Now, please answer the questions which you have been asked. Why not start with explaining why you believe that light cannot bounce back and forwards between to particles who an observer will see as having a speed of separation of over 1c.
Your refusal to deal with questions is in breach of the rules, your answering them is not optional if you wish to post here.
You are implying that you mean something different from the standard view that all observers will measure the speed of light to be c relative to their own frame.
So, please, what is it that differs in your "absolute speed" assertion?
This is not true.
I depend on setting up these frame characteristics with the acceleration equations of SR.
This way I can depend on the 0.99c for each A and B and know these velocities are true.
So, I circumvent a third observer which you claim I need. I do not.
If I were sitting in rocket A for example, my eyes would tell me I am not moving, but the acceleration equations which are a reliable calculation of v tell me my actual speed is 0.99c though I cannot feel it.
Now, it is true the "earth frame" has some underlying motion that is unknown. It is estimated to be around 18.55 miles per second in the direction of the orbit around the sun. Obviously, the milky way is doing something, but this number is close.
Either way, the earth launch frame is moving very little when compared to 0.99c such that I can think of it as uniform motion with a very small error condition built into it ie around 9.96X10-5c
For this reason, I do not need to attach a third frame to operate on this problem.
Find it in this post please.
I am being extremely specific. I am only using two frames.
It doesn't matter how "long" the test takes to do. It will come up with the same measurement for velocity. IE I would send 2 light pulses from one rocket to the other. I would measure the time difference between the first pulses round trip and the 2 pulses round trip. I can then compare that to the time difference between when I released the first and second pulse and work out the relative velocity of the object the 2 light pulses bounced off of.
Since I came here I said the speed of light is a constant in space regardless of the opinion of the frame.
Perhaps we are not communicating and your interpretation is such that you believe my position on matters is changing, but I can assure you it is not.
Furthermore, out of the ATM's I've seen since I got here, I have supplied more math proof and math than all combined.
Since logic and math is the "real" language of physics, I suggest you communicate with me on those terms and that will clear up any misconceptions.
In math, it is right or it is wrong.
For example, you keep accusing me of using a 3rd observer and being dishonest. Yet, you will not find any evidence of a 3rd observer in the math calculations except to supply a launch frame and that is basically it.
The launch frame has almost nothing to do with the entire problem and is not used on calculating the distance metric for light travel between AS and B which is the point of this thread.
You honestly don't think that if I'm traveling at .99c to the right and shoot a laser to the left that it will only travel at .1c to the left do you?
"Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
"This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius
Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice
Ship A and Ship B are traveling towards point C from opposite direction.
Ship A and B measure point C approaching at .99c
Ship A and B measure each other approaching at 0.99994949750012625624968435937579c
Ship A and B pass each other at point c
After 10 seconds, in their local frame, Ship A shoots a 450nm laser Ship B.
abcdefg, given the above scenario please answer the following
1. How long does ship A think the round trip for the light takes, ie Ship A's frame of reference.
2. What is the frequency of the light when it returns to ship A?
3. What is the frequency of the light when it hits ship B, according to Ship B.
4. If there is a stationary observer at Point C what frequency would they see the laser light as?
5. How does any of these answers contradict with what SR says? IE How do any of these answers show a v > c?
Here is a velocity addition formula:
v(1,2)=[v(1)+v(2)] / [1+v(1)v(2)/c^2]
A third observer sees that distance between the two objects increases with a velocity 2c but an observer on the object sees it increases with 1c.
I agree these are correct the correct applications of handling 0,5c given a three observer model.
However, let's assume Rocket A accelerated to 0.99999999c and the person inside was sleeping during the whole thing and did not even realize he/she left the earth.
Earth never liked A very much so earth is not watching either A and earth was responsible for preprogramming the ship to accelerate to 0,.99999999c without A knowing. Actually, earth was mad at A for presenting ATM ideas.
Now, A wakes up after the burn and wonders what happened.
A applies relativity and concludes he/she can accelerate in any direction to 0.99999999c.
Is this true? Nope. Yet, SR absolutely allows it in these circumstances. SR is wrong here and will give A incorrect answers.
Now, one may argue if the earth frame is added, then everything will be OK.
Well, at the instant the earth and the ship were moving in the same direction as earth's orbit around the sun. This is estimated to be 18.55 miles per second. Now, again, A is limited without knowing it in the forward direction.
More generally, the application of SR is limited by the actual underlying unknown motion of the frame but SR does not know what this is.
So, SR is based on an error condition it has no way of determining and further cannot provide any guidance for a solution whatsoever.
Furthermore, this light distance travel in this post refutes the above analysis.
Light travels to far for a velocity composition argument under SR.
Can you please stick to physics, rather than metaphysics or personification of inanimate objects?
No, as I've mentioned previously, it is at times very ambiguous, and at these times, you will generally refuse to clarify. When I tell you, for example, that you have not said which frame a measurement is in, you tell me that this does not matter, rather than just clarifying which one you were speaking about.Perhaps we are not communicating and your interpretation is such that you believe my position on matters is changing, but I can assure you it is not.
You are doing it here now, too, by not explaining what you mean by the speed of light being absolute.
I'll ask again, can you please give a clear and concise explanation of what you mean by absolute speed, and how it differs from the relativistic tenet that whatever the speed of an observer, they will always measure that the speed is c relative to them?
OK so you are back to arguing the exact same points that were the OP of your previous ATM threads.
As you have had your go at that ATM I am closing this thread.
Rules For Posting To This Board
All Moderation in Purple