swansont

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?

It’s a postulate. The resulting theory is testable, and passes the tests.

! Moderator Note The topic here is a light clock.

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.

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

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

! 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.

Speed of light is invariant. It does not decrease for an object in motion. Time dilation is a relative effect for inertial frames.

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?

! Moderator Note Moved to the trash. Codebreaker, this is way too much anger and way too preachy. Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined

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.

“From 1960 to 2015, there were 35 major bridge collapses worldwide due to ship or barge collision, with a total of 342 people killed” https://apnews.com/article/bridge-collapses-barges-list-1f2d6261d523ddc625aaaf3b32c626bc#

! Moderator Note Please review the rules you agreed to follow when you joined. Posting to link to your own blog is expressly forbidden. Material for discussion must be posted here (rule 2.7)

! Moderator Note We don’t care what you’re doing elsewhere ! Moderator Note Material for discussion must be posted here. Please review our rules, particularly rule 2.7

You observe a Doppler effect with no acceleration. If an object is accelerating the Doppler shift will change, as the relative velocity changes. You don’t need to manufacture a new explanation for the Doppler effect for accelerating objects. If you want to invoke an ether, you must come up with some independent evidence of it. The Doppler effect was present before the acceleration, so acceleration does not produce it. Yes, it’s symmetric, and does not rely on acceleration. The Earth will experience a Doppler effect if the space twin sends a signal. The fact that he experiences it instantly just means photons were en route, and the relative velocity has changed. Einstein’s theory works just fine with accelerations. There’s a Mössbauer experiment (late 50s or early 60s, IIRC) with a centrifuge that confirms it. Relativity doesn’t discuss a “jump into the future” - that’s your misinterpretation of the result. Relativity gives you clock results, and you have to disentangle what you observe from what’s happening with the clocks. The clocks are running at different rates; they are not synchronized once the experiment starts, nor are they recalibrated. Time isn’t physical, so “no physical jump” is not a revelation since it’s not part of relativity. You are debunking a straw man of relativity and the twins paradox, rather than the actual material.

! Moderator Note Please be in the mood the next time you post

If you look at the equation, you can easily see it’s from the velocity. It doesn’t matter if it’s the source or receiver in motion.

You’re omitting an important condition: this only applies to inertial frames of reference. Acceleration is not relative - you know who is undergoing an acceleration (and thus changing to a different inertial frame) The accelerating twin changes from a frame where there is a red shift to one where there is a blue shift. That applies everywhere in that frame of reference. I didn’t say the doppler effect comes from the one accelerating. You did (or at least you claimed this is what relativity says) and you are wrong.

Why does it suggest that? The frequency of the light is determined by the source, and the relative velocity between source and observer. Once there is an acceleration of the observer, the relative velocity changes. Acceleration is not relative - we know the observer is the one whose velocity has changed. No, that’s not what relativity says.

It would mean you aren’t in a cartesian geometry, i.e. it’s not flat. The sum of the angles will depends on the geometry.

A large structure does not have to bend very much to account for this energy. As you say, it is a tiny metal sheet. If you lift a 1 g object 1 meter, a 1 kg structure only has to shift 1 mm Physics is quite successful, but relies on rigor and not hand-waving.