There’s no such thing as “relativity”. I was clearly talking about special relativity and none of what you mentioned have anything to do with it.
Wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiment split a light beam in two perpendicular directions and looked for any difference in speed depending on the direction of Earth’s motion. It found none – the speed was identical regardless of orientation or motion. That is a direct experimental demonstration that light speed does not vary with the observer’s reference frame. The aether was merely the theoretical context; the measured result stands on its own.
Go ahead and provide an actual explanation for both Michelson-Morley experiment and the muon decay experiment.
The speed of light was measured relative to one body, the earth, one inertial reference frame. What was determined is that there is no motion of the aether relative to the earth. It does not prove that the speed of light does not vary according to one’s reference frame.
And muons are fictitious particles, like photons and other supposedly fundamental particles of the standard model. But if you believe in them this link claims have debunked what you claim.
Do you know that the Earth moves in an orbit? An object that moves in circular fashion has infinite frames of reference. Also, the measuring device was rotated, each rotation is a different effective reference frame.
If you are not going to fulfill your burden of proof and provide alternative explanations for the results of the experiments, then there’s nothing left to discuss.
It amazes me that you attempt to discuss this issue with the magnitude of misunderstanding which you demonstrate, felipec. The experiments were carried out with one frame of reference provided by the apparatus fixed to the moving earth, as moving relative to the sun, as well as a hypothetical frame of reference provided by the theorized fixed aether, fixed relative to the sun. The hypothesis was that the earth ought to be moving relative to that aether which was theorized to be at rest relative to the sun.
Since the aether was assumed to be the substance of the waves, there should be a measurable difference between the time it takes for light to travel the same distance relative to the earth, depending on the direction that the earth was moving as determined relative to the sun. The measurements were not as predicted, and could not confirm the movement of the aether relative to the earth. The theory of length contraction was used to account for the failure to observe the predicted difference derived from the movement of the apparatus, relative to the hypothetical frame of the sun.
That experiment provides nothing to prove that the speed of light is always the same, relative to any moving body.
“Time is not an empirical concept that has been derived from any experience. For neither coexistence nor succession would ever come within our perception, if the representation of time were not presupposed as underlying them a priori.” -
pp.48 Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by N.K. Smith, Abridged Edition, MacMillan And Co. Limited, St. Martin’s Street, LONDON 1952
Anything subject to change exists in different moments of time. So, yes, time exists, and it is physical. We exist within each moment of it, so it is like a space that accommodates us. There is only one moment of it that is available to us, though, so we don’t have the freedom like space to move around it.
The past does not objectively exist. Our memories of the past only exist in the fabric of the universe, in the case of humans, in the brain. So, the past is not a part of time. The immediate future exists otherwise; change was not possible, whether in time or in any physical objects. The future, however, is part of our imagination. Therefore, the past and future are not real and are not part of time.
Strictly speaking, you are in the past. Because what you perceive now is always a few milli seconds after the light hit your eyes.
The time taken the perception to reach your brain will leave your mind always in the past.
If you say the past doesn’t exist, then nothing exists. If that were true, then you might be in some illusion. If you insist, under no circumstances, you are in illusion, then you must agree the past exists. Where does your past exit? Most likely in your memory.
Your present is a few milli seconds past the absolute present.
Ok, let’s extend your thought experiment: Let’s imagine that you are looking at stars in the sky. The light takes a very long time to reach you from the stars. Did you exist at the moment that the light was emitted?
Yes, what is sensed is always in the past. However, we always anticipate the future as well as we remember the past. So my experience of the present is just as much in the future as it is in the past. That’s why I conclude that the present is an overlapping of past and future.
A car moving to the north and the same car moving to the south are two different frames of reference because their momentum is different. It doesn’t matter that the car is the same. This all the extent to which I’m going to teach you physics.
The Earth at winter solstice and at summer solstice are two different frames of reference.
The initial hypothesis is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant are the results.
Wrong. The speed of light is the same in all directions in different frames for reference. This is the result of the experiment which you don’t understand.
You could do so, but don’t need do so. You have your apperception to be able to control where you want to exist in your perceptions i.e. past, the lapsed now or future, or in all of these times simultaneously.