… and only one.
Evolution would dictate FC’s DNA survival over the others so far (yet highly tenuous).
Again, this is your fantasy definition.
So far, you have yet to say anything about SR in any of your descriptions of your scenario.
Again, you have yet to demonstrate what SR says by actually applying SR to your scenario. You haven’t yet done anything with a Lorentz transformation.
This is not what SR says. SR says that the speed of light must be set to be the same in every inertial reference frame (every reference frame in which Newtonian Mechanics accurately describes motion). We often identify reference frames with particular observers, but any observer is free to use any reference frame. People in cars use reference frames where they are in motion, not stationary.
You have yet to demonstrate this.
Set?
An observer won’t measure it and find it to be constant no matter where it comes from?
One cannot demonstrate to the blind of mind, especially online.
In this case, it is possible. All you need to do is show the how Lorentz transformations apply to the events in your scenario. The Lorentz transformations are the entirety of the effect that SR has on any physics scenario. If you were to present this, then blind people could actually read this as there are many different applications that can present text and formulas to blind people.
However, you lack the courage to actually do this.
Actually I did present that.
You just can’t see it.
So it comes down to formulate the ontological definition of the Lorenz transforms.
It “comes down to” answering the next question;
In SR, the speed of light is given in terms of how long it takes to travel between two fixed points of a coordinate system. It is possible for an observer to measure (in some sense) the speed of light (or of an object) relative to an object that is in motion against the system of coordinates. In such a case, the speed of light will be greater or less than the speed of light as measured against the coordinates.
If one has two trains that are moving away from a station at over half the speed of light, then one could say that they are moving away from each other at greater than the speed of light. However, if SR is correct, then in any frame in which one of those trains is stationary, the other train will be moving away from them at less than the speed of light.
SR is about measurements relative to a system of coordinates, not merely measurements made relative to an arbitrary object.
It is hardly there.
James would have to learn the Lorentz transforms (and how to use them) first.
No. Not in scientific terms.
In VO terms, light appears to behave in terms of the observer - to be determined in terms of another given rather than in terms of an objective frame of reference or of itself. So light appears (by Relativity) to not properly be ‘being’, but only a property of the causal relationships between things.
It’s puzzling how a quantity of a property can exist without being a thing.
To the man who thinks for himself, the Lorentz transformation (that I have explained many times at this site) is both trivial and in this case irrelevant. You are free to use the Lorentz or any other transformation you want. You will end up with the same paradox.
A “property” is merely an “inter-object” behavior, but the behavior of one object is dependent upon the behavior of the other object. So in that since all properties are relative (much like saying “that thing is larger than me.”).
The intent of all theories, especially one proposed to be as universal as Relativity, is to allow two people, perhaps generations or millions of miles apart, to each accurately predict something such as to know the truth of tomorrow based upon the theory.
This type of scenario is the kind of situation that reveals errors in theories simply by establishing a situation in which the two people can use the exact same theory yet predict opposing results (the station vs the train). The Relativity theory fails its very purpose.
The options for resolve are NOT “Newtonian” vs “Relativity”. Those were simply the last two with which you are familiar. To me such is like proposing Heliocentricism vs Geocentrism. Neither is entirely correct even though within the limits of measure long ago, they each “appeared to be” correct.
The issue is not whether there is an objective universe. The issue is consistency in prediction, coherency. If a theory causes two people to predict incoherent results, the theory is incoherent and thus is not “true” despite how accurate it might seem for a while.
Light is something that can be sent from one person to another unsuspecting person and cause measurable results gained by both people. Thus light is something independent of both the sender and the receiver other than being able to be sent and received.
Specific flaws were made in establishing the notion that the speed of light must always appear to be the same constant. But it is pointless to try to discuss such errors if it can’t be agreed that the theory fails. It would be like arguing that Christianity has an error in a scripture when its advocate cannot admit to any flaw.
Religions are not for dispensing truth, but for persuading into compliance, whether for good or bad.
The idea of light being independent of its source came from a theory that was deemed erroneous (whether it really was or not). Lorentz’s aether theory is what proposed the independence of light’s propagation. That part of his theory has been proven to be true by both empirical and logic methods. But the proposal that the propagation of that same light would be dependent upon the lights destination would seem a bit absurd, yet that is what Relativity is actually proposing.
But more importantly, it is by considering the different possible theories (not merely the one handed to you) that you can resolve this puzzle in such a way that both observers would predict the same result and thus serve the purpose that theories are intended to serve.
Every theory throughout man’s history has been wrong, it stands to reason that the trend has not changed. The reason is because of those who refuse to think without emotional interference. And I am not proposing that be changed. I am merely seeing how true it really is and interested in the prospects concerning those who can think more clearly even in today’s “oncoming dark age”.
This scenario indicates that the propagation speed of the light cannot actually be dependent upon the observer’s perspective, because in considering that theory, a contradiction arises. So explore the other options.
“What if it really wasn’t? What might bring a consistent prediction by both parties?”
Be the theorist, not merely the repeated meme.
Discover the NEXT theory “before the light” of the next dawn.
But the speed with which it reaches you really does depend upon you in this case.
Yes, if one wishes to “think for oneself” in the sense of “ignore the relevant science”, then lots of equations are irrelevant.
Except that we can all see that SR doesn’t fail here, because you are too chickenshit to actually use SR. You talk a big game about how one can “use the Lorentz or any other transformation” but one notices that you, personally, can’t actually do that.
You constantly make claims about SR that are false (like that the speed of light depends on an object); that’s not simply a failure of intellect, it’s a failure of character.
Again, clearly a lie.
Note to the reader: James certainly has some problems of comprehension, but he has cut-and-pasted from texts about Einstein enough that making false claims about the nature of relativity theory in his ignorance cannot be taken to be a simple mistake. Like in another thread where James lied about what Feynman said in order to try to make a point, James is deceiving his audience.
So let’s see the details of an actual scenario in physics and see what does better than SR? So far, there is only one theory that does better: general relativity.
Again, let’s actually see you apply the relevant transformations to your own scenario and see the results. Other people have done it for you on other boards and it looks, from their work, that your scenario fails to demonstrate what you say that is does.
Given your history of outright lying, nobody here should believe your claims without evidence.
PB, to the blind of mind, everyone they don’t worship is a liar.
I haven’t lied about anything, which makes You the liar (unless at some unimaginable moment, I implied you to be intelligent).
Crawl back under your rock and let the big people discuss the matter.
Well, on to the next clue (only for sake of the two who made any effort at all) will constitute the hop that will leave you with merely a “skip and a jump” to the resolve of this little paradox. And with a little RM methodology will allow you to know that you are right due to the total lack of alternatives.
Consider that there are actually 3 frames of reference, not merely two.
…and no, FC, I’m not speaking of that “objective frame” which was to merely represent the view of the two being compared. There is a third that hasn’t been mentioned.
Why do people actually think that RM has any value other than as entertainment value? There are always an infinite amount of reference frames. If someone cannot understand this basic fact of physics that has been recognized for centuries and they are claiming to do physics, then there is little hope for their intellectual abilities anywhere.
Please, people, remember that James will casually lie about what people said in order to try to win a point.
You constantly say things that you know aren’t true about Einstein and you just got caught claiming that Feynman said, “no matter what you do, you cannot know…”
PB - given by this setup there isn’t an infinite amount of reference frames. Of course we can always evoke a million frames independent of the problem, but it will have no relevance.
James - the only thing I can think of the is the frame of the light itself. But that would seem to make four extra frames, though they would be similar.
Seen from the lights perspective (if that is possible) the relative change elapsed between the station and the train, in the time that the light crosses the distance between flash and clocks, would be, I think, zero. This corresponds with the “photon-relativity-paradox” I gave and to which you replied on BTL.
That we are free to describe a scenario in any reference frame is one of the fundamentals of modern physics. The same events happen in every reference frame, regardless of how people or things are moving in any reference frame.
If someone does not realize this, then they cannot be considered competent to talk about reference frames.
Exactly. You can choose the light coming from either the front or rear flasher. They would be identical, merely seen from a reverse direction.
And again, exactly.
And that presents another bit of evidence. According to SR any observer photon must conclude that both clocks must stop at the same moment. Well, it would conclude that except for the fact that if using SR for prediction, it would have to conclude that there is no motion at all (definitively incorrect) and also that the universe itself doesn’t actually exist, thus no time, no distance, and no clocks, trains, or stations.
The first thing out of every SR defenders mouth concerning the proposed paradox situation is that such a situation cannot ever occur because it requires simultaneity. But as seen, even using SR equations, the scenario certainly can exist, one merely must treat the fore and aft parts of the train separately, which can easily be arranged merely by having them as separate engines. The centeredness of the clocks is the only issue, not the lengths. So SR is left with an internal paradox, denying itself. But even worse that that, accepting SR would require that according to the observer photon there is no scenario at all that could ever exist, denying existence itself.
And I suspect that the SR defender would then proclaim, “yeah but there can’t be an observer photon”. Well, there can’t be a train moving at half the speed of light passing a station either. We are not talking about practical scenarios that every house wife has need to be concerned about. We are talking about the very nature of existence and thus are concerned with consistencies, not practicalities.
But just to avoid the fundamentalist’s attitude issues of having to accept that “the holy is the holy is the holy and one must disregard all rational thought in the face of the declared most holy”, let’s just use an observer who is going one infinitesimal slower than the speed of light. That allows him to exist as an observer. And that whole “observer” thing leads to another long discussion that plays against SR as well, but let’s get through this paradox first.
So
A) what would an “almost” observer photon perceive as the scenario played out?
B) what would the other observer photon, from the other direction, perceive?
And then considering both of those,
C) what would the predicted result have to be from the perspective of the photons?
{{finally after two years, getting into the meat of this}}