Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Special and General Relativity Special and General Relativity Physics Help Forum

Like Tree4Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 25th 2019, 04:54 PM   #21
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by Woody View Post

This (or at least equivalent) experiment has been performed (many times).
we sit on the earth which is spinning at 2000 kmph, it is circling the sun at some ridiculous velocity, the sun is part of a galaxy that is prolly moving at circa 40 000 kmph, the galaxy is part of a cluster of unknown velocity. which is part of a super cluster , again moving at some break neck velocity.

It is likely Vu is in the order of 40 000 kmph .

I doubt this experiment has been conducted before

Last edited by RossBlenkinsopPerth; Jul 25th 2019 at 06:20 PM.
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25th 2019, 06:33 PM   #22
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
if it is so laughably impossible , fine empirically prove me wrong
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:13 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 426
I agree with Woody and HallsOfIvy.

A few additions:

i) There's nothing wrong with qualitative criticism.
ii) Your article has no references.
iii) Do you intend to publish this work? If no, then fine. If yes, you have a lot of work to do. I can advise on this.
iv) It seems like you're taking the criticism too personally. Don't. Everyone doing research gets a lot of criticism, so you need to be able to respond in a calm and polite manner.
v) This is an internet forum about physics. Asking us to prove you wrong empirically is just silly. However, there's plenty of literature on experiments related to relativity. Read them and reference them in your article.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:33 AM   #24
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
I agree with Woody and HallsOfIvy.

A few additions:

i) There's nothing wrong with qualitative criticism.
ii) Your article has no references.
iii) Do you intend to publish this work? If no, then fine. If yes, you have a lot of work to do. I can advise on this.
iv) It seems like you're taking the criticism too personally. Don't. Everyone doing research gets a lot of criticism, so you need to be able to respond in a calm and polite manner.
v) This is an internet forum about physics. Asking us to prove you wrong empirically is just silly. However, there's plenty of literature on experiments related to relativity. Read them and reference them in your article.
Yes I intend to publish should it pass the forum test. I have published it here deliberately seeking criticism prior to officially publishing
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:39 AM   #25
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
I agree with Woody and HallsOfIvy.

A few additions:

i) There's nothing wrong with qualitative criticism.
ii) Your article has no references.
iii) Do you intend to publish this work? If no, then fine. If yes, you have a lot of work to do. I can advise on this.
iv) It seems like you're taking the criticism too personally. Don't. Everyone doing research gets a lot of criticism, so you need to be able to respond in a calm and polite manner.
v) This is an internet forum about physics. Asking us to prove you wrong empirically is just silly. However, there's plenty of literature on experiments related to relativity. Read them and reference them in your article.
Im not taking it personally its just annoying when ppl dont read it , or read half, and make strange comments
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:42 AM   #26
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post
I agree with Woody and HallsOfIvy.

A few additions:

i) There's nothing wrong with qualitative criticism.
ii) Your article has no references.
iii) Do you intend to publish this work? If no, then fine. If yes, you have a lot of work to do. I can advise on this.
iv) It seems like you're taking the criticism too personally. Don't. Everyone doing research gets a lot of criticism, so you need to be able to respond in a calm and polite manner.
v) This is an internet forum about physics. Asking us to prove you wrong empirically is just silly. However, there's plenty of literature on experiments related to relativity. Read them and reference them in your article.
what I mean by prove me wrong empirically is attack my logic or the maths in a specific manner
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:52 AM   #27
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by HallsofIvy View Post

I will admit that I did not read through this in detail but it appears that you are using "Galilean relativity" while also using the fact that the speed of light is the same constant in all frames of reference, that Galileo did not know. That did cause a great deal of concern at the beginning of the twentieth century, resulting in various experiments to determine "absolute" velocities using light. The null result of those experiments led to the development of "Einsteinian relativity". I suspect that your proposed "experiment" was at least similar to those and would, if actually carried out, also give in a null result.


do you have a reference or citation to the earlier experiments ?
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 04:56 AM   #28
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 71
Originally Posted by benit13 View Post

I agree with Woody and HallsOfIvy.
what does that mean? as far as I know I have refuted every issue they have raised

If I have refuted all their issues how can you agree with them

If I havent successfully refuted all the issue raised then please outline what issues I havent refuted?

I wont be publishing until all issues raised are successfully put to bed
RossBlenkinsopPerth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 07:52 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 426
Originally Posted by RossBlenkinsopPerth View Post
1 Yes I intend to publish should it pass the forum test. I have published it here deliberately seeking criticism prior to officially publishing
Okay. In which case, you have a lot more work to do. I wrote a guide a while ago advising somebody else on how to write professional scientific literature. I'll see if I can find it for you and I'll link it if I can find it (it was a while ago now).

Im not taking it personally its just annoying when ppl dont read it , or read half, and make strange comments
Exactly... you shouldn't find it annoying. Believe it or not, the comments put against your paper are legitimate criticisms and they're doing you a favour by letting you know the kind of arguments people are going to make against you. You say you've refuted them, but I disagree. They are speaking from a position of knowledge of the existing literature; it's not their personal opinions you're up against, but the existing body of knowledge. That can't be addressed by forum exchanges... it needs to go into your article and the refutations need to be rock solid.

That's why it's crucial that you read the literature and reference it in your article. The kind of criticisms you're getting (from here or elsewhere) should be addressed in your article and referenced from appropriate sources. It's the author's job to inform the reader about the state of the art and, if there's issues, raise them and discuss them.

If you find this kind of criticism annoying, imagine how annoying it is to have somebody else beat you to your own research and publish it before you, or publish an article that completely disproves your working hypothesis from the last couple of years... that's annoying.

what I mean by prove me wrong empirically is attack my logic or the maths in a specific manner
Okay, but just so you're aware, "empirical" is an adjective means "experimentally".
I believe you are already receiving criticisms of your logic. The meat and potatoes of your mathematics is not being addressed because it seems people are not happy with your premises. Proofs always fail at the first hurdle that falls.

do you have a reference or citation to the earlier experiments ?
No. You're writing the paper. It's your responsibility to do your work, not ours. The fact you haven't got any references at all is enough for some peer reviewers to just bin your article and reject it without even reading it. It's fundamental to any good scientific literature.

That said, there's a nice description of the historical developments of special relativity in textbooks. This is the one I have:
https://global.oup.com/academic/prod...cc=gb&lang=en&
It includes descriptions of the phenomenon you're interested in and lays it out in detail.

Review papers are also good sources of referenced literature.

what does that mean? as far as I know I have refuted every issue they have raised

If I have refuted all their issues how can you agree with them

If I havent successfully refuted all the issue raised then please outline what issues I havent refuted?

I wont be publishing until all issues raised are successfully put to bed
It means I agree with their feedback.

Replying is not the same as refuting. Refuting requires you to supply experimental evidence, which you don't have. That's okay though, because not all papers present new experimental evidence. Sometimes papers present thought experiments, ideas, prototype models, newly acquired data or other peripheral work which contributes in some other way because it serves a useful purpose, such as supplying reliable input data for others, comparing different hypotheses, characterising phenomena or other useful things, or reviewing the literature. Criticisms don't necessarily need to be refuted, but at the least be considered as part of your work. Then you can go over each one in detail.

The situation you've described is a relatively routine situation in mechanics problems involving moving objects in a reference frames. It's not cutting edge stuff. The solutions to those kinds of problems require knowledge of Galilean transformations or, if the velocities of the objects approach the speed of light, special relativity.

The main criticism levelled at you is about the premise that somehow the timing of the light emission or the detection of the position of the red train is going to give you information about the moving reference frame.

My knowledge of special relativity is very rusty, so I could be wrong here, but consider, for example, the following system:

1. Frame of reference speed = 0
2. Red train travelling to the left with speed vk + vu
3. Black train travelling to the left with speed vu
4. Emitter travelling to the left with a speed vu

To my knowledge, according to current physics, the results of your experiment should be the same for this situation. The term for a phenomenon where different situations give the same results is called "degenerate" or "degeneracy" and this means that the results cannot be used to discriminate the different situations.

This is probably why there is the definition of a closed system (rather than an open system), which is a system where you cannot deduce information about the things outside the system by using objects within the system. This is true also in special relativity, where time dilation and length contraction can occur based on the relative speeds of objects and observers.
benit13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26th 2019, 09:31 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: England
Posts: 963
Explaining an idea to another person can be very difficult.
You always have to establish a baseline position on which both parties agree
and then you can move on from that point.

I would (personally) have spent more time describing the experimental setup
before trying to describe the expected experimental results.

I found your descriptions of the experimental setup confusing,
and trying to imagine the experimental behaviour before I had a clear picture of the experimental apparatus was just impossible.

You want to imagine that you are telling a technician how to build your apparatus.
Once we have built a mental image of your apparatus,
Then we can try to run the Gedanken-Experiment.
__________________
~\o/~
Woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > Special and General Relativity

Tags
closed, space, unknown, vector



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Angle of space motion and radial-velocity vector hbadgeress Kinematics and Dynamics 5 Oct 4th 2018 02:47 PM
Hilbert space norm of vector invariant in different coordinate systems roger Quantum Physics 2 Jan 26th 2015 07:09 PM
Unknown Phenomenon Stomper Thermodynamics and Fluid Mechanics 1 May 2nd 2014 04:07 AM
How to calculate resultant force\velocity vector after collision in 3d space? SpeedBirdNine Kinematics and Dynamics 3 Sep 16th 2011 08:23 AM
two unknown forces disclaimer Equilibrium and Elasticity 8 Oct 19th 2008 03:44 AM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed