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

1. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We will only acknowledge your preferred frame when you give us reason to. You do not even understand how the SI definition of a metre fails to support your position - as it is based in relativity, it cannot be used to disprove relativity. The problem is, you do not understand that, and you do not understand that you do not understand that.
Show me in the definition of the meter where it mentions Relativity? Show me.

2. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
You speak in code. Is that a yes or a no?
Mu.

Why is it relevant what I think?

You have a METHOD for determining absolute velocity wrt the preferred frame.

Tell us the METHOD!

Tell us our speed! (I might want to get off)

3. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We will only acknowledge your preferred frame when you give us reason to. You do not even understand how the SI definition of a metre fails to support your position - as it is based in relativity, it cannot be used to disprove relativity. The problem is, you do not understand that, and you do not understand that you do not understand that.
Show me in the definition of the meter where it mentions Relativity? Show me.
Show me the evidence for your preferred frame ? Experimental evidence ? Where is it ? Show me.

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That is because I understand the laws of physics.
No you do not. What you claim are the laws of physics is really just Einstein's second postulate, which is bogus, BS, and incorrect even!

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
The light travels one meter, and thus takes 1/c seconds as measured by either the lamp or the runner. The speed of the running man is irrelevant, and nothing you say, draw, claim or argue changes this fact.
Are you claiming that the light always travels the same distance to reach the runner, regardless of where the runner is when the light reaches the runner?

5. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We cannot apply the findings in your diagram to any real world experiments and get the correct answer as given by those experiments. Your diagram does not predict the results we have already. What are we to do?
There's only one thing you can do, abandon your BS experiments. By definition I am correct, and if your experiments don't agree then those experiments are incorrect. So do what you do with all trash, throw it in the garbage. Chalk it up as a learning experience and start from scratch using the proper method. As the old saying goes, "back to the drawing board."

6. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That is because I understand the laws of physics.
No you do not. What you claim are the laws of physics is really just Einstein's second postulate, which is bogus, BS, and incorrect even!

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
The light travels one meter, and thus takes 1/c seconds as measured by either the lamp or the runner. The speed of the running man is irrelevant, and nothing you say, draw, claim or argue changes this fact.
Are you claiming that the light always travels the same distance to reach the runner, regardless of where the runner is when the light reaches the runner?
Do you know what the definition of a "troll" is ?
I am asking you again - where is your evidence for the existence of a preferred frame ? All your arguments are based on this. If you cannot provide such evidence, then this entire discussion is pointless.
So far as I am concerned such a frame does not exist, thus you are wrong in all your arguments.

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Do you know what the definition of a "troll" is ?
I am asking you again - where is your evidence for the existence of a preferred frame ? All your arguments are based on this. If you cannot provide such evidence, then this entire discussion is pointless.
So far as I am concerned such a frame does not exist, thus you are wrong in all your arguments.
Can you prove the second postulate to be true without using SR?

8. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We cannot apply the findings in your diagram to any real world experiments and get the correct answer as given by those experiments. Your diagram does not predict the results we have already. What are we to do?
There's only one thing you can do, abandon your BS experiments. By definition I am correct, and if your experiments don't agree then those experiments are incorrect. So do what you do with all trash, throw it in the garbage. Chalk it up as a learning experience and start from scratch using the proper method. As the old saying goes, "back to the drawing board."
Do you actually know what you are saying ?
"All of the experiments that have ever been done are wrong, because I say so !"
Are you for real ?

9. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
By definition I am correct, and if your experiments don't agree then those experiments are incorrect.
So perhaps you can propose a "correct" experiment that will produce the "correct" results and prove you are "correct".

I have asked for this several times and ....

... silence ... tumbleweed ... silence ...

Still waiting...

10. maybe we could build a underground chamber with a size bigger than 300km x 300km, i just don't know/think that's a good idea.

11. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We cannot apply the findings in your diagram to any real world experiments and get the correct answer as given by those experiments. Your diagram does not predict the results we have already. What are we to do?
There's only one thing you can do, abandon your BS experiments. By definition I am correct, and if your experiments don't agree then those experiments are incorrect. So do what you do with all trash, throw it in the garbage. Chalk it up as a learning experience and start from scratch using the proper method. As the old saying goes, "back to the drawing board."
Do you actually know what you are saying ?
"All of the experiments that have ever been done are wrong, because I say so !"
Are you for real ?
If you can't prove the second postulate to be true without using SR what ground do you have to stand on other than circular logic?

12. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Do you know what the definition of a "troll" is ?
I am asking you again - where is your evidence for the existence of a preferred frame ? All your arguments are based on this. If you cannot provide such evidence, then this entire discussion is pointless.
So far as I am concerned such a frame does not exist, thus you are wrong in all your arguments.
Can you prove the second postulate to be true without using SR?
SR is the correct, tested, verified and thus accepted theory. Its prediction hold true.
You must prove that SR is wrong, and not the other way around. I have already provided experimental evidence for SR, you have not provided anything.

Once again I am asking you - where is the experimental evidence for a preferred frame of reference ?

13. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We cannot apply the findings in your diagram to any real world experiments and get the correct answer as given by those experiments. Your diagram does not predict the results we have already. What are we to do?
There's only one thing you can do, abandon your BS experiments. By definition I am correct, and if your experiments don't agree then those experiments are incorrect. So do what you do with all trash, throw it in the garbage. Chalk it up as a learning experience and start from scratch using the proper method. As the old saying goes, "back to the drawing board."
Do you actually know what you are saying ?
"All of the experiments that have ever been done are wrong, because I say so !"
Are you for real ?
If you can't prove the second postulate to be true without using SR what ground do you have to stand on other than circular logic?
There is no circular reasoning, because SR has been experimentally proven to be correct.
And again - where is your experimental evidence to the contrary ? Where is the evidence for a preferred frame ?

14. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by SpeedFreek
We will only acknowledge your preferred frame when you give us reason to. You do not even understand how the SI definition of a metre fails to support your position - as it is based in relativity, it cannot be used to disprove relativity. The problem is, you do not understand that, and you do not understand that you do not understand that.
Show me in the definition of the meter where it mentions Relativity? Show me.
In the definition of a metre being related to the speed of light, there is no mention of anything about the velocity of the observer, as their velocity makes no difference to the speed of light they will measure. If it did make a difference, the definition would need to allocate a rest frame for the measurement, but it doesn't need to, as we already know that the speed of light is measured to be isotropic regardless of the motion of the observer.

15. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
SR is the correct, tested, verified and thus accepted theory. Its prediction hold true.
You must prove that SR is wrong, and not the other way around. I have already provided experimental evidence for SR, you have not provided anything.

Once again I am asking you - where is the experimental evidence for a preferred frame of reference ?
Once again I'm asking you, what is your proof that the second postulate is true, that doesn't involve using the methods of SR? Are you kidding me, you expect me to blindly assume the second postulate is correct because you say so? I gave you proof that the second postulate is wrong, that all frames DO NOT measure the speed of light to be c in their frame. Prove my diagram wrong or admit the second postulate is wrong.

16. Originally Posted by Strange
You speak in code. Is that a yes or a no?
Mu.

Why is it relevant what I think?

You have a METHOD for determining absolute velocity wrt the preferred frame.

Tell us the METHOD!

Tell us our speed! (I might want to get off)
Still waiting ....

Come on Motor Daddy, you are normally quite outspoken, not afraid to share your opinions. And yet you seem strangely quiet on this. You can't even tell us why you can't tell us the method?

I assume you have read some stupid Geocentric crap, couldn't really understand it (they do have to come up with some rather convoluted justifications) but decided to just repeat a few key phrases. You don't want to move outside your comfort zone by describing this METHOD of yours and so you just go dumb on us ...

I guess your METHOD doesn't exist after all...

17. Originally Posted by Strange
I guess your METHOD doesn't exist after all...
See, there you go again making bad assumptions. You really need to stop doing that.

18. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
SR is the correct, tested, verified and thus accepted theory. Its prediction hold true.
You must prove that SR is wrong, and not the other way around. I have already provided experimental evidence for SR, you have not provided anything.

Once again I am asking you - where is the experimental evidence for a preferred frame of reference ?
Once again I'm asking you, what is your proof that the second postulate is true, that doesn't involve using the methods of SR? Are you kidding me, you expect me to blindly assume the second postulate is correct because you say so? I gave you proof that the second postulate is wrong, that all frames DO NOT measure the speed of light to be c in their frame. Prove my diagram wrong or admit the second postulate is wrong.
What I am expecting you to do is acknowledge the evidence that has already been presented to validate SR. Nothing more or nothing less.
I don't give a hoot if you believe me as a person or not. This is a science forum. I gave you your evidence, you refuse to acknowledge it.
SR has been proven right.
Therefore you are wrong.
Now, respond in kind and give evidence in your support. Where is your experimental evidence for a preferred frame ?

19. The speed of light has been measured to be the same in different directions, throughout a whole orbit of the Earth around the Sun, where the apparatus on the surface of the Earth was obviously moving with the rotation of the Earth as well as moving along the Earths orbit, which is weakly accelerating and decelerating. There was no difference in the speed of light in any direction at any given time during the experiment.

How does your preferred frame deal with this?

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
I guess your METHOD doesn't exist after all...
See, there you go again making bad assumptions. You really need to stop doing that.
Well, what am I supposed to assume if you won't reveal its great and awesome secrets.

Do we need to join a secret society or pay a fee before you will tell us your METHOD?

Tell us the METHOD oh great and wise Motor Daddy! We implore and beseech you! Drop the mighty METHOD into our impoverished and benighted lives! Woe are we without the METHOD!

21. OK. Here's the deal. If you tell us your method, I'll let you have a ride on my unicorn. It's invisible and pink, you know. And it flies.

22. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Strange
I guess your METHOD doesn't exist after all...
See, there you go again making bad assumptions. You really need to stop doing that.
Well, what am I supposed to assume if you won't reveal its great and awesome secrets.

Do we need to join a secret society or pay a fee before you will tell us your METHOD?

Tell us the METHOD oh great and wise Motor Daddy! We implore and beseech you! Drop the mighty METHOD into our impoverished and benighted lives! Woe are we without the METHOD!
No fee required. I will provide the method to the public for free when I have finished perfecting it.

23. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
No fee required. I will provide the method to the public for free when I have finished perfecting it.
Excellent! We are making progress. Can you give us a rough timescale; days, weeks, years? Just so I know how much to temper my excitement.

I am really looking forward to this. I think we have only had two(*) major paradigm shifts in science in my lifetime. This will be great! <rubs hands>

Edit:
(*) No, three. But two of them were based on relativity so it'll be brilliant to seem them overturned again. That is what I love about science - it is such a roller-coaster ride!

24. Originally Posted by Strange
No fee required. I will provide the method to the public for free when I have finished perfecting it.
Excellent! We are making progress. Can you give us a rough timescale; days, weeks, years? Just so I know how much to temper my excitement.

I am really looking forward to this. I think we have only had two major paradigm shifts in science in my lifetime. This will be great! <rubs hands>
I know, I can't wait. I'm thinking it probably won't be bulletproof until after next bow hunting season. I have priorities, you know.

25. I am still waiting for the evidence of your preferred frame. Where is it ? How much longer are you going to ignore the question ?

26. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am still waiting for the evidence of your preferred frame. Where is it ? How much longer are you going to ignore the question ?
Would you even recognize a preferred frame if I showed it to you? Obviously not, as I've already done so. What would your idea of a preferred frame be? I put it right in front of your eyes and you can't detect it. WTF?

27. Don't feed the Troll

28. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Don't feed the Troll
Pot, is that you?

29. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I know, I can't wait. I'm thinking it probably won't be bulletproof until after next bow hunting season. I have priorities, you know.
Unfortunately, my witty riposte was too short for the forum software to accept.

Instead I shall just say: good luck with that.

Shall we close this thread now until you have something concrete (the METHOD) to bring to the table?

30. Originally Posted by Strange
I know, I can't wait. I'm thinking it probably won't be bulletproof until after next bow hunting season. I have priorities, you know.
Unfortunately, my witty riposte was too short for the forum software to accept.

Instead I shall just say: good luck with that.

Shall we close this thread now until you have something concrete (the METHOD) to bring to the table?
Uh, this is the pseudo forum, is it not? I realize you'd like it closed, but I may have some secret admirers that wish to contribute some valuable information on my behalf at a later date.

31. I'll give you a sneak preview, it involves measuring the one-way times, and finding the sweet spot where the times are exactly the same each way.

32. "Uh, this is the pseudo forum, is it not? I realize you'd like it closed, but I may have some secret admirers that wish to contribute some valuable information on my behalf at a later date."

No, I checked the forecast for hell, and it's not expected to freeze over any time soon...

33. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am still waiting for the evidence of your preferred frame. Where is it ? How much longer are you going to ignore the question ?
Would you even recognize a preferred frame if I showed it to you? Obviously not, as I've already done so. What would your idea of a preferred frame be? I put it right in front of your eyes and you can't detect it. WTF?
You have done no such thing. What you have done is post a diagram, and then you have made a claim :"This is a preferred frame, because I say so !".
This is not evidence.
What I am asking you for is experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame of reference. Where is this evidence ?
All you have provided so far is statements of the form "This is right/wrong because I say so !". WTF ?

34. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Uh, this is the pseudo forum, is it not? I realize you'd like it closed, but I may have some secret admirers that wish to contribute some valuable information on my behalf at a later date.
True enough. You are free to spout any old nonsense here, with no requirement to substantiate it. Carry on.

I think most of the people who might have supported you have probably been banned for resorting to offensive insults and threats when shown to be wrong. So, I guess some kudos to you for just sticking the odd "BS" or "stupid" into the discussion.

35. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am still waiting for the evidence of your preferred frame. Where is it ? How much longer are you going to ignore the question ?
Would you even recognize a preferred frame if I showed it to you? Obviously not, as I've already done so. What would your idea of a preferred frame be? I put it right in front of your eyes and you can't detect it. WTF?
You have done no such thing. What you have done is post a diagram, and then you have made a claim :"This is a preferred frame, because I say so !".
This is not evidence.
What I am asking you for is experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame of reference. Where is this evidence ?
All you have provided so far is statements of the form "This is right/wrong because I say so !". WTF ?
According to the definition of a meter, my diagram is the preferred frame. My diagram is the ONLY correct way to use the definition of the meter properly. When you can acknowledge that frames of reference have motion in the preferred then you will understand why the second postulate is BS.

I get it, you claim that your box never has any motion and that it's really all the other boxes that are in motion, but not yours.
I understand that when you are in your car on the highway, that it is all the other cars that are in motion, and that the earth (road) is in motion driving your wheels on the car, but that your car is motionless.

I actually get that when you are sitting in your living room that it's the sun that's traveling around the earth while you remain motionless.

Get a clue, pal!

36. I repeat myself, even though I really shouldn't have to; here is the evidence that SR is correct, and you are wrong :

Michelson-Morley Experiment ( speed of light is independent of direction )
Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment ( speed of light is independent of velocity of emitter )
Ives-Stillwell Experiment ( time dilation )
Atmospheric mu-meson decay ( length contraction )

And now I am asking you again - where is the evidence for a preferred frame of reference ? What that means is - where is the experimental evidence that contradicts all of the above experiments ?

37. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I get it, you claim that your box never has any motion and that it's really all the other boxes that are in motion, but not yours.
No, you are getting this completely wrong. Is this why you refuse to listen ?
What we are saying to you is that both points of view are equally valid. If there is no other point of reference, neither the outside observer nor the observer inside the box can tell which one is moving and which one is at rest, because all physical laws are the same in both cases. That is all.
It is perfectly fine to say the box is at rest and everything else is moving, but it is equally ok to say that the box moves and the outside observer is at rest. The point is, there is no way to distinguish the two, so long as you only go back and forth between these two frames. They are equivalent.

38. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I actually get that when you are sitting in your living room that it's the sun that's traveling around the earth while you remain motionless.

Get a clue, pal!
Yup. The results of Hafele-Keating show the predicted time-dilation in relation to a frame at rest at the centre of the Earth. The axis that Earth rotates around must therefore be your preferred frame, even though it is moving through space, no?

39. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I get it, you claim that your box never has any motion and that it's really all the other boxes that are in motion, but not yours.
No, you are getting this completely wrong. Is this why you refuse to listen ?
What we are saying to you is that both points of view are equally valid. If there is no other point of reference, neither the outside observer nor the observer inside the box can tell which one is moving and which one is at rest, because all physical laws are the same in both cases. That is all.
It is perfectly fine to say the box is at rest and everything else is moving, but it is equally ok to say that the box moves and the outside observer is at rest. The point is, there is no way to distinguish the two, so long as you only go back and forth between these two frames. They are equivalent.
No both points of view are NOT equally valid. Are you out of your mind? Do you not understand the diagram I posted? That is not a reversible situation!

Again, Einstein's second postulate is not a law of physics. You are very confused as to what a law of physics actually is. I can say for certain, the second postulate is NOT A LAW OF PHYSICS!

40. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
No both points of view are NOT equally valid. Are you out of your mind? Do you not understand the diagram I posted? That is not a reversible situation!

Again, Einstein's second postulate is not a law of physics. You are very confused as to what a law of physics actually is. I can say for certain, the second postulate is NOT A LAW OF PHYSICS!
Why, just because you say so ?
Yes, they are equally valid, and I have already provided you references to the experiments that prove that they are.

What have you given us ? "NOT A LAW OF PHYSICS BECAUSE I SAY SO ?". Right.
Prove to us that the experiments and results given to you are incorrect. Where is your evidence ?

41. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
No both points of view are NOT equally valid. Are you out of your mind? Do you not understand the diagram I posted? That is not a reversible situation!
Yes, it is a reversible situation. Here's the evidence (again) :

Michelson-Morley Experiment ( speed of light is independent of direction )
Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment ( speed of light is independent of velocity of emitter )
Ives-Stillwell Experiment ( time dilation )
Atmospheric mu-meson decay ( length contraction )

42. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Yes, they are equally valid, and I have already provided you references to the experiments that prove that they are.
So if I am on a sidewalk, and another person is on a sidewalk, and the distance between us is decreasing, I am within my rights to say that the other person is the one burning all the calories and I am burning none, because it's really the other person that is moving and not me?

If I am in my car following another car and the distance is remaining the same between us, that I am not doing work and burning gasoline?

43. If two sources are a distance apart from each other and they simultaneously emit light, where does the light meet?

44. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
If two sources are a distance apart from each other and they simultaneously emit light, where does the light meet?
It doesn't matter how often you ask, you will always get the same answer: it is observer dependent; it depends who measures it.

45. if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?

46. Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
What result would who get? And what do you mean by "result"?

47. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
So if I am on a sidewalk, and another person is on a sidewalk, and the distance between us is decreasing, I am within my rights to say that the other person is the one burning all the calories and I am burning none, because it's really the other person that is moving and not me?
Stupid example, because there is a third frame of reference - the sidewalk. You can always tell who is moving in relation to the sidewalk. Come up with something better, will you ? Your OP only had to frames of reference, an outside observer and the box. Keep it that way.

If I am in my car following another car and the distance is remaining the same between us, that I am not doing work and burning gasoline?
Once again, there is a third frame of reference here, the road. Keep it to just two observers without external points of reference, will you. Besides, we are talking inertial frames...if you have a car is burning fuel than that obviously means there is acceleration and we are no longer in the realm of SR.

48. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
What result would who get? And what do you mean by "result"?
the light would reach both poles at the same time, no?
even though we are in motion.

49. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
What result would who get? And what do you mean by "result"?
the light would reach both poles at the same time, no?
even though we are in motion.
Yes, because we are all (the observer and the poles) moving together.

50. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
What result would who get? And what do you mean by "result"?
the light would reach both poles at the same time, no?
even though we are in motion.
Yes, because we are all (the observer and the poles) moving together.
exactly. and to me that's the problem MT doesn't realize.

51. Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
What result would who get? And what do you mean by "result"?
the light would reach both poles at the same time, no?
even though we are in motion.
Yes, because we are all (the observer and the poles) moving together.
exactly. and to me that's the problem MT doesn't realize.
Ah, I see what you mean.

Motor Daddy, what do you say?

Or does this just prove that the earth is stationary...

52. Originally Posted by curious mind
if you have 2 poles 100 m apart, in direction to earths rotation, and flash a light at the center, what result would you get?
How did you determine the 100 meters?

53. why would it matter if 10, 100 or 1000 meters?

54. Originally Posted by curious mind
why would it matter if 10, 100 or 1000 meters?
I asked you how you determined the 100 meters, not whether it mattered or not.

55. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Your OP only had to frames of reference, an outside observer and the box. Keep it that way.
There was no external observer in the OP. This information is as recorded. It is history. It is what happened in reality. There need not be an external observer, the times to the receivers is when the light hit the receivers at the receivers, not a distance away from the receivers.

56. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
There was no external observer in the OP. This information is as recorded.when they are plugged in to charge;
Recorded? (We can leave aside your fantasy that this really happened.) Recorded by whom? By ... an observer, maybe?

It is history. It is what happened in reality.
Yeah, right. You still haven't explained when or how this "happened". I'm beginning to think you are actually delusional.

There need not be an external observer, the times to the receivers is when the light hit the receivers at the receivers, not a distance away from the receivers.x
And who measured those times, and drew the diagram if not an "observer"?

57. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by curious mind
why would it matter if 10, 100 or 1000 meters?
I asked you how you determined the 100 meters, not whether it mattered or not.
Make it 100 paces. They were paced out. OK?

58. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
why would it matter if 10, 100 or 1000 meters?
I asked you how you determined the 100 meters, not whether it mattered or not.
Make it 100 paces. They were paced out. OK?
But, see the problem with your pace count is that it is not the definition of a meter. The meter is defined by light travel time.

59. I've only got a few minutes left so make it snappy.

60. what?
1 pole is 100 meter away frm the other pole and a light emitted at the center(50 meter apart to each pole).

61. Originally Posted by curious mind
what?
1 pole is 100 meter away frm the other pole and a light emitted at the center(50 meter apart to each pole).
Light travel time defines the meter. How did you determine it was 100 meters?

62. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by curious mind
what?
1 pole is 100 meter away frm the other pole and a light emitted at the center(50 meter apart to each pole).
Light travel time defines the meter. How did you determine it was 100 meters?
i have no clue what you mean. you want me to base an experiment according to a result?

63. Why does it matter how we define the meter? It used to be defined as the length of some stick in france. Thats not the point, the units are arbitrary.

I was also wondering, in your preferred frame hypothesis, how you know that light moves at c unless you have measured it? I mean what you say is that the speed of light moves at c in only one preferred frame. But, if we aren't in that frame, where did you get a value for c? And how do you know that light always moves at c in that frame anyways? Are you sure? Maybe it isn't always the same, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. The point is unless you have measured it you don't know. Why do you get the claim that the speed of light is constant in your frame, but demand a proof from us that light is constant for all frames?

64. I also recommend you look up the word postulate before you demand a proof for it. The proof of a postulate is in the form of experimental evidence, many links of which have already been supplied.

65. Originally Posted by curious mind
i have no clue what you mean. you want me to base an experiment according to a result?
I want you to tell me how you have determined that the distance you will be measuring is 100 meters?

66. Originally Posted by TheObserver
I was also wondering, in your preferred frame hypothesis, how you know that light moves at c unless you have measured it? I mean what you say is that the speed of light moves at c in only one preferred frame. But, if we aren't in that frame, where did you get a value for c? And how do you know that light always moves at c in that frame anyways? Are you sure? Maybe it isn't always the same, sometimes faster, sometimes slower. The point is unless you have measured it you don't know. Why do you get the claim that the speed of light is constant in your frame, but demand a proof from us that light is constant for all frames?
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?

67. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
So now you are saying that the speed of light actually is the same in all frames of reference. Very good, we are getting somewhere, maybe there is still hope for you. This is what we have been trying to explain to you in the past 466 posts. Everyone measures the same speed of light. Therefore, in order for this to be possible, time and length must adjust in order to keep their ratio constant for all observers, so we get time dilation and length contraction. It really is that simple.

68. Motor Daddy, I am very disappointed to come back to this thread this morning only to find that you still haven't provided the evidence I was asking you for.
Your entire argument right from the OP onwards is built on the claim that a preferred frame of reference exists. So where is the evidence ? Where is the link to the independently verifiable experiment that show us that your preferred frame is indeed real ? Mind you, I am asking you for experimental evidence which is repeatable and verifiable, not some diagram. Stop ignoring my request, and stop referring back to your diagram. It is not evidence. Was SR proven with a diagram ? No, it was proven using repeatable, objective experiments, such as these ( here we go once again ) :

Michelson-Morley Experiment ( speed of light is independent of direction )
Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment ( speed of light is independent of velocity of emitter )
Ives-Stillwell Experiment ( time dilation )
Atmospheric mu-meson decay ( length contraction )

and many others. And what experiments have you shown us ? None, absolutely none, not even a single one. All you have done is list nonsensical scenarios involving boxes, buses, cars, people walking on sidewalks, poles and Heaven knows what else, half of which aren't even inertial frames at all.

So where is the experimental evidence ? Show it to us, right here and now, and stop ignoring our requests, because without such evidence you have no case, and we might as well decide to start ignoring you.

So, once again, where is the experimental evidence for a preferred frame of reference ?

69. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
You do realize of course that by stating the above you have proven yourself wrong ?
If the speed of light is measured the same by everyone, as you very clearly ( and rightly ! ) state in the above, then that means of course that there can't be any preferred frame, simply because it doesn't matter in which frame you go, you will always measure the same speed of light.

So will you acknowledge now that your preferred frame doesn't exist ? Because, make no mistake about this, I will from now on certainly keep reminding you about what you have posted in the above, just like I will keep asking you for the experimental evidence, which, by your own admission now, does not exist.

70. Apparently we know the speed of light because we defined it. That is very interesting.

71. Motor Daddy, your hypothesis was the prevailing view in the 19th century because, as you say, it is so obvious.

Because of that, it was believed we should be able to measure the speed of the earth relative to an absolute rest frame (or an aether as they described it).

This is what the Michelson-Morley experiment set out to do. It is very similar to (exactly equivalent to) your picture. Therefore it should produce the the same result as your picture.

Can you explain why the Michelson-Morley experiment produced the result it did?

Note: this experiment is not based on relativity (it hadn't been published at the time) and relativity theory was not based on this experiment.

Therefore, you should obviously be able to explain the results of the experiment, according to your hypothesis and with no reference to relativity. You can do that, can't you...

If not, I will have to assume you don't even understand your own hypothesis.

72. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by curious mind
i have no clue what you mean. you want me to base an experiment according to a result?
I want you to tell me how you have determined that the distance you will be measuring is 100 meters?
ok, there's a crying wolf on the left, and a snappy turtle on the right. a light emits 1/2 way between them. better?

73. Clowns to the left of me,
Jokers to the right, here I am,
Stuck in the middle with you.
...
Trying to make some sense of it all,
But I can see that it makes no sense at all.

74. when i'm asking, that a light emits at a centre of 2poles/sheeps/walls, it doesn't matter whether they're 100 or 1000 meters or 3 ls apart, to answer if both receive the light at the same time or not.

75. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
Ever since he mentioned the definition of a metre I have been waiting for him to say it out loud, and now he has!

Motor Daddy seems to think that because we defined the metre in 1983 in terms of the speed of light, that all our measuring tools will naturally find that the speed of light is the same in different directions! The thinks we are crazy enough to think light always travels a metre in the same time in different directions because we defined the metre in terms of the speed of light!

This is his objection!

So, say we build an interfereometer and position the mirrors on each perpendicular arm, using a pair of lasers at the origin. We move the mirrors along the arms until we establish them to be same distance from the origin, using the interefence pattern made when the light returns to the origin. Now then, if the speed of light were different, in different directions, when we set up the apparatus, then we might actually find that one arm was as slightly longer than the other! We might be getting a null result when the arms were actually different lengths!

What Motor Daddy is failing to appreciate is what would happen to the interference pattern as the Earth rotated, and orbited the Sun. When we reach a point where the arms are rotated at 90 degrees in relation to the "set up" position, the fringes in the interference pattern would have shifted in relation to the "set up" position.

They didn't.

76. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
Doesn't this mean that a man in the box in your diagram will have to have a meter that is a different length than if he was at rest wrt the preferred frame of reference

77. Originally Posted by Strange
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
Doesn't this mean that a man in the box in your diagram will have to have a meter that is a different length than if he was at rest wrt the preferred frame of reference
Of course it does. That's why he has proven himself wrong.

78. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
So now you are saying that the speed of light actually is the same in all frames of reference. Very good, we are getting somewhere, maybe there is still hope for you. This is what we have been trying to explain to you in the past 466 posts. Everyone measures the same speed of light. Therefore, in order for this to be possible, time and length must adjust in order to keep their ratio constant for all observers, so we get time dilation and length contraction. It really is that simple.
I said nothing of reference frames or measuring the speed of light. What part of "light travels independently of objects" do you not understand? Nowhere in the laws of physics does it require that all frames of reference measure the speed of light to be the same in their frame. I am not talking about SR's crap methods which refuses to accept that the frame is in motion. If Einstein wants to claim the speed of light is measured to be the same in all frames of reference that's his problem, and as you can see, trying to make that a valid assumption in SR leads to all kinds of whacked out illusions, requires a box of band-aids to make the numbers work, etc.

I need no band-aids to make my numbers work, all the while the constancy of the speed of light is maintained, as defined. I am fully within my rights to use plain numbers, follow the definition of the meter to a "T", and all the while not breaking a law of physics. You seem to think you can use SR to prove me wrong. Are you out of your mind? I need not follow some BS theory that ignores a frame of reference has a velocity in space.

79. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Apparently we know the speed of light because we defined it. That is very interesting.
You really should close thy lips and open thy ears, you'd learn a thing or two.

Hence forth, I am making a new unit of measure call the dltios. I define the dltios as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in one second. The speed of light is 1 dltios/s. Period! No measurement required. The speed of light can't be different than 1 dltios/s, regardless if light gets faster or slower. Do you comprehend that? The speed of light is DEFINED, not measured!

80. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Apparently we know the speed of light because we defined it. That is very interesting.
You really should close the lips and open thy ears, you'd learn a thing or two.

Hence forth, I am making a new unit of measure call the dltios. I define the dltios as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in one second. The speed of light is 1 dltios/s. Period! No measurement required. The speed of light can't be different than 1 dltios/s, regardless if light gets faster or slower. Do you comprehend that? The speed of light is DEFINED, not measured!
Got it!

When the man in the box in your diagram measures the speed of light then he will get the same result, 1 dltios, correct? But as he is moving away from the light, surely his dltios from the center of the box to x is different from his dltios from the center of the box to x (you know, pythagoras and all that)?

81. Originally Posted by Strange
It is defined, it can't change. Even if light actually traveled at a quicker pace in space, or slowed down in space, the speed of light would be 299,792,458 m/s, because the definition of a meter makes the speed of light 299,792,458 m/s by definition. It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Do you get the picture now, or do I need to spell it out 10 other different ways for you?
Doesn't this mean that a man in the box in your diagram will have to have a meter that is a different length than if he was at rest wrt the preferred frame of reference
Of course it does. That's why he has proven himself wrong.

82. Originally Posted by Strange
Got it!

When the man in the box in your diagram measures the speed of light then he will get the same result, 1 dltios, correct? But as he is moving away from the light, surely his dltios from the center of the box to x is different from his dltios from the center of the box to x (you know, pythagoras and all that)?
The man in the box measures the time of light travel to each receiver. When all the times are equal, the box has a zero velocity. If the times are different, that can mean only one thing, that the box is in motion in the preferred frame. Since the box is in motion in the preferred frame he knows that light can not possibly reach each receiver in the same time if the lengths to the receivers are the same in all directions in the box.

83. I say again, Einstein's problems arise because he has no way of measuring the velocity of the box in the preferred frame, because he always assumes the box to be at rest.

84. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Got it!

When the man in the box in your diagram measures the speed of light then he will get the same result, 1 dltios, correct? But as he is moving away from the light, surely his dltios from the center of the box to x is different from his dltios from the center of the box to x (you know, pythagoras and all that)?
The man in the box measures the time of light travel to each receiver. When all the times are equal, the box has a zero velocity. If the times are different, that can mean only one thing, that the box is in motion the the preferred frame. Since the box is in motion in the preferred frame he knows that light can not possibly reach each receiver in the same time if the lengths to the receivers are the same in all directions in the box.
Yes, yes, I get it!!! (I think).

So the light cannot reach the receivers in the same time.

If he can't change the speed of the box (maybe he is on another planet whizzing round another star whizzing around the galaxy) how will he determine the length of a dltios? Because when he tries to measure things in different directions he will get different results... won't he ...

That means he will measure the speed of light to be different in each direction? No, that can't be right?
He will measure the distance to be different in each direction? No, that can't be right?
He will measure the time taken to be different in each direction? No, that can't be right?

So how does light take a same time to travel the same distance at the same speed?
No that's not right.
How does light take a different time to travel a different distance at a different speed?
No that can't be right.

I thought I had it there for the moment.

Surely, Motor Daddy's world view can't be internally inconsistent. After all he is perfect, omniscient and always right.

85. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Got it!

When the man in the box in your diagram measures the speed of light then he will get the same result, 1 dltios, correct? But as he is moving away from the light, surely his dltios from the center of the box to x is different from his dltios from the center of the box to x (you know, pythagoras and all that)?
The man in the box measures the time of light travel to each receiver. When all the times are equal, the box has a zero velocity. If the times are different, that can mean only one thing, that the box is in motion in the preferred frame. Since the box is in motion in the preferred frame he knows that light can not possibly reach each receiver in the same time if the lengths to the receivers are the same in all directions in the box.
What do observers in motion with respect to the preferred frame see when they look at a box that is at rest in the preferred frame?

86. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I said nothing of reference frames or measuring the speed of light. What part of "light travels independently of objects" do you not understand?
This would seem to indicate otherwise :

It is IMPOSSIBLE for light to travel at anything other than 299,792,458 m/s. No measurement required, and impossible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s.
If it is impossible to be different than that value, then by definition it means it must be the same for everyone, regardless of the frame of reference. Thus there cannot be a preferred frame.

87. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
The man in the box measures the time of light travel to each receiver. When all the times are equal, the box has a zero velocity. If the times are different, that can mean only one thing, that the box is in motion in the preferred frame. Since the box is in motion in the preferred frame he knows that light can not possibly reach each receiver in the same time if the lengths to the receivers are the same in all directions in the box.
So ... let me see if I have got this right ... if you measure the same travel time in each direction then you known you are absolutely at rest? Correct?

So ... that explains the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment? Yes?

88. Originally Posted by Strange
Surely, Motor Daddy's world view can't be internally inconsistent. After all he is perfect, omniscient and always right.
Surely it is internally consistent, as you have failed to point out ANY flaws in the math or any conceptual flaws in the diagram.

You go into deep space. You measure the one way times of a stick each way in every direction. When ALL the times are exactly the same the stick has an absolute zero velocity. Now, in order to make the stick a meter stick you shorten the stick so that the times are exactly 1/299,792,458 of a second each way. If your stick is too short, which it probably is, then you need a bigger stick to start with.

89. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I say again, Einstein's problems arise because he has no way of measuring the velocity of the box in the preferred frame, because he always assumes the box to be at rest.
He says no such thing. All SR says is that there is no way to determine who is moving if the frames are inertial and there are no external reference points. It does not assume the box to be at rest, but it says that the box being at rest and the box moving unaccelerated are equivalent.

90. Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

So, what happens when the box is in motion, but not in the preferred frame?
All objects travel relative to the preferred frame because light travels in the preferred frame and light travel time determines distance in the frame.

91. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Surely, Motor Daddy's world view can't be internally inconsistent. After all he is perfect, omniscient and always right.
Surely it is internally consistent, as you have failed to point out ANY flaws in the math or any conceptual flaws in the diagram.

You go into deep space. You measure the one way times of a stick each way in every direction. When ALL the times are exactly the same the stick has an absolute zero velocity. Now, in order to make the stick a meter stick you shorten the stick so that the times are exactly 1/299,792,458 of a second each way. If your stick is too short, which it probably is, then you need a bigger stick to start with.
OK. When we do this on earth, we find that the "stick" is the same length in every direction. This means the earth has absolute zero velocity. Got it. At last.

92. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

If it is impossible to be different than that value, then by definition it means it must be the same for everyone, regardless of the frame of reference. Thus there cannot be a preferred frame.
So you are in a box in space. You have no meter stick with you (darn it, I hate it when that happens). How do you know the lengths in the box?

93. Originally Posted by Strange
OK. When we do this on earth, we find that the "stick" is the same length in every direction. This means the earth has absolute zero velocity. Got it. At last.
So you start with a stick of unknown length on earth. What is your procedure of determining the length of the stick?

95. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
OK. When we do this on earth, we find that the "stick" is the same length in every direction. This means the earth has absolute zero velocity. Got it. At last.
So you start with a stick of unknown length on earth. What is your procedure of determining the length of the stick?
Didn't you say we measure the time it takes for light to travel along the stick? For simplicity, we can put a mirror at the end of the stick and measure time it takes to bounce back and divide by two. That gives the same result, doesn't it?

Then turn the stick around by, say, 90 degrees and repeat. Won't that work?

After all, light must travel the same speed out as it does back ... mustn't it? Or is this another complication you haven't introduced us to yet?

96. Originally Posted by Strange

Didn't you say we measure the time it takes for light to travel along the stick? For simplicity, we can put a mirror at the end of the stick and measure time it takes to bounce back and divide by two. That gives the same result, doesn't it?

After all, light must travel the same speed out as it does back ... mustn't it? Or is this another complication you haven't introduced us to yet?
Absolutely not!!!!!!! I was waiting for you to say that. Look at my diagram's round trip times. Can you take 1.68...and divide by two and get the proper length? This is where you go wrong and where Einstein has to open the box of band-aids. Do you not realize I am the first person to ever make the numbers work all the while keeping the constancy of the speed of light, with no band-aids???

97. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Surely it is internally consistent, as you have failed to point out ANY flaws in the math or any conceptual flaws in the diagram.
Yes we have. Your maths assumes the existence of a preferred frame of reference and doesn't account for length contraction and time dilation. We have presented experimental evidence that such a frame does not exist.

98. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange

Didn't you say we measure the time it takes for light to travel along the stick? For simplicity, we can put a mirror at the end of the stick and measure time it takes to bounce back and divide by two. That gives the same result, doesn't it?

After all, light must travel the same speed out as it does back ... mustn't it? Or is this another complication you haven't introduced us to yet?
Absolutely not!!!!!!! I was waiting for you to say that. Look at my diagram's round trip times. Can you take 1.68...and divide by two and get the proper length? This is where you go wrong and where Einstein has to open the box of band-aids. Do you not realize I am the first person to ever meake the numbers work all the while keeping the constancy of the speed of light, with no band-aids???
I'm sorry, your diagram is so poorly drawn and labelled. I don't see 1.68...

But I do see your point, in your diagram, the light will travel a different length to the mirror than it does back. Correct?

But I'm not sure why that matters. After all, the out-and-back times can only be equal when the box is stationary, surely?

Or can you provide a scenario where the box is moving but the travel time bouncing left to right is the same as bouncing up and down (for the same length stick)?

99. By the way, where's my experimental evidence that I have been asking you about for the last two days ? Still no sign of it. Not surprising, really, since such evidence does not exist...

100. Originally Posted by Strange

I'm sorry, your diagram is so poorly drawn and labelled. I don't see 1.68...

But I do see your point, in your diagram, the light will travel a different length to the mirror than it does back. Correct?

But I'm not sure why that matters. After all, the out-and-back times can only be equal when the box is stationary, surely?

Or can you provide a scenario where the box is moving but the travel time bouncing left to right is the same as bouncing up and down (for the same length stick)?
Are you serious, you don't see that in frame 4 the t=1.68....???

No wonder you don't understand it, you can't read.

Page 5 of 9 First ... 34567 ... Last
 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   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement