@maxdancona,
Quote:Do you know what this means?
Yes, I do. See my elaboration in the prior post.
Quote:Do you know what the word "anisotropic" means
Yes, I do. Do you? The one-way speed of light cannot be shown to be either isotropic or anisotropic.
Speaking of selective reading, don't forget to read the whole paper, including this part, eh?
Quote:Ruderfer (1960) [5] held that special relativity contains an important assumption which has not and possibly cannot be tested
.
@maxdancona,
Quote:Can you explain why this is true?
Yeah, I think I can. And I can explain it without using a shred of math.
Can YOU?
Or, if you prefer, can you explain why it's NOT true? That is, can you explain how the one-way speed of light IS "observable in any physical experiment?"
@layman,
Quote:For measurements relating to distant stars, astronomers routinely use the CMB as a preferred frame of reference (and thereby employ a "neo-lorentzian" theory of relative motion).
That's funny. I am curious how many astronomers you know. I have studied astronomy. I wouldn't call myself an astronomer, but I have worked with them. We know about the CMB frame, but I have heard our Sun, and the center of the milky way both used as a reference point far more often.
Is this another little thing you got from skimming pages you found on Google?
@maxdancona,
Quote:...I have heard our Sun, and the center of the milky way both used as a reference point far more often
I've already addressed this. By saying "center of the milky way," you are referring to the galactic barycenter. And, yes, that would be used for calculations on a galactic (but not intergalactic) scale. I've already said this. The CMB is used on the INTERGALATIC scale.
And, to take it one step further (down), for terrestrial measurements, (the earth and near vicinity) the ECI (non-rotating earth-centered intertial frame) is used. That is what the GPS system (and the Hafele-Keating experiment) uses. And, once again, a neo-lorentzian theory of relative motion is employed.
@layman,
Quote:Yeah, I think I can. And I can explain it without using a shred of math.
No you can't. These experiments are based on the interference of wave functions. That is the problem that they are talking about. The problem is a mathematical issue. Anisotropic is a mathematical term.
@maxdancona,
By the way, all of these astronomers you are talking about have spent years studying mathematics and Physics through Special Relativity and General Relativity. GR is used daily by modern astronomers. I have talked to professional astronomers about GR.
@maxdancona,
Quote:Anisotropic is a mathematical term.
Heh, back to your old delusions about math, eh? Look it up in the dictionary. There will be more than math symbols there, I assure you. "Math terms" are worthless if they can't be translated into concepts which can be verbalized.
@maxdancona,
Quote:GR is used daily by modern astronomers. I have talked to professional astronomers about GR
Yeah, so?
GR is a theory of gravity, NOT a theory of relative motion.
We have been talking about theories of relative motion (SR, LR, etc.).
@layman,
I have taken a couple of classes in General Relativity, have you?
Einstein developed general relativity as a generalization of Special Relativity and published it. It deals a lot with gravity, but it deals with non-inertial reference frames in general. You can show Special Relativity directly from General Relativity.
You can only get so much from googling random phrases in papers. You really should take some courses if these subjects interest you.
@maxdancona,
Quote:I have taken a couple of classes in General Relativity, have you?
No, I haven't, nor do I intend to.
Quote: Einstein developed general relativity as a generalization of Special Relativity and published it. It deals a lot with gravity, but it deals with non-inertial reference frames in general. You can show Special Relativity directly from General Relativity.
No, not according to the explanations and summaries given by experts that I've consulted. And by "experts" I do NOT mean people who claim to "have taken a couple of classes in General Relativity."
One thing that GR definitely does NOT have, I am told, is the bogus "relativity of simultaneity" that SR does.
Al
aspired to develop a theory of motion that was good in all frames of reference (inertial and accelerating), and, for a while he even thought he had succeeded in doing so. But the consensus view is that he failed in that particular endeavor. He did, however, come up with a fine theory of gravity.
@maxdancona,
Don't take my word for it (it's not "my" word that I'm even conveying, but...), research it for yourself.
@layman,
I suppose that studying for many years to earn a Physics degree, an endeavor that includes reading, solving problems, interacting with professors, doing experiments and writing papers doesn't count as research to you.
What you mean by "research" is typing in phrases in Google and then skipping over the parts you don't understand.
To each his own I guess.
@maxdancona,
Quote:I suppose that studying for many years to earn a Physics degree, an endeavor that includes reading, solving problems, interacting with professors, doing experiments and writing papers doesn't count as research to you.
Heh. And I suppose that earning a physics degree taught you all you ever need to know about any and all questions related to physics, thereby forever precluding any need to ever "research" anything again, eh?
How many degrees in the philosophy of science have you earned, if you don't mind me asking?
@layman,
Ya know, every college course I've ever seen had a textbook to study. And just about every college boy I ever met was naturally lazy. They didn't care much for reading textbooks. That's why they went to college--so the professor would tell them what the textbook said.
But they still had to buy the book. So there's millions of unwanted copies out there--any and every subject. And you can buy them at thrift stores CHEAP. And, if you can read, you can read them. But who would ever do THAT? Better to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to have the professor TELL you what they say, eh?
@layman,
So you admit that you have no reading comprehension. I asked about LET. You claim your response had nothing to do with LET.
@maxdancona,
I am still amazed that you would keep taking the time to interact with the gentleman.
@layman,
In 2013 a peer-reviewed article was published in the journal "Applied Physics Research" (Chief Editor, Riccardo Bartolini, Oxford Physics Professor), which claimed that the GPS allowed a test of the anisotropy of light. This was because the system allowed comparisions, for the first time, involving a
moving observer.
Abstract:
Quote:The one-way speed of light relative to a moving observer is determined using the range equation of the Global Positioning System. This equation has been rigorously tested and verified in the Earth-Centered Inertial frame where light signals propagate in straight lines at constant speed c. The result is a simple demonstration of light speed anisotropy that is consistent with light speed anisotropy detected in other experiments and inconsistent with the principle of light speed constancy. This light speed anisotropy was not observed before because there has been no direct one-way measurement of light speed relative to a moving observer.
As you can see, the observations are said to contradict the premises of SR and would be consistent with LR.
Quote:The elapsed times determined in Equations (7) and (13) indicate that the light transmitted from station A takes longer to arrive at station B when station B is moving away from A than towards it...These changed light speed values c +/- v observed in an inertial frame directly contradict the principle of light speed constancy which requires constant light speed c that is independent of the uniform motion of the observer
Why was this light speed anisotropy, so easily revealed by GPS technology, not observed before considering the numerous light speed experiments that have been conducted over the past century? The simple answer appears to be that there has previously been no direct one-way measurement of light speed with respect to a moving observer among the many that have been performed (Zhang, 1997; Gezari, 2009)
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/24346/15401
The Lorentz transforms (LT) say that a moving clock will run slower than a stationary one. Both special relativity (SR) and Lorentzian relativity (LR) use the LT. So what's the difference?
Well, start with two "observers" who are moving with respect to each other, call them A and B.
In SR, A will say that he is stationary, so B is the one moving, so therefore B's clock is running slow. At the same time...
B will say that he is stationary, so A is the one moving, so therefore A's clock is running slow.
Then SR says they are both right. Each clock "really does" run slower than the other. See if you can figure that one out, eh?
LR will say that, as between the two, there can be only one "moving" clock. This could simply mean that one is moving "faster" than the other, because the faster you go, the more time slows down for you. Neither A nor B has to be seen as "absolutely motionless" as in SR. They could both be moving.
In LR, if it is A that is moving faster, then A's clock is slower than B's and, needless to say, B's clock is running FASTER than A's (not slower).
Which one makes more sense, I ask ya?
With respect to the original assertions being made, LR would say it's impossible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT exceeding the speed of light.
SR? Sure, you can do that, in "theory" at least.
@layman,
Quote:With respect to the original assertions being made, LR would say it's impossible to go 14 billion light years in just 23 years WITHOUT exceeding the speed of light.
SR? Sure, you can do that, in "theory" at least.
How (why) is that possible? Well, because in SR you can never go the speed of light in YOUR frame of reference. Nor can you go 1 mile an hour for that matter. In SR your speed is always ZERO, no matter how much you may have accelerated.
