Notices
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 810
Like Tree18Likes

Thread: The roundtrip time of light travel and how it really works!

  1. #101  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    In reality what happens is the in the frame of the moving box, the light hits all 4 sides of the box at once, while in the diagram an observer would see what is in the diagram
     

  2. #102  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    In reality what happens is the in the frame of the moving box, the light hits all 4 sides of the box at once, while in the diagram an observer would see what is in the diagram
    I don't think it makes any difference how many of us say that (or show the math to prove it - or even a picture). He has made his mind up.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  3. #103  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    And how, exactly, are you measuring it? Details of the hardware that generates the light pulse, the timing equipment, how it is calibrated and synchronized, the errors in the measurement, etc. Which peer reviewed journals has the work been published in? Are you planning to fly first class when you get your Nobel prize? What will you spend the money on?

    Oh, sorry, I forgot. You haven't done an experiment have you? If you had, you would find you were wrong.
    Distance and time are locked together because light travel time defines the meter. You can not separate distance and time when talking about light travel.

    Therefore, my pic is the ONLY way it can happen. It is not even debatable. If you think you can say otherwise you are saying that math itself is BS, and that the definition of the meter is BS. Make no mistake, this is the ONLY way it can happen.

    Can you explain why it takes 1.6.... seconds for light to travel round trip from the source to the mirror and back????
     

  4. #104  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Do you call this a general proof ?
    Another common symptom. The inability to understand or provide a general solution. (1)

    I had a really painful example a while back with some guy who couldn't understand why his simulation(2) didn't count as an analytical solution to the N-body problem.

    (1) or the inability to distinguish mathematics and arithmetic.
    (2) which was wrong anyway
    (3) I enjoy footnotes
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
     

  6. #106  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.

    What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??
     

  7. #107  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Therefore, my pic is the ONLY way it can happen. It is not even debatable.
    Oh look, we are debating it. So you are wrong about that as well.

    I really can't take you seriously. I have done my time being "that guy":
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  8. #108  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.
    Remind me again how you made these measurements? What equipment did you use? What laboratory procedures?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  9. #109  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    I really can't take you seriously. I have done my time being "that guy":
    You haven't said anything of value, you've simply contributed non-sense to the thread. It's really too bad that you can't objectively talk about the pic. You must be a pretty fart smeller, eh?
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??
    your diagram is valid for the frame it takes place in, however for anyone riding along with the box, the picture is different. Your math is only valid for the frame it take place in.
     

  11. #111  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    You haven't said anything of value, you've simply contributed non-sense to the thread. It's really too bad that you can't objectively talk about the pic. You must be a pretty fart smeller, eh?
    Well, I did start out by (helpfully, I thought) pointing out that you image wasn't readable. When it was legible, I then pointed out where you had gone wrong (as has everyone else).

    As you have made it very clear that you have closed your mind and are not interested in learning, I am just going to watch the spectacle for my own amusement and lob the occasional annoying comment in.

    I could endlessly repeat explanations of where you have gone for 500 pages while you just demonstrate the fact you won't "open your eyes" or "think for yourself" but I really can't be bothered. Been there, done that.

    But. I would really like to know your motivation: undiscovered genius or idealogical?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  12. #112  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
    There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??
    your diagram is valid for the frame it takes place in, however for anyone riding along with the box, the picture is different. Your math is only valid for the frame it take place in.
    No the picture is not different from riding in the box, that is how the pic was constructed, from the times recorded at the receivers. This is about measuring the velocity of the frame. Do you not understand that? It is like you riding a bus and measuring the speed of the bus. We are not talking about motion in the bus, we are talking about the bus's motion in space. Do you not understand that objects travel in space?
     

  13. #113  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post

    But. I would really like to know your motivation: undiscovered genius or idealogical?
    Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
     

  14. #114  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    No the picture is not different from riding in the box, that is how the pic was constructed, from the times recorded at the receivers.
    That'll be the fallacy of begging the question: you construct a diagram to show what you want and then argue that it proves that position...

    But, again <yawn>, you have only shown the diagram from one frame of reference. If you draw it from the frame of reference of the moving box, you will get a different result. We know this because ii has actually been measured. You know, like really measured (not as in the way you use the word "measured", which appears to be closer to "imagined").

    You do realise that the roundtrip time of light has been measured? And is invariant? How do explain that? Unless ... are you a geocentrist?

    Anyway, back to the questions:
    1) Can you explain how GPS works without relativity?
    2) Can you explain how QED works without relativity?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  15. #115  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
    I think we (and scientific results) will be the judges of that.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  16. #116  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    But, again <yawn>, you have only shown the diagram from one frame of reference. If you draw it from the frame of reference of the moving box, you will get a different result.
    Which frame of reference does the light sphere expand in?
     

  17. #117  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Which frame of reference does the light sphere expand in?
    Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!

    (1) I know. You don't. But what can we do. We have explained your error. You refuse to see it. How long do we keep this up?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  18. #118  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
    And yet, in a century, no one else but you and a few crackpots have spotted it. Weird, isn't it?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  19. #119  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
    So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?
     

  20. #120  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
    And yet, in a century, no one else but you and a few crackpots have spotted it. Weird, isn't it?
    Extremely! What is even more weird is that in thousands of years nobody has ever changed the beliefs of the catholic church. Very strange indeed, eh?
     

  21. #121  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
    So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?
    I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.

    For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.

    It would be nice if, instead of just referring to your very nice picture again, you were to actually think, "hmmm... what if I have misunderstood something after all, after all I am not perfect..." and go away and read up on how special relativity actually applies in a case like this (mot your garbled version of it). Of course this will require you to approach it with an open mind and be prepared to accept some new ideas. Not everyone is comfortable with this.

    Are you a geocentrist? If so, this is doubly pointless.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  22. #122  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Extremely! What is even more weird is that in thousands of years nobody has ever changed the beliefs of the catholic church. Very strange indeed, eh?
    So we can add religious history to the list of subjects you are not well versed in.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  23. #123  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.

    For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.
    There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer. It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission. No observer can change that, like no observer can change the distance between you and the center of the moon at 12:00.

    You are very confused as to what actually happens and what is measured a duration of time later. Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!

    We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?
     

  24. #124  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
    Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

    So no, not period (exclamation point).
     

  25. #125  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
    Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

    So no, not period (exclamation point).
    Uh, nobody here is assuming we are talking about light travel in...say...water. (rolls eyes)
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.
    There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer. It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission. No observer can change that, like no observer can change the distance between you and the center of the moon at 12:00.You are very confused as to what actually happens and what is measured a duration of time later. Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?
    according to whom??? This is false as understood for 100 years, light moves in all reference frames at exactly c, there is no privledged frames. It has everthing to do with observers and reference frames
     

  27. #127  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
    So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?
    The difference is about the frame of reference, which has been experimentally shown to produce different results for light than for anything else. Your diagram is 100% correct for an expanding ripple on a pond or a sound wave, but not for light. That is the fundamental difference. It is not just about frequency and wavelength. Your diagram supposes that an observer at each detector would measure different travel times for the light sphere, while that is not the case in the real world, as confirmed by experiment. That is where you need SR. It is not just a gimick, it actually acurately predicts the results of experiments, while your suppositions won't.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    82
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Wintermute View Post
    Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
    Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

    So no, not period (exclamation point).
    Uh, nobody here is assuming we are talking about light travel in...say...water. (rolls eyes)
    Your box is sitting in air, right? Air is also a medium which slows the travel of photons. You say you've measured this experiment with your instruments? How did you get such an exact figure?
     

  29. #129  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    according to whom??? This is false as understood for 100 years, light moves in all reference frames at exactly c, there is no privledged frames. It has everthing to do with observers and reference frames
    So let me get this straight. You are in a box in space. You feel no acceleration. It is like you are sitting in a chair in your living room. You can't tell you are moving in space. The only thing you can tell is that if the box accelerates you feel a change.

    So, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You are sitting in a box in space. You measure the time it takes for the light to reach the receivers. It takes .5 seconds to all the receivers. Whoo hoo, you are at an absolute zero velocity! All the times are the same!

    I come along and attach a rocket motor to your box and fire it up! You FEEL the acceleration, so you KNOW that the velocity of the box has changed. The acceleration stops. You feel nothing again. You measure the times to the receivers once again.

    Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again? You need to understand, the velocity of the box is NOT DEPENDENT on an external observer. The velocity of the box is its OWN VELOCITY in space.
     

  30. #130  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer.
    It is dependent on the observer: all velocity is relative.

    It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission.
    And that radius (and the meaning of "specific time") is observer dependent.

    You are very confused as to what actually happens
    Oh the irony.

    We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?
    What? Huh! Who said we were? Why do bring that up? Are you thinking of the Doppler effect? How is that relevant? Who is confused?

    We have answered several of your questions (unfortunately you don't like the answers). Are you willing to answer questions? (Otherwise I might just go back to laughing at you). Come on just one, a simple one, surely:

    1) How does GPS work in your world?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  31. #131  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
    Yes. Exactly right. Have you ever heard of the thousands of experiments that have been done to measure exactly this? Guess what they find....
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  32. #132  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
    Yes. Exactly right. Have you ever heard of the thousands of experiments that have been done to measure exactly this? Guess what they find....
    SR doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity, who are you trying to BS? SR says that the box is always at rest, and it is every other object that is moving, but not the box.

    You say the box is at rest? Define at rest. At rest compared to what? Please answer that question directly without your non-sense.
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    You don't understand, SR is a theory of reference frames. Picture me on a bus an you on the ground. You would measure the ground to be at rest but the bus at +30mph, however for me on the bus I would measure the bus to be at rest, but I would measure the groun to be moving at -30 mph. However, as you might not expect, we would both measure light to move at c!
     

  34. #134  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    SR doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity
    Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?

    SR says that the box is always at rest, and it is every other object that is moving, but not the box.
    If this is how you understand SR then it is not surprising you have come up with the wrong answers.

    You say the box is at rest? Define at rest. At rest compared to what?
    I didn't say that. But you were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box (and vice versa).

    Please answer that question directly without your non-sense.
    Would you like to drop the childish potty-talk and insults. Thank you.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  35. #135  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    You don't understand, SR is a theory of reference frames. Picture me on a bus an you on the ground. You would measure the ground to be at rest but the bus at +30mph, however for me on the bus I would measure the bus to be at rest, but I would measure the groun to be moving at -30 mph. However, as you might not expect, we would both measure light to move at c!
    It's you that doesn't understand. Light travels independently of objects. Light travels from the point of origin in space. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? I showed you in the pic with pretty little pics. The ground and the bus could both be in motion relative to the point of origin of the light sphere, all the while each having a relative velocity to each other.

    When you say an object is at rest you are saying the object is at rest compared to the origin of the light sphere. Do you not understand that?
     

  36. #136  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?
    The origin of a light sphere is not capable of moving. The origin of a light sphere is a point in space, it is not a physical object capable of traveling in space. If the distance between the origin of the light sphere and the box is increasing, it is THE BOX that is traveling in space, it is NOT the origin. You seem to think that the box has every right to think that it is motionless and that it is the point of origin that is traveling. That is IMPOSSIBLE!
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton
     

  38. #138  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton
    No not a person at rest. There is nothing at that point. The source was there at t=0. It is no longer at that point at t=.65.
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?
    The origin of a light sphere is not capable of moving. The origin of a light sphere is a point in space, it is not a physical object capable of traveling in space. If the distance between the origin of the light sphere and the box is increasing, it is THE BOX that is traveling in space, it is NOT the origin. You seem to think that the box has every right to think that it is motionless and that it is the point of origin that is traveling. That is IMPOSSIBLE!
    all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
     

  40. #140  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    It's hopeless isn't it. There is none so ignorant as those who have closed their mind against learning.

    Hey Motor Daddy, how about all the experiments that confirm SR (and disprove your view of the world)?

    How does GPS work? (Maybe I will just post that in response to every incorrect statement you make.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  41. #141  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post

    So let me get this straight. You are in a box in space. You feel no acceleration. It is like you are sitting in a chair in your living room. You can't tell you are moving in space. The only thing you can tell is that if the box accelerates you feel a change.
    Yes, correct.

    So, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You are sitting in a box in space. You measure the time it takes for the light to reach the receivers. It takes .5 seconds to all the receivers. Whoo hoo, you are at an absolute zero velocity! All the times are the same!
    Also correct.

    I come along and attach a rocket motor to your box and fire it up! You FEEL the acceleration, so you KNOW that the velocity of the box has changed.
    No. What you feel now is a force, but in the absence of any reference frame other than the inside of you box you wouldn't be able to tell whether this is because of a change of velocity or because a gravitational field now acts on you.

    You measure the times to the receivers once again. Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
    Yes, obviously ! Nothing has changed. You said it yourself - the speed of light is not dependent on any observer. The observer inside the box still feels nothing and measures the same laws of physics. Why is this so hard for you ?
     

  42. #142  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
    Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?
     

  43. #143  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton
    Correct.
    Motor Daddy, all observers measure the speed of light, and thus the laws of physics, to be the same. That's the point of Special Relativity ! In order for this to be possible time dilation and length contraction come into effect as needed.
    What kind of world would we be living in if our physical laws depended on the observer ? I don't know, but it sure would look a lot different than what we are seeing now !
     

  44. #144  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Imagine a I am standing still and watching an incoming car moving toward me at 30 mph, not imagine I started running toward that car at 10 mph. Do you agree I would measure the cars velocity as 40 mph with respect to myself? Ok. Now imagine I was running away at 10 mph, I would now measure it to be moving at 20 mph. Ok.Now imagine I am standing still and I measure that beam of light to be c. Imagine I was instead moving toward the light at half of c. You might expect to measure the light moving at c plus half of c. But we don't. It ends up being c despite what we would expect. This was an open problem in physics, finally explained with relativity. Your diagram does not take this fact into account.
     

  45. #145  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
    Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?
    How many times...?
    While the speed of light itself is constant, the distance and time used in its measurement is not and depends on the observer.
    Length contraction.
    Time dilation.
    Enough said !
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
    Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?
    yes butthat definition is also frame dependant, and takes into account results of SR
     

  47. #147  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Imagine a I am standing still and watching an incoming car moving toward me at 30 mph, not imagine I started running toward that car at 10 mph. Do you agree I would measure the cars velocity as 40 mph with respect to myself?

    No, I would imagine that you would calculate the closing speed to be 40 MPH, 30 of the car and 10 of yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Ok. Now imagine I was running away at 10 mph, I would now measure it to be moving at 20 mph.
    Same applies

    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Ok.Now imagine I am standing still and I measure that beam of light to be c. Imagine I was instead moving toward the light at half of c. You might expect to measure the light moving at c plus half of c. But we don't. It ends up being c despite what we would expect. This was an open problem in physics, finally explained with relativity. Your diagram does not take this fact into account.
    Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

    If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.
     

  48. #148  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    yes butthat definition is also frame dependant, and takes into account results of SR
    Really, can you post a link that mentions SR in the definition of a meter?
     

  49. #149  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Ok, then what we are trying to tell you in your terms is the the closing speed of light and every other object moving or not in the universe is just c. It can never be anything else
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Although I have never heard the term
     

  51. #151  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Ok, then what we are trying to tell you in your terms is the the closing speed of light and every other object moving or not in the universe is just c. It can never be anything else
    So let me get this straight, two light sources are a distance apart from each other at t=0. They simultaneously emit light. Do the light spheres meet in the middle?
     

  52. #152  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Although I have never heard the term
    You've never heard the term closing speed? Ruh Roh, no wonder you have big misconceptions!
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now
     

  54. #154  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

    If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.
    No!

    Look at it in another way:

    You stand still and a car is parked some distance away. Another car comes speeding towards you and the instant it is level with the standing car, they both flash their lights for an instant. You say you will see the light from the moving car first. Repeated experiments have revealed that this is NOT the case. You will see both of their lights at the same time, with the moving car's light being blue shifted. Relativity explains why. Now, do you understand what experiment means? This effect has been measured, many times over at that and is contrary to your diagram. I know it doesn't make intuitive sense, but if you have read anything about quantum mechanics, you would see that our common sense is not that good a measure of reality.

    So, how could that be? Could it be that you are wrong? I'd say so.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
     

  56. #156  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now
    Oh, so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

    Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?
     

  57. #157  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
    So you refuse to accept the notion of simultaneity, eh? Boy, Uncle Albert did a fine job on you. (rolls eyes)
     

  58. #158  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
    Not sure what you mean? Doesn't this objection go for your example as well?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  59. #159  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

    If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.
    No!

    Look at it in another way:

    You stand still and a car is parked some distance away. Another car comes speeding towards you and the instant it is level with the standing car, they both flash their lights for an instant. You say you will see the light from the moving car first. Repeated experiments have revealed that this is NOT the case. You will see both of their lights at the same time, with the moving car's light being blue shifted. Relativity explains why. Now, do you understand what experiment means? This effect has been measured, many times over at that and is contrary to your diagram. I know it doesn't make intuitive sense, but if you have read anything about quantum mechanics, you would see that our common sense is not that good a measure of reality.

    So, how could that be? Could it be that you are wrong? I'd say so.
    Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

    If the two cars are an equal distance away from me when the light is emitted from each, the light will reach me at the same time. The past has nothing to do with t=0 and (0,0,0) as far as the time of light travel is concerned.
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    If your framework was true, then we would be able to measure the difference in the relative speed of light, or closing speed, of the light from distant stars as the earth travelled around the sun. But the closing speed between the earth and the light from a star is always c, regardless if the planet is travelling toward the star, or away.
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
    Not sure what you mean? Doesn't this objection go for your example as well?
    Sorry my comment was directed towards motors comment about whether or not two beams of light would arrive in the middle of their source if emitted simultaneously, which without specifying which frame is measuring them to be simultaneity is meaningless. Not your example from above.
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now
    Oh, so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

    Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?
    I understand the concept of closing speed just fine, its just using that word for it I have never seen. Relative velocity is a far more useful concept when discussing this type of situation. I'm not talking about special relativity. Just the regular relativity used since Gallileos time.

    And unless you have been to a university, where you are constantly encouraged to question things, never take the word of your profs, and to explore things on your own, coming to your own conclusions, don't make stupid comments like this. Obviously I'm not going to try to rediscover the entire last 1000 years of physics on my own. But they don't force feed you anything.
     

  63. #163  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Don't you dare put words in my mouth.
    Calm down there tiger.

    If the two cars are an equal distance away from me when the light is emitted from each, the light will reach me at the same time. The past has nothing to do with t=0 and (0,0,0) as far as the time of light travel is concerned.
    How is it different from your diagram? Why does the past matter in your diagram?

    To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why? You calculate the light circle from the source, instead of what the wave front will do. In my example, if you put another guy an equal distance on the other side of the still car, you'd still get the light from both cars at the same time. The same goes for guys on perpendicular sides, yet in your diagram you get different results.
    Last edited by KALSTER; February 15th, 2012 at 04:36 PM.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  64. #164  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why?
    No, in comparison, it would be like saying the car's light travels away from the point of origin it was emitted as the car also travels in the same direction at a slower speed away from that point of origin. In comparison, the box is to the guy standing still moving away from the point of origin, which would mean the parking lot was also traveling in space away from that point of origin and the guy was remaining standing in the same spot in the parking lot.
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Why would that point of origin orbit the sun in the exact spot relative to the earth? Is the earth moving relative to the frame in your diagram?

    I have a big question about your diagram. As I can see it, the light is emitted from the origin and remains fixed relative the frame of the diagram. How would we about finding this reference frame? I mean, wouldn't we be able to trace the light spheres path back their source point and determine this frame that is always fixed with respect to the origin points of light? Is it moving with respect to earth? The sun? The galaxy core? Some other galaxy or point in space?
     

  66. #166  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by TheObserver View Post
    Why would that point of origin orbit the sun in the exact spot relative to the earth? Is the earth moving relative to the frame in your diagram?

    I have a big question about your diagram. As I can see it, the light is emitted from the origin and remains fixed relative the frame of the diagram. How would we about finding this reference frame? I mean, wouldn't we be able to trace the light spheres path back their source point and determine this frame that is always fixed with respect to the origin points of light? Is it moving with respect to earth? The sun? The galaxy core? Some other galaxy or point in space?
    All the objects you mentioned, the sun, the earth, etc all move relative to the preferred frame, which is nothing more than an imaginary coordinate system for the infinite volume of space. Light defines distance in that frame. It is not a physical frame, it is the point of origin of light, and the distance that light travels away from that point of origin. Objects such as earth move in the preferred frame. Objects in space move in the volume of space.
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    Another thing. Your diagram has the source of light emitted at (0,0,0), the coordinate origin. Do you agree that it was arbitrarily chosen in the sense that if we had chosen that point to be (1,1,1) or (12,83,pi) or whatever, the physics should work out the same? I think you would agree with this. Also, we could have chosen the time the light was emitted to be called 5 seconds. Just start our watch earlier. You would certainly agree that the laws of physics would not change? Or even looked at it from the other direction.

    Unfortunately, if we want this idea to be true - the idea of invariance of physical law under coordinate transformations - then we are forced to concede to a number of rules, ones you might not expect but are completely necessary for any mathematical framework to remain consistent. You are ignoring this fact, I'm sorry to say.
     

  68. #168  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why?
    No, in comparison, it would be like saying the car's light travels away from the point of origin it was emitted as the car also travels in the same direction at a slower speed away from that point of origin. In comparison, the box is to the guy standing still moving away from the point of origin, which would mean the parking lot was also traveling in space away from that point of origin and the guy was remaining standing in the same spot in the parking lot.
    I'll quote a further edit I made to my post:

    "You calculate the light circle from the source, instead of what the wave front will do. In my example, if you put another guy an equal distance on the other side of the still car, you'd still get the light from both cars at the same time. The same goes for guys on perpendicular sides, yet in your diagram you get different results."

    See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Senior TheObserver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    351
    In fact if earth is moving relative to the absolute space then we would never measure the velocity of light to be c, it would always be different due to the earths motion! Your idea is impossible, I think you will come to realize that very soon.
     

  70. #170  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    This thread needs to be shot to put it out of it's (our) misery.
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    897
    , so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

    Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?
    doesn't that depend on the observer?
     

  72. #172  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?
    Maybe it is not clear enough for you that the source remains at the center of the cube at all times? Maybe you don't understand what the origin of the light sphere actually is? There is nothing at the point of origin, I only drew it for a reference so that you can see what is going on. The point of origin is simply the point in space that the source emitted light at t=0. The source has since moved with the cube, as it remains fixed at the center of the cube at all times.
     

  73. #173  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    I still see no explanation for the round trip time being 1.68...seconds. Does anybody claim to have an answer for that?
     

  74. #174  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?
    Maybe it is not clear enough for you that the source remains at the center of the cube at all times? Maybe you don't understand what the origin of the light sphere actually is? There is nothing at the point of origin, I only drew it for a reference so that you can see what is going on. The point of origin is simply the point in space that the source emitted light at t=0. The source has since moved with the cube, as it remains fixed at the center of the cube at all times.
    Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from? If the source was moving with the box, the wave front would expand in the box evenly. You are working from a preferred reference frame for light to propagate in. This is wrong, as has been told to you countless times. And it is not just say so or some SR screwing around, it is an observed fact that there is no preferred frame. Hear that? Observed. Fact. What don't you understand about that?

    Now, will you acknowledge your fault in the face of direct contrary observation? I don't imagine you would. Don't come with ifs and buts, your premise does not tie up with what really happens. That is independent of if you are able to grasp why or not.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  75. #175  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Objects such as earth move in the preferred frame.
    Then we should be able to perform an experiment to measure the movement of the earth in this preferred frame, no?

    What do you think such an experiment would involve? Perhaps sending light in various directions and measuring the time it takes to be reflected back? These should vary depending on the relationship to the direction of motion in the preferred frame.

    Do you think we should perform such an experiment in order to confirm you hypothesis?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  76. #176  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.

    From what I can gather we have a cube of length a, moving at some relativistic speed v, and in the center of the cube there is a light source and a detector. So light is emitted, bounces off the wall mirror, and returns to the detector while the box keeps moving uniformly. I think Motor Daddy's argument is that an observer inside the box will measure a different speed of light then an outside observer looking at the whole setup moving along ( in other words, the travel times of the light wave front don't agree ).

    Let's do the maths. ( a = length of cube in meters, t = travel time of light wave in seconds, v = velocity of box relative to outside observer, c = speed of light in vauum )

    Observer 1, inside the box, measures the following round trip time :



    Simple as that. The outside observer sees the box length contracted, and thus measures the following time :



    If we compare the two clock readings, we of course know that the moving one is subject to time dilation, thus the following relation between the clocks must hold :



    Let's check this :



    which is just as expected. What this means is that



    but also



    therefore



    so both observers will measure the same speed of light. This is immediately obvious because as the outside observer is looking at the box he sees its length being contracted, whereas the inside observer measures a time which is dilated due to the box's movement. Both effects balance just so that the speed of light is the same in both cases, even though the two observers don't agree on the length measurements and time readings.
    Quod erad demonstrandum.
     

  77. #177  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Yes. His basic argument is essentially for a preferred frame for light to propagate in, like an aether.

    His diagram gives the same results as if you have a pond with a square photo frame hovering over it and moving at a certain speed. Then you drop a pebble through the centre of the frame and measure the time it takes for the wave front to come level to each flat side of the frame. Then you drop another pebble next to the centre of the leading side as the first wave front comes level and measure the time it takes for the new wave front to hit the centre of the photo frame again. He thinks light behaves the same way and doesn't get what is meant by the constancy of C. He seems to deny the results of actual experiments, which his was not.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  78. #178  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.
    He has already threatened to continue repeating this idiocy, unchanged, for at least 500 posts. He is impervious to evidence or learning. I think his brain has fossilized.
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  79. #179  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Yes. His basic argument is essentially for a preferred frame for light to propagate in, like an aether.

    His diagram gives the same results as if you have a pond with a square photo frame hovering over it and moving at a certain speed. Then you drop a pebble through the centre of the frame and measure the time it takes for the wave front to come level to each flat side of the frame. Then you drop another pebble next to the centre of the leading side as the first wave front comes level and measure the time it takes for the new wave front to hit the centre of the photo frame again. He thinks light behaves the same way and doesn't get what is meant by the constancy of C. He seems to deny the results of actual experiments, which his was not.
    That pretty much what I thought, even though I still can't access the picture in the OP ( could be due to my own Internet connection - not reliable in my part of the world ).
    Anyway, the maths I gave in post 176 clearly show that c is always constant for any observer in this case. I'm pretty sure though that our friend will try and find some excuse or another as to why I'm wrong
     

  80. #180  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.
    He has already threatened to continue repeating this idiocy, unchanged, for at least 500 posts. He is impervious to evidence or learning. I think his brain has fossilized.
    I agree. I however will certainly not waste my time with another 300-odd posts on this. Everything that needed to be said has been said.
     

  81. #181  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I still see no explanation for the round trip time being 1.68...seconds. Does anybody claim to have an answer for that?
    You will find the maths to answer your questions in post 176. If the measured size of the cube is 1 light second ( you realize that is MASSIVE, don't you ), then the travel time center-edge-center is always exactly 1 second, for all observers.
    For the outsider observer - because the length of the box is contracted in relation to the inside observer's measurement.
    For the inside observer - because his clock is time dilated in relation to the outside stationary clock.
    In both cases c is experimentally measured to be constant due to the above effects. c is always the same for all observers.

    As for experimental evidence, there is a long list of experiment to be found here :

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

    With this it has been definitely proven to you that c is in fact constant for all observers, meaning in essence that there is no absolute preferred frame of reference required.
    Last edited by Markus Hanke; February 16th, 2012 at 04:19 AM.
     

  82. #182  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Markus, You're a funny guy. You haven't even seen the pic and you are arguing against it. That alone speaks volumes as to your ignorance. You are arguing against something that you haven't even seen yet!

    I already posted in the pic, and I posted it for you in this thread, but you fail to acknowledge, so I will repost:

    2D equation:
    v(x)=sqrt(t(z)^2-l(z)^2)/t(z)
    t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))


    where
    v(x) is the velocity of the cube in the x direction
    t(z) is the measured time to the z receiver
    l(z) is the length between the source and the z receiver in the cube frame
    t(x) is the time is takes for light to reach the x receiver

    The length between the source and the receivers remains .5 light seconds at all times in the cube frame.

    Go ahead, play around with the numbers. Change the times to the z receiver and see what times you get to the x receiver and the velocity of the box you get. Try a bunch of combinations.

    I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
     

  83. #183  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

    Post #175, for example.

    Or: How does GPS work?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  84. #184  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from?
    Because the light sphere defines distance in space, and it expands its radius equally in every different direction from the point of origin. That is a fact that is simply irrefutable. If you can't acknowledge that fact then you will never understand what I am saying.
     

  85. #185  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  86. #186  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

    Post #175, for example.

    Or: How does GPS work?
    It's time people answer my questions. Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter? Just to complicate things even more? I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic. How about you give me SR's numbers of the diagram? Obviously SR is incapable of acknowledging that the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame, as it says the light always hits the receivers in .5 seconds. lol

    So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.
     

  87. #187  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER View Post
    Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from?
    Because the light sphere defines distance in space, and it expands its radius equally in every different direction from the point of origin. That is a fact that is simply irrefutable. If you can't acknowledge that fact then you will never understand what I am saying.
    Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  88. #188  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?[/QUOTE]

    So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
     

  89. #189  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

    Post #175, for example.

    Or: How does GPS work?
    It's time people answer my questions.
    They have. Repeatedly. You choose to put your fingers in your ears, screw up your eyes and go "la la la".

    Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter?
    Something to do with relativity being essential to its operation perhaps?

    I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic.
    Your picture only shows one case. By your childish rule that is all I am allowed to say.

    So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.
    I'm not allowed to: it isn't shown in your picture.

    Now, you keep talking about "measurements". How about the experiment I describe in post #175. Do you think that would be a useful thing to do?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  90. #190  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
    Yes. But every observer will see that sphere in a different place.

    Sorry. It's not in your picture.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  91. #191  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

    Post #175, for example.

    Or: How does GPS work?
    It's time people answer my questions.
    They have. Repeatedly. You choose to put your fingers in your ears, screw up your eyes and go "la la la".

    Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter?
    Something to do with relativity being essential to its operation perhaps?

    I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic.
    Your picture only shows one case. By your childish rule that is all I am allowed to say.

    So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.
    I'm not allowed to: it isn't shown in your picture.

    Now, you keep talking about "measurements". How about the experiment I describe in post #175. Do you think that would be a useful thing to do?
    You've got to much non-sense in your posts for me to take you seriously.
     

  92. #192  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
    Yes. But every observer will see that sphere in a different place.
    No every observer will not see that sphere in a different place. You are delusional. There is ONE set of facts in the coordinate system of space. ONE history book. There is not an infinite amount of realities there is ONE reality!
     

  93. #193  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    You've got to much non-sense in your post for me to take you seriously.
    I didn't see any nonsense there. Unless you mean your rule about only talking about things in your picture.

    It isn't nonsense that GPS relies on relativity.

    It isn't nonsense to suggest a real-world experiment to test your hypothesis. That is how science works. Are you ... scared of that idea? Are you a coward? Afraid to have you idea tested? Why else would you avoid it?

    So, how about the experiment in post #175?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  94. #194  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
    See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs. The calculation given already has proven you wrong, because it clearly shows that c is equal for both observers, thus no preferred frame exists.
     

  95. #195  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    306
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
    See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs.
    Bwahahahahahahaha

    Pythagorean Theorem isn't general?

    You are trying to use SR to prove SR, which is ridiculous!

    Post the link of proof of length contraction.
     

  96. #196  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    So, how about the experiment in post #175?

    Or do you want to admit you are a coward as well as ignorant?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  97. #197  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?
    So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
    Oh my God... It depends on the frame of reference.

    Answer my questions MD. Address the points I make in that post, will you?

    Once again, for the umpteenth time, light behaves differently from other waves. This has been shown through experiment. Your diagram demonstrates what would happen if you were to conduct the experiment with a pond, a moving photo frame and a pebble. But it does not work like that with light. With light there is no preferred frame of reference, even if that does not make sense to you, that is what experiments show. Ok?

    With light the wave fronts will hit all sides of the cube at the same time. That is just the way it is, has been shown by experiment and is accurately predicted by relativity. We are not making this stuff up like you are. Markus has demonstrated the math that describes it.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  98. #198  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
    See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs.
    Bwahahahahahahaha

    Pythagorean Theorem isn't general?

    You are trying to use SR to prove SR, which is ridiculous!

    Post the link of proof of length contraction.
    I have already done that in post 181.
    Are you blind ? Do you actually read what people are posting ? It seems not.
     

  99. #199  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,844
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Are you blind ?
    Of course he is blind. He couldn't hold on to these ideas if he weren't. He is obviously scared of learning anything that might shake his world view. I'm sure he must be a geocentric religious crank.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  100. #200  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Are you blind ?
    Of course he is blind. He couldn't hold on to these ideas if he weren't. He is obviously scared of learning anything that might shake his world view. I'm sure he must be a geocentric religious crank.
    Quite possible
     

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. light speed does not equate to time travel
    By justatradie1 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: February 21st, 2012, 01:45 PM
  2. How Time travel works
    By garato78 in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: July 5th, 2010, 10:20 PM
  3. How it works time machine.
    By Nastia.Wes in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 17th, 2009, 06:56 PM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2009, 10:15 AM
  5. Space-Time for dummies. (It works for me?)
    By That Rascal Puff in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 12th, 2006, 12:50 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •