joigus

Then I suggest you stop ignoring the facts. The facts say special relativity is correct.

Not just that, but so much more. 4-dim formulation of SR is essential to understand theory of scattering (the so-called Mandelstam variables are relativistic invariants in 4-D language that make many other symmetries obvious: crossing symmetries, CPT, and the like). It provides the necessary preamble for the theory of gravitation (which-point-to-point has a local version of special relativity in it). It also makes many aspects of electromagnetism obvious. 4-dim SR explains magnetism. Tells you exactly how it comes about when charges move. It also indirectly explains spin 1/2 when you try to make the quantum theory every bit as 4-dim relativistic as the classical theory. I'm only talking about the 4-dimensional aspect of SR. It really, really lets you see behind corners that otherwise stay in the dark. So yes. A theory gives you a 'big picture' perspective. It affords you a tool to predict new range of phenomena. So @Bufofrog was spot on, I think, when saying you don't really have a theory. People who aren't trained in physics really do not understand the full import of what 'beautiful' means to physicists. It's not about looking pretty on a blackboard, with fancy Greek symbols. Rather, it's about empowering you to understand, it's about economy of thought. It's about being able to solve complicated problems immediately. Also about relating apparently unrelated phenomena. It's about understanding the language in which the laws of physics are written.

Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. People like Minkowski, Wheeler, and others understood aspects of relativity that didn't occur to Einstein himself. Example: What Einstein discovered is equivalent to space and time being a 4-dimensional continuum, and relations from one inertial frame to another being equivalent to hyperbolic rotations in that space. This idea is not in Einstein's writing prior to 1908, and for a while he was reluctant to wholeheartedly accept it. Other people helped him --and everybody else-- understand his own ideas much better.

Oh, you said "sine of a degree", but what you meant was probably "sine of an angle expressed in degrees", right? So, naturally, I understood "sine of 1 degree". Anyway, that's not x-x³/3!+... Neither is it (180⁰/π)(x-x³/3!+...) Rather, it's, \[ \left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)-\left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)^{3}/3!+\left(\frac{\pi}{180}x\right)^{5}/5!-\cdots \] Is it not? Sorry. I was confusing because I was confused.

Wrong again. It's not about re-scaling sin(x). It's about re-scaling x. Repeat.

LOL. So it is possible to start an argument with a non sequitur.

No, I mean, I see what you're doing here: The regular crackpot routine. See what happens when the voice in your head speaks louder than the world outside?

Wrong again. It's not about re-scaling sin(x). It's about re-scaling x. First scale right, then warp. Then rinse and repeat.

I think you mistake me for somebody else. But I see more clearly what you're doing here.

Not subtle, just wrong. It shouldn't be there. Right now, what's the speed of your nose with respect to something I'm thinking of, but I'm not gonna tell you? See? That's your v. And this is a serious no, no. I hope you understand. If you don't, I can't help you, and I'd venture nobody else here can.

Ok. Riddle me this: S2 recedes with respect to what --or whom--? Not the detector --or its associate observer--, since those see no motion. Only with respect to a fiducial --but, mind you, unmentioned by you-- observer sitting at the port's pier, let's say. See the flaw? If you go over Einstein's classic papers, you will notice that all the c-v or c+v terms come from observers calculating distances or delay times from their "rest" frames! According to them, the wall (mirror, or whatever) has moved. Not according to the co-moving observer! x-posted with @Bufofrog

Thank you. But it was both you and Swanson who set me on the right track when you said, I've credited accordingly. You see, it sometimes takes some time to see how deep in shit* an OP's argument is. You have to, in a way, accept an unacceptable logic. * Pardon my French.

There is no v in the problem you're setting up. The whole point of relativity is that S2 is not receding. No observer attached to the ship can measure any such v. There is no dragging of the speed of light. The measured speed for light inside the ship is c, not c-v, as you claim. You got everything wrong. This v is only in your mind. So the very first time you wrote an equation and you said you were going to hold it against relativity. Well... You wrote the wrong equation. S2 is not receding from the POV of anybody anchored to the ship --at rest relative to it. Nobody, repeat, nobody stuck to the ship has any right to even start talking about such v. What v? What are you talking about? What you are doing is using a quantity that only makes sense in the frame attached to a certain "rest observer" you're telling us nothing about in your calculations about another frame. And yes, according to your main line of reasoning, space within a ship is non-isotropic, which is a ludicrous claim, of course. (My emphasis.) What?! This is false. In the ship's inertial system such time is t=D/c, not what you say. The whole thing is ridiculous.

Swansont, of course, didn't say such silly thing. "Simultaneous" is a relative concept, as you should know by now. In what frame? Both @studiot and @swansont have pointed out or implied... In what frame? at several points. Almost every other claim of inconsistency of SR has a flaw of this kind. Yours has it too. I confess I'm taking all this very lightly, trying not to stray too deep into your personal rabbit's hole, choosing to fix on one particular inalienable reason why your argument cannot be true. But I must be doing fine, as you chose not to address any of my concerns. Clear indication that you have no answer to them. Simultaneous? In what frame? Non-isotropic space within a Galilean ship? How could that be?

It seems that you're groping your way towards a theory of absolute orientation... Mmmm... I'm looking forward to your Earth-shattering predictions. Otherwise, you've just misinterpreted the results of experiments, which sounds like what's really happened.

BTW, sine of a degree is not that. I mean, sine of 1 degree is not 1-1³/3!+1⁵/5!-... That's sine of 1 radian. Careful, you might end up warping things too much.

I think so. What other use do you have in mind? In mathematics you have so-called functionals, which are functions of functions. They're referred to with square brackets, e.g.: G[f]

All gauge bosons are their own anti-particles. Think about it, if you will, as if they are themselves the product of annihilation. They cannot annihilate any further. Think about it as all particle-antiparticle pairs that mutually annihilate do so by offering each other opposite quantum numbers "to annihilate with". Gauge bosons have no non-zero quantum numbers to "annihilate with" in a manner of speaking. Gravitons are gauge bosons.

Oh it doesn't work on so many levels... What about starting with animals generally died in the strata where they lived. Plus T-Rex is one of the most abundant fossils out there. Swamps and marshes leave abundant organic residues easy to recognise. Not the case. Unlikely... unless they all went en masse to Utah to embrace Mormonism in a retroactive mass conversion.

The unbalance cannot come from random fluctuations. Electric charge is exactly conserved --as every other gauge charge. You really need a mechanism to nudge things out of balance. Look up Sakharov conditions for baryogenesis. Oh, look. I thought I'd said it, and indeed I did... This is no random fluctuation. Either that or everything started out unbalanced for some mysterious reason --which is always possible.

That is so passé. History always almost repeats itself, but not quite.

Mind you, the site will be down (for the same reason) in about 2 years time now. A genie told me. So brace yourselves again for the temporary disappearance of your science-minded online persona in 6.2x107 seconds.

Not me. I had completely forgotten about this conversation! This feels like a dream... Did I really say that?

Liver I think symmetry and simple patterns are part of the deal. That would be my guess anyway. I understand we're just guessing...

Reported. I'm done with this.