@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
No you are totally wrong. Are you sere you studied this at school?
Clearly in einstins scenerio you MUST have two observers.
One observer is moving and you are considering yourself as stationary, that's Einsteins setup.
He is moving in my frame, thats why I can measure his velocity and position using classical rules.
The time whey things get relative is ONLY when there is a 3 rd object that both observr's are trying to measure, be it a ball or a light beam bouncing between mirrors.
Take away that 3rd object which can be considered to be in my frame, or also considered to be in his frame if he happens to wish to measure from the corner of his carriage,
The whole experiment is conducted as seen from the stationary observer, who has no problem with watching the passage of the vehicle containing the second observer, it ONLY when they both observe the third object, the ball or photon, that the claim of non Galilean relativity is supposed to come into play.
Anything I watch happening before me is automatically in my frame. Its not a special relativity frame, as the guy in the carriage can clearly see me as well, and we both measure the same Galilean distances and velocity between us.
It ONLY when that second, moving guy ignores me and tries to measure that photon, that''s where SR is supposed to be beginning.
So because light is never affected by anyone's frame, its always C, then light cant be relative to anyone's frame, its never able to change in velocity, its totally independent of frames, for light its as if no frames of reference exist.
Use rational thought and sound logic here, If two frames occupants agree that their frames are different, but they both get the same value for light speed, relative to their frames, then clearly they are wrong in assuming that the light is relative to frames. Its absolute, and apparently it s the only thing in the universe that is absolute.
Frames are relative never absolute, so how can you possible think that light can be absolute and not absolute at the same time?
So my statement, ""Relativity is only applicable to something that is MOVING inside a differently (moving) frame than the observer."" and the light is in my frame, and by measuring it as velocity c, it is proof that its in my frame.
And the carriage containing the other observer is also in my frame, as is the photon inside the carriage, all in my frame.
BUT its the observation of that photon in the carriage made by the second, moving observer, that einstein claims changes the universe. I just wish he would take a look outside, and stop measuring from the corner of his carriage, then the world of physics cane settle down again..
So for the moving guy, he observes something different, if he blots out the background outside his carriage, otherwise no, he sees nothing different at all.
And BECAUSE he still gets lights velocity as c, even though his carriage is moving, and its the same photon we are both measuring... then clearly the photon is not obeying the laws of anyone's relativity, not Galelio's or einstein's.
Light is acting with total indifference to all imaginary ""frames of reference"".
And that's all reference frames are, imaginary constructs that are supposed to help men make measurements when things are in motion.
Nature does not conform to mans imaginary constructs, its our constructs that must try to mimic reality, and SR is just failing to do that.
Light is never relative to my frame, to your frame or einsteins frame. Other wise you can never explain how we all get velocity of c irrespective of our motion relative to the light, or even if we turn 180 degrees and head into the light we STILL get c.
Therefore light is never relative to any frame. Its absolute. Frames are not, they are localized and relative to each other.
( actually light is relative to the medium in which it is propagating.) As Ive said before.
🇳🇱
I will leave with this..
Thlight is not "moving in my your frame" The proper way to word it is "I am observing the light from my own frame of reference".
Two people are moving at different speeds, both observing the same light moving at its own 3rd speed (this is the light clocks experment).
Using your deficient logic here, whose frame of reference is the light in, the first observer or the second?
The answer is, both, everything is in every frame of reference and any frame of reference can be defined by any point you wish.
In other words you dont even understand the basic idea of what a frame of reference is yet somehow you think you understand this....
Now go away until you are ready to learn something.
You measured a difference in your atomic clocks, because you chose you frame, so if you just chose another convenient frame the clock would have stayed the same as the master back home...
If you stay with your statement ""The answer is, both, everything is in every frame of reference and any frame of reference can be defined by any point you wish."" you can choose a different frame where the atomic clock wont be gaining time, because we can choose any frame we wish...
Changing ones perspective cant possibly have any affect of any event.
Leave if you want, but you are just getting to the interesting part, where you realize that you cant justify what you are claiming with rational thought.
Of course the clock can run at any speed you want by adjusting your frame of reference, thats the whole point, thats why it is called relativity.
Of course it would change the readings, thats the whole fucking point dumbass. Thus the term relative, the results are **relative** to your frame of reference.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
So go to that mountain with your clock, and choose the frame im calling the andromeda galaxy, and see how much difference you get with the clock now! After all, you just need to imagine that the clock is linked virtually to the Andromeda galaxy. and "seems like"" or ""appears to be"" according to the subjective experience of the relativist CAN make a real difference to physical objects!
Its like mind over matter.
How do you expect to get me to the andromeda galaxy to test that? Since we both agree it would change the results (just as relativity dictates it would) then what are you even arguing.
Again go away your wasting my time at this point. You know your wrong but your so riddled by psychosis you are still fucking blathering on... end it
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
You dont need to go to the andromeda galaxy to IMAGINE that your clock is part of that galaxy, anymore than the guy on the carriage can either imagine he is in the carriage frame or can imagine he is moving and in the stationary frame, without needing to hop out of the carriage and go there.
ALL frames of reference are arbitrarily chosen according to the whims of the observer.
Choose andromeda as yours. do the math. Your clock will obey your imagination.
Yes the clock will oey the laws of relativity in that galazy as well, of course it would, thats the whole fucking point. Luckily we have experimental evidence that also confirms this.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
And you never explained how two differently moving guys can both read light velocity as c even when heading in different direction and speeds. Its just ignored.
Because its irrational to suggest that its possible.
I wrote an entire reply when you asked that, it wasnt ignore. I just said the how is not needed to prove that something IS...
I dont need to know HOW you became an idiot to know you are an idiot for example.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas So here is the crux of my argument.
Go back up on that mountain, with the clock, but this time CHOOSE as your current frame, the Andromeda galaxy. Then you will observe your clock having a totally different reading! You can just choose your frame as you wish.
Because choosing your frame CHANGES REALITY!
Wow that deep. Please do it.