Now try to animate it like Ibix did, or create separate images for each of his frames, each with the current location of the signals and of the planet.zasvitim said:View attachment 355885
In some situations we will still get green particles yet don't get red particles because they bump into planet.
On the other side we should get red particles when sun is not visible already.
That this is not what his animation in #2 shows, nor his words (see also the title and post #1), but all his still frames do.Charles Link said:I've been following this a little, and I think that is a possibility. (That he is considering relative motion of the two).
You'd be able to detect that, yes. In an Earth centered frame fixed wrt the stars the Sun moves across the sky, so earlier and later emissions come from different places. What you cannot detect is inertial motion of the Sun/Earth center of mass, which is what the OP seems to be talking about.Charles Link said:What would happen if we slowed the solar wind down considerably, so that the earth's movement was clearly in a circular motion?
Ok, seems like I was wrong.Ibix said:That this is not what his animation in #2 shows, nor his words (see also the title and post #1), but all his still frames do.
You'd be able to detect that, yes. In an Earth centered frame fixed wrt the stars the Sun moves across the sky, so earlier and later emissions come from different places. What you cannot detect is inertial motion of the Sun/Earth center of mass, which is what the OP seems to be talking about.
It's OK to post questions, as to why something doesn't detect absolute motion. You only need peer reviewed references if you make claims.zasvitim said:Ok, seems like I was wrong.
Yet there is a way to detect absolute motion. But it's of course out of this thread. And cannot be posted "unless peer reviewed" and can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".
If there were such a thing it would show up as a violation of Lorentz covariance. People actively research this, and nothing has ever been found.zasvitim said:Yet there is a way to detect absolute motion.
Given your struggles with frame changes in this thread, to put it bluntly it's a lot more likely that anything you submitted didn't pass peer review due to being directly self-contradictory.zasvitim said:can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".
Lorentz transformation is about electromagnetic radiation. Some phenomena like heat may be excluded from it. Just an example: Why would there be much more cyclones in northern hemisphere if hemispheres are equal? Why equatorial counter current is in northern hemisphere etc.Ibix said:If there were such a thing it would show up as a violation of Lorentz covariance. People actively research this, and nothing has ever been found.
Given your struggles with frame changes in this thread, to put it bluntly it's a lot more likely that anything you submitted didn't pass peer review due to being directly self-contradictory.
The Earth's hemispheres are definitely not equal. Compare the amount of landmass for example.zasvitim said:Just an example: Why would there be much more tornados in northern hemisphere if hemispheres are equal?
And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?A.T. said:The Earth's hemispheres are definitely not equal. Compare the amount of landmass for example.
Land and water heat and cool at different rates. "Sea breeze by day; land breeze by night."zasvitim said:And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?
You should start a new thread on this in an appropriate sub forum, if you cannot figure it out by own research.zasvitim said:And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?
No, it underlies literally every physical phenomenon - that it wasn't just about electromagnetism was the key insight Einstein made. Also you are completely missing the point: if he were wrong and Lorentz covariance were only about electromagnetism then violations of Lorentz covariance would be abundant. They aren't.zasvitim said:Lorentz transformation is about electromagnetic radiation.
Just look at Earth: cyclones, currents, tidal waves in Canada.Ibix said:No, it underlies literally every physical phenomenon - that it wasn't just about electromagnetism was the key insight Einstein made. Also you are completely missing the point: if he were wrong and Lorentz covariance were only about electromagnetism then violations of Lorentz covariance would be abundant. They aren't.
The Earth with asymmetric heat capacities has asymmetric weather distributions. This is not surprising.zasvitim said:Just look at Earth: cyclones, currents, tidal waves in Canada.
There is no any "sea breeze" in pacific ocean and it takes almost half of planet.PeroK said:Land and water heat and cool at different rates. "Sea breeze by day; land breeze by night."
zasvitim said:can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".
How am I not to learn if I accepted being wrong? I've accepted that, thank you.weirdoguy said:So @zasvitim you're not here to learn, you're here to push you very basic misunderstandings.
Physics is an experimental science! Why all of people accusing physicists of some sort of conspiracies forget that? Absolute motion is refuted by milions of experiments and observations. Really, take your time to analise that, instead of wasting your (and ours) time. This is elementary and high-school physics, nothing advanced. Really.
zasvitim said:Absolute motion is confirmed by directional light existence.
Is this experimental science?weirdoguy said:Nonsense.
Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.zasvitim said:Is this experimental science?
Lorentz covariance could have absolutely different nature and have nothing to do with light.Ibix said:Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.