets of Laws, whose application is clearly working in our real experience, and Time, Distance and Mass standards are the same for everyone. 

Do you not at least agree that Classical Physics is a far simpler, Mathematically correct, system that deserves the right to critically review Einstein's proposals? 

There are no indisputable observations that can only be explained by Einstein's Relativity, that cant be explained by other means.

No one can claim to have indisputably demonstrated Time Dilation, or Length Contraction or even the invariant result of light speed.  Never been done. Every experiment requires a lot of prior assumptions to be considered as TRUE, and as always, there are other interpretations possible. That's why they say that you can never offer an experiment as PROOF for a theory. You have to have a solid HYPOTHESIS as the main claim.   Not rely on experiment interpretation.

"You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis." -  I thought that was the experiment's job.

[Logicandreason]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

It also seems to me your arguments are more in line with metaphysical arguments and they bore me. Always have always will.

 If the mathematics accurately describe a theory. I don't bother with verbal descriptives

 

My statement are clearly not "Opinions".

And please explain scientifically how my statement are related to "metaphysics".

Math can not come before a rational Hypothesis.  Math must always be based squarely ON the statements and conclusion of the Hypothesis.  And that is exactly why the peer review process as first task, is to ensure that any submitted Paper is written according to a professional standard, and contains no errors of omission or inaccuracies and  especially it's statements must not be ambiguous.    Unambiguity, meaning it has clear meaning, and anyone reading the document will not be able to misconstrued. That's what all those words were about in the Paper that Einstein included before he got to any math. Einstein was genius, he ought to know how to write a Science Paper so thaat its precise meaning is obvious and can not be misconstrued. 

So if you are willing to skip the explanations, and jump directory to Math, you are no no longer really being scientific.

My explanation and review of Einstein's Paper shows clearly that because he has made logical errors, then his Math will be necessarily wrong, based on wrong conclusions. Distance being variable is a wrong conclusion, an irrational conclusion.

This is not about opinions or metaphysics. Nonsense can not develop rational Math equations.

 

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

"You are jumping the gun don't you think? Before you rush of with interpreting the results of some experiment, you must justify the validity of the hypothesis." -  I thought that was the experiment's job.

No, BEFORE you make the effort to conduct any experiment, don't  you think it may be prudent to see if the concepts of the Hypothesis is rational? This is what  peer review process is supposed to do. Clearly no one peer reviewed this paper. Or they were not skilled at critical thinking, or they were Einstein's mates.

[StringJunky]

30 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

No, BEFORE you make the effort to conduct any experiment, don't  you think it may be prudent to see if the concepts of the Hypothesis is rational? This is what  peer review process is supposed to do. Clearly no one peer reviewed this paper. Or they were not skilled at critical thinking, or they were Einstein's mates.

Nature doesn't have to be rational. This is well-known. Like I said: it defies your commonsense. Leave it at home when thinking about stuff that resides outside of the macro-world, commonsense and intuition.  They are useless in this environment. As Mordred has already said: verbal descriptions are inadequate. If you really want to have a leg to stand on, you need to learn and understand the maths.

Edited June 8, 2023 by StringJunky

[Logicandreason]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Nature doesn't have to be rational. This is well-known. Like I said: it defies your commonsense. Leave it at home when thinking about stuff that resides outside of the macro-world, commonsense and intuition.  They are useless in this environment. As Mordred has already said: verbal descriptions are inadequate. If you really want to have a leg to stand on, you need to learn and understand the maths.

Nature doesn't have to be rational to us, but certainly Einsterin's science Paper must be.

To claim that Einstein's paper might be nonsensical drivel, but the Math checks out, so everything is fine, is in itself an irrational statement to make. Anyway, the math itself is derived directly from the text arguments, and doesn't "add up" as you believe, so you are not left with anything remaining that is believable.

I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical, and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments.

And do all that in preference to a very straight Physics system that  has no paradoxes, no unintuitive equations, where a rod doesn't shrink, and no one can grow older than their twin just because of a joy ride.

So far, rationality is 100% on the side that says SR theory is nonsense. 

You can NOT derive correct Math from nonsense. Your Math is wrong. The text is wrong, the conclusions are wrong.

 

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Nature doesn't have to be rational to us, but certainly Einsterin's science Paper must be.

To claim that Einstein's paper might be nonsensical drivel, but the Math checks out, so everything is fine, is in itself an irrational statement to make. Anyway, the math itself is derived directly from the text arguments, and doesn't "add up" as you believe, so you are not left with anything remaining that is believable.

I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical, and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments.

And do all that in preference to a very straight Physics system that  has no paradoxes, no unintuitive equations, where a rod doesn't shrink, and no one can grow older than their twin just because of a joy ride.

So far, rationality is 100% on the side that says SR theory is nonsense. 

You can NOT derive correct Math from nonsense. Your Math is wrong. The text is wrong, the conclusions are wrong.

 

So, the result of the Hafele-Keating experiment is just rubbish. Why must nature conform to our commonsense?

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

My statement are clearly not "Opinions".

And please explain scientifically how my statement are related to "metaphysics".

Math can not come before a rational Hypothesis.  Math must always be based squarely ON the statements and conclusion of the Hypothesis.  And that is exactly why the peer review process as first task, is to ensure that any submitted Paper is written according to a professional standard, and contains no errors of omission or inaccuracies and  especially it's statements must not be ambiguous.    Unambiguity, meaning it has clear meaning, and anyone reading the document will not be able to misconstrued. That's what all those words were about in the Paper that Einstein included before he got to any math. Einstein was genius, he ought to know how to write a Science Paper so thaat its precise meaning is obvious and can not be misconstrued. 

So if you are willing to skip the explanations, and jump directory to Math, you are no no longer really being scientific.

My explanation and review of Einstein's Paper shows clearly that because he has made logical errors, then his Math will be necessarily wrong, based on wrong conclusions. Distance being variable is a wrong conclusion, an irrational conclusion.

This is not about opinions or metaphysics. Nonsense can not develop rational Math equations.

 

No, BEFORE you make the effort to conduct any experiment, don't  you think it may be prudent to see if the concepts of the Hypothesis is rational? This is what  peer review process is supposed to do. Clearly no one peer reviewed this paper. Or they were not skilled at critical thinking, or they were Einstein's mates.

Your very statements is your opinion. That should be obvious even to you.

Secondly the math always comes first in any physics theory. It's the very essence of model building.

It is literally the very first test of any hypothesis.

It is also a step you should be taking . Mathematically prove the EFE or the Minkowskii field equations is wrong. Not simply declare they are. Show where your Hypothesis gives higher accuracy to explain the literal mountains of observational evidence. As The principles of GR and SR are two of the most rigidly tested theories we have.

 They have been so rigidly tested that the vast majority of all major Theories incorporate SR and GR.

When any professional physicist tests a theory. That physicist isn't testing verbal descriptions. They are testing the mathematics. To see how accurately the mathematics makes predictions of effects from A causes B found in nature. It is literally the very essence of physics. The predictive power of the applied mathematics.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Mordred

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Nature doesn't have to be rational to us, but certainly Einsterin's science Paper must be.

To claim that Einstein's paper might be nonsensical drivel, but the Math checks out, so everything is fine, is in itself an irrational statement to make. Anyway, the math itself is derived directly from the text arguments, and doesn't "add up" as you believe, so you are not left with anything remaining that is believable.

I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical, and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments.

And do all that in preference to a very straight Physics system that  has no paradoxes, no unintuitive equations, where a rod doesn't shrink, and no one can grow older than their twin just because of a joy ride.

So far, rationality is 100% on the side that says SR theory is nonsense. 

You can NOT derive correct Math from nonsense. Your Math is wrong. The text is wrong, the conclusions are wrong.

 

How is it, then, that observation (e.g. the operation of particle accelerators, the mass defect in nuclear physics, atmospheric muon lifetimes, and things like that) are in agreement with SR? After all, in science it is observation that is the test of a hypothesis.

Do you have an alternative model that correctly accounts for the observations?

P.S. You're not an electrical engineer by any chance, are you? Something about you is a bit familiar. 

[studiot]

6 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

We are not able to continue to any Math in the Paper, till Einstein first explains why there is actually some problem that needs to be solved,

Nor does Einstein 'continue to any Math' before he presents his motivation.

However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century.

It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein.

At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning.

 

I see you also have issues with light clocks.

Again it is worth noting the historical context, because the 1905 paper was produced at a time when the nature of light was still in contention.

Einstein's approach managed to be independent whether light was is a wave or corpuscular or something else entirely.

 

I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

[swansont]

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

You got that about face. 

No, I’m pretty sure I summarized the basis of relativity accurately.

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

It's actually: Time and Length CONCEPTS are "Laws of Physics", so MEASUREMENT of speed is relative to the frame you are in.

Subjective Measurements can never be LAWS of Physics.

I never mentioned measurement, or claimed that measurements are laws. Einstein provided the equations, which show that time and length are relative. Measurement confirms this.

 

8 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

This is rational , your claim is irrational.  ANY measurement of ANY objects speed is necessarily RELATIVE.   Show me where Einstein stipulates the reference for 298,000 mps...(c) . PLEASE.

He doesn’t give a value (and certainly not an incorrect one). He just says it’s not a relative value - he refers to the constancy of the speed of light. The second section of the kinematical part

 

6 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Really, think about it.  Einstein's theory means that if something just moves really fast, and you observe it, it will really physically shrink, but only in one direction, and while its losing volume, it gains Mass from nowhere, 

No, it doesn’t.

[Mordred]

Just a side note the speed of light was determined prior to Einstein. I own a 1919 physics textbook that shows the same value. The textbook doesn't even mention relativity. It however covers Galilean relativity. The only known particles at the time was the photon, proton and electron.

 

[swansont]

7 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

No one can claim to have indisputably demonstrated Time Dilation, or Length Contraction or even the invariant result of light speed.  Never been done. Every experiment requires a lot of prior assumptions to be considered as TRUE, and as always, there are other interpretations possible. That's why they say that you can never offer an experiment as PROOF for a theory. You have to have a solid HYPOTHESIS as the main claim.   Not rely on experiment interpretation.

What about the Hafele-Keating experiments? The eastbound clocks slowed down, the westbound clocks sped up, relative to clocks in a fixed location on earth. Where does “interpretation” come into play in obtaining these results?

 

5 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

I showed the errors in the text arguments, I explained that the conclusions were utterly fantastical,

You claimed this, but I don’t think you showed or explained anything.

5 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

and now I'm saying that not even the Math is believable. You can only follow along with Einstein's math and get to the same result, IF you also agree to follow alone what his obviously irrational textural arguments.

Saying they’re irrational doesn’t make it true. Argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.

[Logicandreason]

12 hours ago, studiot said:

I look forward to honest discussion but I fear this threads is degenerating into irrelevant personalisation.

Well I hope you can be more reasonable that the other guy here, who seems to be calling white, black.

So really? You are willing to honestly discuss this, and concede valid points one by one if I should make any? Then APPLY those valid points to the hypothesis?

Ill start by asking "Is Physics ONLY interested in comparing predictions of Equations to observations, and any explanations of why or how the equation was derived is simply irreverent?

Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc^2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about.  Funny, I thought Physics is what  Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics.

But Swansnot is then more than  willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory)

[Mordred]

For the record Swansont has a PH.D. So has a very good understanding of physics. Several of our members have similar backgrounds. Many of us have our own accredited backgrounds myself included.

So you can bet those of us with various degrees in physics topics will consider mathematics an  essential element of physics. Especially if those same mathematics have been extremely well tested against observational evidence.

 

 

 The other detail to consider is the postulates of SR are also mathematically defined. This leads in essence to Lorentz invariant and the various symmetry relations.

Edited June 8, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

13 hours ago, studiot said:

However teasing out his chain of reasoning is very subtle and needs to be done in the light of the knowledge of the turn of the twentieth century.

It also needs to be realised that the chain of reasoning, postulates and derivation we use today in modern theoretical physics is different from that of Einstein.

At the very least you need to study and correlate carefully the hints he throws out on pages 1,4,5 and 8 of his paper as collectively they identify his chain of reasoning.

 

About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper.

Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates.

First is:

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,"

Second is:

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far.

Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”.

So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction.

So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise)

Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. 

Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as  Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer.

So what is the answer?

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

For the record Swansont has a PH.D. So has a very good understanding of physics. Several of our members have similar backgrounds. Many of us have our own accredited backgrounds myself included.

So you can bet those of us with various degrees in physics topics will consider mathematics an  essential element of physics. Especially if those same mathematics have been extremely well tested against observational evidence.

 

 

 The other detail to consider is the postulates of SR are also mathematically defined. This leads in essence to Lorentz invariant and the various symmetry relations.

I know all this.  Great, so all of you have believed in exactly the same things because you have all been instructed with the same information in the same way from the same books by the same professors.

"If you keep doing what you have already done, you will still get what you have always got."  That explains your solidarity.

So great that you are all in the big sciency club, much like a Church Group, all have to accept what you have been told.  But an appeal to such Authority is of course a Logical Fallacy.

None of you would have those Letters after your names if you have stepped one inch off the prescribed track back in Uni. (about this particular faith in Einstein's claims)

I would prefer to just discuss the claims Einstein made, and see if his logic and conclusions are really valid. Or is it all based on error? As "experts" you ought to be able to look at Einstein's work from a totally critical angle, ignoring your own cherished pre set beliefs.. But clearly you are totally unwilling to do that. And that is a sign that you have not been taught well in the way of Science, where there is no settled beliefs, and anything could be wrong or right, and any theory can be challenged, by ANYONE regardless of the FAME of the theory's Author.

You guys are NOT EXPERTS on Science , you ARE experts on WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD.   Science is the continued striving to understand, and its not owned by any University or enshrined in any sacred text. 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason
rephrase

[Mordred]

No nothing of the sort. When I first started studying physics I for one hated relativity and didn't agree with the constancy of c. I like a great many others went out of our way to invalidate relativity. 

However that too is part of the scientific method, so my instructors supported my efforts. Physics isn't based on some popularity contest. In actuality it is based on testable evidence.

 You might actually be surprised at what kind of transforms it would take to agree with observational evidence with a Lorentz type eather that would agree with the M and M experiments or the far more refined and high experiments for one way/two way speed of light tests

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No nothing of the sort. When I first started studying physics I for one hated relativity and didn't agree with the constancy of c. I like a great many others went out of our way to invalidate relativity. 

However that too is part of the scientific method, so my instructors supported my efforts. Physics isn't based on some popularity contest. In actuality it is based on testable evidence

Obviously, you did not look in the right places for the error that you say you initially suspected. And then you gave up way too soon. Einstein's theories are cunningly 

well contrived deceptions, and I'm not going to speculate on whether the deceptions are intentional or accidental.

If you are really so open, they you would not be fighting so very hard to not consider fairy what I'm trying to say.

And the error is EASILY provable to be where the error is in the 1905 Paper.  And I told you.  MEASUREMENTS are NOT  LAWS.       Light's Constancy of Motion can be considered as a Law,  but it's necessarily subjectively measured numerical value can ever be considered as a Law, because any measurement is certainly a relative value. And that is where you got tricked. Where is that measurements relative origin of the measurement? Einstein pretends that it doesn't exist. But it MUST, or you cant take a measure of anything.  

I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible.

I'll wait for your intellectually honest reply.

 

[Mordred]

Lol you have absolutely no idea the steps I took. Including conducting my own experiments with the available university equipment.

 Nor do you have any idea how often I have to apply relativity in Cosmology and particle physics datasets. You would be amazed just how often it becomes important. The constant c doesn't just apply to the speed of light. It is the speed limit of all forms of interactions and information exchange. 

Here are the Galilean transforms 

\((\acute{t}=t), (\acute{x}=x-vt), (\acute{y}=y),(\acute{z}=z)\)

Feel free to try and have a variant c and prove it sufficiently to match observational evidence to the contrary.

 As for myself I used the university telescope with spectrometry datasets combined with parallax data. To test the constancy of c with bodies that move at the decent velocities of interstellar bodies.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol you have absolutely no idea the steps I took. Including conducting my own experiments with the available university equipment.

 Nor do you have any idea how often I have to apply relativity in Cosmology and particle physics datasets. You would be amazed just how often it becomes important. The constant c doesn't just apply to the speed of light. It is the speed limit of all forms of interactions and information exchange. 

I believe my question was, "I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible."

As far as "conducting your own experiments", they were only repeating what has already been done by others. Just to see for yourself.  And the conclusions were already told to you before you even started the experiment. Do you have a published Paper on some experiment that you devised that was different than all the others? Please provide the link.

[Mordred]

No I took my own measurements using the equipment available. It took me 2 years to get my own datasets to work from.

[Logicandreason]

16 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No I took my own measurements using the equipment available. It took me 2 years to get my own datasets to work from.

Of course you did.  But measurements of what? In what previously untried experiment that you designed to try to disprove Einstein's theory?

Because doing what you (they) always do, in the same way, but expecting different results is one way to describe stupidity.

And then having the data, what math equations did you apply?  I bet it was they equations that you were taught to apply.

Result, as expected, the same as every other student.  Proving nothing other than that this approach using those equations will give the same results.

I am still expecting an answer to my question: 

 "I challenge you to make a measurement of ANYTHING, when you have no starting point. Give me one example that this is possible."

I have to repeat this because no one has answered the question, and the post is getting lost in time......

About Einstein’s thought process in the1905 Paper.

Einstein made two comments which he then elevated to the status of Postulates.

First is:

"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the “Principle of Relativity”) to the status of a postulate,"

Second is:

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far.

Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”.

So in what way is the simple statement that light has a constant determinable velocity, irreconcilable with the Laws of Physics, of the Laws of Kinematics specifically, as the study of Motion is called Kinematics and Einstein's moves on to “the Kinematic Part” of his Paper immediately after the introduction.

So what is “apparently irreconcilable” about Light having a constant determinable speed with the Laws of Kinematics? (Newtons Laws of Motion to be precise)

Pause for your consideration and reply. But Einstein actually spelled out exactly why he believed there was a conflict. 

Because the Purpose of the whole paper is to SOLVE this conflict, thus opening the door to new explanations for other related "problems" such as  Maxwell's work and Observations such as M&M interferometer.

So what is the answer?

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Logicandreason
clarification

[Mordred]

My main focus was using Proximus Centauri.  Though not the only star I used.  I had picked a list of 30 different nearby stars. As  objects close enough but far enough away to validate its distance using a non redshift related method parallax. This required waiting for certain seasons of the Earths orbit relative to those stars. Then using the common spectral data to each I compared the hydrogen spectral lines at different time periods as the Earth orbited our sun.

 If c were not constant then the gravitational redshift calculations would also be in error. I could find no error even with a range of frequencies to work from. Granted gravitational redshift is small for Earth but it is still a measurable influence.

Cosmological redshift didn't need to account for as all the objects I used are in essence gravitationally bound and not influenced by universe expansion

 

Edited June 9, 2023 by Mordred

[swansont]

2 hours ago, Logicandreason said:

Swansnot seems to be saying that Einstein may as well written, "Donald Duck doesn't wear trousers, and e=mc^2, go check it out. (the textural explanation is not required because of peoples opinions.) Math alone is what Physics is all about.  Funny, I thought Physics is what  Physics is about, and Math is about Mathematics.

But Swansnot is then more than  willing to believe certain peoples opinions over others opinions regarding the meaning and interpretation of experiments. (which we know can not be proof of a theory)

When you get my user name wrong once, I can assume it’s a typo. When you do it twice in a row, it’s just careless, or possibly intentional.

As for the physics, I said nothing of the sort. I was rebutting a claim of yours, and then asking you to support a claim of yours. Trying to “read between the lines” isn’t going to serve you well here. Please stick to what is actually written.

1 hour ago, Logicandreason said:

Second is:

"and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

I want to stop here and examine the logic of so far.

Please consider the words “which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former,”.

Not too difficult to figure out, if you consider the state of affairs in 1905, where it was still assumed that the speed of light would behave like the speed of any other object, i.e. not an invariant quantity, and that length and time were absolute