Where were you when Dialect solved general relativity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ff0aofh6urU
tfw Dialect is to smart for /sci/
>>15870432You can measure the one-way speed of light by just activating two timers with the same button, next question
>>15870432>>15871535that's slower than the speed of light and you need something faster than light to synchronize the clocks.desu I think the video is very hand-wavy and feels like I'm watching some conspiracy channel. what about Maxwell's equations, from which you can derive c? How would this affect our measurements of relativistic momentum and K.E. of particles? Wouldn't be possible to detect a electron with 1.1c if the speed of light doesn't have to be the same in all direction? can this anisotropic c be generalized to 3d?
>>15871832to be honest*
>>15871832No, it wouldn't work. You'd need to assume a certain kind of kinematics that could lead to conflicts later down the line. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/597066/permissibility-permittivity-and-the-one-way-speed-of-light
>>15871832>that's slower than the speed of light and you need something faster than light to synchronize the clocks.Are you retarded?How is it slower than the speed of light when both clocks are on at the same time? You can just increase the distance if you're worried about light getting to B too quickly>durr but how will you transfer le signal XDYou have memory inside the clocks that record information>durr but what about le electric speed in le 0.0001mm of track XDCompletely irrelevant
>>15871832>>15872616In fact you don't even need two clocks, what the fuck are you synchronizing, the light emitter always starts at t=0, the only thing that matters is the distance and t when the light hits the receiver
>>15872623kek. Why even bother with a receiver? Just emit the light and stop the timer when you see it get to 1km. Speed of light solved.
>>15872568yeah, the vid was hand-wavy, trying to force a story>>15873807you're not thinking hard enough. what do you mean see light get to 1km? to see something, light has to reflect/get emitted from it to your eyes. if you see light from a laser pointer in your hand at 1 km, you're measuring its two way speed, going to 1 km then coming back to your eyes.>>15872616>How is it slower than the speed of light when both clocks are on at the same time? You can just increase the distance if you're worried about light getting to B too quicklythe speed of the signal in the wires has to be <= the speed of light, so you get to the case discussed in the vid. the synchronization problem is explained in the vid.>>15872623how would the receiver know when t=0 is? he can't, cuz any info about the time t=0 has to be transmitted at a speed <= the speed of light. so again you get back to the whole inability to synchronize the clocks thing again.All in all, I think it's a fun idea to think about but the video tries to frame it as if physicists are denying the truth cuz of narratives, when in reality, there's nothing that favors an anisotropic c rather than an isotropic c, and the latter is much simpler so this whole thing turns into another multiverse situation. so in short, it is a load of barnacles. ScienceClicEN commented on it too.
>>15870432What if epsilion actually equals D which is approximately 0. Or put mathematically:Ɛ = D ~ 0
>>15870432The is guy or the team behind the video is brilliant.it was about time for someone to set the record straight instead of peddling narratives 20K a semester.
>>15874619>yeah, the vid was hand-wavy, trying to force a storyI don't see how that has to do with what I said. You raised a good point, but again, the (invariant vs. variant) kinematics are what make the difference. Plus, since when is science derived from first principles? Empirical data is what sets the record straight. And the video is only hand-wavy in the sense that it has been documenting the history of Einsteinian relativity, popular misconceptions, and the genuine scientific problems at stake. So, you might not be up to speed on all the relevant details that he takes his userbase to be aware of. You might want to delve into some of his other videos. They're genuinely amazing.
>>15870432Summarize exactly what the "loophole" is, I'm not gonna watch a 20 min video on some crackpot's theory. As far as I can tell it's some bullshit about how all measurements of the speed of light involve a signal going two ways, and how it's 'assumed' that the speed of light is the same in both directions.Ok, well so what? Maxwell's equations work perfectly well and they are fully consistent with special relativity. Why is it a "loophole" that an incorrect idea about the speed of light being different in two directions was not considered?
>>15876104>an incorrect ideaIt can't be proven incorrect.anyway the claimed loophole is that it allows you to return to the notion of an absolute frame of reference even in GR, by considering a frame where light's one-way speed actually is constant
>>15876140> it allows you to return to the notion of an absolute frame of reference even in GR, by considering a frame where light's one-way speed actually is constantOk I watched the section on the "loophole" now. Here's what was actually done:In standard special relativity there are two frames, with coordinates x, t and x', t' respectively. But what he does in that segment of the video is form a new mixed coordinate system for the moving observer using x' and t. Out of all of these mixed coordinate systems involving the same t, not surprisingly the original x,t coordinate system is the nicest. But the whole point of special relativity (btw none of this video has anything to do with GR as far as I saw) is that you can have equally nice coordinate systems for the moving x' if you use the t' coordinate.This video is just a failure to understand frames as coordinate systems.
>>15876248>Ok I watched the section on the "loophole" now. Here's what was actually done:Did you skip the epsilon part? It's not just a mixed coordinate system.
>>15876250I might have skipped it, you tell me. I watched the part involving the spacetime diagram. The moving observer had slanted lines representing lines of constant x'. Then the video states that if you use the horizontal lines of constant t, then the epsilon is different for the moving observer. But this is just a mixed (i.e. non-inertial) x', t coordinate system. There is nothing wrong with using non-inertial coordinate systems but they are not as nice as the inertial ones, and the different "epsilon" is one manifestation of this.
>>15876255Alright, explain to me what epsilon is.
>>15876248>>15876255epsilon isn't a coordinate system you fucking mong.
>>15876104Fuck off you moron before I cut your stupid jew nose, you imbecile ignorant.
>>15876255>There is nothing wrong with using non-inertial coordinate systemsLMAO, what a stupid idiot
It's not a new ideahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#Generalizations_of_Lorentz_transformations_with_anisotropic_one-way_speeds
>>15874619>how would the receiver know when t=0 is?When you press the button to turn it on
>>15879274you would know but the receiver has no way to know
>>15879274People already tried hard, very hard, to do the one way measurement.Forget about that, is impossible, otherwise we could even have faster than light communication and other crazy stuff like sending information to the past.
>>15871535This. Send two light pulses in opposing directions to the two clocks. Either clock will have a counter which increments with every pulse it receives. When the number of pulses is greater than some threshold value, then each pulse it receives after will trigger a light on the clock to flash. The light from each clock will also pulse the other clock. And so when the mechanism is triggered, the two clocks will take turns flashing.An observer from some third point equidistant from the two, but not in line with both, we should have some discrepancy by seeing how the clocks flash because we would be measuring some cos angle distance for a given direction at some velocity: (d/v_db) + (b/v_ba) versus d/v_da + (a/v_ab) where v_xy is the velocity of light in the direction origin x to y. t0 case: just hit buttont1 case: we see both lights flash simultaneouslyt2 case: one light triggers before the other or they flash simultaneously.Of course, the test has to be done with at least two angles to verify some other fuckery isn't afoot. You actually get 6 figures doing this?
>>15874619I dint like that comment. On one hand she is arguing that they made the correct choice by simplifying all manner of theories, but she rejects shortcomings which remain unexplained and impenetrable. This type of woman logic promotes that the local minima is sufficient, undoubtedly never contributing a damn thing herself. Lmao even.
>>15881258What woman you schizo, ScienceClicEn is a guy. Maybe you're thinking about Sabine, but even then the comment was good so maybe you're just a jealous bitch
>>15881311It matters not. Her logic is inferior and laughable and so she's a she.
>>15881331oh ok, thanks ma'am for your valuable input. you can fuck off now
>>15871832>that's slower than the speed of light and you need something faster than light to synchronize the clocks.Bullshit, send a frequency and measure the wavelength. No timing need on receiver side. There are tons of other procedures, you and the science parasites did not have the slightest interest in.
isn't Dialect Jewish?
>>15883546you'd think Dialect would be more of a hit among /sci/entists
/sci/ wont solve GR
>>15871832>feels like I'm watching some conspiracy channel.LMAO
>>15879731Ah, I guess all of EE is invalid then and we don't actually have a single working electronic device, it's all been a jewish illusion all this time, shadows in a cave and whatnot, eh?
New physics just dropped - angular momentum no longer conserved!You fucking retards
>>15886842wtf are you even talking about
>>15886864I'm sorry if its not immediatelly obvious to you why a one-way speed of light not equal to c breaks conservation of angular momentum, your professors failed you.
>>15886885Slow down Tooker.
>>15886886Nah, I wish I was as based as him. For real though, this breaks conservation of angular momentum.
>>15886885and now you're failing me