Extention:
If the universe has no fixed point, then every frame of reference has real frames that exist that are both in a higher velocity and one in a slower velocity relative to it. But then this implies that if a craft moving close to the speed of light with respect to one inertial frame has the potential to never be able to create a single photon from that ship while the relatively stationary frame can create an infinite photons, then, the slower relative frame to that should have an infinite times an infinite capability to produce photons.

That slower frame will also have another slower frame of reference that can produce an infinite X infinite X infinite capabilty to produce photons. This process would have to continue infinitely and is absurd.

Therefore, the assumption that space can be considered ‘relative’ leads to a contradiction and is therefore false. Thus, the only other alternative is to assume a fixed space.

Positive Proposal: (My Theory part of the argument)

With the establishment of fixed space, then nothing can go faster than the speed of light with relation to itself and using the same math that determines another relative frame faster than it tells us that as matter speed up, its translation through space unravels it until it is pure energy at “c”. Then the contextual information that contains matter as it transforms to energy or vice versa is constant. This can only happen if each point of space itself is traveling at one unique speed. So nothing can go slower than “c” either. As instantaneous points of matter represent a relative fixed and contained reality compared to other energy forms, then whatever it is made of is cyclic and suggest that they be points made up of curved directions.

This establishes my positive theory: that every point in space has one fixed speed in a fixed space. Since we measure the fastest speed in relation to a vector linear direction, then that constant is either “c” as measured by the speed of light, or approaches a limit slightly faster than that.

Sorry, Scott, I haven’t seen any flawless argument of you, only a lot of mixup of concepts, or unclear concepts.

Show me where the error here is, and we might be able to talk.

In you last posting, you get out what you put into it. By defining some frames of reference slow and others fast, you get at the conclusion that there must be a fixed frame. Your example with the photons does not make any sense. Again, you see all from just one frame of reference.

Sorry, Scott, I haven’t seen any flawless argument of you, only a lot of mixup of concepts, or unclear concepts.

Show me where the error here is, and we might be able to talk.

In you last posting, you get out what you put into it. By defining some frames of reference slow and others fast, you get at the conclusion that there must be a fixed frame. Your example with the photons does not make any sense. Again, you see all from just one frame of reference.

I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation. You can’t go further than that unless you show why my particular logic is flawed. Informing me that you cannot make sense of it only confirms that you do not follow its logic without telling me why.

If you are going close to the speed of light, under relativity, is this time frame not slowed down relative to the background (or last) inertial frame? So doesn’t this assure us that the atoms and molecules that make up all objects within that faster frame also slow down? Why or why not?

I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation.

Which logic? That from the beginning of the thread?

You are hopelessly confused there. What time dilation says is that when I look at the rocket flying by that I see all clocks and processes on board going slower. This has nothing to do with your observation that a one hour program sent from behind takes longer to be received by the rocket, and that the same one hour program goes faster when sent from the front.

If you do the calculation, taking everything into account (speed of light, speed of the rocket relative to me, time dilation of the rocket relative to me), then you will see that for the crew the program from behind takes (T is duration of the program, t is the time for the crew):

t = T * sqrt(((1 + (v/c))/(1 - (v/c)))

And from the front:

t = T * sqrt(((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c)))

As example, take v = 0.6*c then from the front the program is finished twice as fast, from behind twice as slow. From my perspective however it took 2.5 times longer from behind, and 0.625 towards the rocket. (t = T / (1 - (v/c)), t = T / (1 + (v/c)) respectively, i.e. the values without taking time dilation into account).

It is also not the case that the processes themselves slow down. It is only that for me, seeing the rocket fly by, all the processes on board seem to slow down, and all the objects seem shortened in the direction of flight. For the crew of the rocket nothing changes, and every electromagnetic experiment they do on board, including the measuring of the speed of light, gives exactly the same answers as when I do the experiments. I would find that their clocks are running slow, and their measuring rods are funny short, but if they divide these for me shorter distances with their slower times, they find that the speed of light is c. And of course, the crew of the rocket sees me flying by, and finds my clocks are slow, and my rods are short, but they will see that my measuring of the speed of light with my clocks and my rods again is exactly c. The shortening of rods and slowing down of clocks is not a physical effect, but a coordinate transformation I must take into account when observing objects that are moving relative to me.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

This doesn’t point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.

Should that count as a logical refutation of the principle of relativity??? You are joking!

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

“Light”, here, is again improperly quantified. “...the light”, for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is “the” light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one’s understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.

Again, it is about the speed of light, not its frequency. The frequency transformation is accounted for in the relativistic doppler shift.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

No fixed background to space? This rationally says that not even matter itself should have any fixed physical properties that we can identify. We should have electrons all varying sizes everywhere if this were true. We should have planets and stars infinitely varying in size and yet act as if its rules were relative to it. It would have to be chaotic.

What is this for BS. SR shows how we must transform the properties of objects that are in rest to us to their properties when they are moving relative to us.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

Put a clock on a ship and accelerate it to near the speed of light, and bring it back to measure it. My prediction? The clock won’t survive.

So what according to your theory would happen to protons and atomic nuclei when brought close to the speed of light? Why do they survive?

The way you see connections with the cosmological principle, the age of the universe, the uncertainty principle, etc. are ridiculous. You do as if the whole of science is one big conspiracy to hide their errors.

I invite any and all logicians to go through what I said and point out the error in my presentations. The reference link presumes the very postulates that I proved are wrong at the start of their presentation.

Which logic? That from the beginning of the thread?

You are hopelessly confused there. What time dilation says is that when I look at the rocket flying by that I see all clocks and processes on board going slower. This has nothing to do with your observation that a one hour program sent from behind takes longer to be received by the rocket, and that the same one hour program goes faster when sent from the front.

If you do the calculation, taking everything into account (speed of light, speed of the rocket relative to me, time dilation of the rocket relative to me), then you will see that for the crew the program from behind takes (T is duration of the program, t is the time for the crew):

t = T * sqrt(((1 + (v/c))/(1 - (v/c)))

And from the front:

t = T * sqrt(((1 - (v/c))/(1 + (v/c)))

As example, take v = 0.6*c then from the front the program is finished twice as fast, from behind twice as slow. From my perspective however it took 2.5 times longer from behind, and 0.625 towards the rocket. (t = T / (1 - (v/c)), t = T / (1 + (v/c)) respectively, i.e. the values without taking time dilation into account).

I’m unclear as to what you think I’m in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly. You’re not seeming to see the relevance of the difference between the determination due to perception and the conclusions drawn to actual reality due to them. I’m seeing that you understand what I understand and yet you’re missing how the definitions, logic, and the language shift in meanings as the theory of Relativity from Einstein proceeds.
You observe, A, B, &, C, that deductively infer conclusion D. But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition. While it is true that in deduction, the premises guarantees the conclusion, if it is questionable to reality (by appearance), then it is possible that one or more of the premises are disconnected by some linguistic error, relevance issue, or missing premises, among others issues unexamined.
If sufficient data is missing, is it best to consider the functional validity of the conclusion, even if it has predictable capacity that you can induce later, or is it best to suspend the whole argument from absolution and investigate a new way to fix the argument itself? For practical reasons, while it may be wise to continue with the theory on a tentative basis, it is still best to investigate the logical means of explanation until an explanation provides a match of the conclusion with the same capacity of the observers with respect to the premises. That is, we must forcefully find an interpretation that completely takes the discomfort of the rationale from our ordinary means of understanding. There is a real reason why a conclusion can appear to be true and yet is contrary or contradictory to our sensibility. While nature has no imposition to make sense to our rationality, it makes better sense to remain skeptical and try to resolve this rather than just accept it fact for its practical implications.

GdB - 03 August 2013 02:15 AM

It is also not the case that the processes themselves slow down. It is only that for me, seeing the rocket fly by, all the processes on board seem to slow down, and all the objects seem shortened in the direction of flight. For the crew of the rocket nothing changes, and every electromagnetic experiment they do on board, including the measuring of the speed of light, gives exactly the same answers as when I do the experiments. I would find that their clocks are running slow, and their measuring rods are funny short, but if they divide these for me shorter distances with their slower times, they find that the speed of light is c. And of course, the crew of the rocket sees me flying by, and finds my clocks are slow, and my rods are short, but they will see that my measuring of the speed of light with my clocks and my rods again is exactly c. The shortening of rods and slowing down of clocks is not a physical effect, but a coordinate transformation I must take into account when observing objects that are moving relative to me.

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

This doesn’t point out the particulars with respect to what it is declaring. It avoids the issue of the arbitrariness of leaving out time as being assumed normal. It implicitly also opens the door for radical assumptions on the nature of matter, energy, and space in other times. This abortion was deliberately created to enable relativity to work.

Should that count as a logical refutation of the principle of relativity??? You are joking!

Yes, in regards to the whole argument in context. If a premise lacks clarity by fault of its inability to determine a precise definition that makes the meaning of it insufficiently unique, then the conclusions based on it can only be just as obscure.

GdB - 03 August 2013 02:15 AM

Scott Mayers - 02 August 2013 02:26 AM

“Light”, here, is again improperly quantified. “...the light”, for instance. Is it anything defined as light? Is it only light as defined by the present observer? Is “the” light the same phenomena from different perspectives (inertial frames)? This lack of appropriately defining allows one to shift in one’s understanding of light in meaning as if they all are equally the same.

Again, it is about the speed of light, not its frequency. The frequency transformation is accounted for in the relativistic doppler shift.

This is an example of the obscurity imposed. You are following the unstated assumption that “light” in this understanding is a perfect point with the contextual information of its particular wavelength embedded in it. A wave as understood by you and others is as a magical entity that you simply label as “transcendent” and can travel through an essence you label as “nothing”; “space” is confusingly both something AND nothing, certainly illusive and real, at the same time. [Although waves can be described as having perpendicular way of propagating that is different to compression, the label, “transcendent”, should alert you to how the originators applied it to the way they see light.]
“Speed of light” means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as “fixed”.
Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects.
Another way of this saying this: Everything is uncertain, except the certainty that nothing is certain. This rationality assures that whatever anyone can say about reality is true and false in exactly the same universal way. Paradoxes exist as reality to this mentality. I go on the assumption that paradoxes don’t actually exist but that contradictions themselves are relative perspectives of illusion to a reality that has a solution elsewhere undetermined (as yet).

GdB - 03 August 2013 02:15 AM

The way you see connections with the cosmological principle, the age of the universe, the uncertainty principle, etc. are ridiculous. You do as if the whole of science is one big conspiracy to hide their errors.

It’s obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete). I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I’m not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.

I’m unclear as to what you think I’m in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly.

No, you don’t:

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

Bold by me. That statement is wrong. You cannot say that we have the same understanding, and at the same time write what you did in your first posting. At 0.6c the program sent from behind is seen by the crew as taking 2 hours, instead of 1. (Which btw also means that they must tune in on half of the frequency in order to receive it, and they see the program going at hhaallff ooff tthhee ssppeeeedd, if you know what I mean… Both effects are phenomena of the doppler shift.)

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition.

Exactly. But not with any empirical data. Too bad for our regular intuition. In our daily intuition we only are used to velocities << c, so we do not notice these effects.

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

If sufficient data is missing,...

Which data is missing? Even the twin ‘paradox’ has been empirically confirmed.

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

Yes, in regards to the whole argument in context. If a premise lacks clarity by fault of its inability to determine a precise definition that makes the meaning of it insufficiently unique, then the conclusions based on it can only be just as obscure.

I don’t know what is unclear about the relativity principle: applying it to Maxwell theory it leads to the Lorentz transformations which were confirmed, and are used in technology every day. Particle accelerators, GPS, existence of anti-matter, explanation of nuclear energy thanks E=mc², etc.

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

A wave as understood by you and others is as a magical entity that you simply label as “transcendent” and can travel through an essence you label as “nothing”; “space” is confusingly both something AND nothing, certainly illusive and real, at the same time. [Although waves can be described as having perpendicular way of propagating that is different to compression, the label, “transcendent”, should alert you to how the originators applied it to the way they see light.]

This is complete rubbish you write here.

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

“Speed of light” means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as “fixed”.

What is your problem? If I do an experiment to determine the speed of light I do that in a laboratory that is in rest in my frame of reference. Then I find c. ‘Fixed’ means ‘fixed in my frame of reference’. There is nothing problematic to that (or subjective!).

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects.

What a rubbish again. I have already written once that Einstein regretted that he had called his theory ‘relativity theory’, that he’d better called it ‘invariance theory’. For every observer observing an event the ‘pythagorean distance in space-time’ is exactly the same (x² + y² + z² + w² = d², where w = -ict (x, y, z, t being the coordinates of a single observer), and d the space-time distance. So all events are just as real as before, but to find the coordinates for another observer, one must take the relative velocity into account. There is nothing subjective about that. Again: you have not even started to understand what is relativity about.

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

It’s obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete).

You will never complete it. Think about what you should be able to accomplish:
- basing your theory on less basic principles, or at least as much (but then more according to daily intuition…),
- do not add any new entities (Occam’s razor), especially if we cannot detect them independently (ether, ‘fixed space’),
- derive from these principles all the confirmed experiments and applications of relativity,
- predict phenomena in which your theory deviates from relativity, that can actually be measured.
Beside the point that I am sure you are wrong anyway, you will never succeed in mastering the higher mathematics like tensor calculus that you need for a thorough presentation of your theory: when you already fail to give a correct mathematical description of your own example, the rest will surely be way too complicated for you.

But: I hereby already give my excuses in case you get the Nobel price. I will confess for everybody how I underestimated you!

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I’m not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.

No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don’t, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to ‘does not fit my intuitions’.

Your remarks about the physics community hiding their errors shows what you really are: a physics crackpot.

I’m unclear as to what you think I’m in disagreement here? I already understand this logic clearly.

No, you don’t:

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

Imagine that both programs are sent simulataneously toward your ship as you travel at near the speed of light. The stream of data being sent from Earth would be stretched relative to you in the space craft and would take longer than the hour length of the program to completely finish its whole stream. Sure, your time would slow down relative to your motion and so you would appear to receive the message in the exact hour-length of the program.

Bold by me. That statement is wrong. You cannot say that we have the same understanding, and at the same time write what you did in your first posting. At 0.6c the program sent from behind is seen by the crew as taking 2 hours, instead of 1. (Which btw also means that they must tune in on half of the frequency in order to receive it, and they see the program going at hhaallff ooff tthhee ssppeeeedd, if you know what I mean… Both effects are phenomena of the doppler shift.)

This is funny…you misread my accent. The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant: that is, the message would have to be received that way (an hour long per hour-long program) if its signal, being represented as an analogue is consistent with the time dilation that may be argued to still be measured the same because your slower perception of time could still enable you to actually see the program an hour long. If your time (on ship) slows down so that an hour of your perception is doubled compared to the other frame, and the length of the program stream is stretched to double, you would see the program running in apparent real time. I was building my case and this sentence anticipated what one might at first assume believing in this. I followed it up afterwards by showing how such assumption could not be acceptable even on this (false) assumption because, even if this could be true, the message from the front would be mismatched: the full quote continued with this:

... But wait…since the same program is being sent from the moon simultaneously as you travel toward it, then that stream would be compressed in duration and should appear shorter in length than the hour. Now if this is to be fixed according to Einstein, your relative time would have to speed up if you are to still perceive the signal as being one hour long.

In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be “c” regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn’t possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above). The Doppler shift works precisely because of these differences. The Doppler shift, here, is in direct relation to its relative speed differences at the ship, not an independent factor of light that just happens to cooperate in sync with its speed. So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn’t constant. Your time on the ship doesn’t alter depending on which direction you face; you either slow down or speed up, not both.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

But while the observations in and of themselves are undeniable, the conclusion, D, leads to something that leads to a mismatch with the same everyday understanding of observations. D appears inconsistent with regular intuition.

Exactly. But not with any empirical data. Too bad for our regular intuition. In our daily intuition we only are used to velocities << c, so we do not notice these effects.

Why should the restriction to velocities “<<c” now be allowed? According to the theory (SR), we still couldn’t possibly notice these effects because it assured us that the physics in those frames will appear the same, regardless. I assure you that no experiment done so far is even capable of showing, let alone possible to demonstrate a clock that can be accelerated to close to c, yet decelerate back to Earth, remain molecularly whole (No physical change in ALL its properties (mass & structure) should occur relating its original sendoff to the final return.) If this experiment could possibly be done, the clock would no longer be of the same exact physical form and the closer it approached c, the less likely it would be anything more than a highly radiated clump of matter unrecognizably reduced by fission.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

If sufficient data is missing,...

Which data is missing? Even the twin ‘paradox’ has been empirically confirmed.

Just answered. The experiments are insufficient to determine what I proposed above. Notice in the link how it slights over the fact that the one twin (or organism) who travels would be physically altered. Re: “If we placed a living organism in a box ... one could arrange that the organism, after any arbitrary lengthy flight, could be returned to its original spot in a scarcely altered condition, while corresponding organisms which had remained in their original positions had already long since given way to new generations. ...” For Relativity to be consistent, nothing external from the moving twin could cause it to change because this would assure that the physics from the perspective of the moving twin would be different. Even if the acceleration/deceleration factors were accounted for all damaging effects, there would still be damage through the constant velocity travel period through space.
The SR/GR theory implies this thought experiment: Imagine if you had created a formula given identical components to construct two identical objects. One person with the formula and copy of components accelerates to 99.99% c while another remains at home. If they both set their watches to enable the person in the moving craft to finish acceleration, and then they both built their twin objects, the twin object in constant motion steals away the excuse of gravitational or acceleration effects. These objects would then make the paradox real under Einstein’s conditions. To make this sink home better, assume that the objects in question are created as conscious beings and that their creators both die off before telling these twins about each other. Then if they could somehow perceive each other in their different frames of reference, by SR, they should not be able to tell which one of them is moving relative to the other. Does this lack of knowledge assure that they would not be able to determine their truth (that one of them is at a faster velocity relative to the other?) Not only is this absurd, I predict that the twin object in relative motion would sincerely still be physically altered. It’s transition through more space/unit time would certainly assure more radioactive destruction from the massive rays it would encounter. That is, the more relatively fixed background DOES affect the two twins differently inferring a fixed space.

No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don’t, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to ‘does not fit my intuitions’.

He keeps repeating that, even though multiple people have told him the universe is under no obligation to conform to our intuitions. Scott, please explain how Global Positioning Systems work.

Oh.. and I forgot to point out that in the last post that the paradox would still appear as the age of one of the created twins of my example would still be aging different too! If they both, without the knowledge of their prior history decided to accelerate together at the same time to meet each other in a common frame of reference between the two, there ages would still differ and provide the proof that there does exist a fixed background.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

“Speed of light” means nothing without defining real points to measure things with respect to distances and time. By declaring no such thing as a fixed point in space, means you cannot just appoint one in an instance for measuring purposes and determine any certain reality from it appropriately because then any determination based on it assures that we must still simply define those temporary reference points as “fixed”.

What is your problem? If I do an experiment to determine the speed of light I do that in a laboratory that is in rest in my frame of reference. Then I find c. ‘Fixed’ means ‘fixed in my frame of reference’. There is nothing problematic to that (or subjective!).

Likewise, my created twins can do this experiment and find the measure of light to be the same. But you certainly couldn’t deny the evidence of their age differences should they meet up!

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

Relativity is like saying that (1) only subjective reality is real (no fixed objective point of reference), and yet that (2) objectively, all reality is fixed in that all perspectives follow the same rules and will appear the same for all subjects.

What a rubbish again. I have already written once that Einstein regretted that he had called his theory ‘relativity theory’, that he’d better called it ‘invariance theory’. For every observer observing an event the ‘pythagorean distance in space-time’ is exactly the same (x² + y² + z² + w² = d², where w = -ict (x, y, z, t being the coordinates of a single observer), and d the space-time distance. So all events are just as real as before, but to find the coordinates for another observer, one must take the relative velocity into account. There is nothing subjective about that. Again: you have not even started to understand what is relativity about.

I’m hoping by what I’ve already replied to that you can see that I do understand this and that I’ve shown what is wrong about it using my extended version of the paradox.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

It’s obvious to me that I have to approach this with a more intensive digression into philosophy, logic, and linguistics. I have in fact started out this way in my formal thesis (still incomplete).

You will never complete it. Think about what you should be able to accomplish:
- basing your theory on less basic principles, or at least as much (but then more according to daily intuition…),
- do not add any new entities (Occam’s razor), especially if we cannot detect them independently (ether, ‘fixed space’),
- derive from these principles all the confirmed experiments and applications of relativity,
- predict phenomena in which your theory deviates from relativity, that can actually be measured.
Beside the point that I am sure you are wrong anyway, you will never succeed in mastering the higher mathematics like tensor calculus that you need for a thorough presentation of your theory: when you already fail to give a correct mathematical description of your own example, the rest will surely be way too complicated for you.

But: I hereby already give my excuses in case you get the Nobel price. I will confess for everybody how I underestimated you!

I realize the apparent arrogance of what I’m claiming is not the best desirable trait to have on me. My confidence will persuade you differently in time—assuming I can do the job before I die. I’m assuming though that even if I succeeded, I’m guessing that other people’s love for me wouldn’t improve. The Nobeler’s might even find some way to delay a reward for me until I’m dead. Your advice is heard. I’m ahead of you on the first one: I assume literally nothing in my formal presentation except for the attention of the reader (listener) to be able to follow. When and if I develop my mathematical aptitudes better, it will only add to the strength of the arguments. The foundational principles are what will matter since I will mostly be able to provide an intuitional understanding of the math without difficulty or prerequisite of the reader to have a prior degree to read the present language.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Scott Mayers - 17 July 2013 09:51 AM

I see that you understand Einstein the way I do but are either missing my point or are not understanding certain aspects of logic the way I do. While I find that what I presented is a clear reductio absurdum to the theory, I’m not sure why you are unable (or appear to be unable) to follow.

No, I understand the basics of relativity theory, you don’t, so our understanding is not the same. I never will understand your logic, nor anybody else ever will, because one cannot understand logic that is wrong. Your reductio absurdum boils down to ‘does not fit my intuitions’.

So far, I haven’t even required any “intuition” beyond anything most of us humans here are already capable of What did my prior arguments claim that go beyond this? And don’t pervert my use of the term, “intuition” beyond the instinctual knowledge that one has developed due to experience alone! I don’t believe in innate knowledge coming from metaphysical forces or realities. My use of the term, intuition, is the scientific one, not my mother’s.

GdB - 04 August 2013 02:22 AM

Your remarks about the physics community hiding their errors shows what you really are: a physics crackpot.

Where the hell was this you accuse me of, and how is it relevant if it were? Even if I were to hypothesize the nature of a group of physicists capacity to mislead or be conspiratorial, it has no relevance on my arguments at hand. (See my recent post On the Nature of Conspiracy)

The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant:

And that is just wrong. Under the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light, time is dilated according to t = T/(1 - (v²/c²)), and together with the rocket flying in the same direction, the one hour program will take longer than one hour.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be “c” regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn’t possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above).

The programs are not in sync, even that the velocity of light is the same for all observers. Your application of the constancy of the speed of light is completely wrong. The program going twice as fast does not mean that the speed of light is higher: it only means the program is ‘blue shifted’, and everybody talking in the program does it twice as fast. But if the crew would measure the speed of the signal, i.e. the light, they would measure c. Just note that the relativistic doppler formula differs from that of e.g. sound, where there is a medium.

Sound:

Light:

Note that for sound the velocity relative to the medium plays a role (and different for source and receiver!), which it does not with light.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn’t constant.

This is so wrong… Red light is slower than blue??? In vacuum? Empirical support, please!

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

Why should the restriction to velocities “<<c” now be allowed? According to the theory (SR), we still couldn’t possibly notice these effects because it assured us that the physics in those frames will appear the same, regardless.

Allowed? What are you talking about?!? The fastest thing I see in my life are cars and planes: that means, they move so fast relative to me. Together however we move with the earth about 30km/s, but we do not notice. Do you have a problem with the fact that velocities are always relative to something else? If I say v << c, what is then unclear about v still being velocity relative to something else? Your logic is flawed to the bottom.

And of course we can see the effects: when another frame of reference is fast enough, for example. How do you explain that the short lived muons, that live too short that even at their nearly light speed, could not reach the earth, but they still do? And why are they not transformed to unrecognizable energy, as should happen according to your theory? How do you explain the empirical confirmation of the twin paradox (see the Hafele–Keating experiment).

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

If this experiment could possibly be done, the clock would no longer be of the same exact physical form and the closer it approached c, the less likely it would be anything more than a highly radiated clump of matter unrecognizably reduced by fission.

I am missing your explanation why atomic nuclei are not destroyed by their near light velocity.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

Does this lack of knowledge assure that they would not be able to determine their truth (that one of them is at a faster velocity relative to the other?) Not only is this absurd, I predict that the twin object in relative motion would sincerely still be physically altered.

Who is moving??? Are they both in inertial frames? With the explanation of the twin paradox, you should be able to answer the question yourself. Hint: it boils down to taking only part of the trip, as depicted in the Minkowksi diagram, and who will stop, i.e. changes from his inertial frame to the one of the other.

Oh.. and I forgot to point out that in the last post that the paradox would still appear as the age of one of the created twins of my example would still be aging different too! If they both, without the knowledge of their prior history decided to accelerate together at the same time to meet each other in a common frame of reference between the two, there ages would still differ and provide the proof that there does exist a fixed background.

Wrong. If one adapts to the inertial frame of the other, their ages will differ. If they meet by decelerating at exactly the same way, and meet in the reference frame of the person who saw them created simultaneously, they will see each other having the same age.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 06:37 AM

I’m hoping by what I’ve already replied to that you can see that I do understand this and that I’ve shown what is wrong about it using my extended version of the paradox.

No. Not a bit.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 06:37 AM

I’m ahead of you on the first one: I assume literally nothing in my formal presentation except for the attention of the reader (listener) to be able to follow.

Well, you did not succeed. We only notice that you do not understand relativity. You have shown no sign that you know what your are arguing against.

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 06:37 AM

And don’t pervert my use of the term, “intuition” beyond the instinctual knowledge that one has developed due to experience alone!

No, I don’t. I only tell you that you have no experience with systems that move with a speed close to that of light. Therefore your intuitions fail.

The bolded sentence you quote from me is in context to the assumption that you would measure the speed of light constant:

And that is just wrong.

Damn right its wrong! You are not reading me correctly. Maybe it’s because we are in different frames of inertia?

GdB - 04 August 2013 06:57 AM

Under the assumption of the constancy of the speed of light, time is dilated according to t = T/(1 - (v²/c²)), and together with the rocket flying in the same direction, the one hour program will take longer than one hour.

It’s been a long while since I derived the Lorentz transformations on my own. I used the assumption that the Michelson-Morley experimental results were true and used trigonometry with the assumption of “c” as the fixed speed of light. I think I got that the apparent velocity = 1/sqrt(1 - v²/c²). I also derived E = mc² from Newtonian mechanics, assuming a fixed speed, c, and assumed that if c is the maximum something could go, then in one second, the fastest it could possibly accelerate is at a factor that limits it to that maximum velocity. (F = ma. So if Energy is just a representation of force through a distance, its instantaneous energy would be the force at a point: thus F(inst) =E = mc*c.) I don’t think I should even have to defend my understanding of relativity by repeating what I know and learned specifically. I come to the same mathematical results assuming a Cartesian space without contradictions. What do you want me to do? Demonstrate my understanding of the math and science by rehashing my education with proofs from scratch? You are merely trying to place an unnecessary burden on me because I don’t have the formal University degree to certify the knowledge. It’s authoritative and I can at least assure you that my self-education had a stronger motive to make sense of things than those many who merely pass exams by remembering their formulas by rote memory. Cudos to them and better for those who are also self-motivated to figure things on their own. Just grant me the respect and charity that I already ventured through the same material as those students have learned by. (I even began by getting the syllabi for the courses that the Universities actually used, even purchasing the same texts, mostly from the UofS(askatchewan) bookstores.

GdB - 04 August 2013 06:57 AM

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

In other words, even if it was assumed the program could be measured with the same program length, representing the assumption that light from the very same outside source would be “c” regardless of your motion, the length differences from both directions couldn’t possibly be in sync and thus represents two different speeds (as you just supported above).

The programs are not in sync, even that the velocity of light is the same for all observers. Your application of the constancy of the speed of light is completely wrong. The program going twice as fast does not mean that the speed of light is higher: it only means the program is ‘blue shifted’, and everybody talking in the program does it twice as fast. But if the crew would measure the speed of the signal, i.e. the light, they would measure c. Just note that the relativistic doppler formula differs from that of e.g. sound, where there is a medium.

Sound:

Light:

Note that for sound the velocity relative to the medium plays a role (and different for source and receiver!), which it does not with light.

Already learned and irrelevant to the arguments I needed to present thus far. How many times do I have to repeat this? The math is still valid in these cases. What and how do they present justification to assert the uniqueness of the Einstein’s theory over any other possible one? Why is it favorable to preserve one explanation that demands picturing reality non-intuitively because that interpretation preserves the assumptions that are not necessary rather than one explanation that IS intuitive, and works with more sensible assumptions? It’s like you favor that I give you particular directions to find a specific location relative to where you are rather than simply give you my address. Both methods will get you there but one of them requires less effort to explain and the other has the consequence, intended or not, of losing clarity by assuming everyone comes from the same kind of places or similar environments.

GdB - 04 August 2013 06:57 AM

Scott Mayers - 04 August 2013 05:10 AM

So, this indicates that light that shifts towards the red is slower than light shifted towards the blue. Thus, the speed of light from both of these perspectives isn’t constant.

This is so wrong… Red light is slower than blue??? In vacuum? Empirical support, please!

I require illustrations to demonstrate why specific light waves in particular can be have the same velocity while actually differing in its actual travel paths. Hints: photons are not all created by there sources in the same particular way (even though the general form is the same) and since the actual sine waves differ in amplitude, the net effect of actual travel makes each ‘string’ even lengths and while their velocities remain constant in translation, their total directional (vector) lengths vary according to differing spectrums.

I’m not certain the relevance of asking me to explain GPS. Although I haven’t investigated the matter particularly, I’m guessing that it would use two or three reference points or satellites, using the parabolic formula and the Lorentz formula to determine your location.