calculate light speed method

[Mordred]

Really you might try using Google yourself. Try googling invariant mass, variant mass, electromagnetic mass, rest mass and inertial mass. (The last two were replaced by the first two)

No I 

6 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

 

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.

No I am referring to the nature of your responses.

[Logicandreason]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

It is called rest mass for a reason; the rest frame is the only frame where its value is valid.
In all other frames mass would be measured different, because what we call mass, the resistance to changes in inertia, increases dramatically as relative motion approaches c .

That is the main reason protons at the LHC can slam into targets with energies in the TeV range.

I believe Swansont has already addressed your mistaken beliefs concerning  the supposed 'invariance' of length ...

So you've got no mathematical proof, nor any observational evidence.
You know what that leaves ?
Squat !

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)

[Mordred]

What makes you believe only Einstein concluded c is invariant to all observers ? No physics work goes unchallenged that never happens. Every physics theory gets examined and tested by others.

That is an essential part of the scientific methodology.

Edited June 22, 2023 by Mordred

[Logicandreason]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

But we also see this with the muons, as Eise has explained, without a “contraption”

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.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

What makes you believe only Einstein concluded c is invariant to all observers ? No physics work goes unchallenged that never happens. Every physics theory gets examined and tested by others.

That is an essential part of the scientific methodology.

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)

[Mordred]

Lol your last statement shows you have little knowledge on how a particle physicists conducts his tests to determine particle properties.

[Logicandreason]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol your last statement shows you have little knowledge on how a particle physicists conducts his tests to determine particle properties.

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?

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Opposite to what? 

 

Opposite to the direction of motion 12 hours earlier. You are aware that the earth rotates, right? Or is that something else you contend?

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

The length of an object is relative to the object itself

That’s a spectacular failure to understand what is meant by relative.

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

, so never changes, nor does Mass.  There is no such thing as "rest mass". So I am consistent.

There is, in physics literature, so you’re just making stuff up. Again.

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

Not if Mu and Epsilon are relative to the frame.

If one quantity doubles and the other is cut in half, what happens to their product? Or just increases/decreases by the same factor?

(I know math, or using a calculator, is difficult for you, so I’ll tell you the answer: it stays constant.

 

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

No, the results and conclusions have been disputed, no experiment is conclusive.

“No experiment is conclusive” is the battle cry of crackpots everywhere. Who never seem to be able to figure out how to properly use the quote function. 

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

I can say the same to you.

You can, but of the two of us, only one has a PhD in physics and has been employed as a physicist.

50 minutes ago, Logicandreason said:

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?

No, it’s me expressing how tedious you and your seemingly willful ignorance are.

!

Moderator Note

Seeing as you are not following the rules of the speculations forum, and the direction not to bring up a closed topic, this is closed.

Just repeating your ignorant statements is not how science is conducted