Merged Does CERN prove Einstein wrong?

[TubbaBlubba]

If we take one of the photons as being the frame of reference then it is at rest RELATIVELY to the other photon.

No, that would make it a moving frame of reference. Because the speed of light is c in all reference frames.

 

[excaza]

The rest (unmoving) is the frame of reference. So if the frame of reference is a photon, the relative velocity for a photon traveling in the opposite direction is two times the speed of light. According to Einstein that velocity is one time the speed of light = false theory.

You don't seem to quite grasp how reference frames work. You still have to account for motion of the frame.

 

[sol invictus]

The rest (unmoving) is the frame of reference. So if the frame of reference is a photon, the relative velocity for a photon traveling in the opposite direction is two times the speed of light. According to Einstein that velocity is one time the speed of light = false theory.

BZZZT. You are wrong about Einstein's theory. Saying a theory is wrong because it says something it doesn't say simply makes you look idiotic. According to SR, no photon is ever at rest in any (inertial) reference frame.

What SR does say is that the speed of light will be c in all (inertial) reference frames. Therefore, after you accelerate towards an oncoming photon, its velocity (in your rest frame) remains c. That prediction has been tested over and over and over and over and over again in the last 100 years, starting with Michelson-Morley.

Do you believe that all those experiments are wrong and/or part of a conspiracy to deceive you?

 

[Anders Lindman]

The speed of any given photons in ALL reference frames is c. This includes the photon you center your reference frame on. So they both move at c, but away from each other, resulting in a relative motion of 2c.

Not terribly difficult.

Well, it becomes terribly difficult if we take the other photon as a frame of reference, because then one photon is at rest relative to the other which is moving 2c away from it. Einstein's relativity claims that it can only be 1c. So it's a false theory.

 

[sol invictus]

If we take one of the photons as being the frame of reference then it is at rest RELATIVELY to the other photon.

Just a few posts ago you said "Sure, the reference photon is at rest, while the other photon is moving away from it at 2c."

Congratulations: you are incoherent and inconsistent as well as wrong.

 

[excaza]

Well, it becomes terribly difficult if we take the other photon as a frame of reference, because then one photon is at rest relative to the other which is moving 2c away from it. Einstein's relativity claims that it can only be 1c. So it's a false theory.

So if we make an assumption that breaks the assumptions of the theory I'm saying is false, the theory is false.

Uh...

 

[Anders Lindman]

BZZZT. You are wrong about Einstein's theory. Saying a theory is wrong because it says something it doesn't say simply makes you look idiotic. According to SR, no photon is ever at rest in any (inertial) reference frame.

What SR does say is that the speed of light will be c in all (inertial) reference frames. Therefore, after you accelerate towards an oncoming photon, its velocity (in your rest frame) remains c. That prediction has been tested over and over and over and over and over again in the last 100 years, starting with Michelson-Morley.

Do you believe that all those experiments are wrong and/or part of a conspiracy to deceive you?

But that's absurd! Why can't a photon be the frame of reference?

 

[excaza]

But that's absurd! Why can't a photon be the frame of reference?

Nobody says it can't be. However, if you're using the something as a frame of reference, you still need to account for the motion of that frame in any calculations you make because there is no frame that is truly at rest.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Just a few posts ago you said "Sure, the reference photon is at rest, while the other photon is moving away from it at 2c."

Congratulations: you are incoherent and inconsistent as well as wrong.

What inconsistency? One photon is the frame of reference and the other photon is moving away from it at 2c. That directly shows how Einstein's theory is false.

 

[sol invictus]

But that's absurd! Why can't a photon be the frame of reference?

You can choose frames in which (some) photons are at rest, but they are non-inertial, and SR does not apply to them.

In all inertial frames - those to which SR applies - all photons (in vacuum) move at speed c.

Question: don't you find it a little disturbing that I am teaching you some of the most basic facts about SR, a theory you claim to have disproven?

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nobody says it can't be. However, if you're using the something as a frame of reference, you still need to account for the motion of that frame in any calculations you make because there is no frame that is truly at rest.

The idea of a frame of reference is to create the point of rest relative to the other object(s) that are measured.

 

[excaza]

What inconsistency? One photon is the frame of reference and the other photon is moving away from it at 2c. That directly shows how Einstein's theory is false.

No. Photon is moving at c. Your reference frame is also moving at c. That makes 2c. Einstein re-proven.

 

[Anders Lindman]

You can choose frames in which (some) photons are at rest, but they are non-inertial, and SR does not apply to them.

In all inertial frames - those to which SR applies - all photons (in vacuum) move at speed c.

Question: don't you find it a little disturbing that I am teaching you some of the most basic facts about SR, a theory you claim to have disproven?

Ha, sounds like a load of bollocks to me. Does not apply? Does not apply to reality?

 

[sol invictus]

What inconsistency? One photon is the frame of reference and the other photon is moving away from it at 2c. That directly shows how Einstein's theory is false.

Now we're just going around in circles.

I already told you several times that Einstein's theory does not apply to such a frame, so you obviously cannot conclude that it is false from that. It just reveals your near-total ignorance of the theory you claim to have disproven.

 

[excaza]

The idea of a frame of reference is to create the point of rest relative to the other object(s) that are measured.

Correct. But you still have to account for the motion of your reference frame. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

 

[sol invictus]

Ha, sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

We know, Anders, we know.

I'm bored. Goodbye.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No. Photon is moving at c. Your reference frame is also moving at c. That makes 2c. Einstein re-proven.

No, the frame of reference means a still point. Otherwise you would need yet another frame of reference. And sure, a valid theory should indeed be able to deal with several frames of reference simultaneously, which seems to be something Einstein's relativity theories can't do.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Correct. But you still have to account for the motion of your reference frame. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.

Relative to what? Einstein's theories only deal with one frame of reference as far as I know (and I admit here that I'm a total amateur when it comes to physics so I could be wrong about this particular statement).

 

[Anders Lindman]

Now we're just going around in circles.

I already told you several times that Einstein's theory does not apply to such a frame, so you obviously cannot conclude that it is false from that. It just reveals your near-total ignorance of the theory you claim to have disproven.

Well if it doesn't apply then what good is the theory? An incomplete theory at best. And general relativity is only about the addition of accelerating frames of reference as I have understood it, so it doesn't solve the incompletion.

 

[excaza]

No, the frame of reference means a still point.

No, it doesn't. If you put your reference frame on a photon, that photon does not stop moving. If you say it stops moving, then your model no longer agrees with reality and has no bearing on the validity of relativity.

Otherwise you would need yet another frame of reference.

Correct.

And sure, a valid theory should indeed be able to deal with several frames of reference simultaneously, which seems to be something Einstein's relativity theories can't do.

What? Dealing with multiple reference frames is elementary dynamics.