Einsteins special relativity nonsense

OK... there is a detour here. (I don't know if you should take it... some students find it interesting, others find it distracting... but I think you will want to dive in).

First... the obvious problem. Are you assuming that your driveway isn't moving? (See the problem... your driveway is attached to a planet around a Sun around a black hole in a galaxy that can also be said to be moving).....

Now the detour...

Captain Ahab can't tell if he spaceship is moving or not. But he can absolutely tell if it is accelerating. When I slam on the breaks on my car... I am thrown forwards everything shift. It is pretty easy to build a scientific instrument to measure an acceleration.

Right?

Captain Ahab can't tell if it is moving, but can tell if his velocity is changing. That is a big difference.

My point is that much of what you write here does not make sense. Don't give me orders, nothing obliges me to follow your orders. It is kind of hilarious that you demand that I give examples, and yet ask what if it is not your mother tongue. Get a grip, you're babbling in this thread.

I disagree with point 3. I disagree strongly that "in Physics, BOTH are correct", -they are most certainly not.

If the distance between the ships is increasing, at 40kph, then there are only 3 options, and any 2 will not be correct simultaneously, as you suggest. No, they BOTH cant be correct, if they are really Physicists.
1/ ship B is moving
2/ ship A is moving
3/ both ships are moving.

IF ship A captain says he is stationary and its ship B doing the moving, as a scientist, he MUST compare his measurement with the other Physics on ship B, to see what Ship B's captain has measured.
Between the two Physicist captains, , they MUST agree on some common base for taking measurements, or their data will not be useful to be included in the single equations and calculations. One is talking in Orange units and the other is working in "dead cats units", not compatible without a common base. They both have to have the single common origin before any comparisons can be made. Where is that common base origin and orientation? If they do Physics according to rational rules, they will have to chose ONE of the 3 options, NEVER two of them at the same time.
You have just stated the first misconception of Einstein. Both are correct, yet different... Phtttt.
In math, you can play with equations till you get the result you wanted, but Physics is more precise, it requires what Math lacks, it demands rationality.

which bit does not make sense, and why?

Very good! You are wrong about point three... but you are very close to getting there. I am stretching your intuition, try carefully to see the point.

1. The phrase "the both can't be correct" is confusing. The problem is if there is no possible experiment to tell which is correct.... then how do you define correct?

2. "they MUST agree on some common base for taking measurements". Cool! you used the phrase "some common base!" This is an excellent phrase (think about what you meant here). You are wrong about the "the must agree" part (how are you going to force two equal captains on two equal ships to agree).

3. The some common base is the key phrase! I am really glad you used it.

Does it matter what COMMON base you choose?

If Ship A is the "Common base" meaning that it isn't moving. That means that Ship B is moving (we could say in a negative direction because it is coming towards the common base).

On the other hand if Ship B is the "Common base"... then Ship A is moving in a negative direction.

You seem clever enough to see that we could choose some common base in in the middle.. Where ship A and B are both moving toward the middle....

(Phew!)

Yes, inertia is easy for humans to detect. But we don't rely on Humans senses for Physics now do we?
But for a suitably sensitive optical instrument, taking a series of measurements of the emitted light from a collection of stars, it can reasonable conclude if the optical instrument was in inertial motion towards the star, or away from it, according to Doppler shift for light. Comparing with a great number of stars, will eventually rule out the possibility that ALL of the stars could be all moving towards the instrument, or its more likely that its the instrument moving.

There are lots of experimental verifications of the invariance of the speed of light in vacuum. For instance:

Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964).
Arkiv foer Fysik, Vol 31, pg 145 (1965).

Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast neutral pi mesons (~0.99975 c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.

Here is the key... there is no reason that Captain A has to use his own ship as his "common base". Captain A can be friendly, and decide to go along with Captain B.

In this case they will agree. Captain A will say "I (in Ship A) am moving and Ship B is not moving". Captain B will say "Ship A is moving and Ship B is not moving".

1. Because they have agreed to use a COMMON BASE, they will both get the same answers.

2. That being said... there is nothing forcing either of them to use the same COMMON BASE.

-----

Now the Physics term for the idea you came up with independently as COMMON BASE is "Frame of Reference". I am going to bed... we can continue tomorrow with this idea.

This is crucial to understanding Michelson-Morley (we will try to expand this idea next)... and later to Special Relativity (if you are still game).

How did they force Armstrong to agree with Cape Canaveral station about whats going on?
Are the ships captains not Physicists? Name one useful experiment that gathers data from several sources that has no standards for the units, the time, and the location.

1. You are using the term inertia incorrectly (I think). I don't think this is directly relevant to the discussion.

2. In Physics we make measurements. When you feel yourself being thrown forward in a car when the driver slams on the breaks... that is a measurement. I would say that human senses absolutely count as a measurement in Physics (although not always a precise one).

This discussion is interesting me, because you are asking the right questions. I really do need to go to bed

1) Neil Armstrong (who by the way understood Physics) and the other interested parties knew they had to choose a COMMON Base (i.e. Frame of Reference). Generally you choose the easiest. An everyone is aware of how everyone else is basing their calculations. No one wants to be a jerk about it.

2) In physics you learn to change between Common bases. If I am using the Ship A common base... I can still change any calculationgs to the Ship B by asking myself what does Captain B calculate in here common base?

3) Converting volocities and positions from one frame of reference to another is something you practice when you study Physics in college. Sometimes calculations are easier to do in one Frame of Reference (common base) than another... so just to make things simpler we might switch from on to the other (by converting all the velocities).

I have to go to bed now. Good night.

I never suggested that the speed of light in a particular medium was not constant. What I did say was that its not possible to measure it at still the same speed, if you are moving within that medium with your measuring equipment.

Einsteins relativity is the topic, inertial frames of reference are key part of his hypothesis, im using the term within this context.

Good night, I still have some hours to go before I go to bed.
Yes, we can arbitrarily define any frame as a base for measurements, and swap between them, I do that daily with my CAD engineering.
But I never find it a requirement to change from meters in one frame to some shrunk meters in another frame. This would cause great errors, and speed has nothing to do with it.
Its your task to make the jump from logical use of Galilean frames to silly putty frames of Einstein.

I'm looking forward to your attempt to explain the M&M experiment, and how you derive your final conclusion about it which will certainly be demonstrating that light goes the same speed in all inertial frames.

It is irrelevant how Armstrong chose to find his origin and orientation or if it happened to be the same common c=base as the earth station.
According to Einstein, the fact that 1/ he is in a very different location, and 2/ he is moving at a fair pace relative to the earth observers, means that its IMPOSSIBLE for Armstrong and the earth to ever synchronize their watches (to do precise firings of the correction rockets) and also its impossible for them to agree on the remaining distance to the moon, as their length measurements are now no longer the SI metric standard. Same with Time, no use NASA using super accurate clocks for precise timing, cause Armstrong's "seconds" are not the same duration as Earths.
The remaining fuel in KG mass between what NASA thinks, is not what Armstrong will measure, cause his kilogram is heavier than earths, so its a kilo only in name, not in real value.
For the record, NO Einstein Relativistic adjustments were ever done for the Moon missions.
I guess space Physicists can just make rough calculations to get to the moon, near enough is good enough right?
According to Einstein, the NASA command to fire the thrusters "now" or on the count of 10, is IMPOSSIBLE, because there is no such thing as synchronicity possible when there is a distant object and worse if its in motion.

You have to understand Frames of Reference... and you have to really understand them, before you can understand Michelson-Morely. That is why I am talking about them. Once we figure out Frames of Reference, then you will see why Michelson-Morely was so important.

Let's talk about Armstrong... since you brought him up. Consider this.

When Armstrong sat in his easy chair in his living room after retiring, he considered him self to be stationary. I know this because he is human, and when I sit in my easy chair... I say to my self "good, I am motionless".

1. When I sit in my easy chair, what I am using for my Frame of Reference (my common base)? What am I assuming isn't moving?

2. Imagine you are on the moon. Your space capsule has landed and is sitting on the moons surface. You are sitting in your space chair preparing to take a moon walk. You would say "I am sitting here in my space capsule on the moon, not moving"?

When Neil Armstrong hit that golf ball, or walked in a straight line, all of his mental calculations (and even his intuition) were based on the fact that the Moon isn't moving.

3. You live your daily life, and judge your own motion and activity based on the fact that your house, and the street, and the mountains near your house aren't moving. You make all your personal calculations and intuitions based on the fact that the Earth isn't moving.

Neil Armstrong... when he was on the moon walked, shot golf, planted a flag all based on the fact that the Moon he was on wasn't moving.

Neil Armstrong, when he went to the moon, switched his Frame of Reference. He was educated and Smart (he knew, and understood Physics quite well), and he could mathematically switch between Frames of Reference... but considering things from the Earth's point of view would have been unnecessarily difficult, it is easier to not that the golf ball flew in a parabola.

We aren't talking about Einstein yet... this is Galilean Relativity (Galileo and Newton understood this perfectly).

But it is a key to be importance of the Michelson-Morely experiment. You can't understand Special Relativity at all until we understand Galilean Relativity.

We are moving towards Michelson-Morley (which is an interesting story, do you know their experiment failed?), But first we have to go back to the spaceships for a little mathematical background... then we will be changing one of the spaceships to a light photon (this a little bit of an abstraction... but it will explain what Michelson and Moreley were looking for). But first spaceships.

In our story... Captain Bertha is a reasonable woman. She sees a star (conveniently named Star) a light month away and decides to use this as the Frame of Reference. She is now going to do her calculations based on the principle that Star isn't moving.

Captain Ahab is religious. He insists that only the Sacred Star Aaxabrot is fixed, and according to comparing to Aascbrot... damn it, He isn't moving... no it is the star "Star" that is moving.

Let's say on this day Captain Bertha makes calculations according to the Star Frame of reference (which uses Star as a Common base, so Star isn't moving). The situation is this



This denotes that Ahab is moving at 100m/s away from Star. B is moving 300 m/s away from Star in the same direction.

Can you draw this diagram using Ahabs calculations (he calculates that he is motionless).?

No one is arguing about claissical relativity, I agree with it. I just don't agree when Einsteins tries to twist it to mean something else.
To speed up this boring Galilean relativity but, ive composed this scenario.

Ok, we can arbitrarily set any common base in Galilean Relativity, including but not restricted to the place in the middle between the two approaching ships, but also to a point 4 fifths towards the guy on the right, or 6 units of measure on the far side of both ships, AND we are also at liberty to say that this imaginary location is the common base from which to take all measures for both parties, and that this common point is going to be an absolute non moving point.
We have ship A and ship B and a common point in the middle. (for example) Say the ships are approaching the middle point at 30 units each.
The guy at the common point will measure the speeds of the ships relative to his location and end up with a speed differential between the two ships by add both velocities and get 60 units.
Meanwhile, the guy on ship A will measure his velocity relative to the common point and get his speed as 30 and he will also get 30 for the ship B speed as it approaches the common point.
He also will get a speed of 60 when he directly measures the ship B as it approaches.
Same with Ship B, All observers in this situation will get 30 relative to the common point, and a combined approach speed of 60.
And all will agree that the central point is the stationary point, because it’s the agreed stationary point. (as there is no other reference to tell otherwise)
But they all could choose an imaginary point that is 100 units to the left of Ship B as the absolute stationary point of reference, and use that in their calculations. They will still end up with the speed of 60 for the closing speed of the two ships.
And ship B wont claim that its doing minus 30.
No matter which point or ship you chose as the common point, all observers get the closing speed of 60. But the actual speed of each ship relative to the common point is only 30.
Same with light which has a finite speed. It has a known constant speed of c relative to a common point. So if two lights are approaching each other then like the ships the approach speed is going to be measured at 2c. exactly like the ships calculated their speeds. There is no other rational option. Although each beam of light still only is moving at c. through the medium of space.
Its not possible to explain how Light A would measure the approaching light B as still only c. And at the same time, an observer placed anywhere and watching the two beams of light will also measure their closing speed at 2c.
And still the A light or the B light has not exceeded c RELATIVE to the medium through which its propagating.

Show me where this is rationally, logically or mathematically wrong.

Im very familiar with the M&M experiment.
You do realize that in Physics, a totally fictitious, imaginary theoretical concept can never play any part in the physical process, don't you?
An inertial frame of reference is an imaginary construct, and it plays no part in physical processes. Hopping conceptually from one imaginary frame to another during a physics process can never alter that process in any way. Its like watching a car crash from the left side or the right side, its not going to play any part in the crash process. None at all. (all-though the stupid observers, Einsteins and Minkowski on left and right will report slightly different versions, and incorrectly conclude that their point of view somehow was part of the event.)
Ill have to keep reminding you of this many ties as your attempted explanation of SR will try to trick me by twisted rhetoric, which is not Physics.
Do you agree with this?