New Holistic view (Relativity)

[Klaynos]

Well, IMO, that shouldn't be called an absolute. That should be called a horizon.

 

Why horizon?

 

And absolute isn't a term I'd ever really heard used to discuss c, more often is the word constant.

[ajb]

_an observator A in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_another observator B in his own inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_an observator C in an inertial FOR, will measure a photon traveling at speed=C

_same for observator D,E, etc.

Is that what we mean when saying "C is absolute"?

 

Yes, in any inertial reference frame the speed of light will be c. It the frame is not inertial then the speed will probably not be c.

 

In this context absolute means it is a Lorentz invariant.

[Chriton]

You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. The existence of the derivation of E=mc^2, and the postulate of constant c (and the conditions where this applies) are not subject to your personal view.

 

And it doesn't matter how much you hide the blather in claims of skepticism and dogma. If you aren't going to use the rules of science to discuss science, it's just blather. Science is about empirical evidence. The short version is: put up or shut up.

 

 

Why so angry??? This is a Forum after all and I am expressing a Point of view...Surely we dont all have to believe the Science to discuss it! So only the people who believe in the rules of Science can talk about it?

Just be a bit more tollerant and lighthearted about things "Swansont" I am not out to disprove your beliefs.....LOL

[michel123456]

Why horizon?

 

And absolute isn't a term I'd ever really heard used to discuss c, more often is the word constant.

 

Why horizon:

A horizon is a kind of observational limit that anyone carries with him. Since C is a constant for each observator, c could be considered as a kind of horizon: as far as you go, at any speed, your measurement of your horizon will stay constant. In this case, c is an observational limit.

 

The word constant is ok when considered from one IFOR. It means that the observator's speed will not influence his measurement. When the word constant is used by many observers in different IFOR, it is transformed in absolute (all observers making the same measurement) from which the sentence "nothing can travel faster than C" arises. These are different concepts IMHO.

[D H]

Why so angry??? This is a Forum after all and I am expressing a Point of view...Surely we dont all have to believe the Science to discuss it! So only the people who believe in the rules of Science can talk about it?

You don't appear to want to discuss anything. This is not a place for making religious soapbox statements. This is a place for rational discussion. This is a scientific forum. You agreed to abide by the rules of this forum when you joined. If you don't wish to do so, perhaps you should find some other place to soapbox.

[ajb]

Why so angry??? This is a Forum after all and I am expressing a Point of view...

 

Which can be shown to be incorrect.

Surely we dont all have to believe the Science to discuss it! So only the people who believe in the rules of Science can talk about it?

 

Of course anyone can talk about science in here. The point is your "belief" is not scientifically based. If you disagree with relativity then tell us why.

 

Just be a bit more tollerant and lighthearted about things "Swansont" I am not out to disprove your beliefs.....LOL

 

The thing is most of the members here want this forum to be about science. If you without any reasonable evidence (either experimentally or theoretically) claim the relativity (for example) is wrong you are going to get short and sharp replies.

[Phi for All]

Why so angry???

I think you're mistaking frustration for anger. It's frustrating when people think their personal opinion is on an equal footing with some of the most heavily researched scientific theories.

 

This is a Forum after all and I am expressing a Point of view...Surely we dont all have to believe the Science to discuss it! So only the people who believe in the rules of Science can talk about it?

This is a science forum, unlike most others. It's been mentioned before, but the scientific method works because it doesn't rely on individual points of view, but rather tested evidence researched by an extraordinary amount of people over time. Scientific theories are not "suspicions", the way some people say, "I have this theory...". Theories start as ideas, become hypotheses, and only after exhaustive work and review by others can they start to be called theories. They are objective explanations of observable reality refined by research and experimentation by many people over time. And even then, they are still called theories because they will still be tested against reality forever.

 

Just be a bit more tollerant and lighthearted about things "Swansont" I am not out to disprove your beliefs.....LOL

It's a slap in the face to call rigorous scientific theory "beliefs", as if one could simply dismiss all the evidence in their favor based on some personal preference. Tolerance doesn't come into play; denying the evidence in front of you, should you choose to actively study it, is purposeful negligence. Why do you think you deserve tolerance?

[swansont]

Why so angry??? This is a Forum after all and I am expressing a Point of view...Surely we dont all have to believe the Science to discuss it! So only the people who believe in the rules of Science can talk about it?

Just be a bit more tollerant and lighthearted about things "Swansont" I am not out to disprove your beliefs.....LOL

 

This is a science forum, and no, I'm not inclined to be tolerant of non/un scientific claims. If you want to discuss science, fine. You can start now — you haven't done so up to this point.

 

If you don't start discussing science, though, then there will be no reason to keep this thread open

[michel123456]

You seem to forget the human factor.

_you forgot to welcome our new friend

_you treat him as an ennemy before listening to his arguments (maybe he has not any, let's see)

_you throwed his thread out of Science at once (we are now in the section labeled "Non-science topics that frequently come under discussion")

_you are arguing as if we were still in the Science section.

_you are discouraging our friend of learning science, like teachers shouting at pupils that they are too stupid & lazy to learn anything. That is not the right method IMO.

_four against one is not fair.

 

I would propose to listen. You still have the power to condamn the whole thread and throw it down to the waste basket.

[Phi for All]

You seem to forget the human factor.

_you forgot to welcome our new friend

Chriton was welcomed by one of the staff in post #20. Do they all have to say it?

 

_you treat him as an ennemy before listening to his arguments (maybe he has not any, let's see)

Why use the word "enemy" to describe someone who may not have all the facts? Isn't it best to assume that members of a science discussion board come here to learn as well as share?

 

_you throwed his thread out of Science at once (we are now in the section labeled "Non-science topics that frequently come under discussion")

This should probably be amended to "Non-accepted science topics that frequently come under discussion". Most members don't have the time to teach basic science to others and have no patience for that which is not mainstream.

 

_you are arguing as if we were still in the Science section.

That is one of the hallmarks of SFN. All discussions must use scientific reasoning, free of the fallacies that mar most other discussion boards, even in sections like politics where opinion is much more common and valuable.

 

_you are discouraging our friend of learning science, like teachers shouting at pupils that they are too stupid & lazy to learn anything. That is not the right method IMO.

I've been watching for just such instances and have found none, except for ajb's mention of his crackpot index thread, but not by any staff members. I am not a fan of labels applied early on in a members tenure here, and personal attacks are against the rules. If a member earns those labels through repeated unwillingness to listen then it's not the fault of the labeler.

 

_four against one is not fair.

Fairness has little to do with it. A person's ideas should stand on their own merit, and it should tell you something when multiple people post to point out flaws in your argument.

 

I would propose to listen. You still have the power to condamn the whole thread and throw it down to the waste basket.

Would you let an engineer continue to build a bridge after you see a mistake that could cause it to collapse, or would you point out the flaw as early as possible so the rest of the work could continue effectively?

[mooeypoo]

michel, we've been over these "topics" for 30+ posts, it's not like Chriton's idea is nipped in the bud before he has a chance to explain it. We are a science forum and we REPEATEDLY request that the discussion involve science rather than empty claims. It's part of our rules. We're being patient.

 

 

The "Speculation" forum exists for debates about speculations and non-mainstream science. If the non-mainstream topic gathers enough evidence and merit to become a mainstream science, then it will be moved again to the appropriate topic. It's not a condemnation, it's organization.

 

A speculation thread will end in closure, usually, when the poster refuses to cooperate in a proper debate, like what seems to be happening in this case.

 

Perhaps it would be a good opportunity for everyone to go over the rules of the forum and its guidelines, and consider the fact we are being patient in this forum rather than outright closing it when the first antiscience (notice, 'anti science' not 'non science') post was made, in post #1.

 

We're being patient, but we do need Chriton to actually cooperate with us for this thread to remain open.

 

~moo

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, IMO, that shouldn't be called an absolute. That should be called a horizon.

We've already established we have different language incompatibilities here, michel (what was the last one, 'momentum', I believe). I suggest we stick to mainstream definitions. The speed of light isn't "absolute", because light *can* travel slower than 3.8*10^8m/s.

 

The speed of light remains constant no matter which frame of reference you are in. If you want to call it "absolute", you may. If you wanna call it "bananas", you may too. It doesn't change what actually happens.

[vuquta]

 

And one last remark, the experimental evidence, both directly and indirectly for the speed of light constant in vacua as measured in (very nearly) inertial reference fames is overwhelming.

 

The overwhelming evidence shows light speed cannot be changed from tests of moving light source.

 

It is therefore deducible that light moves through empty space at one speed as stated in the SR light postulate.

 

However, there are no timing experiments measuring the speed of light with one way transfer.

 

It is quite a simple experiment but there are none measuring different directions except by some crackpot named Cahill and his experiment is logically inconsistent with his claims.

 

 

 

Hence, you do not have one way light transfer timing experiments to justify the claim above.

 

Oh, frequency based experiments do not qualify as proof since MMX are consistent with Ritz's theory of ballistic light.

 

Ironically, the original Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the ballistic theory,

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

[ajb]

The success of modern physics seems to me to be quite a lot of indirect evidence supporting special and general relativity. For instance

 

1) Particle colliders and the discovery of the Z and W bosons. The framework of the standard model is a relativistic quantum field theory.

 

2) The GPS system requires that effects due to general relativity be taken into account.

 

3) Observations of muons in cosmic rays shows that time-dilations effects are real.

 

4) The perihelion of Mercury is very well explained in general relativity as is gravitational lensing.

 

5) The success of Maxwell's equations to explain classical electrodynamics.

 

and I am sure people can add lots to this list.

 

All support the view that relativity is quite well observed in nature.

[michel123456]

The success of modern physics seems to me to be quite a lot of indirect evidence supporting special and general relativity. For instance

 

1) Particle colliders and the discovery of the Z and W bosons. The framework of the standard model is a relativistic quantum field theory.

 

2) The GPS system requires that effects due to general relativity be taken into account.

 

3) Observations of muons in cosmic rays shows that time-dilations effects are real.

 

4) The perihelion of Mercury is very well explained in general relativity as is gravitational lensing.

 

5) The success of Maxwell's equations to explain classical electrodynamics.

 

and I am sure people can add lots to this list.

 

All support the view that relativity is quite well observed in nature.

 

AJB, there is no doubt Relativity is correct.

As it seems I am the one who has misinterpretated Relativity.

Back.

If I understand well what you are all saying here, C is a constant for each IFOR, and that's all. C is not a constant of the Universe (an absolute, I have no other word to express the concept, banana is not suitable).

[mooeypoo]

What's IFOR ?

[michel123456]

What's IFOR ?

 

Inertial Frame Of Reference

[ydoaPs]

What's IFOR ?

 

Seeing, silly!

[A Tripolation]

Seeing, silly!

 

No...just...no...

[insane_alien]

IFOR one thought it was quite funny.

 

+rep for ydoaps

[A Tripolation]

Well, it doesn't quite work because she would've needed to have said "What's an IFOR", and mooeypoo didn't.

So ydoaPs fails.

[mooeypoo]

AJB, there is no doubt Relativity is correct.

As it seems I am the one who has misinterpretated Relativity.

Back.

If I understand well what you are all saying here, C is a constant for each IFOR, and that's all. C is not a constant of the Universe (an absolute, I have no other word to express the concept, banana is not suitable).

Okay so what is the problem, michel...?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light :

 

The speed of light (usually denoted c) is a physical constant.

[...]

It is the speed of electromagnetic radiation (such as radio waves, visible light, or gamma rays) in vacuum, where there are no atoms, molecules or other types of matter that can slow it down.

 

The above sounds to me to be quite clear and concise. I don't understand why we are in need of another term like 'absolute' or why we would require another concept for it.

[Klaynos]

ydoaPs and A Tripolation stay on topic. I don't want to have to delete any more of your posts.

[ydoaPs]

I think the word you are searching for is 'invariant.'

[Chriton]

Awesome.

 

Now, can you bring some actual evidence and support to your claim to stand in opposition to the INCREDIBLE AMOUNT of support relativity has?

 

 

 

Thread moved the speculations forum.

 

OK! Try this site

 

http://proofeinsteinwaswrong.com/

 

You might like to speculate on this Theory...

[Chriton]

I might not have the Math to disprove E=mc^2 but I certainly have got a good discussion going...lol

 

My point is:- to measure anything you must know what you are measuring and have the instruments to measure it..(How long is a pice of string?) Depends on if you are measuring in inches or atoms, the speed of light is only a concept as I believe light to be just an occurence of excited electrons, light can be a waveform and a particle and can be many places at the same time, so what are you measuring?

Time is also related to light, but time is relative to energy so 'c' must be related to time.

also the instruments you are using to measure the speed of light are electronic, electricity is slower than light so how do you know that your measurements give you a true reading?