IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags special relativity

Reply
Old 5th December 2014, 04:48 PM   #1
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies

---
An electron and a positron at rest can annihilate into two photons, each with a frequency corresponding to mass/energy of one electron (or positron).

In order to refute SR, we simply ask what happens in this situation:
Electron and positron annihilate while both moving at (relativistic) speed v.
From energy conservation we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is higher than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to the annihilation event with rest mass, as kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair increases the sum of the photon frequencies.
From time dilation (or relativistic Doppler effect) we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is lower than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to an annihilation event with rest mass, as time dilation reduces photon frequencies.
Using common sense, we can easily recognize that a real experiment can only confirm energy conservation (i.e. higher frequencies) and refute time dilation.

---
[1] Two photons with freq1 and freq2 have the same energy as a single photon with freqsum = freq1 + freq2, i.e. total frequency is proportional to total energy.
[2] The relativistic Doppler effect is the combination of the classical Doppler effect [3] with time dilation of SR.
[3] with observer (=receiver) at rest relative to the medium, and a source moving at -c < v < c
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2014, 05:03 PM   #2
ben m
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,387
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
From energy conservation we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is higher than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to the annihilation event with rest mass, as kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair increases the sum of the photon frequencies.
From time dilation (or relativistic Doppler effect) we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is lower than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to an annihilation event with rest mass, as time dilation reduces photon frequencies.
"For dummies" indeed. Why would you calculating the "sum of the frequencies" and transforming it? Go ahead and transform each of the frequencies, and then sum them. (Don't forget that the two photons are moving in opposite directions.)

I recommend actually showing your transformation-formula and how you applied it. (I do not recommend skipping the math and guessing you know the answer.)
ben m is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2014, 05:10 PM   #3
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,603
Originally Posted by ben m View Post
"For dummies" indeed. Why would you calculating the "sum of the frequencies" and transforming it? Go ahead and transform each of the frequencies, and then sum them. (Don't forget that the two photons are moving in opposite directions.)

I recommend actually showing your transformation-formula and how you applied it. (I do not recommend skipping the math and guessing you know the answer.)
Apparently you're not dumb enough. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th December 2014, 05:16 PM   #4
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,895
Because we've got no actual practical experience of smashing particles together at relativistic velocities... oh wait!
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 12:58 PM   #5
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Refuting Einstein's theory of special relativity would involve a two-step process.
First, one must attain a thorough knowledge of the the theory, including its inherent predictions (with mathematical precision).
Second, conduct an actual experiment showing that the theory is not consistent with the outcome of that experiment (with mathematical precision).
Hint: start with step one.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 01:11 PM   #6
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Refutation of Special Relativity for Dummies
You miss-spelt "from".
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 01:26 PM   #7
bobdroege7
Illuminator
 
bobdroege7's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 3,428
see my post in the Deep Purple thread
__________________
Un-american Jack-booted thug

Graduate of a liberal arts college!

Faster play faster faster play faster
bobdroege7 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 02:44 PM   #8
epepke
Philosopher
 
epepke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,264
It's amazing how hard people work to avoid a clue.
__________________
"It probably came from a sticky dark planet far, far away."
- Godzilla versus Hedora

"There's no evidence that the 9-11 attacks (whoever did them) were deliberately attacking civilians. On the contrary the targets appear to have been chosen as military."
-DavidByron
epepke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 03:26 PM   #9
p0lka
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: near trees, houses and a lake.
Posts: 2,634
This is just a few copy+pastes from a wiki without actually reading the details, isn't it?

Last edited by p0lka; 6th December 2014 at 03:32 PM.
p0lka is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 04:07 PM   #10
Brian-M
Daydreamer
 
Brian-M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,044
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
---
An electron and a positron at rest can annihilate into two photons, each with a frequency corresponding to mass/energy of one electron (or positron).

In order to refute SR, we simply ask what happens in this situation:
Electron and positron annihilate while both moving at (relativistic) speed v.
From energy conservation we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is higher than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to the annihilation event with rest mass, as kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair increases the sum of the photon frequencies.
From time dilation (or relativistic Doppler effect) we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is lower than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to an annihilation event with rest mass, as time dilation reduces photon frequencies.
Using common sense, we can easily recognize that a real experiment can only confirm energy conservation (i.e. higher frequencies) and refute time dilation.

---
[1] Two photons with freq1 and freq2 have the same energy as a single photon with freqsum = freq1 + freq2, i.e. total frequency is proportional to total energy.
[2] The relativistic Doppler effect is the combination of the classical Doppler effect [3] with time dilation of SR.
[3] with observer (=receiver) at rest relative to the medium, and a source moving at -c < v < c

Okay, where's the refutation? All I see is a suggestion for an experiment that's already been performed to confirm relativity. At high enough energies, they start producing particles other than photons...
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
There are also many examples of conversion of relativistic kinetic energy into rest energy. In 1974, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory accelerated electrons and positrons up to relativistic velocities, so that their relativistic energy \gamma mc^{2} (i.e. the sum of their rest energy and kinetic energy) is significantly increased to about 1500 MeV each. When those particles collide, other particles such as the J/ψ meson of rest energy of about 3000 MeV were produced.[31] Much higher energies were employed at the Large Electron–Positron Collider in 1989, where electrons and positrons were accelerated up to 45 GeV each, in order to produce W and Z bosons of rest energies between 80 and 91 GeV. Later, the energies were considerably increased to 200 GeV to generate pairs of W bosons.[32] Such bosons were also measured using proton-antiproton annihilation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...air_production
__________________
"That is just what you feel, that isn't reality." - hamelekim
Brian-M is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 04:07 PM   #11
GodMark2
Master Poster
 
GodMark2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 2,249
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Apparently you're not dumb enough. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
When it comes to relativity (general or special), it's really easy to construct a refutation for dummies. It's a lot harder to construct a refutation for people that actually know something.
__________________
Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.
GodMark2 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 10:33 PM   #12
Jrrarglblarg
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 12,673
If "Special Relativity For Dummies" needs refutation, have at it. I'm still working my way through "Sandwiches For Dummies."
Jrrarglblarg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th December 2014, 11:29 PM   #13
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,754
Well, whatever the OP was going for didn't work. When it comes to high energy physics, I am as much of a dummy as one can get. And I didn't understand a word of this.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 12:23 AM   #14
marplots
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 29,167
If the photons are twins, does one end up younger? That's the one I want to see in a dummy version - the one where I get younger than you lot.
marplots is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 06:43 AM   #15
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Sorry, the thread title should rather be:

Refutation of Special Relativity from Idiocy

When dealing with mass-energy equivalence and center of mass/energy considerations in another thread, I got the impression that it is possible to derive relativistic time dilation (according to the Lorentz factor). Because of an unfortunate series of events/mistakes, I came to the opposite conclusion, namely that Lorentz-factor time-dilation must be wrong.

Reasoning "mass-energy conservation"

An electron-positron pair moves at v and disintegrates into two photons, propagating along the line of v with c and -c.

The center of mass of the two emerging photons must continue to move at v. This can only happen if the relativistic mass m1 of the forward moving photon is higher than m2 of the backward moving photon:

ptot / mtot = v
(m1 c - m2 c) / (m1 + m2) = v
(m1 c - m2 c) = (m1 v + m2 v)
m1 (c-v) = m2 (c+v)
m1 = m2 (c+v)/(c-v)


In the case of photons, relativistic mass is proportional to frequency. So we conclude:

f1 = f2 (c+v)/(c-v)

The energy of the electron-positron pair was 2 y E, where E = 511 keV is the rest-energy of an electron or proton, and y the Lorentz factor of v. As f = E/h we get:

f1 + f2 = 2 y E / h

Reasoning "relativistic Doppler effect"

Now, let us apply the relativistic Doppler effect with observer velocity v to this situation: An electron-positron pair at rest gives rise to two photons moving (along the line of v) in opposite directions with each frequency f. In the rest-frame, we get:

f = E/h = 511 keV / h

For the moving observer, the relativistic Doppler effect leads to two photons of different frequency and energy:

f1 = f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
f2 = f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
E1 = h f1 = h f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
E2 = h f2 = h f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5


We get:

f1 = f2 (c+v)/(c-v)

E1 + E2 = 2 h f ( (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5 + (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5 ) = 2 h f / (1-v2/c2)0.5 = 2 E y

f1 + f2 = 2 y E / h = 2 f / (1-v2/c2)0.5


Conlusion

Both reasonings lead to the same frequencies of the emerging photon pair. Therefore it is not possible to refute SR in this way.

The error in post #1

My loose concept "sum of frequencies of the emerging photon pair calculated by applying classical Doppler shift" is the main culprit. If we do the calculation (taking into account [3] of #1), we get

f1 = f / (c-v)
f2 = f / (c+v)
f1 + f2 = (c+v)+(c-v) / (c-v)(c+v) = 2 f / (1-v2/c2) = 2 f y2


Concerning "energy-conservation" we conclude:
The sum (f1+ f2 = 2 f y) of the two frequencies of the photon-pair (emerging from the moving electron-positron pair) is higher lower (by Lorentz factor y) than the sum (f1+ f2 = 2 f y2) calculated by applying classical Doppler shift to the annihilation event at rest (because despite kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair seeming to increase the sum of the photon frequencies).

In any case, this shows that velocity-dependent time dilation can be derived from mass-energy equivalence, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass/energy alone, without the necessity of the Lorentz transformation. So experimental proof for relativistic time dilation can only be considered evidence, but not proof for the Lorentz transformation, as time dilation follows from conservation laws simpler than the Lorentz transformation. By the way, many experimental results rather show what experimentalists think nature does than what nature actually does.

Until now I have left open the question, whether I should believe in Lorentz-factor time-dilation or not. Now I have to start to believe in it. (I'm careful and arrogant enough to only believe in what I can understand myself.)


Cheers, Wolfgang

Last edited by wogoga; 7th December 2014 at 07:49 AM.
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 10:15 AM   #16
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
f1 = f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
f2 = f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
E1 = h f1 = h f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
E2 = h f2 = h f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
This is incorrect because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. You added the velocities linearly. However, you should have used the formula for relativistic addition of velocities.

This is a mathematical mistake on your part. It has nothing to do with any internal inconsistencies in relativity.

Let the relativistic sum of u and c be U. By the formula for relativistic sum:

U = (C+u)/(1+cu/c^2)
Therefore,
U=c.

Similarly, let the relativistic difference between u and c be U'. By the formula for relativistic subtraction of velocities:

U'=(c-u)/(1-cu/c^2)
Therefore,
U'=c.

There is no u+c or u-c anywhere in the frequencies. Both photons in the center of mass rest frame (CMRF) are moving at the same speed, c.
f = f (c)0.5/(c)0.5
E1 = h f1 = h f (c)0.5/(c)0.5=hf
E2 = h f2 = h f (c)0.5/(c)0.5=hf

Your mistake may have come from an incorrect application of
the time dilation formula. The time dilation formula has some restrictions
on it because it is only part of the Lorentz transformation. However, I'll
wait a bit to let someone else have a chance.

Last edited by Darwin123; 7th December 2014 at 10:37 AM.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 02:16 PM   #17
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,461
"If it weren't for you meddling kids!"
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 02:51 PM   #18
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You miss-spelt "from".


Good catch MikeG!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 02:55 PM   #19
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Sorry, the thread title should rather be:

Refutation of Special Relativity from Idiocy

When dealing with mass-energy equivalence and center of mass/energy considerations in another thread, I got the impression that it is possible to derive relativistic time dilation (according to the Lorentz factor). Because of an unfortunate series of events/mistakes, I came to the opposite conclusion, namely that Lorentz-factor time-dilation must be wrong.

Reasoning "mass-energy conservation"

An electron-positron pair moves at v and disintegrates into two photons, propagating along the line of v with c and -c.

The center of mass of the two emerging photons must continue to move at v. This can only happen if the relativistic mass m1 of the forward moving photon is higher than m2 of the backward moving photon:

ptot / mtot = v
(m1 c - m2 c) / (m1 + m2) = v
(m1 c - m2 c) = (m1 v + m2 v)
m1 (c-v) = m2 (c+v)
m1 = m2 (c+v)/(c-v)


In the case of photons, relativistic mass is proportional to frequency. So we conclude:

f1 = f2 (c+v)/(c-v)

The energy of the electron-positron pair was 2 y E, where E = 511 keV is the rest-energy of an electron or proton, and y the Lorentz factor of v. As f = E/h we get:

f1 + f2 = 2 y E / h

Reasoning "relativistic Doppler effect"

Now, let us apply the relativistic Doppler effect with observer velocity v to this situation: An electron-positron pair at rest gives rise to two photons moving (along the line of v) in opposite directions with each frequency f. In the rest-frame, we get:

f = E/h = 511 keV / h

For the moving observer, the relativistic Doppler effect leads to two photons of different frequency and energy:

f1 = f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
f2 = f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
E1 = h f1 = h f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
E2 = h f2 = h f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5


We get:

f1 = f2 (c+v)/(c-v)

E1 + E2 = 2 h f ( (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5 + (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5 ) = 2 h f / (1-v2/c2)0.5 = 2 E y

f1 + f2 = 2 y E / h = 2 f / (1-v2/c2)0.5


Conlusion

Both reasonings lead to the same frequencies of the emerging photon pair. Therefore it is not possible to refute SR in this way.

The error in post #1

My loose concept "sum of frequencies of the emerging photon pair calculated by applying classical Doppler shift" is the main culprit. If we do the calculation (taking into account [3] of #1), we get

f1 = f / (c-v)
f2 = f / (c+v)
f1 + f2 = (c+v)+(c-v) / (c-v)(c+v) = 2 f / (1-v2/c2) = 2 f y2


Concerning "energy-conservation" we conclude:
The sum (f1+ f2 = 2 f y) of the two frequencies of the photon-pair (emerging from the moving electron-positron pair) is higher lower (by Lorentz factor y) than the sum (f1+ f2 = 2 f y2) calculated by applying classical Doppler shift to the annihilation event at rest (because despite kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair seeming to increase the sum of the photon frequencies).

In any case, this shows that velocity-dependent time dilation can be derived from mass-energy equivalence, conservation of momentum and conservation of mass/energy alone, without the necessity of the Lorentz transformation. So experimental proof for relativistic time dilation can only be considered evidence, but not proof for the Lorentz transformation, as time dilation follows from conservation laws simpler than the Lorentz transformation. By the way, many experimental results rather show what experimentalists think nature does than what nature actually does.

Until now I have left open the question, whether I should believe in Lorentz-factor time-dilation or not. Now I have to start to believe in it. (I'm careful and arrogant enough to only believe in what I can understand myself.)


Cheers, Wolfgang
Your title change is also an acceptable one - and it is good that you realized it - or at least appear to have, though I am not sure why you then used incorrect math to cement the point.....????
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 03:30 PM   #20
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,592
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Originally Posted by MikeG View Post
You miss-spelt "from".
Good catch MikeG!!!
Although he misspelled misspelt.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 05:15 PM   #21
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Although he misspelled misspelt.
I am having trouble with his double negative statements.

Was he trying to prove that SR was inconsistent, or that SR is consistent?

I thought he was trying to disprove SR. So I pointed out a mathematical error that I thought he made. I reread his posts and got confused.

Just what was the OP refuting and why ?-!
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 06:19 PM   #22
ehcks
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,302
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
I am having trouble with his double negative statements.

Was he trying to prove that SR was inconsistent, or that SR is consistent?

I thought he was trying to disprove SR. So I pointed out a mathematical error that I thought he made. I reread his posts and got confused.

Just what was the OP refuting and why ?-!
I don't think anyone knows. Probably not even the OP.
__________________
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor
ehcks is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 06:25 PM   #23
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by EHocking View Post
Although he misspelled misspelt.
Lesser of two weevils............
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2014, 07:18 PM   #24
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
...This can only happen if the relativistic mass m1 of the forward moving photon is higher than m2 of the backward moving photon:
IMO: This is the biggest error in the post - photons have no rest mass in theory and a tiny upper limit experimentally.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
...In any case, this shows that ...
That using SR you can derive SR
Mass-energy equivalence is a result from SR. It depends on "Lorentz-factor time-dilation" existing. No Lorentz invariance = no mass-energy equivalence.

Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not "proof" for the Lorentz transformation. Experimental evidence for Lorentz invariance are the experimental tests of Lorentz invariance: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 8. Recent Tests of CPT and Lorentz Invariance

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th December 2014 at 07:27 PM.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th December 2014, 07:11 PM   #25
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not "proof" for the Lorentz transformation.
Slight correction in the wording.

Experimental evidence for relativistic time dilation is considered evidence, but not proof, the Lorentz invariance of the system being studied.

It is not evidence for 'the Lorentz transformation' because the Lorentz transformation is entirely mathematical. The Lorentz transformation per se does not have to relate to anything physical. The Lorentz transformation is applied to to numbers.


The physical assumption is that the dynamics of the system as determined in an inertial frame are not changed by a Lorentz transformation. The relativistic kinematics accurately describes the system in all inertial frames because the dynamics (i.e., forces) are Lorentz invariant.

Consider the experiment where muons that were rapidly moving in the laboratory frame decayed at a much slower rate than other muons that were stationary in the laboratory frame. This experiment demonstrates 'time dilation'. However, time is part of the kinematics. The important point is what special relativity says about the dynamics.

The decay of muons is mediated by the 'weak force'. Special relativity says that all forces, including the weak force, are Lorentz invariant. If the muons did not show time dilation, then relativity would have been shown wrong because the weak force is not Lorentz invariant.

Dynamics includes all forces between objects. Measuring instruments work because of their internal forces. A clock ticks because the forces inside the clock are making something oscillate at a certain frequency. The forces that make a clock tick satisfy certain force laws. Rulers measure length because the forces holding the ruler together maintain its shape and size. If the forces that maintain a rulers shape satisfy certain force laws. If the force laws are the same for all inertial frames, then the forces are Lorentz invariant.

The reason that the speed of light is Lorentz invariant is because all forces in the universe are Lorentz invariant. This includes the forces that hold the 'observers' together. However, different observers may observe forces of different magnitudes and directions.

Allow me to use an analogy from mundane geography. The surface of the earth has been known to be round by most educated people since about 300 BC. Yes, there were a few educated people who couldn't accept this until recently. However, people made maps based on a round earth anyway. The curvature of the earth's surface is not easily analyzed by Euclidean geometry. So maps were made using projective geometry that compensated for the curvature of the earth.

Navigators and surveyors have been using the kinematics of a spheroid earth years before Newtonian wrote 'Principia'. They did not know about the forces that kept the earth round. They cared even less about what kept the earth round. They used various mathematical projections to 'fit' a curved surface to a flat piece of paper.

Newton knew all about the round earth theory. Newton's theory does not contradict the round earth theory. In fact, his theory can be used to make better projections and better maps of the earths surface. The surface of the earth is kept round by forces. The shape of the earth was soon defined in terms of the forces that hold the earth together. For example, the shape of the earth is actually defined in terms of the Euclidean geodesic.

The surface of the earth is defined by the surface of constant gravitational potential that determines the general shape of the ocean's surface. It is not perturbed by the existence of waves. Sea level is a well defined surface that is determined by the gravitational and elastic forces.

'Round' is just geometry. You can always use geometry without know the details of the forces involved. However, round is a product of dynamics. The reason that the earth is round is because of forces. The shape of the earth is not determined by nonEuclidean geometry. NonEuclidean geometry is just the result of forces.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2014, 11:00 AM   #26
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by wogoga in #15 View Post
For the moving observer, the relativistic Doppler effect leads to two photons of different frequency and energy:

f1 = f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
f2 = f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
E1 = h f1 = h f (c+v)0.5/(c-v)0.5
E2 = h f2 = h f (c-v)0.5/(c+v)0.5
Originally Posted by Darwin123 in #16 View Post
This is incorrect because the speed of light is the same in all reference frames. You added the velocities linearly. However, you should have used the formula for relativistic addition of velocities. ... There is no u+c or u-c anywhere in the frequencies.

It is true that later in #21 you recognized that you "got confused" when writing this. Nevertheless, you did not address your mistakes. Why? My above formulas are simply the formulas of the relativistic Doppler effect: Motion along the line of sight.

The relativistic Doppler formulas can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: receiver velocity relative to the medium vreceiver = 0. Thus v = vsource, and we get:
f[v] = f0 c / (c+v)
The second premise is time dilation of the moving source (i.e. source time running slower) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:
f[v] = f0 c / (c+v) / y[v]
= f0 c / (c+v) x (1-v2/c2)0.5 = f0 (c2-v2)0.5 / (c+v)
= f0 ((c+v) (c-v))0.5 / ((c+v) (c+v))0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5
The reasoning is not only formal, but also very concrete and intuitively accessible, e.g. by counting the wave periods received by an observer at rest.

Assume that a radio source, having a constant frequency f = 1 GHz at rest, moves at v = 0.8 c, passing observer 0 at x0 = 0 and then observer 1 at x1 = L = 1 LS (1 Light Second = 300 000 km). The "events" of crossing observer 0 and of crossing observer 1 are clearly defined in all inertial frames. In our rest frame, we also know that it takes for the source t = L/v = 1 LS / 0.8 c = 1.25 seconds to move from x0 to x1. (Light needs 1 second for the distance of 1 LS).

Let us now at first assume that frequency f of the source is not affected by the propagation speed v:
During the passage from x0 to x1, the source emits n = f t = f L/v = 1.25 x 10^9 periods. The wave periods before the source are obviously compressed from c/f to (c-v)/f (i.e. by factor (c-v)/c = 0.2). Thus frequency of forward moving waves is increased to f[v] = c/(c-v) f = 5 GHz. To get the frequency of backward propagating radiation we use –v instead of v (as movement of source is opposite to wave propagation): f[-v] = c/(c+v) f = 1/1.8 GHz
From the case where a source is completely converted into radiation (see #15) we conclude that the frequencies f[v] and f[-v] must be reduced by the Lorentz-factor y[v] in order to satisfy energy conservation. This frequency decrease can be explained by time running slower by the same factor.

In order to confirm or refute the Lorentz transformation, we must check the opposite case: moving observer and stationary sources. According to common sense:
For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs faster than proper (own) time.
And according to the Lorentz transformation:
For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs slower than proper time, as time dilation is mutual (leading to the so called twin paradox).
Cheers, Wolfgang

A refutation actually satisfying the thread title: Light clock refutes constancy of c
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2014, 01:41 PM   #27
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
It is true that ...
... your long rant can be condensed into: Relativistic Doppler effect !
...you ignorantly used classical physics in a SR problem.
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2014, 01:45 PM   #28
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
... your long rant can be condensed into: Relativistic Doppler effect !
...you ignorantly used classical physics in a SR problem.
Quelle suprise!!!!!

Last edited by fuelair; 16th December 2014 at 03:21 PM. Reason: +e.....por Francais
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2014, 02:24 PM   #29
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
Right after reading what wogoga wrote, my GPS stopped working.


Paul


__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2014, 10:54 AM   #30
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
It is true that later in #21 you recognized that you "got confused" when writing this. Nevertheless, you did not address your mistakes. Why?
Because I am still confused as to your claims. There are three mutually exclusive claims that you made in this thread. At one point, you claimed to find a logical inconsistency in relativity. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity was inconsistent with experimental results. At another point, you claimed to show that relativity is not necessary to explain experimental results.

Your claims is unclear. I think that I may have been wrong about one of the claims that I made. However, that would probably mean that you are wrong in one of the three claims that you made.

I admit that I don't understand your argument as a whole. Therefore, I will just pick at specific hypotheses that you present in your argument, regardless of what your conclusions are.





Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
My above formulas are simply the formulas of the relativistic Doppler effect: Motion along the line of sight.
You are right. This is the formula for a relativistic longitudinal Doppler effect. I may have have been wrong when I claimed this was wrong. You got me once. Fine.

You used the correct formula for relativistic longitudinal Doppler shift. This formula would apply as long as neither source or observer are accelerating due to external forces. If the observer is in an inertial frame, if the source is moving at a constant velocity relative to that observer, and if there is a vacuum between source and observer, then this formula is correct.

Note that both acceleration and velocity are vectors. So the source can maintain a constant speed but have a nonzero acceleration due to a change in the velocities direction. So this Doppler formula does not have to be true for a rotating frame of reference. It certainly won't hold for the accelerating twin during acceleration.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
In order to confirm or refute the Lorentz transformation, we must check the opposite case: moving observer and stationary sources. According to common sense:

For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs faster than proper (own) time.
I can't find this 'common sense' person. I looked for polls and surveys that asked peoples opinion on this topic. I could not find any polls or surveys.

I do know Newtonian physics as presented in Principia. I have found some people that claim 'Newton's physics are 'common sense'. , I know a bit about Galilean transforms. According to these preEinstein views of the universe, the clocks in a source should run at the same speed as ones own proper time. Newton hypothesized an absolute time that runs the same for all observers throughout the universe.

Newton did not assume that there was a local interaction that changed the rate of the clocks. The Galilean transformation does not effect the time component. So both Newton and Galileo disagree with your common sense.

However, I am not sure whether this is really the issue. So lets continue.

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
According to the Lorentz transformation:
For the moving observer, the time of the sources runs slower than proper time, as time dilation is mutual (leading to the so called twin paradox).
Back to relativity. Neither Einsteinian nor Lorentzian relativity says anything that you claim.


The Lorentz transformation does not say all moving clocks have to move slower than the stationary clocks. In fact, a clock that is accelerating could be running faster than a stationary clock that isn't accelerating.

The Lorentz transformation of time has a term 'vx/c^2' term in addition to the gamma factor. This term becomes important when a force causes acceleration. In an inertial frame, 'v' can only be changed due to a real force. So the change has an asymmetry due to force.

The 'rate of time' has an explicit dependence both on dynamical acceleration and distance because of this 'vx/c^2' term.

Therefore, an accelerating observer will have a different 'rate of time than an inertial observer, even if the two are moving with the same velocity as long as the two are in different positions.

I predict that you will either ignore or blithely dismiss the 'vx/c^2' term in the Lorentz transformation no matter how many times someone else brings it up.


Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Cheers, Wolfgang
Yeah, yeah. You too.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2014, 11:16 AM   #31
Lukraak_Sisser
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,312
What I've never understood, why should physics at the scales/energies/speeds where relativity theories become important make 'common sense' at all?

Common sense is something we develop by observation of cause and effect on the scales that our senses are evolved to deal with. It would have been nice and easy if this was directly scalable to any size and speed, but as it turned out nature does not work that way.
At which point it starts doing things that do NOT make 'common sense'. But the fact that we are too limited to observe those effects directly does not make them any less relevant.

It makes no common sense that an electron which has virtually no mass and size whatsoever is able to prevent two atoms from getting closer together when you push them. But they still do.
It doesn't make common sense that a clock on a fast moving sattelite runs slower than on earth. But it still does.
It makes no common sense that some small particles can be both a wave and a particle. But that is still how they behave.
Quantum tunnelling makes no common sense, but enzymes still use it for function.

Rather than be annoyed at nature for not being as simple as you want it to be, why not marvel at the intellect of humanity that we are unraveling how these things work?
Lukraak_Sisser is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th December 2014, 02:22 PM   #32
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
A refutation actually satisfying the thread title: Light clock refutes constancy of c
I read your link. The link shows how you are wrong.

You are wrong about the speed of light always being constant according to relativity. The vacuum speed of light does vary significantly under specific conditions according to Einsteinian relativity.

The vacuum speed of light, c, is only constant in an inertial frame. The vacuum speed of light, c, varies greatly with distance in a non inertial frame.

The vacuum speed of light IS NOT constant in a gravitational field. The speed of light varies with position for an observer in a gravitational field. The vacuum speed of light is a effectively constant for local measurements, meaning for positions close to the point observer. However, the speed of light varies with the displacement of the point of measurement from the point of observation.

An observer in a non inertial field is under the influence of a gravitational field according to relativity.

I have no free link to the following article. All net copies are pay walled, so far as I know. However, I have a copy of the book in my hand. So I will merely quote from the essay:

On the influence of gravitation on the propagation of light' by Albert Einstein in 'The Principle of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H.Weyl. (Dover Publications, Translation published 1923).

Page 107 of the reference above:

c = c0 (1+[phi]/c^2) . . . . (3)

The principle of the constancy in the speed of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity.'


The constant, c0, is the vacuum speed of light shown in textbooks and handbooks. For a linearly acceleration observer,
[phi]=a x,
where a is the dynamic acceleration of the observer and x is the distance to the observation point where the positive direction is the direction of acceleration.

Also note that acceleration is a dynamic quantity. It is defined by:
F=ma

where F is the strength of the external force acting on the observer in the observer in the collinear inertial frame and m is the mass of the observer.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 12:48 PM   #33
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by wogoga in #26 View Post
The relativistic Doppler formulas can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: receiver velocity relative to the medium vreceiver = 0. Thus v = vsource, and we get:
f[v] = f0 c / (c+v)
The second premise is time dilation of the moving source (i.e. source time running slower) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:
f[v] = f0 c / (c+v) / y[v]
= f0 c / (c+v) x (1-v2/c2)0.5 = f0 (c2-v2)0.5 / (c+v)
= f0 ((c+v) (c-v))0.5 / ((c+v) (c+v))0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5
The reasoning is not only formal, but also very concrete and intuitively accessible, e.g. by counting the wave periods received by an observer at rest.

There is a second possibility to derive the same formula:

The relativistic Doppler formula can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: source velocity relative to the medium vsource = 0. Thus v = vreceiver, and we get:
f[v] = f0 (c/v) / c
The second premise is time contraction of the source at rest (i.e. source time running faster) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:
f[v] = f0 (c-v)/c y[v]
= f0 (c-v)/c (1-v2/c2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v) (c2-v2)-0.5
= f0 (c-v)0.5 (c-v)0.5 (c+v)-0.5 (c-v)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5
So instead of derivation 1
  • classical Doppler shift: observer at rest, moving source
  • time dilation of moving source (with respect to receiver at rest)
we can also use derivation 2
  • classical Doppler shift: source at rest, moving observer
  • time contraction (i.e. running faster) of source at rest (with respect to moving observer)
in order to get the relativistic Doppler effect (in longitudinal direction, receiver = observer).

At least in case of time-dilation of objects moving around closed tracks in particle accelerators, derivation 1 cannot be applied to radiation emitted from accelerator-parts (assumed at rest) and received resp. observed by such a high-speed object. The reason is simple:
Insofar as time of the high-speed object runs slower with respect to the particle-accelerator, particle-accelerator time runs faster with respect to the high-speed object.
And the application of the classical Doppler shift source at rest, moving observer in derivation 2 then shows that light propagation with respect to the moving high-speed observer cannot be c, but must be c+v or c-v in the longitudinal case.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Lorentz-Ether-Theory and SR Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 01:21 PM   #34
jhunter1163
beer-swilling semiliterate
 
jhunter1163's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Connecticut, or King Arthur's Court. Hard to tell sometimes.
Posts: 25,364
Quote:
Refutation of Special Relativity from Idiocy
Around here we prefer the term "high ambient stupidity."
__________________
A møøse ønce bit my sister
jhunter1163 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 01:22 PM   #35
BazBear
Possible Suspect
 
BazBear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Stowe VT USA
Posts: 2,971
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
There is a second possibility to derive the same formula:

The relativistic Doppler formula can be derived from the classical Doppler effect under two premises. Premise one: source velocity relative to the medium vsource = 0. Thus v = vreceiver, and we get:
f[v] = f0 (c/v) / c
The second premise is time contraction of the source at rest (i.e. source time running faster) by the Lorentz-factor y[v] = (1-v2/c2)-0.5 >= 1. We derive:
f[v] = f0 (c-v)/c y[v]
= f0 (c-v)/c (1-v2/c2)-0.5 = f0 (c-v) (c2-v2)-0.5
= f0 (c-v)0.5 (c-v)0.5 (c+v)-0.5 (c-v)-0.5 = f0 (c-v)0.5 / (c+v)0.5
So instead of derivation 1
  • classical Doppler shift: observer at rest, moving source
  • time dilation of moving source (with respect to receiver at rest)
we can also use derivation 2
  • classical Doppler shift: source at rest, moving observer
  • time contraction (i.e. running faster) of source at rest (with respect to moving observer)
in order to get the relativistic Doppler effect (in longitudinal direction, receiver = observer).

At least in case of time-dilation of objects moving around closed tracks in particle accelerators, derivation 1 cannot be applied to radiation emitted from accelerator-parts (assumed at rest) and received resp. observed by such a high-speed object. The reason is simple:
Insofar as time of the high-speed object runs slower with respect to the particle-accelerator, particle-accelerator time runs faster with respect to the high-speed object.
And the application of the classical Doppler shift source at rest, moving observer in derivation 2 then shows that light propagation with respect to the moving high-speed observer cannot be c, but must be c+v or c-v in the longitudinal case.

Cheers, Wolfgang
Lorentz-Ether-Theory and SR Simultaneity, Contraction & Expansion
You might want to write a paper for peer review. Such a ground breaking addition to physics is bound to win you the Nobel Prize. Of course, you'll have a tough uphill fight just like Einstein did.

Then again, SR actually works in the real universe, if properly understood and applied.

So I'd stick to your day job, and not plan on the windfall of the prize purse to fund your retirement.
__________________
I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein
If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer
If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
BazBear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 02:05 PM   #36
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 17,646
I am only willing to go so far as to title this:
Refutation of Special Relativity for People Who Do Not Understand It and Refuse to Try to Do So.

Even if we ignore the mistakes in the "refutation" itself one must wonder what credit is to be gained from a demonstration that a "Relativity for Dummies" book doesn't present all the details that an expert would know.
Giordano is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 03:14 PM   #37
Kid Eager
Philosopher
 
Kid Eager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,296
In this thread, we have a poster who presents all maths and no logic

Over in Waterbreather's thread, we have all logic and no maths...

Both are about relativity... hmmmm

What would happen if we combined the threads?
  • a big kaboom?
  • no logic and no maths, thereby removing the thread from existence
  • illogical mathematics, that manages to prove that the speed of light is potato
  • a breakthrough in human thinking, from which we wake up and go "...but it was only a dream."
  • string, pumpkins, and those tiny cocktail umbrellas describing eccentric elliptical orbits around all the bukkits ever taken from lolrusi
__________________
What do Narwhals, Magnets and Apollo 13 have in common? Think about it....
Kid Eager is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th August 2015, 05:44 PM   #38
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
 
Paulhoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 12,512
Yep, my GPS still works.

Paul

__________________
For our money "IN WHICH GOD DO YOU TRUST"
Much worse than the Question not asked, is the Answer not Given
Don't accept an answer that can't be questioned - God is Surperfluous
A society fails when ignorance outweighs knowledge
Science doesn’t know everything, but religion doesn’t know anything
Life is so horrent and also so beautiful, but without it there is nothing
Paulhoff is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2015, 02:03 PM   #39
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 28,510
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
There is a second possibility to derive the same formula: ...
And total ignorance follows, wogoga.
Do you really think that SR ignores its postulate that the speed of light is c according to all inertial observers?
Do you really think that scientists are so stupid that they do not test SR - including the speed of light from moving sources !

What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources

Cheers,
Reality Check
Reality Check is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th August 2015, 03:05 PM   #40
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,410
Originally Posted by Paulhoff View Post
Right after reading what wogoga wrote, my GPS stopped working.


Paul


You shouldn't have let your GPS read what wogoga wrote. It's apparently not smart enough to realize it's nonsense.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:59 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.