A rotating disk doesn't undergo to a slowing rotation as a clock does due to its inertial speed.
A rotating disk in a frictionless vacuum chamber that at rest has a frequency of 1000 Hz, if put in motion at a speed of .1c, conserve vits constant frequency of 1000Hz.
the Doppler effect as seen from a observer (at rest at the origin from where the disk departed) will see the disk as
(Doppler classic formula) 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz, instead of the
(Doppler relativ. formula)
1000/sqroot(1-.1^2)*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=953.46HZ
SR and SR Doppler, in this case, of the absolute rotating disk fails.

While in the reverse case if the rotating disk remain still and the observer goes away at inertial speed of .1c then
(the classic doppler)=1000*(1-.1)/sqroot(1-.1^2)=895.48Hz while
(the relativ. doppler)=1000*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=948.68 Hz
SR and SR Doppler, also in this reverse case, fails.
regsrds
beda

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> A rotating disk at rest has a frequency of 1000 Hz, if put in motion at a speed of .1c
> the Doppler effect as seen from a observer (at rest at the origin from where the disk
> departed) will see the disk as (Doppler classic formula) 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz...

No, the rotational frequency of the optical image received at the origin is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 904.534... Hz.

> instead of the (Doppler relativ. formula) 1000/sqroot(1-.1^2)*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=953.46HZ

No, the relativistic formula is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 904.534... Hz.

> In the reverse case if the rotating disk remain still and the observer goes away at
> inertial speed of .1c then (the relativ. doppler)=1000*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=948.68 Hz

No, the same relativistic formula applies for any given relative separation speed v, regardless of whether we regard the disk or the viewer as being "at rest". Likewise the disk's rotation speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the viewer is at rest is 1000*sqrt(1-v^2) = 994.987... Hz for the relative receding speed v, regardless of which of them you regard as being "at rest".

Il giorno sabato 31 dicembre 2022 alle 00:19:19 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:23:40 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A rotating disk at rest has a frequency of 1000 Hz, if put in motion at a speed of .1c
> > the Doppler effect as seen from a observer (at rest at the origin from where the disk
> > departed) will see the disk as (Doppler classic formula) 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz...
>
> No, the rotational frequency of the optical image received at the origin is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 904.534... Hz.
OK, the relativistic Doppler formula summarize implicitly the following features
a)The slowing of the clock accordingly to the absolute speed of object A
b)The slowing of the clock accordingly to the absolute speed of object B
c)The combine of the two absolute speeds A and B into a relative speed
d)Finally figures out the Doppler as a reciprocal same result of A vs B and reverse B vs A
Now, if the rotation of the disk is absolute, the disk doesn't undergo to the slowing due to the absolute movement of the frame/lab that carries it along, therefore the Doppler relativistic formula doesn't apply (!?).
In this case we must go as follow:
If we consider the disk stationary and remain so, then the rotating of the disk stay locally as= 1000 Hz, the moving away observer at .1c will see the rotating disk as 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz, 900 Hz vs the observer clock will appear as
900/sqroot(1-.1^2)= 904.534...Hz the application of the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.
If the observer stay stationary and the disk is sent away at .1c then (the disk conserve its absolute frequency) but it is locally seen as 1000/sqroot(1-.1^2)=1005,037...Hz(this value is valid only locally)The frequency send away is still 1000Hz, but this time it is Doppler shifted vs the space as 1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz and is received by the stationary observer as the same value 909,090...Hz being the observer clock stationary that value remain identical for the stationary observer.
So as we have seen A vs B is 904.503..Hz while B vs A is 909,090..Hz
because the rotating disk doesn't slow down for its absolute speed, if it did either the classic formula (plus the slowing disk/clock) either the SR formula would give an identical and reciprocal results.
please check and don't mind mistakes in the figures, in case of errors of calculation take in account only the line of reasoning.
> > instead of the (Doppler relativ. formula) 1000/sqroot(1-.1^2)*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=953.46HZ
> No, the relativistic formula is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], which equals 904.534... Hz.
>
> > In the reverse case if the rotating disk remain still and the observer goes away at
> > inertial speed of .1c then (the relativ. doppler)=1000*sqroot((1-.1)/(1+.1))=948.68 Hz
>
> No, the same relativistic formula applies for any given relative separation speed v, regardless of whether we regard the disk or the viewer as being "at rest". Likewise the disk's rotation speed in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the viewer is at rest is 1000*sqrt(1-v^2) = 994.987... Hz for the relative receding speed v, regardless of which of them you regard as being "at rest".
beda:
This is the logic: the disk rotate at 1000 Hz
if the disk is stationary:
it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz, the relative speed affects only the other observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.

if the disk is traveling away at .1c:
1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz are sent in space and received as such by the stationary observer that read with its stationary clock as, still, 909,090...Hz
The issue is: a rotating disk is affected by the change of the inertial speed ???
if it is affected then the absolute movement of the disk will slow it down and the SR works,
if the disk is not affected by the change of its abs. inertial speed then SR Doppler cannot be applied, it would fail.
regards
beda

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > A rotating disk at rest has a frequency of 1000 Hz, if put in motion at a speed of .1c
> > > the Doppler effect as seen from a observer (at rest at the origin from where the disk
> > > departed) will see the disk as (Doppler classic formula) 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz...
> >
> > No, the rotational frequency of the optical image received at the origin is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)],
> > which equals 904.534... Hz.
>
> If the rotation of the disk is absolute, the disk doesn't undergo to the slowing
> due to the absolute movement of the frame/lab that carries it along...

That is a misconception. The spinning disk is just like the spinning hands of a clock, or the pulsing of a lamp, or any other temporally advancing physical process that is characterized by a rate of proper time dtau/dt in terms of a given standard system of inertial coordinates x,t. In terms of a relatively moving system of standard inertial coordinates x',t' in which the disk or clock or lamp or whatever is moving at speed v, the rate of proper time is dtau/dt' = sqrt(1 - v^2). So, if the frequency is f in terms of x,t it is f'=f sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x',t'.

> therefore the Doppler relativistic formula doesn't apply (!?).

That is incorrect. The relativistic Doppler formula applies in every circumstance, without exception.

> the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.

No, what you call the "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].

> If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz....

The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") is a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary).

So, you should just say: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.

> ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.

No, according to your aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativity answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.

> If the disk is traveling away at .1c: 1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz are received by
> the stationary observer...

That is the prediction of your aether theory, i.e., you predict the received frequency of f*[1/(1+v)], but special relativity predicts f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], and the special relativity prediction has been confirmed experimentally and your prediction has been falsified. The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.

> The issue is: a rotating disk is affected by the change of the inertial speed ???

Yes, if a spinning disk (frictionless) is initially at rest in terms of x,t and spinning with frequency f, and then we gently accelerate its axis until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it will be spinning at the frequency f*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t. In general, for any physical entity, the rate of proper time tau in terms of x,t is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2). You musn't confuse the so-called "first order" Doppler effect with relativistic time dilation.

> if it is affected then the absolute movement of the disk will slow it down and the SR works,

Right, the active transformations of physical entities (like spinning disks) confirm precisely with the passive transformation represented by the Lorentz transformation, which is why special relativity "works". This has been abundantly confirmed experimentally.

Il giorno sabato 31 dicembre 2022 alle 19:28:50 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > A rotating disk at rest has a frequency of 1000 Hz, if put in motion at a speed of .1c
> > > > the Doppler effect as seen from a observer (at rest at the origin from where the disk
> > > > departed) will see the disk as (Doppler classic formula) 1000*(1-.1)=900Hz...
> > >
> > > No, the rotational frequency of the optical image received at the origin is 1000*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)],
> > > which equals 904.534... Hz.
> >
> > If the rotation of the disk is absolute, the disk doesn't undergo to the slowing
> > due to the absolute movement of the frame/lab that carries it along...
>
> That is a misconception. The spinning disk is just like the spinning hands of a clock, or the pulsing of a lamp, or any other temporally advancing physical process that is characterized by a rate of proper time dtau/dt in terms of a given standard system of inertial coordinates x,t. In terms of a relatively moving system of standard inertial coordinates x',t' in which the disk or clock or lamp or whatever is moving at speed v, the rate of proper time is dtau/dt' = sqrt(1 - v^2). So, if the frequency is f in terms of x,t it is f'=f sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x',t'.
beda:
the absolute speed of an object affects the object somehow,
one of the effects is the dilatation of the two ways travel time in a standard light clock
if you have clock A moving at speed va it will be dilated as ta=sqrt(1-va^2)*trest
if you have clock B moving at speed vb it will be dilated as tb=sqrt(1-vb^2)*trest
given the formula (va+vb)/(1-Va*vb) we obtain a fictitious relative speed meant to
obliterate the va and vb, on the assumption that the dilatation of time obeys to
the Lorentz factor for all range of speeds and for all kind of material moving objects.
which is a very strong assumption, scarcely falsifiable for the feasible speeds allowed
for macroscopic bodies.
Reverse engineering SR, we must reckon that behind SR working there are absolute speeds,
if so, we are entitle to construct a scenario in which we give at the rotating disk an absolute speed
of 0 c and to the observer the absolute speed of .1c (the comoving clock running at sqrt(1-.1^2)*trest
so we will have the disk rotrating at 1000 Hz sending 1000 Hz in space and the receiver receiving
1000*(1-.1)=900Hz read with a dilated clock as 900/sqrt(1-.1^2)=904,534....Hz
now the reversed case:
the observer is at rest and the disk moves away at .1c, (accepting that the disk slow down) :
the disc is sending in space 1000*sqrt(1-1^2)/(1+.1)=904,534...Hz that will be receved by the
stationary observer with its stationary clock as such 904,534...Hz.
so if the disk slow down accordingly to its absolute speed, SR (heuristic math) is confirmed.
but you are willing to accept that that is valid for all speeds and for all materials??? and the
associated invariance of all the laws of physics, also valid in all possible circumstance ???
I have a lot of doubts about that, even about the rotating of the disk especially when the rotation reaches
the rim tangential speed limits for the material of the disk.
anyways, fallowing my line of absolute reasoning a going away disk at .1c vs an observer left behind
it may happen that the absolute speed would decrease leading to an increase of the rotating speed of the disk!!
We could imagine an observer left behind by a disk and the disk accelerate its rotation and breaks apart,
what of the reciprocity if they where two disks relatively moving???
The SR math is just math, at extreme condition would break down, and would start to gradually break down as approaching the limits associated to the materials involved in the test.
mind mistyping.
regards
beda

> > therefore the Doppler relativistic formula doesn't apply (!?).
> That is incorrect. The relativistic Doppler formula applies in every circumstance, without exception.
> > the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.
> No, what you call the "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].
>
> > If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz...
>
> The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") is a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary).
>
> So, you should just say: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.
>
> > ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> > Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.
>
> No, according to your aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativity answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.
>
> > If the disk is traveling away at .1c: 1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz are received by
> > the stationary observer...
>
> That is the prediction of your aether theory, i.e., you predict the received frequency of f*[1/(1+v)], but special relativity predicts f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], and the special relativity prediction has been confirmed experimentally and your prediction has been falsified. The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.
> > The issue is: a rotating disk is affected by the change of the inertial speed ???
> Yes, if a spinning disk (frictionless) is initially at rest in terms of x,t and spinning with frequency f, and then we gently accelerate its axis until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it will be spinning at the frequency f*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t. In general, for any physical entity, the rate of proper time tau in terms of x,t is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2). You musn't confuse the so-called "first order" Doppler effect with relativistic time dilation.
> > if it is affected then the absolute movement of the disk will slow it down and the SR works,
> Right, the active transformations of physical entities (like spinning disks) confirm precisely with the passive transformation represented by the Lorentz transformation, which is why special relativity "works". This has been abundantly confirmed experimentally.

On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:46:07 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> the absolute speed of an object...

Until you define what you mean by "absolute speed", your statement is meaningless. Also, if you define it as "the speed relative to the local frame in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic", then (1) that is a relative speed, not an absolute speed, and (2) it doesn't change the fact that all the laws of physics have been experimentally shown to take the same form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (up to 0.99999c).

Since you haven't defined absolute speed, I will omit that meaningless expression from the rest of your comments. You can put it back as soon as you define it (which you will never do).

> If the disk slows down accordingly to its [relative] speed, [then special relativity is confirmed].

Right, we covered this before (in the part of the text below that you ignored). Again, for a disk with axis at rest in x,t and spinning with frequency 1000 Hz in terms of x,t, and then its axis is slowly accelerated until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it is now spinning with frequency 1000*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t.

> You are willing to accept that that is valid for all speeds and for all materials???

Yes, the local Lorentz invariance of all the fundamental laws of physics (including the laws of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak nuclear force interaction, and the strong uclear force interaction, that govern the behavior of all known physical phenomena, has been test and confirmed to incredible levels of precision for relative speeds from static all the way to 0..99999c, and these fundamental laws of physical interactions apply to wood and copper and gold and electromagnetic radiation and every other known physical entity.

> I have a lot of doubts about that....

That's because you don't understand the subject, and the reason you don't understand is because you willfully disregard the explanations, and self-indulgently permit yourself to use phrases like "absolute speed" without defining them, so you are just spouting infantile gibberish.

> It may happen that the absolute speed would decrease leading to an
> increase of the rotating speed of the disk!!

Again, the speed of the disk has been stipulated to be 1000 Hz in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which it is at rest. Its spin rate is less in terms of any relatively moving system of standard inertial coordinates. This applies regardless of how these systems are moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame.

> The SR math is just math, at extreme condition would break down, and would start
> to gradually break down as approaching the limits associated to the materials
> involved in the test.

No, you are confusing (1) the laws of physics with (2) the behavior of objects subject to the laws of physics. The equations for all the known laws of physics (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are locally Lorentz invariant. These laws predict, for example, that disks will burst at certain rotational speeds, etc., but the laws of physics don't burst. They have been te4sted to the most extreme conditions, and Lorentz invariance has never shown the slightest hint of failing.

> therefore the Doppler relativistic formula doesn't apply (!?).

That's incorrect. The relativistic Doppler formula applies in every circumstance, without exception.

> the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.

No, what you call "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].
> If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz....
The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") is a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary). So, you should just say instead: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.
> ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.
No, according to your aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativistic answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.
> If the disk is traveling away at .1c: 1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz are received by
> the stationary observer...
That's the prediction of your aether theory, i.e., you predict the received frequency of f*[1/(1+v)], but special relativity predicts f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], and the special relativity prediction has been confirmed experimentally and your prediction has been falsified. The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.

> The issue is: a rotating disk is affected by the change of the inertial speed ???

Yes, if a spinning disk (frictionless) is initially at rest in terms of x,t and spinning with frequency f, and then we gently accelerate its axis until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it will then be spinning at the frequency f*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t. In general, for any physical entity, the rate of proper time tau in terms of x,t is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2). You musn't confuse the so-called "first order" Doppler effect with relativistic time dilation.

> if it is affected then the absolute movement of the disk will slow it down and the SR works,

Right, active transformations of physical entities (like spinning disks) conform precisely with the passive transformation represented by the Lorentz transformation, which is why special relativity "works". This has been abundantly confirmed experimentally.

On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 01:24:13 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:46:07 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > the absolute speed of an object...
>
> Until you define what you mean by "absolute speed", your statement is meaningless.

Until you define what you mean by "define" your demand is
an absurd.

Il giorno domenica 1 gennaio 2023 alle 01:24:13 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Saturday, December 31, 2022 at 2:46:07 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > the absolute speed of an object...
>
> Until you define what you mean by "absolute speed", your statement is meaningless. Also, if you define it as "the speed relative to the local frame in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic", then (1) that is a relative speed, not an absolute speed, and (2) it doesn't change the fact that all the laws of physics have been experimentally shown to take the same form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates related by Lorentz transformations (up to 0.99999c).
> trest
> Since you haven't defined absolute speed, I will omit that meaningless expression from the rest of your comments. You can put it back as soon as you define it (which you will never do).
beda:
nature itself establish the local absolute speed and the inertial object obeys to the natural assessment automatically,
so I take for granted that this happens regardless of my ability to define or to detect the absolute speed and the associated objects characteristics..
It is this automatic natural absolute rearrangement that makes SR work.
So knowing this backstage natural workings I can establish that given a priory a absolute speed of .5c the clock
will reduce its cycles to sqrt(1-.5^2)*t0
>
> > If the disk slows down accordingly to its [relative] speed, [then special relativity is confirmed].
>
> Right, we covered this before (in the part of the text below that you ignored). Again, for a disk with axis at rest in x,t and spinning with frequency 1000 Hz in terms of x,t, and then its axis is slowly accelerated until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it is now spinning with frequency 1000*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t.
>
> > You are willing to accept that that is valid for all speeds and for all materials???
>
> Yes, the local Lorentz invariance of all the fundamental laws of physics (including the laws of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak nuclear force interaction, and the strong uclear force interaction, that govern the behavior of all known physical phenomena, has been test and confirmed to incredible levels of precision for relative speeds from static all the way to 0.99999c, and these fundamental laws of physical interactions apply to wood and copper and gold and electromagnetic radiation and every other known physical entity.
beda:
No, the experimental limits are set to very low terrestrial speed to which you can anchor a SR reference frame K
you cannot experience any physical reference frame different from those very low macroscopic bodies speed limits.
the rest are approximation that you could obtain with any other similar procedure
In any case the math model of SR requires the hidden work of the absolute behind it.
And it is not the abstract math that govern the reality, but the nature itself with its large different and unpredictable material behavior, this unpredictability, of course, will show up more evidently at limiting conditions that are difficult to realize experimentally.
>
> > I have a lot of doubts about that....
>
> That's because you don't understand the subject, and the reason you don't understand is because you willfully disregard the explanations, and self-indulgently permit yourself to use phrases like "absolute speed" without defining them, so you are just spouting infantile gibberish.
beda:
being fascinated by a math scheme and transfer it to the reality is an illusion that cripples your logic and prevents you to understand that there is nothing to define about absolute (speed or whatsoever) because absoluteness is a natural condition that can be understood only by obvious logic.
>
> > It may happen that the absolute speed would decrease leading to an
> > increase of the rotating speed of the disk!!
> Again, the speed of the disk has been stipulated to be 1000 Hz in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which it is at rest. Its spin rate is less in terms of any relatively moving system of standard inertial coordinates. This applies regardless of how these systems are moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame.
beda.
You cannot bring in coordinate systems whose validity is questioned by your interlocutor, so you must resort to a common logic, the rest condition at winch we refer 1000Hz is trivial simple and natural, if this rest condition changes
then the object rearranges itself accordingly.
If the object is already in an absolute inertial motion and changes its inertial speed, then it can happen to increase its absolute speed or decrease it, and as consequence a rotating disk would slow down or speed up its rotation.
> > The SR math is just math, at extreme condition would break down, and would start
> > to gradually break down as approaching the limits associated to the materials
> > involved in the test.
> No, you are confusing (1) the laws of physics with (2) the behavior of objects subject to the laws of physics. The equations for all the known laws of physics (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are locally Lorentz invariant. These laws predict, for example, that disks will burst at certain rotational speeds, etc., but the laws of physics don't burst. They have been te4sted to the most extreme conditions, and Lorentz invariance has never shown the slightest hint of failing.
beda:
that is obviously wrong, regardless of invariance, any physical law abstractly defined, when applied we find discontinuities, breaking points, interactions that case by case are to be analized
I would say that your invariance stays to reality as the law of ideal gas stays to real gases
much lees due to the extent of the pretence.
> > therefore the Doppler relativistic formula doesn't apply (!?).
> That's incorrect. The relativistic Doppler formula applies in every circumstance, without exception.
> > the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.
> No, what you call "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].
> > If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz...
> The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") is a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary). So, you should just say instead: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.
> > ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> > Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.
> No, according to your aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativistic answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.
beda
The classic doppler formula works perfectly and furnish the same results as SR, given the addition of the Lorentz factor in slowing the clocks accordingly to the absolute inertial speeds involved.
Of course also here apply all my doubt about a mere math formula (I don't think different material clocks behave
uniformly the same under different circumstances)
> > If the disk is traveling away at .1c: 1000/(1+.1)=909,090...Hz are received by
> > the stationary observer...
> That's the prediction of your aether theory, i.e., you predict the received frequency of f*[1/(1+v)], but special relativity predicts f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)], and the special relativity prediction has been confirmed experimentally and your prediction has been falsified. The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.
beda:
you will obtain the same results if you choose two given absolute speeds and apply the classic formula corrected
by the absolute slowing of the respective clocks, I have already showed you that this gives the same identical results as SR, because the work of SR math is embedded in the absolute expected behavior.
The difference between your logic and mine is that you thrust blindly math, while my logic tells me that math is a tool
to be very careful used, reality is surprisingly more complex.
> > The issue is: a rotating disk is affected by the change of the inertial speed ???
> Yes, if a spinning disk (frictionless) is initially at rest in terms of x,t and spinning with frequency f, and then we gently accelerate its axis until it is moving at speed v in terms of x,t, it will then be spinning at the frequency f*sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of x,t. In general, for any physical entity, the rate of proper time tau in terms of x,t is dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2).. You musn't confuse the so-called "first order" Doppler effect with relativistic time dilation.
> > if it is affected then the absolute movement of the disk will slow it down and the SR works,
> Right, active transformations of physical entities (like spinning disks) conform precisely with the passive transformation represented by the Lorentz transformation, which is why special relativity "works". This has been abundantly confirmed experimentally.
beda.
again you trust math and experiments, I don't, I trust only logic reasoning..
I expect that if the disk is affected by the absolute inertial speed, then if the inertial speed changes the result is:
more abs. inertial speed: less abs. rotation;
less inertial abs. speed, more abs. rotation.
less gravity potential: more abs. rotation
more gravity potential: less abs. rotation
best regards and happy new year
beda pietanza

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:34:29 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> I take for granted that [absolute speed] happens, regardless of my ability
> to define absolute...

I know... that is the problem. You take for granted something that you can't even define, so your beliefs are self-indulgent nonsense.

> I can establish that given a priory a absolute speed of .5c the clock
> will reduce its cycles to sqrt(1-.5^2)*t0

No, that's a relative speed. Again, given two clocks with a relative speed of v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. This applies regardless of how fast the objects are moving relative to some third system of coordinates, as has been confirmed experimentally.

> No, the experimental limits are set to very low terrestrial speed...

That is false, for the reason explained to you before. Again, the local Lorentz invariance of all the fundamental laws of physics (including the laws of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak nuclear force interaction, and the strong nuclear force interaction) that govern the behavior of all known physical phenomena, has been test and confirmed to incredible levels of precision for relative speeds from static all the way to 0.99999c. Once we have established the form of a natural law at all speeds for elementary particles *and their interactions*, this determines the behavior of sets of interacting particles (macroscopic bodies) whose behavior consists of the agregate of the behaviors of the elementary particles that comprise it.

Again, you aren't just denying special relativity, you are denying rational reductionism itself, which is the foundation not only of all science, but of all rational thought. Induction from experience would not even be possible if rational reductionism were consistently denied. That's why your beliefs are just juvenile self-indulgent nonsense.

> ...unpredictability, of course, will show up more evidently at limiting conditions
> that are difficult to realize experimentally.

That's just juvenile self-indulgent fantasizing, i.e., you agree that all experimental evidence so far agrees perfectly with Local Lorentz invariance of all the laws of physics, but you insist that future tests that have not yet been performed will reveal a currently unknown absolute rest frame and violations of local Lorentz invariance. You have no rational basis for your belief, and indeed whenever you give an example of what "violations" you have in mind, such as incinerating a macroscopic object by moving it at 0.9999c relative to the interstellar gas, we discover that they are not violations of local Lorentz invariance at all, they are actually *predictions* of local Lorentz invariance, and the incineration would confirm -- not refute -- special relativity.

You are completely unable to define something that would show an actual absolute frame for the laws of physics, because you can't even define what that would mean. So your self-indulgent and irrational beliefs are based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.

> there is nothing to define about absolute speed...

Again, until you can define what you mean by "absolute speed", it is a meaningless phrase. And notice that every time you try to define it, we discover that you really have in mind a relative speed, such as the relative speed between a macroscopic body and the gas and dust particles in interstellar space. So, your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked.

> > No, you are confusing (1) the laws of physics with (2) the behavior of objects subject to the laws of physics. The equations for all the known laws of physics (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are locally Lorentz invariant. These laws predict, for example, that disks will burst at certain rotational speeds, etc., but the laws of physics don't burst. They have been tested to the most extreme conditions, and Lorentz invariance has never shown the slightest hint of failing.
>
> When the laws of physics are applied we find discontinuities, breaking points....

Again, we find that objects break in certain conditions, but we do not find that the laws of electromagnetism or the strong or weak nuclear forces "break", nor do we find that the standard model of particle physics "breaks", nor do we ever find that local Lorentz invariance "breaks". As explained above, you are confusing the breaking of objects at relative speeds, which we observe and are predicted by the fundamental laws, with the breaking of the fundamental laws, which we do not observe.

> the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.

No, what you call the "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].

> If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz....

The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") expresses a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary). So, you should just say instead: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.

> ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.

No, according to your tacit aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativistic answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.

> The classic doppler formula works perfectly and furnish the same results as SR,
> given the addition of the Lorentz factor in slowing the clocks accordingly to the
> absolute inertial speeds involved.

LOL. So, you've discovered that if we modify the classical formula to make it Lorentz invariant, the result is Lorentz invariant (brilliant), and moreover this shows that Lorentz invariance is wrong (even brillianter). Wow.

> I don't think different material clocks behave uniformly the same under different circumstances.

Of course they don't. What is wrong with you? Were you kicked in the head by a mule? Again, physical objects break, and they break in ways that are predicted by the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean that the laws of physics break. Sheesh.

> > The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.
>
> You will obtain the same results if you choose two given absolute speeds....

Wait... Choose absolute speeds? We are free to choose the absolute speed? If your concept of "absolute speed" is that it can be anything we choose, then you are using that phrase to mean something very different from what it means to rational adults. Indeed, if we are free to choose any standard system of inertial coordinates we like as the absolute rest frame, then what you are describing is simply ordinary standard inertial coordinate systems, all of which are equally suitable for the formulation of the natural laws. This is the principle of relativity.

> apply the classic formula, corrected by [applying the relativistic effects]
> I have already showed you that this gives the same identical results as SR...

LOL. You've shown that special relativity gives the same results as special relativity. Brilliant.

> You trust [logic] and experiments, I don't, I trust only logic.

Math is just logic, so I've corrected your assertion. So, the only distinction between what rational adults trust and what you trust is that you do not trust experiments. However, your claim to trust logic is false, because your beliefs are all self-contradictory and illogical, as explained above. So, in summary, rational adults rely on logic and experiment, and you rely on self-indulgent juvenile fantasizing.

On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:53:29 PM UTC-3, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:34:29 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I take for granted that [absolute speed] happens, regardless of my ability
> > to define absolute...
>
> I know... that is the problem. You take for granted something that you can't even define, so your beliefs are self-indulgent nonsense.
> > I can establish that given a priory a absolute speed of .5c the clock
> > will reduce its cycles to sqrt(1-.5^2)*t0
> No, that's a relative speed. Again, given two clocks with a relative speed of v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. This applies regardless of how fast the objects are moving relative to some third system of coordinates, as has been confirmed experimentally.
>
> > No, the experimental limits are set to very low terrestrial speed...
>
> That is false, for the reason explained to you before. Again, the local Lorentz invariance of all the fundamental laws of physics (including the laws of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak nuclear force interaction, and the strong nuclear force interaction) that govern the behavior of all known physical phenomena, has been test and confirmed to incredible levels of precision for relative speeds from static all the way to 0.99999c. Once we have established the form of a natural law at all speeds for elementary particles *and their interactions*, this determines the behavior of sets of interacting particles (macroscopic bodies) whose behavior consists of the agregate of the behaviors of the elementary particles that comprise it.
>
> Again, you aren't just denying special relativity, you are denying rational reductionism itself, which is the foundation not only of all science, but of all rational thought. Induction from experience would not even be possible if rational reductionism were consistently denied. That's why your beliefs are just juvenile self-indulgent nonsense.
>
> > ...unpredictability, of course, will show up more evidently at limiting conditions
> > that are difficult to realize experimentally.
> That's just juvenile self-indulgent fantasizing, i.e., you agree that all experimental evidence so far agrees perfectly with Local Lorentz invariance of all the laws of physics, but you insist that future tests that have not yet been performed will reveal a currently unknown absolute rest frame and violations of local Lorentz invariance. You have no rational basis for your belief, and indeed whenever you give an example of what "violations" you have in mind, such as incinerating a macroscopic object by moving it at 0.9999c relative to the interstellar gas, we discover that they are not violations of local Lorentz invariance at all, they are actually *predictions* of local Lorentz invariance, and the incineration would confirm -- not refute -- special relativity.
>
> You are completely unable to define something that would show an actual absolute frame for the laws of physics, because you can't even define what that would mean. So your self-indulgent and irrational beliefs are based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.
>
> > there is nothing to define about absolute speed...
>
> Again, until you can define what you mean by "absolute speed", it is a meaningless phrase. And notice that every time you try to define it, we discover that you really have in mind a relative speed, such as the relative speed between a macroscopic body and the gas and dust particles in interstellar space. So, your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked.
>
> > > No, you are confusing (1) the laws of physics with (2) the behavior of objects subject to the laws of physics. The equations for all the known laws of physics (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are locally Lorentz invariant. These laws predict, for example, that disks will burst at certain rotational speeds, etc., but the laws of physics don't burst. They have been tested to the most extreme conditions, and Lorentz invariance has never shown the slightest hint of failing.
> >
> > When the laws of physics are applied we find discontinuities, breaking points....
>
> Again, we find that objects break in certain conditions, but we do not find that the laws of electromagnetism or the strong or weak nuclear forces "break", nor do we find that the standard model of particle physics "breaks", nor do we ever find that local Lorentz invariance "breaks". As explained above, you are confusing the breaking of objects at relative speeds, which we observe and are predicted by the fundamental laws, with the breaking of the fundamental laws, which we do not observe.
> > the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.
> No, what you call the "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].
> > If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz...
> The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") expresses a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary). So, you should just say instead: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.
> > ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> > Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.
> No, according to your tacit aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativistic answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.
> > The classic doppler formula works perfectly and furnish the same results as SR,
> > given the addition of the Lorentz factor in slowing the clocks accordingly to the
> > absolute inertial speeds involved.
> LOL. So, you've discovered that if we modify the classical formula to make it Lorentz invariant, the result is Lorentz invariant (brilliant), and moreover this shows that Lorentz invariance is wrong (even brillianter). Wow.
>
> > I don't think different material clocks behave uniformly the same under different circumstances.
>
> Of course they don't. What is wrong with you? Were you kicked in the head by a mule? Again, physical objects break, and they break in ways that are predicted by the laws of physics, but this doesn't mean that the laws of physics break. Sheesh.
> > > The Doppler effect (in vacuum) between two given standard inertial coordinate systems depends only on the relative speed v between them, meaning the speed of each system in terms of the other.
> >
> > You will obtain the same results if you choose two given absolute speeds...
>
> Wait... Choose absolute speeds? We are free to choose the absolute speed? If your concept of "absolute speed" is that it can be anything we choose, then you are using that phrase to mean something very different from what it means to rational adults. Indeed, if we are free to choose any standard system of inertial coordinates we like as the absolute rest frame, then what you are describing is simply ordinary standard inertial coordinate systems, all of which are equally suitable for the formulation of the natural laws.. This is the principle of relativity.
>
> > apply the classic formula, corrected by [applying the relativistic effects]
> > I have already showed you that this gives the same identical results as SR...
>
> LOL. You've shown that special relativity gives the same results as special relativity. Brilliant.
>
> > You trust [logic] and experiments, I don't, I trust only logic.
>
> Math is just logic, so I've corrected your assertion. So, the only distinction between what rational adults trust and what you trust is that you do not trust experiments. However, your claim to trust logic is false, because your beliefs are all self-contradictory and illogical, as explained above. So, in summary, rational adults rely on logic and experiment, and you rely on self-indulgent juvenile fantasizing.

Ask Dono (AKA Adrian Sfarti). He's the fucking expert on this subject, and published at ResearchGate under his REAL NAME.

On Sunday, 1 January 2023 at 18:53:29 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:
> That's just juvenile self-indulgent fantasizing, i.e., you agree that all experimental evidence so far agrees perfectly with Local Lorentz invariance of all the laws of physics, but

But in the meantime in the real world, forbidden by your
bunch of idiots GPS and TAI keep measuring t'=t, just
like all serious clocks always did.

Il giorno domenica 1 gennaio 2023 alle 18:53:29 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:34:29 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I take for granted that [absolute speed] happens, regardless of my ability
> > to define absolute...
>
> I know... that is the problem. You take for granted something that you can't even define, so your beliefs are self-indulgent nonsense.
beda
absolute speed is the speed that an object assume in any possible circumstance the object happens to be, regardless of any observer, it is set by the immanent natural relation between the object versus the totality.
the absolute speeds of moving objects is the real physical phenomenon that takes place, SR just manipulates (correctly ore not is not important at this point of debate), no absolute speeds, no SR
> > I can establish that given a priory a absolute speed of .5c the clock
> > will reduce its cycles to sqrt(1-.5^2)*t0
> No, that's a relative speed. Again, given two clocks with a relative speed of v, each clock runs slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2) in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other clock is at rest. This applies regardless of how fast the objects are moving relative to some third system of coordinates, as has been confirmed experimentally.
beda
the relative speed obtained in SR is a fictitious result of a math model: nothing real, what is real are the two absolute speeds of the two objects, once we reckon this objective fact, the debate starts to be realistic
>
> > No, the experimental limits are set to very low terrestrial speed...
>
> That is false, for the reason explained to you before. Again, the local Lorentz invariance of all the fundamental laws of physics (including the laws of the electromagnetic interaction, the weak nuclear force interaction, and the strong nuclear force interaction) that govern the behavior of all known physical phenomena, has been test and confirmed to incredible levels of precision for relative speeds from static all the way to 0.99999c. Once we have established the form of a natural law at all speeds for elementary particles *and their interactions*, this determines the behavior of sets of interacting particles (macroscopic bodies) whose behavior consists of the agregate of the behaviors of the elementary particles that comprise it.
beda:
the phenomena of relative crash or interactions between two absolutely moving objects happens accordingly to the nature not accordingly to any man construct model, you insist on setting the natural happenings into your framing logic, but miss to understand the crude natural absoluteness of physical phenomena, without the comprehension
of the absolutes behind SR your procedure is a mere empirical approach, it leads to a misleading conceptual confusion.
Just what you testify: the confusion of a math model as a substitute of the reality (up to this, is not important if SR works or not) what is at stake here is the description of how the reality works.
>
> Again, you aren't just denying special relativity, you are denying rational reductionism itself, which is the foundation not only of all science, but of all rational thought. Induction from experience would not even be possible if rational reductionism were consistently denied. That's why your beliefs are just juvenile self-indulgent nonsense.
beda
well, reductionism is too reductive of the reality which is affected by complex interactions that give sprout to a upwards cascade of emergent phenomena irreducible and not longer explainable by lower level of logic:
matter >life > mind > intelligence > abstract tools ect.
>
> > ...unpredictability, of course, will show up more evidently at limiting conditions
> > that are difficult to realize experimentally.
> That's just juvenile self-indulgent fantasizing, i.e., you agree that all experimental evidence so far agrees perfectly with Local Lorentz invariance of all the laws of physics, but you insist that future tests that have not yet been performed will reveal a currently unknown absolute rest frame and violations of local Lorentz invariance. You have no rational basis for your belief, and indeed whenever you give an example of what "violations" you have in mind, such as incinerating a macroscopic object by moving it at 0.9999c relative to the interstellar gas, we discover that they are not violations of local Lorentz invariance at all, they are actually *predictions* of local Lorentz invariance, and the incineration would confirm -- not refute -- special relativity.
beda
I just don't care of alleged experimental results, I care of the misleading theoretical construction that you propone
the melting into plasma of a macroscopic object would take place at low fraction of c, the absolute frame is there and sets the behavior and the characteristics of the objects, this is sure regardless of our very existence as human, our opinion don't count in front of the immanence of the reality.
And since your theoretic basis are groundless the experiments result must require a better explanation that necessarily has to start from the absoluteness of any physical object.
Taken up correctly, all the issues involved, would result in a coherent description of SR itself along its limits of applicability .
>
>
> You are completely unable to define something that would show an actual absolute frame for the laws of physics, because you can't even define what that would mean. So your self-indulgent and irrational beliefs are based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.
beda:
I don't think there is a single law that fits perfectly the behavior that the law describes, forget about all the laws of physics, the invariance is an illusion.
>
> > there is nothing to define about absolute speed...
>
> Again, until you can define what you mean by "absolute speed", it is a meaningless phrase. And notice that every time you try to define it, we discover that you really have in mind a relative speed, such as the relative speed between a macroscopic body and the gas and dust particles in interstellar space. So, your beliefs have been thoroughly debunked.
beda:
I don't have to define what nature does spontaneously, I use my intuition.
While nature absolute behavior makes your theory (apparently work) you deny the absolute behind your theory, for the sake of making things more suggestive, with the result of making your theory just absurd
>
> > > No, you are confusing (1) the laws of physics with (2) the behavior of objects subject to the laws of physics. The equations for all the known laws of physics (electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces) are locally Lorentz invariant. These laws predict, for example, that disks will burst at certain rotational speeds, etc., but the laws of physics don't burst. They have been tested to the most extreme conditions, and Lorentz invariance has never shown the slightest hint of failing.
> >
> > When the laws of physics are applied we find discontinuities, breaking points....
>
> Again, we find that objects break in certain conditions, but we do not find that the laws of electromagnetism or the strong or weak nuclear forces "break", nor do we find that the standard model of particle physics "breaks", nor do we ever find that local Lorentz invariance "breaks". As explained above, you are confusing the breaking of objects at relative speeds, which we observe and are predicted by the fundamental laws, with the breaking of the fundamental laws, which we do not observe.
beda:
The condition of any law failing versus the real behavior of a physical phenomenon involving different objects, at different environmental conditions, at different inertial speed or at different gravity potential, have to be case by case
determined by single ad ad hoc experiments, your pretense of invariance is an illusion.
> > the classic Doppler formula is correct and gives the same result of the SR formula.
> No, what you call the "classic Doppler formula" is the formulas based on the concept of speeds relative to an aether with a particular state of rest, in which light propagates as a classical wave, and there is no time dilation, sp dtau/dt = 1 for every object in terms of every system x,t of standard inertial coordinates, and f'/f = 1-v or 1/(1+v) depending on whether the source or the receiver are at rest in the aether. All of that has been ruled out experimentally. The correct relation, for both cases, confirmed by experiment, is f'/f = sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)].
beda:
Your SR doppler formula is exactly the same classic formula, with the additional phenomenon of the slowing of the clocks involved accordingly to their absolute speeds; (you can check that easily assigning two absolute speeds to two inertial moving clocks and compare the result with the result obtained using the relative speeds as SR prescribes: the results are identical ), this with the caution versus any math law, show that SR is embedded in the absolute behavior of nature.
> > If the disk is stationary, it is viewed by the local observer as 1000 Hz...
> The first clause ("if the disk is stationary") expresses a misconception, because the phrase "a local observer" signifies a system of standard inertial coordinates in which the axis of the disk is at rest, and the frequency of the spinning in terms of this coordinate system is stipulated to be 1000 Hz, regardless of whether this coordinate system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame (or any other frame that you choose to regard as absolutely stationary). So, you should just say instead: For a clock at rest in terms of the standard inertial coordinate system x,t, the minute-hand of the clock is spinning in terms of x,t with frequency f.
beda:
Take away your frames, we may use them more awarely later,
When I say 1000 Hz I just give an arbitrary value to the frequency of the disk.
Then arbitrarily change its absolute value of its inertial speed and obtain:
if the disk increase its speed it lowers its rotation
if the disk reduces its speed it increases its rotation
given a disk already inertial moving :
if the change of the speed is in direction of a lowering speed it increases its rotation
if the change is in the direction of an increase of the speed it lowers its rotation.
this conceptually is enough for me.
If you want to use an operative procedure for measuring what happens we can choose the best one;
SR is one possible amongst others
> > ...the observer that is moving away at relative speed of .1c, and will see the disk
> > Doppler shifted as 1000*(1-.1)/sqrt(1-v^2)=904,534..Hz.
> No, according to your tacit aether theory, the receding observer would receive the image with spin frequency f*(1-v). According to special relativity he receives it with frequency f*sqrt[(1-v)/(1+v)]. The special relativistic answer has been demonstrated experimentally many times.
beda
The classic formula uses two absolute speeds plus the consequent slowing of the clocks, the results are identical
to the SR formula using the relative speed (obtained from the two absolute speeds we have chosen previously)
> > The classic doppler formula works perfectly and furnish the same results as SR,
> > given the addition of the Lorentz factor in slowing the clocks accordingly to the
> > absolute inertial speeds involved.
> LOL. So, you've discovered that if we modify the classical formula to make it Lorentz invariant, the result is Lorentz invariant (brilliant), and moreover this shows that Lorentz invariance is wrong (even brillianter). Wow.
beda:
not at all, the Doppler effect classic formula has a precondition of applicability: that the space characteristics have to be uniform.
When we use the classic formula modified, we require additional preconditions; that the behavior of the physical material clocks are affected by the inertial movement accordingly to a strictly relativistic law;
I think, instead, that different material clocks and their working principle make the behavior different, under the same changing circumstances even the same material clocks using the same working principle won't obey linearly to the changing of the inertial speeds, especially close to extreme limits.
,
Click here to read the complete article

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:26:56 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Absolute speed is the speed set by the relation between the object
> versus the totality.

Your use of the word "relation" reveals that you are describing a relative speed, not an absolute speed, and when you say "totality" you can only mean the local frame in terms of which the galaxies and the CMBR are maximally isotropic. Again, all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system of moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame, so your belief is both logically self-contradictory (since you define absolute speed as a relative speed) and experimentally false.

> Reductionism is too reductive of the reality which is affected by complex interactions

Reductionism does not deny complexity; to the contrary, it is the foundation upon which all the complexity of the world is rationally understood. The denial of rational reductionism is both hypocritical (since you do not really deny it except opportunistically to evade specific experimental facts that disprove your self-indulgent beliefs) and irrational. Again, when a spinning disk reaches a certain rate of rotation it will break apart, and when an object reaches a certain speed passing through gas or dust particles it will be incinerated, but this does not represent a breakdown of physical laws -- to the contrary, these complex effects are predicted by the fundamental laws. Your mental block about this is just childish. Grow up.

> I just don't care of alleged experimental results...

I know, that is part of the problem. You are engaged in pure solipsistic fantasy, disconnected from empirical facts, and in addition your beliefs are logically self-contradictory and irrational, e.g., you define absolute speed as a relative speed, you use reductionism but deny reductionism, you confuse the breakage of objects according to the laws of physics with the breakage of the laws of physics, and so on.

> I don't have to define what nature does spontaneously, I use my intuition..

You thereby reject rational thought and science. You are just self-indulgently fantasizing things that are both logically self-contradictory and experimentally falsified. To defend this, you candidly admit that you follow neither logic nor objective facts.

> While nature behavior makes your theory (apparently work)

What you call "my theory" is just rational thought and scientific reasoning based on the objective facts. Yes, it "works", meaning the precisely tested and verified laws of physics governing all physical phenomena are indeed locally Lorentz invariant. Your denial of this is baseless and irrational..

> The special relativistic Doppler formula is exactly the same classic formula,
> with the additional phenomenon of the slowing of the clocks accordingly to
> their absolute speeds...

Again, what you define as "absolute speed" is actually the relative speed to the local isotropic CMBR frame, and, again, the point is that the relativistic equations apply in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how it is moving relative to the isotropic CMBR frame. Like a little child, you are delighted to have noticed that the equations of special relativity work when expressed in terms of the CMBR frame, but you ignore the fact that they work just as well when expressed in terms of every other standard inertial coordinate system, which is the principle of relativity, and immensely important symmetry of nature. Your denial of this symmetry is based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.

> The classic formula uses two absolute speeds plus the consequent slowing of the clocks...

That is a lie. The classic (aether wave) formula does not recognize any slowing of clocks.

> the SR formula using the relative speed (obtained from the two absolute speeds we
> have chosen previously)

There is your "chosen" again, and there is your "absolute" again when you mean relative per your self-contradictory definition of absolute as a relative speed. Remember, we can choose any standard system of coordinates, and apply special relativity to give the equations for the Doppler effect. Yes, this works in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic, but it also works for every other standard system of inertial coordinates. This is the principle of relativity, the manifest symmetry of nature that you illogically and self-indulgently deny.

> Inertial changes makes changes, also in the laws.

Translation: "The laws of physics do not take the same form in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, i.e., the laws of physics are not actually Lorentz invariant". The problem with your statement is that it is an utterly baseless assertion that is contradicted by the objective facts. For example, take Maxwell's equations (or, better, the equations of quantum electrodynamics), which are formally Lorentz invariant, and tell me how you think they need to be modified to be correct, and on what basis you believe this modification is required. You can't, because you have no rational basis for your illogical and empirically false belief. You are just engaging in childish behavior.

> You ignore those three absolute [sic] steps.

No, I merely point out that (1) those steps are not absolute, they are relative to the standard inertial coordinates of the local CMBR isotropic frame (by your own definition), and (2) exactly the same steps work when performed in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. This is called the principle of relativity, which is an immensely important symmetry of nature that you irrationally seek to deny, based only on misinformation and misunderstanding.

> > Math is just logic, so I've corrected your assertion.
>
> If you correct my assertions changing the text, you make only confusion

To the contrary, the only way any rational person could converse with you is by charitably correcting your irrational assertions. For example, you say "You follow math but I follow logic", but that is self-contradictory, because logic is a branch of mathematics, and mathematics is simply the application of logic. Again, your "reasoning" is utterly illogical and self-contradictory, so your reasoning is neither mathematical nor logical, and conversely the reasoning of modern science is both mathematical and logical. So, the only distinction between what rational adults trust and what you trust is that you do not trust experiments. In summary, rational adults rely on logic and experiment, and you rely on self-indulgent and irrational juvenile fantasizing.

All your beliefs are founded on the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent, i.e., since the laws of physics apply in terms of the CMBR frame, they cannot apply in terms of any other frame. That is patently fallacious reasoning, and also empirically false.

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 18:45:20 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:

> To the contrary, the only way any rational person could converse with you is by charitably correcting your irrational assertions. For example, you say "You follow math but I follow logic", but that is self-contradictory, because logic is a branch of mathematics, and mathematics is simply the application of logic.

Speaking of mathematics, it's always good to remind
that your bunch of idiots had to reject its oldest,
very successful and important part - as it didn't
want to fit the madness of your insane guru.

Il giorno lunedì 2 gennaio 2023 alle 18:45:20 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:26:56 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Absolute speed is the speed set by the relation between the object
> > versus the totality.
>
> Your use of the word "relation" reveals that you are describing a relative speed, not an absolute speed, and when you say "totality" you can only mean the local frame in terms of which the galaxies and the CMBR are maximally isotropic. Again, all the local laws of physics take the same form in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system of moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame, so your belief is both logically self-contradictory (since you define absolute speed as a relative speed) and experimentally false.
beda:
it is not important versus what exactly the absolute is relative, or in which ways the totality affect an object, nor is important to detect the absolute frame.
What is important is to know and admit that any object stands alone with is absoluteness along with its absolute characteristics, and these are related and determinated by the totality of the universe.
>
> > Reductionism is too reductive of the reality which is affected by complex interactions
>
> Reductionism does not deny complexity; to the contrary, it is the foundation upon which all the complexity of the world is rationally understood. The denial of rational reductionism is both hypocritical (since you do not really deny it except opportunistically to evade specific experimental facts that disprove your self-indulgent beliefs) and irrational. Again, when a spinning disk reaches a certain rate of rotation it will break apart, and when an object reaches a certain speed passing through gas or dust particles it will be incinerated, but this does not represent a breakdown of physical laws -- to the contrary, these complex effects are predicted by the fundamental laws. Your mental block about this is just childish. Grow up.
beda:
The limits to the inertial speed for macroscopic bodies don't come from the dust or particles (only, from which there may be a protection),
but from the interaction with the energetic fluctuation of the vacuum, and these limits won't appear
abruptly, but would show their effects gradually, depending also, on the materials involved.
>
> > I just don't care of alleged experimental results...
>
> I know, that is part of the problem. You are engaged in pure solipsistic fantasy, disconnected from empirical facts, and in addition your beliefs are logically self-contradictory and irrational, e.g., you define absolute speed as a relative speed, you use reductionism but deny reductionism, you confuse the breakage of objects according to the laws of physics with the breakage of the laws of physics, and so on.
beda:
Since we disagree on the fundamental theoretic facts, it is natural that what I say would appear to you contradictory, for me is not a problem, the agreement is not reachable by clear wordings but through a willful effort to understand the other one point of view and come to a synthesis with yours.
> > I don't have to define what nature does spontaneously, I use my intuition.
> You thereby reject rational thought and science. You are just self-indulgently fantasizing things that are both logically self-contradictory and experimentally falsified. To defend this, you candidly admit that you follow neither logic nor objective facts.
beda:
I simply state a logic way to approach the problematic related to the validity of SR, pointing out that at its
basis is the immanent role of the absolute in its working mechanism.
The SR math formulation requires precise physical phenomena: the absolutness of the inertial speed and
the Lorentz contraction (with the correlated slowing of the rate of the light clock) correlated to the absolute inertial speed.
Without recognize these facts your acceptance of SR is a manifestation of ignorance of the basis of your own theory.
>
> > While nature behavior makes your theory (apparently work)
>
> What you call "my theory" is just rational thought and scientific reasoning based on the objective facts. Yes, it "works", meaning the precisely tested and verified laws of physics governing all physical phenomena are indeed locally Lorentz invariant. Your denial of this is baseless and irrational..
beda:
Why before jumping to this miraculous conclusions, don't you start from explaining, to yourself, how
these miracles are possible????
Behind those miracles there is the absolute Goodness of nature, objects of the nature are absolute and interact accordingly to their absoluteness.
The relative phenomenon are purely accidental, any object conserve its absoluteness regardless of any other objects except the accidental interactions to be investigated case by case.
>
> > The special relativistic Doppler formula is exactly the same classic formula,
> > with the additional phenomenon of the slowing of the clocks accordingly to
> > their absolute speeds...
>
> Again, what you define as "absolute speed" is actually the relative speed to the local isotropic CMBR frame, and, again, the point is that the relativistic equations apply in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how it is moving relative to the isotropic CMBR frame. Like a little child, you are delighted to have noticed that the equations of special relativity work when expressed in terms of the CMBR frame, but you ignore the fact that they work just as well when expressed in terms of every other standard inertial coordinate system, which is the principle of relativity, and immensely important symmetry of nature. Your denial of this symmetry is based on nothing but misinformation and misunderstanding.
beda:
Whatever makes the absoluteness of any objects (and I may don't know what), their absolute characteristics and the absolute environmental conditions, these are the true objective facts upon which all is based.
your miraculous math model along with the invariance and the symmetry, are just conjurer trickery that to work need exactly what you deny: the absolutness of every aspect of nature.
But trickery not suffice to affirm invariance and symmetry in nature, that miraculous aspect are correlated only to the artful math model that pivots around the math Lorentz factor, that rends the math formula symmetric, nature is something different.
Your model gives just a general gross approximation of the phenomena, the invariance and symmetry are your illusory belief that math symmetry can be translate into nature as such.
The Fibonacci progression can give you an abstract idea how the seed of a sunflower are distributed, but you never will find a sunflower identical to another.
The face of humans have a symmetry but none is perfectly symmetric.
And the discrepancies are originates in the absolutness of the objects and in the absoluteness of everiyhing.
>
> > The classic formula uses two absolute speeds plus the consequent slowing of the clocks...
>
> That is a lie. The classic (aether wave) formula does not recognize any slowing of clocks.
beda:
don't play around, the classic formulae can be applied as I have described, in three steps, introducing the
absolute slowing of the clocks according to their absolute inertial speeds.
do you want to fool yourself??
> > the SR formula using the relative speed (obtained from the two absolute speeds we
> > have chosen previously)
> There is your "chosen" again, and there is your "absolute" again when you mean relative per your self-contradictory definition of absolute as a relative speed. Remember, we can choose any standard system of coordinates, and apply special relativity to give the equations for the Doppler effect. Yes, this works in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the CMBR is maximally isotropic, but it also works for every other standard system of inertial coordinates. This is the principle of relativity, the manifest symmetry of nature that you illogically and self-indulgently deny.
Beda:
you insist in your mantra, nature have no frames, and you must grasp its absolute behavior intuitively,
you suffer of a relativist derangement, intuition is the way to comprehensions,
and your intuition ability may be compromised.
I will tell you my concern about relativism is: the irreversible damage that it does to the common sense and to the ability to use personal intuition.
intuition that must be tuned up with the nature absolute behavior, only after that, intuition can be conciliated with a correct usages of math.
>
> > Inertial changes makes changes, also in the laws.
>
> Translation: "The laws of physics do not take the same form in terms of every standard system of inertial coordinates, i.e., the laws of physics are not actually Lorentz invariant". The problem with your statement is that it is an utterly baseless assertion that is contradicted by the objective facts. For example, take Maxwell's equations (or, better, the equations of quantum electrodynamics), which are formally Lorentz invariant, and tell me how you think they need to be modified to be correct, and on what basis you believe this modification is required. You can't, because you have no rational basis for your illogical and empirically false belief. You are just engaging in childish behavior.
>
> > You ignore those three absolute [sic] steps.
>
> No, I merely point out that (1) those steps are not absolute, they are relative to the standard inertial coordinates of the local CMBR isotropic frame (by your own definition), and (2) exactly the same steps work when performed in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates, regardless of how that system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame. This is called the principle of relativity, which is an immensely important symmetry of nature that you irrationally seek to deny, based only on misinformation and misunderstanding.
beda:
in nature there is the absolute value ( like your momentarily height and weight)
and the relative difference in the absolute values (like the differences from your height and the height of other people).
So don't play too much on sophisms.
You could never play with your relativistic framing if there were not to be the absolute behind it,
the problem is that you are lured into the wonder of the math symmetry, ignoring that it may be only an illusion generated by the model itself.
your constancy of the one way speed of light, either forth and either back, is not real, it belongs only to the model, also all the other symmetries are only related to the model you are using, in nature there is a perfect sinchrony of the events associated to the "now" allover, there is not any relativity of simultaneity, it is also, a artifact of the model.
your model makes an anaphormosis of the aspects of the nature in an illusory symmetry that is not there,
and even if we correct the SR framing anaphormosis with opportune lens we still could not cage reality into such framing symmetry, the laws of physics are just math approximation in them self, taken as a whole (as the all laws of physics is a vane illusory attempt).
> > > Math is just logic, so I've corrected your assertion.
> >
> > If you correct my assertions changing the text, you make only confusion
>
> To the contrary, the only way any rational person could converse with you is by charitably correcting your irrational assertions. For example, you say "You follow math but I follow logic", but that is self-contradictory, because logic is a branch of mathematics, and mathematics is simply the application of logic. Again, your "reasoning" is utterly illogical and self-contradictory, so your reasoning is neither mathematical nor logical, and conversely the reasoning of modern science is both mathematical and logical. So, the only distinction between what rational adults trust and what you trust is that you do not trust experiments. In summary, rational adults rely on logic and experiment, and you rely on self-indulgent and irrational juvenile fantasizing.
>
> All your beliefs are founded on the logical fallacy of asserting the consequent, i.e., since the laws of physics apply in terms of the CMBR frame, they cannot apply in terms of any other frame. That is patently fallacious reasoning, and also empirically false.
beda:
No, I say that the laws of physics are math approximation to reality.
Anchoring a frame of reference to an ideal local absolute uniform and isotropic space is safe only conceptually,
reproduce that condition artfully with a math model is illusory, as illusory are the consequent model associate symmetry and invariance.
That the model is an artifact this is sure and should be treated as an empirical approach, with full prudence, taking in the due account that absoluteness are prevalent to relativeness.
regards
beda

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:35:41 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> It is not important versus what exactly the absolute is relative to...

LOL. What you call "absolute" is, by your own definition, actually relative, which you admit, and then deny, and then admit, and then... The point is, by admitting that "it is not important" which standard system of inertial coordinates we use, you are conceding the very symmetry that you claim to be denying. Hence your position is logically self-contradictory and irrational.

> The limits to the inertial speed for macroscopic bodies come from the
> energetic fluctuation of the vacuum...

Again, you contradict yourself, because when you invoke "energetic fluctuations of the vacuum" you are referring to quantum field theory, but quantum field theory is explicitly locally Lorentz invariant. Indeed, it was the recognition of local Lorentz invariance that led directly to the discovery of quantum field theory. Hence your position is logically self-contradictory and irrational, based on misinformation and misunderstanding of (among other things) quantum field theory.

> The formulation of special relativity requires precise physical phenomena:
> the absolutness of the inertial speed...

That is a lie, based on self-contradictory gibbering. Again, what you call "absolute speed" is actually (by your own definition) relative speed, and by your own admission it can be relative to any standard system of inertial coordinates. So you have conceded the symmetry represented by the principle of relativity. Hence your simultaneous denial of all this is self-contradictory, unfounded, and irrational.

> Why before jumping to this miraculous conclusions, don't you start from explaining,
> to yourself, how these miracles are possible????

There is nothing miraculous about local Lorentz invariance. Every bound quantity of energy E has inertial corresponding to E/c^2, which logically implies that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. This is not miraculous, although it may seem miraculous to someone who doesn't understand it.

> The Fibonacci progression can give you an abstract idea how the seed of
> a sunflower are distributed, but you never will find a sunflower identical to
> another. The face of humans have a symmetry but none is perfectly symmetric.

Neither of those silly examples have any bearing on the validity of local Lorentz invariance. Again, you are confusing breakage and asymmetry of physical entities with breakage or asymmetry of the physical laws that govern those entities. You seem afflicted with a mental defect that prevents you from grasping this distinction. Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?

> don't play around, the classic formulae can be applied as I have described, in
> three steps...

Every school boy knows that the Doppler effect is comprised of what could be called the classical component due to the change in path length and the time dilation effects, and that this works in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates. Your mental block is that you think this only works in terms of the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is false. It works in terms of any frame. Your then argue that if there is a unique difference in speeds, there must be unique speeds, but that is a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent, which is false because differentiation is unique but integration is not. Your beliefs are fallacious and illogical.

> I will tell you my concern about relativism...

Your opinions about special relativity, i.e., local Lorentz invariance (which is not the same as relativism) are of no significance, because you are not acquainted with it. Your brain is filled with misunderstandings and misinformation.

Take Maxwell's equations (or, better, the equations of quantum electrodynamics), which are formally Lorentz invariant, and tell me how you think they need to be modified to be correct, and on what basis you believe this modification is required. You can't, because you have no rational basis for your illogical and empirically false belief. You are just engaging in childish behavior.

> The problem is that you are lured into the wonder of the math symmetry,

It isn't a matter of being lured, it is a matter of objective fact that all the known fundamental laws of physics exhibit this symmetry. So your complaint is that rational adults recognize the objective symmetries of nature, and you don't like this.

> Your constancy of the one way speed of light, either forth and either back,
> is not [correct]...

It is an objectively verifiable fact for speeds expressed in terms of any system of coordinates established by a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Only when you have understood this will you be in a position to offer a meaningful appraisal of special relativity. Until then, you will continue to spout juvenile drivel.

> there is not any relativity of simultaneity, it is also, a artifact of the model.

Not true, the relativity of simultanety is a perfectly verifiable objective fact, with the understanding that inertial coordinate systems are defined as above, and the clocks in a given frame are inertially synchronized by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns at the mid point between two clocks. Because of the inertia of energy, this obviously gives different simultaneity for different frames. Only when you have understood this will you be in a position to offer a meaningful appraisal of special relativity. Until then, you will continue to spout juvenile drivel.

Il giorno lunedì 2 gennaio 2023 alle 22:33:31 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 12:35:41 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > It is not important versus what exactly the absolute is relative to...
>
> LOL. What you call "absolute" is, by your own definition, actually relative, which you admit, and then deny, and then admit, and then... The point is, by admitting that "it is not important" which standard system of inertial coordinates we use, you are conceding the very symmetry that you claim to be denying. Hence your position is logically self-contradictory and irrational.
>
> > The limits to the inertial speed for macroscopic bodies come from the
> > energetic fluctuation of the vacuum...
>
> Again, you contradict yourself, because when you invoke "energetic fluctuations of the vacuum" you are referring to quantum field theory, but quantum field theory is explicitly locally Lorentz invariant. Indeed, it was the recognition of local Lorentz invariance that led directly to the discovery of quantum field theory. Hence your position is logically self-contradictory and irrational, based on misinformation and misunderstanding of (among other things) quantum field theory.
>
> > The formulation of special relativity requires precise physical phenomena:
> > the absolutness of the inertial speed...
>
> That is a lie, based on self-contradictory gibbering. Again, what you call "absolute speed" is actually (by your own definition) relative speed, and by your own admission it can be relative to any standard system of inertial coordinates. So you have conceded the symmetry represented by the principle of relativity. Hence your simultaneous denial of all this is self-contradictory, unfounded, and irrational.
> > Why before jumping to this miraculous conclusions, don't you start from explaining,
> > to yourself, how these miracles are possible????
> There is nothing miraculous about local Lorentz invariance. Every bound quantity of energy E has inertial corresponding to E/c^2, which logically implies that standard inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations. This is not miraculous, although it may seem miraculous to someone who doesn't understand it.
> > The Fibonacci progression can give you an abstract idea how the seed of
> > a sunflower are distributed, but you never will find a sunflower identical to
> > another. The face of humans have a symmetry but none is perfectly symmetric.
> Neither of those silly examples have any bearing on the validity of local Lorentz invariance. Again, you are confusing breakage and asymmetry of physical entities with breakage or asymmetry of the physical laws that govern those entities. You seem afflicted with a mental defect that prevents you from grasping this distinction. Did you get kicked in the head by a mule?
> > don't play around, the classic formulae can be applied as I have described, in
> > three steps...
>
> Every school boy knows that the Doppler effect is comprised of what could be called the classical component due to the change in path length and the time dilation effects, and that this works in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates. Your mental block is that you think this only works in terms of the isotropic CMBR frame, but that is false. It works in terms of any frame. Your then argue that if there is a unique difference in speeds, there must be unique speeds, but that is a logical fallacy called asserting the consequent, which is false because differentiation is unique but integration is not. Your beliefs are fallacious and illogical.
>
> > I will tell you my concern about relativism...
>
> Your opinions about special relativity, i.e., local Lorentz invariance (which is not the same as relativism) are of no significance, because you are not acquainted with it. Your brain is filled with misunderstandings and misinformation.
>
> Take Maxwell's equations (or, better, the equations of quantum electrodynamics), which are formally Lorentz invariant, and tell me how you think they need to be modified to be correct, and on what basis you believe this modification is required. You can't, because you have no rational basis for your illogical and empirically false belief. You are just engaging in childish behavior.
>
> > The problem is that you are lured into the wonder of the math symmetry,
>
> It isn't a matter of being lured, it is a matter of objective fact that all the known fundamental laws of physics exhibit this symmetry. So your complaint is that rational adults recognize the objective symmetries of nature, and you don't like this.
>
> > Your constancy of the one way speed of light, either forth and either back,
> > is not [correct]...
>
> It is an objectively verifiable fact for speeds expressed in terms of any system of coordinates established by a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized in any given frame. Only when you have understood this will you be in a position to offer a meaningful appraisal of special relativity. Until then, you will continue to spout juvenile drivel.
> > there is not any relativity of simultaneity, it is also, a artifact of the model.
> Not true, the relativity of simultanety is a perfectly verifiable objective fact, with the understanding that inertial coordinate systems are defined as above, and the clocks in a given frame are inertially synchronized by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns at the mid point between two clocks. Because of the inertia of energy, this obviously gives different simultaneity for different frames. Only when you have understood this will you be in a position to offer a meaningful appraisal of special relativity. Until then, you will continue to spout juvenile drivel.
beda:
In nature there are no frames, not any relative of simultaneity,
but everything happens as it does generating absolute conditions for any object to
assume their absolute condition.
So there are different height, lenght, weight, rates of clocks all absolute,
the movement in its absolute essence affects objects dimension, rates and other characteristics,
Of course we need to measure these absolutes, to do so, we need a conventional standard reference.
For the inertial movement and all the rest we can use a stable conventional reference, and we will get absolute values.
Or use an adjusted ad hoc conventional reference to obtain what we want, e.i. symmetry and invariance as has been done with the SR/GR model.
In nature light takes more absolute time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a slow moving lab, and all the possible observers can see that with their naked eyes.
You better regain this differences between what is absolute in nature, what is relative, and further more
what is an ad hoc obtained intentionally, through artifacted construction like your framing.
This just as a minimal condition to argue if the artifacted construction is meaningful and useful or not.
regards
beda

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:14:34 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Light takes more time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a
> slow moving lab...

Again, in each lab we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, all mutually at rest in inertially synchronized in their respective lab, and, in terms of each of these systems of measurement, light moves (in vacuum) at the speed c in all directions. The relationship between any two such systems of measure is perfectly reciprocal, and all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of each of these systems (principle of relativity), and these systems are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is a fundamental symmetry of nature, called local Lorentz invariance.

Note that a clock at rest in either lab runs slow in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other lab is at rest. This relation, too, is perfectly reciprocal. Do you understand this?

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 22:33:31 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:

> Not true, the relativity of simultanety is a perfectly verifiable objective fact, with the understanding that inertial coordinate systems are defined as above, and the clocks in a given frame are inertially synchronized by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns at the mid point between two clocks.

Samely, the advantage of communism over rotten capitalism.
It's perfectly verifiable objective facts!!! After accepting some
objectively right definitions.

On Monday, 2 January 2023 at 23:55:55 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:14:34 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Light takes more time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a
> > slow moving lab...
>
> Again, in each lab we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks

You're a funny guy. And what is the longest ruler
you've ever seen?

Il giorno lunedì 2 gennaio 2023 alle 23:55:55 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 2:14:34 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Light takes more time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a
> > slow moving lab...
>
> Again, in each lab we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, all mutually at rest in inertially synchronized in their respective lab, and, in terms of each of these systems of measurement, light moves (in vacuum) at the speed c in all directions. The relationship between any two such systems of measure is perfectly reciprocal, and all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of each of these systems (principle of relativity), and these systems are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is a fundamental symmetry of nature, called local Lorentz invariance.
>
> Note that a clock at rest in either lab runs slow in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other lab is at rest. This relation, too, is perfectly reciprocal. Do you understand this?
beda
You obsessively insist on putting everything in the cage of framing, so you miss the reality.
1)the absolute ageing of a twin is only!!!!!!! determined by his absolute inertial speed
2)the slowing of a clock is determinate only!!!!!! by its absolute inertial speed
3)In SR frame, the slopeness of the line of simultaneity (along its x axis), is determined only!!!!! by the absolute inertial speed of the frame, and the value of the slopeness is exactly the value of the SR frame inertial absolute speed.
The above are real spontaneously happenings without any human manipulation.
Done by nature regardless of any math, law, model, the absolute settings are given by nature for granted, and have to be taken for granted, even if we don't know the causes or the absolute reference.
Established so, only now, we can start to insert in our picture of the reality, some procedure meant to obtain some meaningful measurements using some strategy, none of such strategies or procedure can alter the above three mentioned points, but have to be compatible with them.
So are you able to erase you mental blackboard, and start from the above, basic inevitable assumption???
if you do so, your SR framing procedure may obtain the correct explanation, and the a correct evaluation of the limits, the pro and cons of it.
Just another bit of reflection, the reciprocity you claim is just within your framing, it doesn't involves the single clock of the frames, each single clocks of the frames keep running at its absolute rate, according to its absolute inertial speed, no reciprocity.
Reciprocity is an artifact of the SR framing arrangement is not spontaneous nor natural.
regards
beda

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:43:44 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Light takes more time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a
> > > slow moving lab...
> >
> > Again, in each lab we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, all mutually at rest in inertially synchronized in their respective lab, and, in terms of each of these systems of measurement, light moves (in vacuum) at the speed c in all directions. The relationship between any two such systems of measure is perfectly reciprocal, and all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of each of these systems (principle of relativity), and these systems are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is a fundamental symmetry of nature, called local Lorentz invariance.
> >
> > Note that a clock at rest in either lab runs slow in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other lab is at rest. This relation, too, is perfectly reciprocal. Do you understand this?
>
> [No, I do not understand this, and I don't want to understand it, so I never will.]

> You obsessively insist on putting everything in the cage of framing...

In order to talk meaningfully about "speed" you must first define what you mean by "speed". For example, when we say the speed of light in vacuum is c, we don;t mean the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systemns (it obviously is not), we mean it is c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates that is operationally defined as I explained above. Your complaint is that I constantly explain exactly what I mean in physical terms, whereas you prefer self-indulgent meaningless drivel, in which you refuse to define any of your terms, and you even brag that you don't need to define them and don't intent to ever define them. Your complaint is not valid, it is childish.

> ...determined by his absolute inertial speed ...

Again, until you define the words "absolute" and "speed" (as I have done), you are spouting meaningless drivel.

> In a standard inertial coordinate system the slope of the line of simultaneity
> (along its x axis), is determined only by...

Inertial synchronization is determined by the properties of inertia. As explained to you before, we synchronize clocks at rest in a given frame by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns from rest at the midpoint between the clocks. This is what the phrase "inertial simultaneity" means. You won't be in a position to comment meaningfully on special relativity until you understand this.

> ...the reciprocity you claim is just within your framing...

The reciprocity between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates is manifest from the relationship between them, i.e., the inverse of a Lorentz transformation of x,t, with parameter v is also a Lorentz transformation with parameter -v.

> it doesn't involves the single clock of the frames...

False. Each clock at rest in S runs slow in terms of S', and each clock at rest in S' runs slow in terms of S. Do you understand this?

> Reciprocity is an artifact of the SR framing arrangement is not spontaneous nor natural.

False. Again, the standard inertial coordinate systems are the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. If you are defining lengths and times in some different way, you need to specify it. Otherwise you are just self-indulgently spouting childish drivel.

On Tuesday, 3 January 2023 at 15:00:46 UTC+1, Trevor Lange wrote:

> In order to talk meaningfully about "speed" you must first define what you mean by "speed". For example, when we say the speed of light in vacuum is c, we don;t mean the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systemns (it obviously is not), we mean it is c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates that is operationally defined as I explained above.

I just operationally defined "an idiot" as a man with
a name starting from T and surname from L. Now
admit and accept - you're an idiot.

Il giorno martedì 3 gennaio 2023 alle 15:00:46 UTC+1 Trevor Lange ha scritto:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 3:43:44 AM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Light takes more time to go back and forth in a fast moving lab than in a
> > > > slow moving lab...
> > >
> > > Again, in each lab we can construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks, all mutually at rest in inertially synchronized in their respective lab, and, in terms of each of these systems of measurement, light moves (in vacuum) at the speed c in all directions. The relationship between any two such systems of measure is perfectly reciprocal, and all the laws of physics take exactly the same simple homogeneous and isotropic form in terms of each of these systems (principle of relativity), and these systems are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is a fundamental symmetry of nature, called local Lorentz invariance.
beda
That is a perfect symmetry of a model full understable by the math pivoted on the Lorentz "math" factor.
You extend this model to the reality is your risky wager, that I don't buy.
about reciprocity between two relatively moving clock (belonging to two relatively moving SR frames) there is not reciprocity, each of them run at different rate, and guess what, they run according to their hidden but present and effectively determining the different rate of the two clocks.
But we cannot know their rate, you childishly cry, that nature and this is how it works.
> > >
> > > Note that a clock at rest in either lab runs slow in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other lab is at rest. This relation, too, is perfectly reciprocal. Do you understand this?
beda:
I know, and I understand perfectly how this is obtained: you are comparing two different thinks: the rate of a clock
versus a grid of clocks screwed opportunely to obtain what that disposition implies.
If instead you compare the single clock versus the other single clock, they are not reciprocal, they run independently
at the rate set by their different absolute speed.
Every body can see that with naked eyes, or better with trivial logic
Not the logic as part of math but the metalogic that belong to the human mind intuitive ability.
> >
> > [No, I do not understand this, and I don't want to understand it, so I never will.]
beda
don't insert fictitious text that can appears mine!!
>
> > You obsessively insist on putting everything in the cage of framing...
>
> In order to talk meaningfully about "speed" you must first define what you mean by "speed". For example, when we say the speed of light in vacuum is c, we don;t mean the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systemns (it obviously is not), we mean it is c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates that is operationally defined as I explained above. Your complaint is that I constantly explain exactly what I mean in physical terms, whereas you prefer self-indulgent meaningless drivel, in which you refuse to define any of your terms, and you even brag that you don't need to define them and don't intent to ever define them. Your complaint is not valid, it is childish.
beda
As I many times have repeated, I don't accept your theory, unless it is thoroughly embedded into absoluteness of
the all aspect of nature, where everything can find its correct place and justification, since you are unable to do so,
I cannot go along with your pretenses to ignore the trickery behind your manipulated procedures.
But not for the sake of a denial attitude, but because there are very important aspects of your theory that can be discusses only if the theory is put in its real physical contest
>
> > ...determined by his absolute inertial speed ...
>
> Again, until you define the words "absolute" and "speed" (as I have done), you are spouting meaningless drivel.
>
> > In a standard inertial coordinate system the slope of the line of simultaneity
> > (along its x axis), is determined only by...
>
> Inertial synchronization is determined by the properties of inertia. As explained to you before, we synchronize clocks at rest in a given frame by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns from rest at the midpoint between the clocks. This is what the phrase "inertial simultaneity" means. You won't be in a position to comment meaningfully on special relativity until you understand this.
beda
but I understand this, and don't accept that a math model is used to be imposed over to the reality.
The property of the inertia would emerge anyways, while the conceptual confusion and the your denial attitude versus the absoluts (time, space, objects, speeds) is unforgivable
>
> > ...the reciprocity you claim is just within your framing...
>
> The reciprocity between relatively moving systems of standard inertial coordinates is manifest from the relationship between them, i.e., the inverse of a Lorentz transformation of x,t, with parameter v is also a Lorentz transformation with parameter -v.
>
> > it doesn't involves the single clock of the frames...
>
> False. Each clock at rest in S runs slow in terms of S', and each clock at rest in S' runs slow in terms of S. Do you understand this?
beda:
Of course I do, what you don't understand is that (in your very system, that you should know well) the single clock
of one frame runs completely independently from the single clock of the other frame and their rate is determined only!!! by their absolute speed. Cry if you want that's nature and you cannot ignore it, if you do, that is piteous for you
> > Reciprocity is an artifact of the SR framing arrangement is not spontaneous nor natural.
> False. Again, the standard inertial coordinate systems are the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. If you are defining lengths and times in some different way, you need to specify it. Otherwise you are just self-indulgently spouting childish drivel.
beda:
Let us just agree that you arrangement is man made artifact, nature implies only absolute synchrony and I stay tuned with that, waiting for you to admit what you pretend not to know about your manipulated procedure.
regards
beda

On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 1:55:51 PM UTC-8, bedapi...@gmail.com wrote:
> > A clock at rest in either lab runs slow in terms of the standard inertial coordinates in which the other lab is at rest. This relation, too, is perfectly reciprocal.
>
> versus a grid of clocks screwed opportunely to obtain what that disposition implies.

No, I have carefully and patiently explained how the clocks are inertially synchronized in any given system, by shooting identical bullets from identical guns at rest at the midpoint between the clocks, or by any other isotropic physical process, such as by sound waves propagating through the measuring rods. Every isotropic physical process yields the inertial synchronization for a given frame. This is the definition of a standard inertial coordinate system, and it is the system of coordinate that YOU would use in any given frame, so your infantile denial of it is hypocritical as well as silly.

> If instead you compare the single clock versus the other single clock,

Uniformly moving individual clocks can only compare their rates by defining some distant simultaneity, which brings us back to inertial synchronization. What is wrong with you?

> > In order to talk meaningfully about "speed" you must first define what you mean by "speed". For example, when we say the speed of light in vacuum is c, we don;t mean the speed of light in vacuum is c in terms of arbitrary coordinate systemns (it obviously is not), we mean it is c in terms of any standard system of inertial coordinates that is operationally defined as I explained above. Your complaint is that I constantly explain exactly what I mean in physical terms, whereas you prefer self-indulgent meaningless drivel, in which you refuse to define any of your terms, and you even brag that you don't need to define them and don't intent to ever define them. Your complaint is not valid, it is childish.
>
> As I many times have repeated, I don't accept your theory...

It isn't about accepting this or that theory, it is about behaving like a rational adult and defining the terms that you are using, such as "speed". You refuse, so everything you say is simply infantile gibbering.

> > Inertial synchronization is determined by the properties of inertia. As explained to you before, we synchronize clocks at rest in a given frame by (for example) shooting identical bullets from identical guns from rest at the midpoint between the clocks. This is what the phrase "inertial simultaneity" means. You won't be in a position to comment meaningfully on special relativity until you understand this.
>
> The property of the inertia would emerge anyways...

That is not an answer. Again, inertial synchronization is the synchronization that YOU habitually use, even when working with Newtonian physics, and just as much with relativistic physics. So your denial of it is both hypocritical and silly.

> > > it doesn't involves the single clock of the frames...
> >
> > Each clock at rest in S runs slow in terms of S', and each clock at rest in S' runs slow
> > in terms of S. Do you understand this?
>
> Of course I do...

Great, so you realize that your claim (Lorentz invariance does not apply to individual clocks) was false. But then why did you make that claim? What is wrong with you?

> the single clock of one frame runs completely independently from the single clock
> of the other frame and their rate is determined only by their absolute speed.

No, your mistake was explained to you before. Again, for each clock we have dtau/dt = sqrt(1-v^2) where v is the speed of the clock in terms of standard inertial coordinates x,t. This is true regardless of how the x,t system is moving relative to the CMBR isotropic frame.

> > The standard inertial coordinate systems are the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized. If you are defining lengths and times in some different way, you need to specify it. Otherwise you are just self-indulgently spouting childish drivel.
>
> Let us just agree that you arrangement is man made artifact...

It is a n unambiguous operational specification of what we mean when we refer to a standard system of inertial coordinates, and these are the coordinates that YOU would unconsciously use in any frame, so your denial of it is both hypocritical and silly. Think about the depths to which you have sunk: You deny that we can measure distances and times using a standard grid of rulers and clocks, and you insist that we must always and only speak in terms that we refuse to define. Were you kicked in the head by a mule?