OSDev.org

The light passes all the material at a higher relative speed in one direction round the ring than the light going the other way does, and that's the end of the matter. It's a fact, and it reveals that absolute speeds exist.

No, it tells you that an absolute rotation speed exists. It tells you nothing about absolute linear speeds, which is what SR tells you that you can't measure. If you are using the amount of material passed as your measure of distance, then by definition you are operating in a rotating frame, which means that your coordinates are either anisotropic, or they have a seam.

On the contrary, I'm the one using the correct definition while you're insisting on using a bogus one from the theory, resulting in theory-induced blindness.

If your strategy is to take words to mean something the author clearly did not intend in order to make the theory say things it doesn't, we may already disprove him without opening the book or even removing it from the shelf, while paying homage to the famous classical play, Erasmus Montanus: The correct definition of Einstein is a rock, and as we know, a rock can't do physics. Therefore, relativity can't be a theory of physics.

You're failing to grasp the mathematics of frames. It doesn't need a rest frame: the issue is that you are changing the speed of a light pulse relative to objects in the system and relative to itself whenever you change frame.

Explain how you think you're changing the speed of a light pulse relative to itself (a concept that doesn't exist, unless you mean the Galilean speed difference, which is and remains 0) by changing to a different frame.

Gigasoft wrote:

DavidCooper wrote:On the contrary, I'm the one using the correct definition while you're insisting on using a bogus one from the theory, resulting in theory-induced blindness.

If your strategy is to take words to mean something the author clearly did not intend in order to make the theory say things it doesn't, we may already disprove him without opening the book or even removing it from the shelf, while paying homage to the famous classical play, Erasmus Montanus: The correct definition of Einstein is a rock, and as we know, a rock can't do physics. Therefore, relativity can't be a theory of physics.

That's why I was asking Exhibit A here to put his argument into proper form (a.k.a. a paper), as such a paper would have to provide proper definitions for the terms it uses. Without such, the whole discussion is just pointless. He'll keep weaseling around and redefining things ad hoc to "prove" that he's the greatest physicist that ever lived and everyone else is just stupid, or trying to "deceive the masses" (to what end?).

Stop feeding the troll. It should be obvious by now that he is utterly convinced he's right and everybody else is wrong. It doesn't matter if that is a failure of understanding the subject matter, a failure of logic, or a neurodiversity problem. You won't convince him. (And you don't have to, you're not responsible for him, callous as that sounds.)

Gigasoft wrote:No, it tells you that an absolute rotation speed exists. It tells you nothing about absolute linear speeds, which is what SR tells you that you can't measure.

In all cases involving rotation, we can have other objects move along tangents which are at rest for a moment next to the local material of the ring while the light is moving in line with that tangent. We can also have other pulses of light move along those tangents in straight lines. What is true of the behaviour of the light going round the ring in relation to the material of the ring local to it is at such moments identical to the behaviour of the light going along the local tangent to the other material moving along that tangent. What mathematics tells us about in infinite number of such points around the ring also applies to these other cases with no rotation involved in them. We have two sets of pulses of light that move along the tangents in opposite directions, all carefully timed to take turns in accompanying for a moment one or other of the pulses of light going round the ring. The average relative speed of the set 1 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents is not the same as the average relative speed of the set 2 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents, so again the results reveal the existence of absolute speeds. If it wasn't for STR being in its dominant position, you would not be rejecting that because you would be free to apply mathematics without hindrance. Your ability to analyse what's going on is specifically blocked by your determination to defend STR because you use as your standard for judging the validity of STR. "Is it STR --> yes, so it must be right." That is your algorithm, and it's why you keep making errors that you cannot accept you are making.

If your strategy is to take words to mean something the author clearly did not intend in order to make the theory say things it doesn't...

The theory makes claims beyond its internal scope, and those claims do not stack up when tested outside of the theory. The way it defines terms for internal use is entirely up to it, and it's fine for it to assert that there are no absolute speeds within the theory of Special Relativity, but when it tries to assert that outside the theory (i.e. in physics generally), it is wrong. We are not shackled by its internal definitions and are free instead to test it with proper mathematics.

Explain how you think you're changing the speed of a light pulse relative to itself (a concept that doesn't exist, unless you mean the Galilean speed difference, which is and remains 0) by changing to a different frame.

Do the work with s-frames. We have two objects moving at speeds such that if we use the s-frame in which object 1 is at rest, object 2 is moving towards object 1 through that frame at half the speed of sound. We introduce a sound pulse which moves from the first object towards the second object. The speed in that s-frame of the sound pulse relative to object 2 is 1.5s.

Now, what happens if we change s-frame to make object 2 the one that's at rest. The speed of the sound pulse is now s relative to object 2 and 0.5s relative to object 1. Have we changed the speed of the sound pulse relative to the content? Yes. Have we changed the speed of the sound pulse relative to the medium? Let's test that by looking at the air. If the air is at rest relative to object 1, what is the speed of the sound pulse relative to the air in s-frame 1? It's s. What is the relative speed of the sound pulse to the air in s-frame 2? It's 0.5s instead of s. For both s-frames to have equal validity, we have that sound pulse moving at both s and 0.5s relative to the air at the same time, which means it's moving at 0.5s relative to itself. This is what the correct analysis of frames reveals about how frames work. Physics misunderstands frames and breaks fundamental rules of mathematics in the way it misuses them. Whether or not the air exists, if we assert the equal validity of all frames, we have a sound pulse moving at an infinite number of different speeds relative to itself all the time, and it's exactly the same with light in in space when using mathematically correct c-frame analysis.

And Solar; if defending correct mathematics is trolling, then there's no hope for humanity.

DavidCooper wrote:I put it to the test with various things from time to time and find that it's all just algorithms. If someone sets those out clearly I can simply learn them and apply them,

I suggest you talk to your psychiatrist about autism.

DavidCooper wrote:And Solar; if defending correct mathematics is trolling, then there's no hope for humanity.

If you would have 1) an actual hypothesis, 2) clearly defined and presented, 3) that could actually be experimentally verified / falsified, and that 4) actually stands up to scrutiny, than defending it would be the right thing.

However, what we have here is someone stubbornly refusing to put his ramblings into anything even resembling coherent presentation, and instead claiming it's all "obvious if you just care to look" and insulting the vast majority of all physicists alive as belonging to a "church" and being too stupid to recognize his genius.

That's not "defending correct math", that's a conspiracy theorist with paranoia and quite a bit of narcissism who is actually quite insulting to everybody around.

The average relative speed of the set 1 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents is not the same as the average relative speed of the set 2 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents

And if you were to say it with math, how did you arrive at a number for the average relative speeds? If the entire setup, including the experimenter and his equipment, was moving at 1 meter per second to the right, how would things be measurably different?

For both s-frames to have equal validity, we have that sound pulse moving at both s and 0.5s relative to the air at the same time, which means it's moving at 0.5s relative to itself.

This is a meaningless operation. You are subtracting a speed expressed in one coordinate system from a speed expressed in another. It's like measuring the slope of a hillside on Mount Everest relative to the slope of the ground when standing in Nepal and then measuring the same thing as seen from Thailand, subtracting the two and then concluding that Mount Everest is tilted relative to itself. Or you can even do it with a piece of paper and a ruler. Draw two lines extending from a point, and place the ruler at some distance from the point so that both lines intersect the ruler. As you can see, the ruler measures the relative slope between the lines. Now, rotate the paper around the point while keeping the ruler fixed. Whoa, the relative slope changed, so one of the lines must have a nonzero slope relative to itself, right?

Physics misunderstands frames and breaks fundamental rules of mathematics in the way it misuses them.

All physicists are highly proficient at maths. Any mistake in anyone's maths would immediately be noticed by everyone. On the other hand, you keep repeating the same dumb mistakes ad infinitum to the point where it's not even funny.

@DavidCooper: I think Octocontrabass may be onto something when he suggests you talk to a psychiatrist about autism, though you may well benefit just from learning about it. It's not an unusual condition to have; over 50% of programmers self-disagnose as on the autistic spectrum, but you can get into difficulties if you don't know how to work with it.


Meanwhile, my autism has motivated me to reply only to the OP on the 7th page of the thread.

mikegonta wrote:Reality is the standard, not what is “intellectually satisfying” or “elegant.”

I agree with this, BUT...

mikegonta wrote:Mathematics has to live up to reality, not the other way ‘round.

I strongly disagree with this. Mathematics is not physics, and some humanity's biggest accomplishments have benefitted from mathematicians playing with concepts which they believed could never have any relation to the real world. For instance, "imaginary numbers" and the math developed around them turned out to be the math to use for electricity.

IMO, software is a field where feelings of correctness and elegance sometimes have to be suppressed in favour of producing working code, but pure mathematics should be about exploring the unknown and the strange. Applied mathematics uses what pure mathematicians discovered and sometimes may come up with some mathematics of its own, but we've gained too much from the strangest fantasies of pure mathematicians to think we have a right to dictate what reality is. The reality of reality is that reality is strange!

eekee wrote:

mikegonta wrote:Mathematics has to live up to reality, not the other way ‘round.

I strongly disagree with this. Mathematics is not physics, and some humanity's biggest accomplishments have benefitted from mathematicians playing with concepts which they believed could never have any relation to the real world.

Absolutely. My own mathematical research (many years ago now!) was in no way founded on reality and, as far as I know, still has no direct application to the physical world. Yet it has proved to be of interest to hundreds of mathematicians who have developed my work further.

Mathematics has nothing to do with reality. It is, as I said before, basically a study of patterns and what logically follows from a given set of assumptions. The theories derived from those assumptions may be in direct opposition to those derived from a different set of assumptions. Yet both sets of theories are equally valid and there is no sense in which you can describe either system as true as long as it is self-consistent. The Greeks knew this; it's something of a surprise that two-thousand years later anyone still regards mathematics as some sort of study of the "real" world.

Octocontrabass wrote:

DavidCooper wrote:I put it to the test with various things from time to time and find that it's all just algorithms. If someone sets those out clearly I can simply learn them and apply them,

I suggest you talk to your psychiatrist about autism.

On the previous page of this thread I said "LET doesn't go down that rabbit hole." How many autistic people have you encountered who use such non-literal expressions? I can use them at the drop of a hat without thinking about it. When someone stands firm by mathematics where other people carelessly trash it and replace it with magic, that is not autism, but rigour. There are certainly interesting things going on psychologically in such situations, but the condition in play here is theory-induced blindness, and that is something that regularly affects majorities and traps them in the wrong. When Galileo dropped two objects of radically different mass and they fell at the same rate, religious people watched (the qualified experts of their day), then simply shook their heads and denied what they had seen. That is how people have evolved to behave, and the exact same phenomenon is on display here.

Proof after proof after proof casually rejected by people who don't want to test their theory to destruction. Carefully worded and watertight (that's another metaphor there) scenarios dismissed as rambling and incoherent by people who don't want them to be correct, but they are. Linguofreak confirmed that with one of them which Solar would otherwise have been ready to label as the most rambling and incoherent of the lot. Handling complexity is not rambling. Giving a free choice of values to apply to a variable is not being vague, but is showing that all values provide the same crucial result. Precise meaning is only incoherent in the minds of people who lack the ability to process it, or who refuse to try to do so because they don't want it to be right.

______________________________________________________________

Genius and narcissism? Really? This stuff is so basic that any school maths teacher should be able to work it out independently, if they were to take the time to explore the issue. That's what makes it so interesting psychologically, because it doesn't take genius to check any of this stuff. Solar judges things by who says things rather than what's said and it's all about ego for him. For me, it's all about what mathematics says, and no one should feel insulted by what mathematics says. My involvement is unimportant, and I have never been interested in collecting badges: all those things that mark high status are dangerous because they lock the masses into believing things that are wrong. I am the boy who points at the emperor and dares to say that he has no clothes when everyone's been told that only stupid people can't see them.

______________________________________________________________

Gigasoft wrote:

The average relative speed of the set 1 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents is not the same as the average relative speed of the set 2 light pulses to the material moving along the tangents

And if you were to say it with math, how did you arrive at a number for the average relative speeds? If the entire setup, including the experimenter and his equipment, was moving at 1 meter per second to the right, how would things be measurably different?

Pick a number of sectors to divide the ring up into and then measure the speed of the pulse of light relative to each sector while it's passing through that sector. You can pick any speed of movement and direction for the apparatus you like and the essential result will be the same (that the relative speed is higher for the light going against the rotation of the ring). All you're doing is picking a different frame, while the key finding is frame-independent.

For both s-frames to have equal validity, we have that sound pulse moving at both s and 0.5s relative to the air at the same time, which means it's moving at 0.5s relative to itself.

This is a meaningless operation.

There's nothing meaningless about it. It reveals what frames actually are and how they work mathematically. Each frame provides a hypothesis as to how the sound is moving relative to the content of the system while the sound moves at s relative to the medium through which it propagates. If we're dealing with results from a wind tunnel test scenario where we don't know what the air's doing in the tunnel, each s-frame provides a hypothesis based on a different speed of movement of the medium (air) relative to the objects in the tunnel. Only one s-frame correctly represents what the air is doing, and only that one s-frame correctly represents what the sound pulse is doing: all the other frames have the sound pulse moving at >s and <s in some directions relative to the air because they are plain wrong about what is happening in the wind tunnel. The real sound pulse is moving at s relative to the air, while the false representations of it from other frames have it moving at different speeds relative to the air and thereby relative to itself if you treat all frames as equally valid, but there is no equal validity of frames.

You are subtracting a speed expressed in one coordinate system from a speed expressed in another.

One frame has the sound pulse moving at s relative to the air in all directions. All other frames have it moving at >s and <s relative to the air in some directions because they have the air moving relative to the frame and are using a different magic medium to govern the speed the sound pulse moves at relative to the frame instead of using the air as the medium. Time a sound pulse relative to the air in different frames. If the air is moving to the right and a sound pulse leaves a bubble in the air to travel to the left for ten seconds, then bounces off something and travels back the other way for ten seconds, does it reach the bubble again by the end of that second lot of ten seconds? No - it's moving slower relative to the air in that direction, so it is not moving at the correct speed relative to the air and cannot be moving at the same speed as a sound pulse that is actually moving at s relative to the air. Treat two s-frames as equally valid and you have that sound pulse moving relative to itself: it's doing two contradictory things at the same time. You should be able to see this with sounds in air and s-frames because your theory claims it doesn't apply in such a system, restricting itself to the light-in-space case. However, what s-frames show is that frames are not equally valid, and that the same must be the case with c-frames; that if the sound is moving at multiple speeds relative to itself, the light must be doing likewise, and thus you are forced to transfer your theory-induced blindness to the sound-in-air case too and to deny that s-frames have the sound move at different speeds relative to itself if they are all to have equal validity. You won't get any competent mathematician to join you in that though.

It's like measuring the slope of a hillside on Mount Everest relative to the slope of the ground when standing in Nepal and then measuring the same thing as seen from Thailand, subtracting the two and then concluding that Mount Everest is tilted relative to itself. Or you can even do it with a piece of paper and a ruler. Draw two lines extending from a point, and place the ruler at some distance from the point so that both lines intersect the ruler. As you can see, the ruler measures the relative slope between the lines. Now, rotate the paper around the point while keeping the ruler fixed. Whoa, the relative slope changed, so one of the lines must have a nonzero slope relative to itself, right?

No - you're trying to use an analogy that doesn't fit. We're dealing with s-frames here to explore how the mathematics of frames actually works. These have the advantage of being able to include what the air is actually doing such that you can see which frame handles it correctly and how the rest fail to, and you can see how mixing frames (treating more than one as equally valid) results in a sound pulse moving at two or more different speeds relative to itself. That impossible act also occurs for the light pulse when using c-frames.

All physicists are highly proficient at maths. Any mistake in anyone's maths would immediately be noticed by everyone. On the other hand, you keep repeating the same dumb mistakes ad infinitum to the point where it's not even funny.

What isn't funny here is that I'm not the one making mistakes here. You and your physics friends are all running your misunderstanding of frames on incorrect mathematics, and none of you notice because none of you bother to look carefully, but instead just follow each other and outsource the checking to others in the herd who have never done it either and who never will. I've done the checking for you though, and I've shown you the results. I cannot force anyone too accept correct mathematics though - that is their job and not mine, while I am not to blame if they cannot do it.

DavidCooper wrote:How many autistic people have you encountered who use such non-literal expressions?

All of them. Most people with autism are perfectly capable of understanding and using idioms. Of course, I'm not an expert - that's why I suggest you talk to a psychiatrist.

How many autistic people have you encountered who use such non-literal expressions? I can use them at the drop of a hat without thinking about it.

Most people haven't encountered any autists, period. Autism is a rare disease. Unless someone works as a health professional, it is unlikely that one will encounter autists and know what kind of expressions they use. Whether or not someone knows some particular English expression is also of course not a disproof of them being autists, and pointing out your own statement as a supposed proof of good health is extremely suspicious behaviour, especially when considering the fact that the statement was made just after someone suggested a psychiatric evaluation. In any case, the correct approach would be to describe the symptoms and let a psychiatrist make the diagnosis. Personally, my bet is on narcissistic personality disorder of grandiose subtype.

When Galileo dropped two objects of radically different mass and they fell at the same rate, religious people watched (the qualified experts of their day), then simply shook their heads and denied what they had seen.

No, religious people were not qualified experts. In this comparison, you are the 17th century church, insisting that there are absolute velocities, which Galileo rejected. Galileo's work was well respected and recognized by the scientific community.

Giving a free choice of values to apply to a variable is not being vague, but is showing that all values provide the same crucial result

You are not "showing" anything. There is no math or variables in any of your arguments, just ambiguous terms being thrown around where you call different quantities with the same name and pretend they are the same quantity.

Pick a number of sectors to divide the ring up into and then measure the speed of the pulse of light relative to each sector while it's passing through that sector.

This isn't math. You've just given a set of things that should be measured somehow, which was not the question.

You can pick any speed of movement and direction for the apparatus you like and the essential result will be the same (that the relative speed is higher for the light going against the rotation of the ring).

Then, you have not shown the existence of absolute speeds, have you. All you did was to express a speed in some arbitrary coordinate system.

No - it's moving slower relative to the air in that direction, so it is not moving at the correct speed relative to the air and cannot be moving at the same speed as a sound pulse that is actually moving at s relative to the air.

You completely ignored what I said. Yes, it can be moving at the same speed, because the coordinate axes are different. What if you went around and observed the system from the opposite side? A wave that was moving to the left relative to the air is now moving to the right relative to the same air. What sort of voodoo is this, an object moving at +s and -s at the same time?

No - you're trying to use an analogy that doesn't fit. We're dealing with s-frames here to explore how the mathematics of frames actually works. These have the advantage of being able to include what the air is actually doing such that you can see which frame handles it correctly and how the rest fail to, and you can see how mixing frames (treating more than one as equally valid) results in a sound pulse moving at two or more different speeds relative to itself.

It's exactly the same thing, but with rotations instead of boosts. One of the lines represents the air, and the other line represents the sound pulse moving with respect to it. The "relative slope" corresponds to your frame-dependent relative speed. The only thing that is "happening" differently in different frames is that coordinates and speeds have different numerical values. Furthermore, in the case of light, there is no "air" that it is moving through.

Octocontrabass wrote:

DavidCooper wrote:How many autistic people have you encountered who use such non-literal expressions?

All of them. Most people with autism are perfectly capable of understanding and using idioms. Of course, I'm not an expert - that's why I suggest you talk to a psychiatrist.

Well that is odd, because it's one of the key ways of identifying them - they express considerable puzzlement about the way neurotypical people speak due to all those idioms and metaphors where autistic people see the literal meaning instead. What's happening here is more bizarre though, because a number of people who can't do maths correctly are telling someone who can that there's something wrong with him, but they are a self-selected group of people who have been conned into a scientific cult which overrides their ability to do maths correctly in very specific cases where it goes against the cult beliefs. I'm not the one who needs help.

___________________________________________________________________

Gigasoft wrote:Most people haven't encountered any autists, period. Autism is a rare disease. Unless someone works as a health professional, it is unlikely that one will encounter autists and know what kind of expressions they use. Whether or not someone knows some particular English expression is also of course not a disproof of them being autists, and pointing out your own statement as a supposed proof of good health is extremely suspicious behaviour, especially when considering the fact that the statement was made just after someone suggested a psychiatric evaluation.

Nothing suspicious about it - I read between the lines in the way an autistic person would not do and I planted a subtle hint there to let them know that they were thinking down the wrong path. I encounter autists a fair bit: I've spent a lot of time helping them understand how to read neurotypical people, which I'm able to do without any difficulty as a neurotypical person. I've found that a lot of them don't know how to read a host of simple things not because they lack the brainpower to do it, but because no one's ever told them about the games that are being played where people don't directly say what they mean for a host of reasons. So you're barking up the wrong tree.

In any case, the correct approach would be to describe the symptoms and let a psychiatrist make the diagnosis. Personally, my bet is on narcissistic personality disorder of grandiose subtype.

No - just a respect for correct mathematics rather than having a mind virus drive ad hoc exceptions to prop up treasured beliefs which carry high status and which people like to wear as badges to display how clever they are, because that's what really makes Einstein appeal to them. It's his theories attract narcissists, while those who stand against them know that by doing so they are going to be looked down on and insulted at every turn, which is not something narcissists have the guts to choose.

No, religious people were not qualified experts.

They thought they were, and so did the masses. It's no different.

In this comparison, you are the 17th century church, insisting that there are absolute velocities, which Galileo rejected. Galileo's work was well respected and recognized by the scientific community.

Not at all: your scientific community is a cult which is trashing mathematics while I defend mathematics.

You are not "showing" anything. There is no math or variables in any of your arguments, just ambiguous terms being thrown around where you call different quantities with the same name and pretend they are the same quantity.

Of course there are variables and maths: all my scenarios are full of them, and any competent mathematician (i.e. not a biased physicist) will tell you so. And I have never pretended two different things are the same thing, so you're just making up nonsense.

Pick a number of sectors to divide the ring up into and then measure the speed of the pulse of light relative to each sector while it's passing through that sector.

This isn't math. You've just given a set of things that should be measured somehow, which was not the question.

Of course it's maths. Again, all competent mathematicians would recognise it as such and they would have no trouble making the measurements in the way I've specified. Most of the people here should be able to write a program that implements what I have described where the user can set the size of the ring, the number of sectors, the speed of rotation, the speed of travel of the apparatus in three direction components, etc. and they could have it produce specific average relative speed values on that basis. They could also set it to do this for thousands of random values and show that none of them produce a result other than that the relative speeds are higher for the light going round the ring against its direction of rotation than for the light going the opposite way. I could set that as an assignment and they could build what I have specified. Why would you fail that assignment? You are merely playing a game where you try to hide what has happened here by rambling against it.

Then, you have not shown the existence of absolute speeds, have you. All you did was to express a speed in some arbitrary coordinate system.

Arbitrary? ALL frames of reference. You want to disregard 100% of the measurements?

You completely ignored what I said. Yes, it can be moving at the same speed, because the coordinate axes are different. What if you went around and observed the system from the opposite side? A wave that was moving to the left relative to the air is now moving to the right relative to the same air. What sort of voodoo is this, an object moving at +s and -s at the same time?

You're mixing results from two coordinate systems and pretending they're compatible. We can do this with an actual wind tunnel, actual sounds and actual objects. I set the wind speed but you don't know what it is: all you get to see is the data that comes from the sound clocks as they listen to each other's sound beeps and record their times of arrival by their own reckoning of time. You can use s-frames to provide hyptheses as to what is actually happening in the wind tunnel. One of those can treat clock A as at rest in the air. Another can treat clock B as at rest in the air. A sound travels from clock A to clock B at the speed of sound relative to the air.

Frame A has that sound move at s relative to its hypothesised air, at s relative to clock A, and at 1.5s relative to clock B (which is moving towards clock A).

Frame B has that sound move at s relative to its hypothesised air, at s relative to clock B, and and 0.5s relative to clock A.

(Those are so vague: they're not maths! Bullshit. If you can't read the maths in these scenarios, you have no business being in this kind of discussion.)

Are both s-frames equally valid. What is the air actually doing? There is only one correct answer. One of the frames has the sound correctly moving at s relative to the air. The other frame does not. One frame provides a correct account of what is happening in the wind tunnel, but the other frame does not. It has the sound moving at ¬s (not s) relative to the air while the other frame has it moving at s relative to the air. If one of them is moving at s relative to the air and the other is moving at ¬s relative to the air, they cannot be moving at the same speed as each other. When you convert from one frame to another, you are actively changing the speed of the sound pulse relative to the objects in the system and you are also moving it relative to the previous version of itself. When you try to make all frames equally valid, you absolutely do have the sound pulse moving at an infinite number of different speeds relative to itself, and you're doing exactly the same thing with a light pulse in space with c-frames even when you deny the medium (which governs the propagation of the light pulse and yet which you claim doesn't exist, thereby governing it with unacknowledged magic instead). I can't force you to see that any more than Galileo could force the religious experts to see what the dropped weights did, but other people who look at this and who aren't shackled in their thinking can look and see, and the rational ones will know who is right.

It's exactly the same thing, but with rotations instead of boosts. One of the lines represents the air, and the other line represents the sound pulse moving with respect to it. The "relative slope" corresponds to your frame-dependent relative speed. The only thing that is "happening" differently in different frames is that coordinates and speeds have different numerical values.

It doesn't work with sound in air, and it doesn't work with light in space either. You're blinding yourself with errors that you've been programmed to believe are valid. Only one s-frame can provide a correct account of what is going on, and that's the case even if you get rid of the air and use magic nothings as a medium instead: each frame uses its own magic nothing, so you have an infinite number of mediums in play which are all moving relative to each other and which collectively have every sound pulse moving at an infinite number of different speeds relative to itself all the time as a direct result. Your mistake is so colossal that you cannot believe that you've made it, and yet you have.

Furthermore, in the case of light, there is no "air" that it is moving through.

Oh yes, because light travels through nothing by magic while its speed and direction is governed by that magic nothing which you use instead of a medium and fool yourself into thinking isn't a medium. You're thinking like a religious expert and not like a proper scientist.

DavidCooper wrote:Well that is odd, because it's one of the key ways of identifying them - they express considerable puzzlement about the way neurotypical people speak due to all those idioms and metaphors where autistic people see the literal meaning instead.

Autism is a wider spectrum than most people realize.

DavidCooper wrote:I'm not the one who needs help.

I've already talked to a psychiatrist. Now it's your turn.

You know the time cube guy, and Terry Davis, and all the free energy and pyramid power people, the gangstalking people? All those people see themselves the same way you see yourself.

Doesn't that give you any pause for thought?

To all those people their beliefs are rational and founded on reality. They are so obviously rational in their own minds that everyone else must either be stupid, delusional, or outright lying to disagree. In fact the outside world is so dedicated to being wrong that it seems almost like a conspiracy, like a church orthodoxy they are challenging. Most of them compare themselves to Galileo.

Does none of this feel wrong to you? Does none of it say to you "maybe the reason I think I can trivially disprove scientific consensus, is because MY OWN understanding of the consensus is flawed in some way"?

Even if you don't accept anything I'm saying, surely having a bulletproof understanding of the existing scientific consensus would help you to formulate your own arguments in such a way as to actually convince knowledgeable people? People in the thread have pointed out ways that you argue against claims not made by special relativity, or that you define terms in ways contrary to the way the existing theory defines them. Surely you must accept that your theory might need to be refined or restated to counter these accusations?

You cannot, as a scientifically minded person, believe that your theory is beyond the capacity to ever be improved?

Nothing suspicious about it - I read between the lines in the way an autistic person would not do and I planted a subtle hint there to let them know that they were thinking down the wrong path.

So in other words, you attempted a distraction by planting a false lead, knowing very well that the evidence would point towards you being an autist. As you may recall, no one had brought up autism at that point. You are no different from the countless people who just murdered their spouse and then proceed to send them text messages asking if they're okay, calling emergency services to report their body and a myriad of other things they think a guilty person would not do. It never works.

Of course it's maths. Again, all competent mathematicians would recognise it as such and they would have no trouble making the measurements in the way I've specified.

You didn't specify how to make the measurements.

Arbitrary? ALL frames of reference. You want to disregard 100% of the measurements?

None of those measurements measured an absolute speed. After conducting the experiment, no matter how many times, you are nowhere closer to pinpointing where "absolute rest" is. If your experiment can't distinguish between setups travelling at different speeds, you have not shown the existence of absolute speeds.

You're mixing results from two coordinate systems and pretending they're compatible.

Yes, that's the point. It's the same thing you're doing.

You can use s-frames to provide hyptheses as to what is actually happening in the wind tunnel. One of those can treat clock A as at rest in the air. Another can treat clock B as at rest in the air.

No, I can't. If a clock is at rest relative to the air in one frame, then it is also so in all other frames. A frame is a coordinate system assigning sets of numerical values to points. It does not assign facts, such as what the air is doing.

If one of them is moving at s relative to the air and the other is moving at ¬s relative to the air, they cannot be moving at the same speed as each other.

Yes, they can. I just provided an example where you have two frames both with the air at rest, yet the same sound pulse moves at -s in one and at +s in the other.

I can't force you to see that any more than Galileo could force the religious experts to see what the dropped weights did

I can find no historical references to a dispute involving dropped weights. The church would seemingly have no reason to try to refute the dropped weights experiment – why would they care? However, he was tried on charges of heresy over his paper on heliocentrism, which contradicts some story in the bible where someone called Josh makes the sun stand still. Not because religious people were experts on anything, but because they were the ones in power. You are no Galiei or Haverbeck, you are simply a dude being wrong on the internet. You're saying that physicists can't do math after going through years of higher math education, yet without the mathematicians, who are somehow able to do math after going through the same math education, ever noticing anything wrong. You alone, as the only person in the world, are able to see through the incorrect physicist math that no one else does, while being unable to follow a couple of lines of derivation of a Lorentz-invariant space expanding metric. Does this sound right to you?

Oh yes, because light travels through nothing by magic while its speed and direction is governed by that magic nothing which you use instead of a medium and fool yourself into thinking isn't a medium. You're thinking like a religious expert and not like a proper scientist.

A scientist conducts experiments to identify and test hypotheses about the world. Since no experiment has shown the existence of a medium moving through space with a speed, there is no reason to assume that one exists.