-
Posts
52755 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
258
swansont last won the day on April 14
swansont had the most liked content!
About swansont
- Birthday May 12
Contact Methods
-
Website URL
http://home.netcom.com/~swansont
Profile Information
-
Location
Upstate NY
-
Interests
Geocaching, cartooning
-
College Major/Degree
PhD Atomic Physics Oregon State University
-
Favorite Area of Science
Physics
-
Occupation
Physicist
Retained
- Evil Liar (or so I'm told)
Recent Profile Visitors
swansont's Achievements
SuperNerd (12/13)
8.6k
Reputation
-
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
Lorentz theory is ad-hoc. There’s no independent evidence of an ether. Are we moving with respect to the ether, or are we stationary with respect to it? -
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests. -
! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.
-
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
A postulate based on electrodynamics, which has an invariant speed of light. And given the success of relativity, and its experimental confirmation, it is a physical reality. I am reminded of a certain Sidney Harris cartoon Nope. So the Doppler effect somehow know about some prior acceleration? even if the signal isn't sent until after the object starts moving at constant velocity? That's magic, not science. You've made this error a number of times. Changing velocity does not produce the Doppler shift. Repeating the assertion does not make it true. None of which are present in the twins paradox. No. Your conclusion does not follow. -
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
And here you admit that there’s no way to test Lorentz’s theory, rendering it unscientific. -
! Moderator Note Responses to posts must be mainstream physics. Keep your own views in your thread in speculations It’s wrong. Perhaps that’s more simple, but since it’s wrong it’s not useful. You’ve not incorporated length contraction.
-
The following was posted in the forum announcements AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ We are happy to discuss the whys and wherefores, and consider modifications. In addition, a reminder that accusing people of being bots, or using AI, is off-topic. You are, however, free to ask for clarification in any discussion, including links to any citations. Faking a cite is easy, but a valid link with one is a little harder to manage.
-
AI-generated content must be clearly marked. Failing to do so will be considered to be plagiarism and posting in bad faith. IOW, you can’t use a chatbot to generate content that we expect a human to have made Since LLMs do not generally check for veracity, AI content can only be discussed in Speculations. It can’t be used to support an argument in discussions. Owing to the propensity for AI to fabricate citations, we strongly encourage links to citations be included as a best practice. Mods and experts might demand these if there are questions about their legitimacy. A fabricated citation is bad-faith posting. Posters are responsible for any rules violations stemming from posting AI-generated content ___ Discussion of policy is at https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/133849-aillm-policy-discussion/
-
Just FYI, the energy density of the earth’s magnetic field is about a millijoule per cubic meter. Scale up as necessary for a stronger magnet. The energy for doing stuff with magnets is not contained in the magnetic field. https://brainly.com/question/17055580
-
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
You need to read more carefully. I specified inertial frames. There are a number of explanations, easily found on the web, of how a light clock would work, based on an invariant c -
Turning Information into Energy
swansont replied to Sora Tōgo's topic in Modern and Theoretical Physics
! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted. Links and attachments are for support material only. You were asked to read the rules in a previous thread. Please do so, and follow them. If “Collaborative Partner: AI Sensei” means you used AI to help write it, we’re not interested. -
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
Speed of light is invariant. It does not decrease for an object in motion. Time dilation is a relative effect for inertial frames. -
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
Not for light, whose speed is invariant That’s not evidence. c is invariant The Doppler effect, which is what I was commenting on, does not rely on acceleration, it depends on velocity, and it is symmetric. The measured frequency changes; that’s physical. No, if the space twin sends a signal to the earth twin, it will be Doppler-shifted. That shift will change when the velocity changes, because the Doppler shift depends on velocity. It will take time for the signal with the new frequency to arrive, but that will be before the end of the trip. What waves do you have, other than the light? “on the way” The signal being sent was already on the way. I don’t think you are representing Einstein’s interpretation faithfully, and in any event it doesn’t matter. The equations tell us what happens, and that’s what’s important. You didn’t say simultaneity jump, you said “jump into the future” Future and past are not part of the discussion Relativity says clocks run slow because time is affected, and lengths contract. Time dilation is not a mechanical effect and objects do not actually compress. Since there is no preferred frame, you can’t say that one observation is the “truth” so any inertial observer can say what they observe is reality. Even within a given frame, you have to account for the time delay from a finite speed of light. You see a signal from a distant clock, but you have to account for the fact that it took a time of L/c to get to you. That still applies in multiple frames. Can you hand me a chunk of space-time? -
Why Lorentz relativity is true and Einstein relativity is false
swansont replied to externo's topic in Speculations
Please use the quote function properly. Hit return to get the cursor our of the quote box before typing your respinse. I can’t easily quote you to respond.