A proof for the Stationary Earth, Part 2

[Sparko]

Must remember to add 'frames' to the cluelessness list.

Might be shorter if you just made a list over what he is NOT clueless about.

[Roy]

Might be shorter if you just made a list over what he is NOT clueless about.

I haven't found anything yet.

[Sparko]

I haven't found anything yet.

see? a very short list.

[Sea of red]

A Light Clock Thought Experiment as a counter to Special Relativity Theory.0.25c km.0.25c km.

According to universal time, clock tick rates do not change and lengths between f1 and f2 do change from that expected in the simple d=vt formula. According to observed local time at f1 and that observed at f1 by light at c from the local clock at f2, the f2 clock tick rate appears to slow, and the length between f2 and f1 reduces by v(x2-x1)/c. The time known at f1 is both universal and local, depending upon the clock viewed.

The solution to the problem of light clocks becomes quite simple when a universal reference frame (UF) is correctly used. The UF provides us with universal time, velocity and distance. Universal time does not change tick rate with velocity of a body. And consequently the distance between f1 and f2 does not shorten by a Lorentz contraction, and therefore the mass of a moving body does not change as dictated by SR theory.

Once v is known from UF, then the apparent light clock time from f2 may also be observed and hen correctly changed to match reality. The clock tick rates between f1 and f2 only appear to dilate when moving at relative motion of v, but do not. Whatever is observed at f1 that appears to correspond to SR theory, can be translated to a more realist understanding of time and motion, with the equation given in the above example.

Relativity theory imports the value of v, which implies a UF, then ignores the UF when using the transforms for time and distance. The Lorentz transforms are really only maths sophisms that require the reader to ignore the UF and conclude to the sophisms of time dilation and length contraction. Such are not required when correct distinctions are made between universal and local light clock time.

Universal time cannot and does not change its tick rate. Local light clock time only appears to change tick rate in the local reference frame due to the time light takes to travels from f2 to f1. The apparent f2 light clock time observed at f1 is really only an optical illusion and does not require relativity theory to explain such via transforms and length contractions. R theory is simply superfluous to explain the velocity of any object at all.

I hope I didn't make any mistakes.

One may change the formulas if light is emitted from the object as c, then travels at c+-v relative to absolute space and thereby account for the Sagnac effect.

JM

You made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin.

[Sea of red]

FYI: Asking why the moon orbits the Earth rather than the sun is a bit like asking why a rocket doesn't just keep going up when it launches. It comes down to escape velocity - which the Moon doesn't have enough of to escape the Earths gravity field.

With all of the references to "clocks" and "universal" time I think should tell you all everything you need to know about his insight into modern physics. Please ignore him and he'll go away.

[JohnMartin]

You made so many mistakes I don't know where to begin.

You didn't begin.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

You didn't begin.

He didn't know where since you made so many blunders.

Since you now say gravity exists, tell us how gravity works. Do you now agree if you drop a plate it falls to the floor due to gravity and not the MagicAether^tm?

[JohnMartin]

He didn't know where since you made so many blunders.

Since you now say gravity exists, tell us how gravity works. Do you now agree if you drop a plate it falls to the floor due to gravity and not the MagicAether^tm?

You made so make mistakes I don't know where to begin.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

You made so make mistakes I don't know where to begin.

JM

Heh. Moonbat is going to change his story again. Now he doesn't know how gravity works.

Gravity is a real force though, right Moonbat?

[JohnMartin]

Why? Couldn't you do it yourself?

What on earth makes you think you can overturn relativity and orbital mechanics if you can't do high school algebra?Then you probably did it wrong.

How did I did it wrong, if I probably did it wrong

²x² - 4(t² + t'²/c²)(x²-t'²))) / 2(t² + t'²/c²) It's correct, but not in the simplest form. But at least relativity has equations. Where are the corresponding equations for your MagicAether^TM? That doesn't even aspire to gibberish.
Or you could simply look up the definition.

v is defined as

The origin of frame S' moves along the x axis of frame S with velocity v as measured in S.

Collier, Peter. A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity (Kindle Locations 2521-2522). Incomprehensible Books. Kindle Edition.

Similar to what is said in

Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations.

²/c²)^1/2

Eq 2) t'=(x-vt)/(1-v²/c²)^1/22/c²)^1/2, which means v at x,y,z,t and at x',y',z't' is constant.

Or arriving at the same conclusion another way. If v is a fundamental variable within the Lorentz transform, just as c is a fundamental variable, then v cannot be transformed according to the Lorentz transform. There is no Lorentz transform of v, just as there is no Lorentz transform of c. Therefore, just as c is a known value that is both imported into SR theory, and postulated as invariant, then similarly v must also be a known variable, imported into the theory, which is also invariant. As both variables, c and v are fundamental to the Lorenz transform, then both v and c are of themselves not able to be transformed.

But according to

Eq 2) t'=(x-vt)/(1-v²/c²)^1/22x² - 4(t² +t'²/c²)(x²-t'²))) / 2(t² + t'²/c²

[JohnMartin]

Heh. Moonbat is going to change his story again. Now he doesn't know how gravity works.

Gravity is a real force though, right Moonbat?

I applied the same standard to you as you applied to me. You didn't get it.

JM

[HMS_Beagle]

I applied the same standard to you as you applied to me. You didn't get it.

JM

I'm not the moonbat who claimed the MagicAether^tm caused all acceleration on objects.

Now are you going to answer the questions about gravity or will you cowardly cut and run again?

Is gravity a real force? How does it work? Over what distance does it operate?

[JohnMartin]

did it wrong, if I probably did it wrong²/c²)^1/2

Eq 2) t'=(x-vt)/(1-v²/c²)^1/22/c²)^1/2, which means v at x,y,z,t and at x',y',z't' is constant.

Or arriving at the same conclusion another way. If v is a fundamental variable within the Lorentz transform, just as c is a fundamental variable, then v cannot be transformed according to the Lorentz transform. There is no Lorentz transform of v, just as there is no Lorentz transform of c. Therefore, just as c is a known value that is both imported into SR theory, and postulated as invariant, then similarly v must also be a known variable, imported into the theory, which is also invariant. As both variables, c and v are fundamental to the Lorenz transform, then both v and c are of themselves not able to be transformed.

But according to

Eq 2) t'=(x-vt)/(1-v²/c²)^1/22x² - 4(t² +t'²/c²)(x²-t'²))) / 2(t² + t'²/c²

Some further thoughts on v in Special Relativity theory.

In Einstein's original paper on Special Relativity, he defines the constancy of the speed of light as

Eq 5) c = 2AB/(t'_A-t_A)

where the variables are defined as follows -

_ABA.

_A-t_A)?

If SR theory is consistent with its own use of v=d/t, to establish the values of A, B, t'_A, and t_A, in the original paper, why doesn't SR theory also use the same approach to establish v?

If c establishes the values of A, B, t'_A, and t_AA, and t_A in relation to c to establish v in relation to x', x, t' and t. So SR ties A, B, t'_A, and t_A to c, but v is never tied to x', x, t', or t via a similar, fundamental formula. Which is like saying the following, using consistent variables to highlight the problem -

SR uses Eq 5) to tie c into the variables A, B, t'_A, and t_A according to

Eq 5) c = 2AB/(t'_A-t_A)

SR should also tie v into the equivalent variables of A, B, t'_A, and t_A, as x', t', x, t

Eq 6) 2v = 2(x'x)/(t'_x'-t_x

[JohnMartin]

I'm not the moonbat who claimed the MagicAether^tm caused all acceleration on objects.

Now are you going to answer the questions about gravity or will you cowardly cut and run again?

Is gravity a real force? How does it work? Over what distance does it operate?

Gravity is real, but you are not believable.

JM

[JohnMartin]

Some more thoughts on SR.

Problem 1

If c is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' and v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

then what has the same value at two points is invariant at those two points.

As v is the same value at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

then v is invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t'

But an invariant v, means v is dependent upon d and t whereby t cannot dilate and d cannot shrink.

But v, is a variable included in calculating x' and t'

and x' and t' are included in calculating length contraction and time dilation.

Therefore v, is included in the length contraction and time dilation between x and x'.

Therefore, v is known at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' as an invariant variable.

But v is also known through x' and t' and thereby varies from at x,y,z,t to x',y'z',t'.

Hence SR contains a contradictory account of v.

Hence SR is unsound according to false definition of v.



Problem 2

If both v and c are invariant at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t', then v, and c are

1) not variant (1) when subject to time dilation, or length contraction and therefore do not change value. For if c defines the variables x', x, t', and t according to c= x'-x/(t'-t), then also the variables x', x, t', and t define v according to v = x'-x/(t'-t). But x' and t' are subject to gamma, which causes time to dilate and lengths to contract, causing v to be variant (2). (1) contradicts (2).

or

2) are not subject to either time dilation, or length contraction, and remain invariant (1). c is always invariant in all frames. But v is both known at x,y,z,t and x',y'z',t' and included in the formulas for x' and t'. Hence v is invariant as known, and then not subject to either time dilation, or length contraction. Yet v is also subject to time dilation, and length contraction, and then variant (2) as defined by the equations for x' and t'. (1) contradicts (2).

SR contains more than one contradiction, hence SR is invalid.

JM