@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.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
""Two people are moving at different speeds, both observing the same light moving at its own 3rd speed"".
OK, how can the both get the same speed for the object moving in the 3rd frame then?
It not physically possible.
And if light is moving in its own frame, not in mine or yours, and its always constant in every direction, then that is the absolute preferred frame of reference that is not supposed to exist. Light speed is measured from its own frame origin and its absolute so this is the absolute frame you were saying does not exist! Light speed is c relative to what? to its own absolute frame and all of us are also relative to that absolute frame.
Of course its possible for them to both measure the same object. With most things your right, they would get different speeds. However light is special and therefore they get the same speed.
**That is the whole fucking point**
That observed truth, however odd, is exactly why we had to come up with relativity, to explain it.
Holy shit how do you not even get what is meant by "The speed of light is a constant" after a week of this being explained to you.
Explain what happens with light in order for this to be true:
"However light is special and therefore they get the same speed.". SR neglects to mention HOW this works.
You dont need to know how something is true in order to be able to prove it is true.
We have tested experimentally and proved it was true, the math all predicts what we observe. Therefore we know it is true.
I am happy to go into how speed of light is special (the answer deals with the permeability of free space combined with other complex ideas).
But I will not go on another tangent with you unless and until you admit that you've been a flaming fool and wrong about all the nonsense youve spouted up until this point,.
If you recognize the reality of relativity and a desire to learn I am happy to answer these questions and dig deeper, otherwise you are wasting my time.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Not quite. No one has ever proved that light velocity is always c in any frame. all observations were done in the same frame as the light, every time. Facing this way or that way is still in the same frame, just changing the orientation in the same frame. and the light is also facing this way or that in that same frame. When did they jump into a different inertial frame, and how much g forces did they experience?
Which experiment were you thinking about anyway?
I did read it, I dont accept their conclusions or method is indisputable. I would want to have a look at critical reviews from people that are skeptical.
However, this does not explain how it can happen, it just claims that it does happen, without offering any way it can possibly occur.
If they could come up with a hypothesis that explains rationally what is happening, then Ill read that, THEN get more interested in experiments that claim to support the hypothesis.
You are too far gone to make any sense of it I fear. your counter arguments have been feeding dogma, delusion, and your ego seems to overwhelm a sense of your own uneducated ideas somehow being superior to the experimental evidence.
Until you are willing to accept that you dont know the answer to the vast majority of this because you never studied or leqarned the math you wont get anywhere.
I am not saying you have to accept what people tell you. but I am suggesting that you have to take the fundemental truths we know from experiment and explain them, something you dont do. You dont even bother looking at how reality works (experiment) prior to drawing your conclusions.
I really hope this will click and you over come your ego. At one point earlier in the conversation you seemed to show a hint of potential at doing so, then you just started a dumpster fire and made a fool of yourself.
Still hoping you can recover and make some actual sense out of reality.
If your willing to accept relativity is real and that the equations that govern it predict reality accurately, at that point I will be happy to discuss with you WHY light is special.
But until you do so i will not get sucked into another seperate conversation on how with someone who cant even see past his own ego.
While you cant see past einsteins ego.
Actually I started with my understanding of relativity much like you. I didnt think it was real and thought einstein was a fool.
Unlike you I devoted myself to learning the math so I could disprove it and doing the actual experiments so I could likewise disprove it.
When i did this I noticed he was in fact correct and all of his equations represent reality, and they all work out on paper as expected.
Since the truth was more important than my ego I admitted I was wrong, I choose to believe what reality was seen to do (rather than deny the truth right in front of my face) and accepted it as true.
Einsteins ego has nothing to do with it.
@freemo @CCoinTradingIdeas
Ok, Ill leave you now with my closing remark, and wish you all the best despite our differences.
The concept we call Time, and real distances and real mass or even real momentum of that mass, can never actually change simply if some fool decides to observe it from a different position and is now in motion.
Perception is not necessarily reality.
Nothing you have provided has been able to affect this fundamental understating I accept regarding the nature of reality.
Incredible claims require incredible evidence. There is no "incredible" evidence, there is only subjective interpretation of a precious few very dubious experiments.
@zeccano
In order to prove that light is special in the way we described we would need to measure it from two different reference frames and show it is C in both reference frames, presuming each has a different velocity of course.
Yes this has been done experimentally, I linked you the experiment earlier that does this but you never read it.
@CCoinTradingIdeas