Capiert

That's what I got out of it, my words.

" an helicopter standing still "

This is wrong on so many levels, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

 

If in water waves the wave travels, but the water molecules don't move much,

and in air the sound wave travels, but the air molecules don't move much,

then by the ( wrong ) analogy, the light wave travels, but the photons don't move much.

So why do you need an aether ?

Seems to me it's rather superfluos.

I think what he means is

Einstein's Ether (concept)

(which he (=Einstein) believed physics absolutely needed)

was a frozen sea of photons. -Leiden University lecture 1922.

There is no point in (wrongly) insisting KE is a vector,

KE is NOT a vector,

KE/v is a vector instead. i.e. (average) mom(entum).

 

Errors as those

are useless

& misleeding=contraproductive

=(more than) double_trouble

(to correct).

I'd like to make a formal apology

for the confusion (I had)

with work.

I used books from the 1950's

(used in German technical colleges)

& other authors from 1990's

using the same (wrong) concept

which did NOT use the g factor

with mass m

(partly to do with SI convention usage (weight dropped, for mass)

& partly not).

 

(James) Watt's (work) concept

of pounds (=weight) yards, per second

is (quite) acceptable.

 

My "Work" (word usage) in the COW thread

should be replaced by "wark"

(to distinguish it as "moma" (average momentum));

except for "work's energy"

which is standard physics "work".

If by "no distinction" you mean that they both see the same time dilation and length contraction in the other ship, then that is correct.

 

Yes that is what I mean.

You should not be surprised by this.

I am however, because relativistic effects are missing

for a high speed example

(due to the "opposite" stipulation=condition)).

It is a result of the "no preferred frame" you mentioned before.

But it's not making sense

to have no contraction nor dilation

although hi_speed.

I doubt that you recognize that (consequence, correctly).

All frames are equivalent.

We agree there,

that's why relativistic effects (contraction & dilation)

should exist

in "any" (hi_speed case=example)

but don't there.

 

Wrong. They both notice the same relativistic effects. As you said earlier:

 

"They" don't notice anything (different, caused by the hi_speed,

because both differences are the "same").

 

And there will be (relativistic effects on 2 hi_speed ships moving apart). What makes you think otherwise?

They (=the ship's capitains)

don't notice any time dilation

of the other ship,

although they should

because they are traveling

at hi_speed (away).

(=Non_preferred ref, e.g.

either ship could be used as reference frame.

Hi speed, no dilation observed,

SR fails!)

 

(Relative to each other

both ships should experience

dilation & contraction,

but don't.)

Of course they do. What makes you think they don't?

"Relative to each other."

That's what relativity is all about:

what the other ship sees (=observes).

In that example,

they observe no difference

(as though SR does not exist)

although they are moving

at hi_speed relative

to each other.

That's a paradox, or a flaw!

 

(Math c=v+v', v'=c-v.)

There are two answers to this depending which frame of reference you use.

 

If you see a spaceship moving at v = 0.2c then the difference between v and c is 0.8c. This tells you absolutely nothing useful.

I disagree, in the sense that it will give me a (new) different (unknown) number,

which I can "use" to check calculations (for accuracy, or error).

It's only a (useful) tool (for me).

So it is not telling "you" anything about relativity;

(or is it?).

 

However, the people on the spaceship will see their velocity as 0 and therefore the difference from the speed of light is c. This actually tells you something very profound about the way the world works.

 

I'm not (really) disagreeing with you there.

Speed just doesn't work that way..

Thanks. I'm slowly getting the message. Your picture was the most persuasive; & the high speed ball throwing,

but reminding me of other limiting math phenomena.

(All like Einstein said, but I guess his train was too slow (in my fantasy) for me to accept.)

Do you mean it makes sense now?

No I meant that it had not made sense to me.

 

Or are you being sarcastic?

I'd say I was being quantative in my evaluation,

but I must admit

there does seem to be

a sarcastic note in it.

 

What do you mean, it tells you nothing?

No distinction (time dilation or contraction)

between both space ships

each travelling at high speed,

but "opposite" directions.

 

If each ship

receives the same amount of contraction

then compared to each other,

they would not observe a difference

(between themselves).

 

If both ships dilate

the same amount

then they will not

observe a time difference

between them(selves).

 

It tells you there relative time dilation (and length contraction). What else do you expect it to tell you?

Each shows no difference from the other

although going at high speed

wrt to another.

In other words

both the space ships

do not notice relativistic effects

although there is a relativistic (hi) speed difference

between them.

I personally don't expect SR to tell the truth;

but standardwise

relativistic effects would be expected

for 2 objects

with a very high speed difference between them.

I did not say which space ship exerted thrust,

& that is not important

according to Einstein's non_prefered referencing.

 

The error is that you won't accept reality. You think the the spaceships will see the other receding at c. They won't. Observation would disagree with your intuition.

I tend to agree. They won't see c departure, they would see less than c.

 

This is correct. There is nothing problematic about it.

Relative to each other

hi_speed relativitic effects (dilation & contraction)

should happen

but don't

(although moving in opposite directions).

 

As arithmetic, it isn't wrong.

That's nice to hear.

 

As physics it is wrong because the world doesn't work that way.

I still question that

because I'm only asking

for the difference

(a(n unknown) number value)

between

light speed c

& an earth speed v.

I haven't changed anything

(e.g. c is a constant,

& no complicated transforms)

& can always find the original speed v (=c-v').

!

Moderator Note

We will not be playing that game. The burden of proof is yours. It's incumbent on you to show that it's valid.

If you aren't prepared to do this then we're done here. It's up to you.

You've said it's wrong

but don't say where;

I've defined it as a substitution

& given the math (algebra);

& then Strange "guesses" it's wrong.

What else do you want?

He's playing games

not me.

 

I.e.

Is substituting wrong? y/n

Is that substitution wrong? y/n

What is wrong? e.g. in the algebra.

 

If

c=1 dollar, =$1

v=1 cent,

then what is the unknown

v'=?.

Answer:

99 cents.

 

c=v+v'.

 

I could just as easily say

c=v+?

where the symbol "?"

is a value we are searching for.

 

Are you trying to tell me

that substitution is wrong?

Especially, for (checking) speed.

The 2 space ships have a speed of 0.8c, relative to one another

although they leave each other at light speed c, ((also) meaning wrt each other).

I can't tell you how much sense that (now) makes to me.

 

Which space ship has the slower clock (wrt the other)?

 

(Answer: the other (space ship).

Which space ship is the other?

Answer: both!

What does that tell me?

Answer: nothing!)

Velocities don't add like that.

 

Did you actually read this: http://hyperphysics....iv/einvel2.html

Yes I did but I doubt that you recognize the task('s significance) correctly.

Einstein's "math" does not allow (adding speeds to be) a speed larger than c,

but as you might notice

it does NOT agree

with the task (observation).

 

Perhaps you would like to pinpoint an error?

 

(If you don't like using departure speed c,

(to keep the math simple); then

something like 0.999998*c,

(e.g. 2 millionths less than c)

(for dramatic results)

could be used instead,

to avoid divide by zero.

 

But simply (2 space ships departing at)

0.98*c (wrt each other; or -0.49*c & 0.49*c wrt earth),

gives 0.79*c.

(E.g. similar (problematic) results.)

It's a definition.

E.g. a substitution.

Why then wrong?

If it's wrong can you equate my equation

to show the error

so I can see?

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel2.html

 

Where does that equation come from?

Common sense.

Because v1 + v2 < c

Please explain.

(c^2)=((vx+vx')^2)+((vy+vy')^2)+((vz+vz')^2).

& If

(v)^2=((vx)^2) + ((vy)^2) + ((vz)^2)

&

(v')^2=((vx')^2) + ((vy')^2) + ((vz')^2),

then

why is c not v+v'?

As these are just questions, why is this in Speculations? Are you planning to present an alternative?

I wanted to know how you would solve the questions

& you gave answers,

So before presenting anything (socalled new)

I would like to consider them.

 

But I have more questions

which will help me orientate.

E.g. We know we can derive rest mass m'

from energy E=m'*c^2).

Can we do the same using momentum?

(E.g. mom=2*m'*c. ?)

I suspect, due to the incompatibility,

(between mom & E)

you will say no,

& modify either the mass

&/or momentum

(with transforms).

 

My next question would then be,

why does (simple) energy receive priorty

over (simple) momentum (mom=m*v)

in relativity equations?

(If momentum is derived from energy

& not in reverse.)

Why is the priority not reversed (or reversable)

so that momentum dominates

(the simplicity)

& energy needs the transforms (instead)?

(Einstein's relativity

seems (to me)

to prefer energy (evaluation)

(being simple),

over momentum.)

 

&

 

What is wrong

with the syntax

of letting

c=v+v'

where

v' symbolizes

the compliment

(or missing speed (difference))

needed

to add with v

to give c.

(I.e. Having nothing to do with (Lorentz) transforms.)

Nothing complicated.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/tdil.html#c4

See: Problems with variable mass.

 

There are "problems with mass" m.

 

Einstein said it is "not good"

to use "relativistic mass"..

 

(If it is not good,

then it must be bad.)

 

Is the cloth (of Swansont's physics) so whole?

Einstein does NOT support (all) his own stuff.

 

Is there a reason for that (lack of support)?

 

He (=Einstein) did NOT say "difficulty (with mass)";

he said "problems" (!, i.e. plural) instead.

 

Was he (=Einstein) hinting also at the problem

we now call "dark(=unknown) matter"?

(That's) Something just as difficult,

with no (satisfactory) explaination.

I.e. (The) nonsense does not fit (together

so well).

 

[instead Einstein recommended using rest mass,

prefering momentum

& energy

for moving bodies.]

 

I can accept rest mass,

& momentum;

but I can NOT accept energy E (conservation)

because we have "dark (=unknown) energy", too.

 

But I can accept 2*m*E, instead.

Which is why the speed of light is not a valid frame of reference.

 

Einstein said,

there is no preferred reference frame;

so why do you reject that 1

in (preferred, biased) favour of the others?

Einstein knew SR did NOT work for everything,

that is why he invented GR.

I was hoping that the OP will come to this conclusion.

What is OP=?

You should know already from equations that they cannot fly at speed of light (in Special Relativity)

 

Wrt earth each spaceship travels at c/2.

 

What is the answer?

2 space ships leave

each other at light speed c.

 

What are their length contractions

& time dilations?

 

(E.g. wrt to earth,

each is travelling c/2.)

(=I don't see your continuum;

it's an interuption instead.

=That's a break in physics,

no longer the same topic,

(a quantum leap if you will, e.g. (absurd like) a lepton.)

 

("You can't apply standard physics

(to the problem when you are trying to assess

if you are trying to see if new physics applies.)"

=If you can not apply physics,

then it (=the so_called "new" physics) is NOT physics (at all).

Science confirms (=experimentally reproduceable, independently;

(there is more than 1 way to skin a cat;

many roads lead to Rome.)

I doubt your method of elimination

is done correctly.)

 

 

I'm an interpreter, instead;

I remodel.

You make little sense

as usual

You oppose "my (so_called) new" physics;

but it is only a remodeling

seeing things from a different perspective

(using common sense physics).

You then say I make little sense

when trying to make sense of your mess.

e.g. trying to make your puzzle pieces fit.

 

If you don't understand

what I say,

you can tell me what you understand (from me)

& then ask (what you did not (understand),

if you want).

 

Obviously I must have left something out,

if not in error.

You can't apply standard physics to the problem when you are trying to assess if you are trying to see if new physics applies. IOW the same physics that tells you that there is no electric field inside a hollow conductor tells you that the photon has no mass.

Sorry, I can't follow, I'm too conservative there.

You're proposing what I normally do;

but I'm not allowed to do it;

you are instead.

It's 9.81 m/s^2 only on Earth, and only at the surface (sea level) of Earth.

At 200m a.s.l. it'll be different,

At 2000m a.s.l. it'll be different,

At 20 km a.s.l. it'll be different.

It's variable, gradient depending on various things (even what is below ground f.e. iron mine), not constant.

 

Yes, the gravitational acceleration is compensated by Newton's centrifugal acceleration,

wrt height,

depending on radius, & orbit speed.

Are you familiar with Gravitational Redshift equation?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Yes, another fascinating task from you.

 

"In 2011 the group of Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen collected data from 8000 galaxy clusters and found that the light coming from the cluster centers tended to be red-shifted compared to the cluster edges, confirming the energy loss due to gravity.[6]"

 

Cluster center versus back:

 

A question of light source distance:

edge's (average), versus center's (front, middle & rear=back mixture).

 

Explaining the back of a cluster

with more red shift.

 

(Considering the red shift is proportional

to the distance away

(from the earth)

in this expanding universe,

& thus the amount of acceleration

duration (time).)

 

Is it not possible,

the center (spectral) samples

also have "distances" (from earth to light source)

beyond the (cluster's) center

to the (cluster's) "furthest end"

thus (also have) larger distance

& (more light) amount (e.g. densest population, = most number of stars)

than the edges (e.g. perimeter)

which could be seen (=interpretted)

as (ruffly=aproximately) the average distance

(from earth)

to the (cluster's) middle (or center)

when viewing the cluster as ruffly a sphere?

Those edges do NOT extend (from earth) to the cluster's back "half".

The (observed cluster) center would have all sorts of distances

to the cluster: front, middle, & "back";

explaining the extra red shift.

The extreme edge

(away from the center,

not front nor back sides)

would only be approximately middle (=average)

distance, e.g. similar to

from earth to the cluster's center.

 

(E.g. Think of the cluster in 2D,

as a circle (e.g. flat

like an equator)

with a near & far end

wrt the earth.)

I just converted the mass to different units (kg to eV/c^2). But the article cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

says that "If a photon did have non-zero mass, there would be other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would allow the presence of an ]electric field to exist within a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[/size] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10[/size]⁻¹⁴ eV/c²."

(It's 14 orders of magnitude, not 13. mea culpa)[/size]

 

I think that counts as being spectacularly wrong.

 

But that's nothing

I agree.

 

I don't see,

how you can have an electric field

in a hollow conductor

because the (volume) charge density

of the metal

should be (significantly) the same

overall.

That means

NO potential difference

in the volume within (=inside).

 

If however we consider

the conductor has a DC resistance

then it may be possible

to consider a (very) slight

voltage drop

between the source's 2 poles (or plates)

far(ther) away

from the hollow conductor.

 

(I think)

here we have a hypothesis

expected (to be used) as truth

to (try to) disprove

a photon's mass.

 

That is absurd.

 

Why isn't an (known) observed effect used instead,

to prove or disprove (photon mass);

rather than inventing

(an (new) effect that has never been found (at all)

to deny a(n existing) calculated mass.

 

That's not spectacular,

that's a scandal.

 

I.e. 1st propose (=predict) something that does NOT exist;

& then use that assumption

to disclaim a(n existing) (photon's) mass.

 

I call that false prophecy.

 

Or have I missed something?

Free fall is not acceleration. (Free fall means you are experiencing no force so if you had an accelerometer with you, it would read zero.)

If you measure (a freely) fall(ing object)

in a vacuum

(=no air resistance)

you will measure acceleration,

whether light

or an object

is falling.

 

Thus I can't follow

your argumentation.

(Maybe you mean weightlessness?)

I just converted the mass to different units (kg to eV/c^2). But the article cited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Experimental_checks_on_photon_mass

says that "If a photon did have non-zero mass, there would be other effects as well. Coulomb's law would be modified and the electromagnetic field would have an extra physical degree of freedom. These effects yield more sensitive experimental probes of the photon mass than the frequency dependence of the speed of light. If Coulomb's law is not exactly valid, then that would allow the presence of an ]electric field to exist within a hollow conductor when it is subjected to an external electric field. This thus allows one to test Coulomb's law to very high precision.[/size] A null result of such an experiment has set a limit of m ≲ 10[/size]⁻¹⁴ eV/c²."

(It's 14 orders of magnitude, not 13. mea culpa)[/size]

 

I think that counts as being spectacularly wrong.

How do you explain coax (TV) cable?

The outer sheath (conductor)

would be your hollow conductor mentioned.

Theoretically, no electric field should be possible

within that (sheath conductor).

Or do you mean something else?

 

But that's nothing

 

"Sharper upper limits on the speed of light have been obtained in experiments designed to detect effects caused by the galactic vector potential.

...

The fact that no such effects are seen implies an upper bound on the photon mass of m < 3×10−27 eV/c²."

^{So you're actually off by 27 orders of magnitude. That's impressive.}

I'm still not clear how you are "measuring" there (so far away).

(=I'm a bit foggy.)

Could you clarify, a bit?

 

etc. = Latin Et ceterahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_cetera

Thanks Sensei (for the links),

but I meant:

what other things are possible?

A particle can be accelerated or decelerated,

but what else can happen? (=your "etc", what other examples?).

And light does not accelerate and so it does not respond to force and so it has no mass.

I think your problem (there) is

you don't want to admit

gravity's free fall g=-9.8 m/(s^2)

is an acceleration

(when you say that);

light falls (like any other moving object, (ruffly) without air resistance);

sound does NOT.

 

That means light accelerates.

Yes, the "-" didn't register.

2.85*(10^(-36)) kg gets you the 1.59 eV I mentioned. But experiment says that if it's nonzero, it must be 13 orders of magnitude smaller than this. Other observations say it's 27 orders of magnitude. So your model has been shown to be wrong, in spectacular fashion.

Please explain a bit (those experiments, so I can grasp what's happening). Spectacular sounds interesting.

What is your model, and/or what are your testable predictions based on this idea?

 

We know, for example, that the momentum of a photon with a wavelength of 780 nm is 8.5 x 10^28 kg-m/s

Don't you surely mean 8.5*(10^(-28)) kg*m/s, instead? (Negative exponent -28, instead of positive 28.)

 

(1.56 eV=2.55*(10^(-19)) J.

mom~2*E/v.)

 

What is its mass and how fast is it moving?

 

The photon is moving at c light's speed.

The photon's mass is (the momentum

divided by it's speed v=c)

m=mom/v=8.5*(10^(-28)) [kg*m/s]/(2.99*(10^8)) m/s)=2.85*(10^(-36)) kg.

If you try and use the Lorentz transform to convert between frames of reference when [latex]v = c[/latex] then

[latex]\gamma = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - c^2/c^2}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - 1}} = \frac 1 0 [/latex] = undefined

 

Therefore v=c is not a valid frame of reference and you cannot compare the speed of photons.

I don't use the Lorentz transform in momentum

because (it's redundant, when)

I set the limit speed to c=v+v'.

Similar can be done with KE

(but energy gives wrong answers,

m*E should be used instead).

The Galilean transform

was never invented

with a speed limit (e.g. c)

because they thought

light's speed was infinite.

We know better, now

& can change that.