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

1. Greetings all you friendly people. I have a diagram I wish to discuss with you all (yall). The diagram shows how light travels in the preferred frame. Notice the light spheres have radius of ct at all times. Please, let's keep the discussion to the pic.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

2.

3. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Please, let's keep the discussion to the pic.
OK. It's illegible. I can see some faint circles and some marks that could, possibly, be writing.

Why not just explain your idea here. I will be interested to see what evidence you have for a preferred frame.

4. Sorry, the site was reducing the size of the image. I linked to it. The site won't allow a 1920x1080 pic.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

5. That takes me to a page that says: "Sorry, that page was not found."

6. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Notice the light spheres have radius of ct at all times.
Well, obviously. Although you don't say whose 't' ...

7.

8. Strange, I like your location "in the box." You must be the one riding in the box, eh?

9. OK.

You might want to start by explaining what you are doing with all those v(x) and t(x) calculations e.g. what are t(x), t(z), l, etc and what are you doing with them... It is late and i don't think I can be bothered to try and "reverse engineer" your thought processes.

It looks like all you are doing is taking a long-winded route to calculating the velocity of the cube with respect to the stationary light source.

However, you talk about the size of the cube: is this in the frame of reference of the box or the light source? Similarly for the time measurements: in which frame of reference?

Are you familiar with the concepts of the Lorentz transform and relativity of simultaneity?

10. You mention the "absolute speed" of the box and the "preferred frame". There is no such thing.

This is, of course, the relative speed of the box; relative to the "observer", i.e. the frame of reference of the diagram. You will (obviously) get exactly the same diagram and results whether the entire setup is moving up and to the left at 0.99c or down and to the right at 30mph.

So what was the point again?

11. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Strange, I like your location "in the box." You must be the one riding in the box, eh?
Maybe. But obviously there is no way to know.

12. Strange, It's late and I have to go. I don't think I can be bothered at the moment. Maybe you can study the pic and ask yourself how the observer in the box justifies different times at the z and x receivers, when in the box frame the lengths are the same and c is a constant?

13. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Strange, It's late and I have to go. I don't think I can be bothered at the moment.
Then why post this?

Maybe you can study the pic and ask yourself how the observer in the box justifies different times at the z and x receivers, when in the box frame the lengths are the same and c is a constant?
Why should I? But ...

Obviously, in the frame of reference of an observer moving with the box (which you have just introduced and isn't shown in your diagram) the light will reach z and x at the same time. Assuming the box is square in its rest frame and not in the rest frame of your diagram as you have drawn it.

You seem to have fallen into the common trap of mixing frames of reference. And not taking into account time dilation. Or length contraction. Or relativity of simultaneity. Or anything really...

What was the point again?

14. I believe it was "I'm smarter than Einstein and a thousands of scientists over the last century"

15. Maybe you can study the pic and ask yourself how the observer in the box justifies different times at the z and x receivers, when in the box frame the lengths are the same and c is a constant?
Why should I? But ...

Obviously, in the frame of reference of an observer moving with the box (which you have just introduced and isn't shown in your diagram) the light will reach z and x at the same time. Assuming the box is square in its rest frame and not in the rest frame of your diagram as you have drawn it.

You seem to have fallen into the common trap of mixing frames of reference. And not taking into account time dilation. Or length contraction. Or relativity of simultaneity. Or anything really...
You're correct, I didn't have to fudge any numbers with a bunch of band-aids like the unproven length contraction, time dilation, or the notion that there exists no concept of simulatenity. Those were Einstein's band-aids because he couldn't figure out how to maintain the constancy of the speed of light and get the numbers to add up.

I just showed you that I used no band-aids, the constancy of the speed of light is maintained at ALL times, and the numbers are a thing of absolute beauty.

I'm well familiar with Einstein's notion of the Relativity of Simultaneity which is here. I am prepared to speak at great lengths about that subject and throw numbers at the problem in his Chapter 9, and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity.

Please, address your issues with the pic I posted. Do not try to use SR to defend SR, as that is circular logic. My pic has no issues, and it is the very definitions of distance and time, by the numbers!

16. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

You're correct, I didn't have to fudge any numbers with a bunch of band-aids like the unproven length contraction, time dilation, or the notion that there exists no concept of simulatenity. Those were Einstein's band-aids because he couldn't figure out how to maintain the constancy of the speed of light and get the numbers to add up.

I just showed you that I used no band-aids, the constancy of the speed of light is maintained at ALL times, and the numbers are a thing of absolute beauty.

I'm well familiar with Einstein's notion of the Relativity of Simultaneity which is here. I am prepared to speak at great lengths about that subject and throw numbers at the problem in his Chapter 9, and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity.

Please, address your issues with the pic I posted. Do not try to use SR to defend SR, as that is circular logic. My pic has no issues, and it is the very definitions of distance and time, by the numbers!
Band aids hey? If you understand the notion of a linear transformation, I could show you a proof using only the constancy of the speed of light and the postulate that the laws of physics need to remain the same under linear transformations that length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity are absolutely necessary consequences.

17. Originally Posted by TheObserver

You're correct, I didn't have to fudge any numbers with a bunch of band-aids like the unproven length contraction, time dilation, or the notion that there exists no concept of simulatenity. Those were Einstein's band-aids because he couldn't figure out how to maintain the constancy of the speed of light and get the numbers to add up.

I just showed you that I used no band-aids, the constancy of the speed of light is maintained at ALL times, and the numbers are a thing of absolute beauty.

I'm well familiar with Einstein's notion of the Relativity of Simultaneity which is here. I am prepared to speak at great lengths about that subject and throw numbers at the problem in his Chapter 9, and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity.

Please, address your issues with the pic I posted. Do not try to use SR to defend SR, as that is circular logic. My pic has no issues, and it is the very definitions of distance and time, by the numbers!
Band aids hey? If you understand the notion of a linear transformation, I could show you a proof using only the constancy of the speed of light and the postulate that the laws of physics need to remain the same under linear transformations that length contraction, time dilation, and relativity of simultaneity are absolutely necessary consequences.
Necessary to what, using SR? Of course they are, because without them SR doesn't work. I just showed you I need no band-aids and the numbers add up perfectly. You can add as many objects as you want to, traveling at any speed, and the numbers will always add up, because they all travel in the preferred frame, simultaneously, in the same coordinate system.

But again, I ask you to speak about my pic, not about SR. Tell me why the pic is wrong, specifically.

18. If the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics need to be the same under linear transformations, length contraction and time dilation are necessary. No other assumptions besides those two things are needed. If those first two things are true, those 3 phenomena are unavoidable, in any theory.

19. Originally Posted by TheObserver
If the speed of light is constant, and the laws of physics need to be the same under linear transformations, length contraction and time dilation are necessary. No other assumptions besides those two things are needed. If those first two things are true, those 3 phenomena are unavoidable, in any theory.
Maybe you didn't bother to look at my pic and understand what is happening? Light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver and 1.3...seconds to reach the x receiver, all the while the speed of light was a constant. Saying the speed of light is a constant is a much different subject than talking about what an observer measures due to his ignorance. As you can clearly see in my pic, the observer in the box has no choice but to conclude that the speed of light is measured to be different along the z and x axis. Little does he know that the speed of light is constant, but what is throwing off his measurements is the absolute velocity of the box frame. If that box possesses a velocity greater than zero it is IMPOSSIBLE for light to reach the z and x receivers in the same amount of time.

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

Maybe you didn't bother to look at my pic and understand what is happening? Light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver and 1.3...seconds to reach the x receiver, all the while the speed of light was a constant. Saying the speed of light is a constant is a much different subject than talking about what an observer measures due to his ignorance. As you can clearly see in my pic, the observer in the box has no choice but to conclude that the speed of light is measured to be different along the z and x axis. Little does he know that the speed of light is constant, but what is throwing off his measurements is the absolute velocity of the box frame. If that box possesses a velocity greater than zero it is IMPOSSIBLE for light to reach the z and x receivers in the same amount of time.
I know, unfortunately it was and is an observed fact that that all observers measure the velocity of light to be c regardless of the relative motion of themselves with respect to the light source.

21. A person moving at 99% the speed of light towards a source of light, and a person standing at rest with respect to the source, will both measure the light to be moving at c. That is why your diagram is wrong.

22. Originally Posted by TheObserver
A person moving at 99% the speed of light towards a source of light, and a person standing at rest with respect to the source, will both measure the light to be moving at c. That is why your diagram is wrong.

You are very confused. The speed of light is not relative to the source of light, the speed of light is relative to the origin of the light sphere. If at (0,0,0) at t=0 a source emitted light, the light travels away from (0,0,0) at the speed of c. In the time of light travel the source too could travel away from the point of origin of the light sphere, which means the source is no longer centered in the expanding light sphere. What do you not understand about my pic? Do you not see that the source is no longer located at the origin of the light sphere after t=0?

23. I'm saying that your math is not consistent with the observed fact that all observers will measure the light sphere to be moving at c.

24. Originally Posted by TheObserver
I'm saying that your math is not consistent with the observed fact that all observers will measure the light sphere to be moving at c.
Light spheres don't move, they expand their radius at the speed of c. The point of origin is a point in space, regardless if the source is still there a duration of time later or not. That point of origin is not capable of moving, it is simply a point in space that remains the center of the light sphere at all times.

The source IS capable of moving in space, away from the point of origin. Since the receivers move as one with the source, the receivers are "running away" from the light that is gaining on them. The light is faster, so it catches the receivers. But, since the z receivers and x receivers are on different axises, the z receiver is not increasing distance from the point of origin as much as the x receiver is. That means the light sphere catches the z receiver in less time than it does the x receiver. You need to understand, the light sphere is expanding its radius at the speed of c at all times.

25. Do you agree that the observers will each measure the light to be travelling at different speeds from one another in your diagram?

26. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Do you agree that the observers will each measure the light to be travelling at different speeds from one another in your diagram?
Yes, I already said that what an observer measures is a different subject than the actual speed of light from the point of origin.

27. And I am saying that it has been an experimental fact for about 200 years that no observers can measure light to be moving at a velocity different from c.

28. Thats what we mean when we say that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames.

29. Originally Posted by TheObserver
And I am saying that it has been an experimental fact for about 200 years that no observers can measure light to be moving at a velocity different from c.
and I am telling you that it is impossible for light to reach the z and x receivers in the same amount of time if the box is in motion. Einstein uses band-aids for that very reason. He could not make the constancy of the speed of light work with no band-aids. I just showed you how it's done, no band-aids required. The light is always moving at c.

30. the point is that light not only is constant with respect to its source, but with respect to all inertial frames.

31. Originally Posted by TheObserver
the point is that light not only is constant with respect to its source, but with respect to all inertial frames.
The speed of light is not relative to the source, how many times do I have to tell you that?

32. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
And I am saying that it has been an experimental fact for about 200 years that no observers can measure light to be moving at a velocity different from c.
and I am telling you that it is impossible for light to reach the z and x receivers in the same amount of time if the box is in motion. Einstein uses band-aids for that very reason. He could not make the constancy of the speed of light work with no band-aids. I just showed you how it's done, no band-aids required. The light is always moving at c.
Scientists had known of this problem for years before Einstein, they thought that the receivers had to measure different speeds but no experiment made could show that this was so. Your diagram is wrong, because we happen to know for a fact that the receivers must measure light to be moving at c.

33. The speed of light is independent of all objects. The speed of light is relative to the point of origin in space. The speed of light defines distance in the coordinate system.

34. Thats what we thought. But it turned out we were wrong. The speed of light is measured to be c in all reference frames, this is a position that all scientists have agreed upon for 200 years.

Edit: well maybe more like 130 years

35. If you'd like you can show me the results of an experiment where light was measured to be moving at a velocity different from c performed in the last 150 years.

36. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Thats what we thought. But it turned out we were wrong. The speed of light is measured to be c in all reference frames, this is a position that all scientists have agreed upon for 200 years.

Edit: well maybe more like 130 years
Not according to my method. Einstein uses a very different method of measuring. Totally different clock sync method, length contraction, time dilation, relativity of simultaneity etc. That is how those speeds are measured. I am not using any of those band-aids. I do not agree with the second postulate that all frames of reference measure the speed of light of be the same. I am saying the speed of light is measured to be different in every different frame. I have shown this to be true in my diagram. You can not use SR to prove SR. I have shown that when the speed of light is constant from its point of origin that it is impossible for the observer in the box to measure the speed of light to be the same along the z and x axis. If you wish to refute that you can't just say, "well SR says that all frames measure the speed of light to be the same." I am not using SR's methods.

37. You don't understand. Einstein didn't do the measuring. This was a phenomena that was known by the entire scientific community when Einstein was in diapers. It isn't the result of any theory. It is the result of people going out and actually measuring the speed of light. It turns out that it is c, every time, no matter what.

38. You can't use a computer model to disprove real life measurements.

39. Originally Posted by TheObserver
You don't understand. Einstein didn't do the measuring. This was a phenomena that was known by the entire scientific community when Einstein was in diapers. It isn't the result of any theory. It is the result of people going out and actually measuring the speed of light. It turns out that it is c, every time, no matter what.
Do you not understand that the speed of light is c in my diagram?

Nobody has ever been able to measure the velocity of a box in space from within the box, until now. Do you know why? Why is it that I can do that and you can't? I'll tell you, because I know how to figure out the velocity of the frame, and hence I now am able to see the speed of light as c from the point of origin, and I am able to determine the velocity of the box. I don't need to say the box is inertial and can be considered at rest. I know the velocity of the box, not relative to any other object.

Can you tell me what you mean by the term "at rest"? At rest compared to what? I can define and measure that state of motion, can you?

40. At rest with respect to the light source.

41. Originally Posted by TheObserver
At rest with respect to the light source.
That is laughable!

I am asking you how fast the bus is going, not how fast you are going compared to the seat.

42. The speed of light is c in your diagram relative the its source point (the rest frame). However, according to the math you have employed here, any receivers travelling at some velocity with respect to the light source are measuring the velocity of the light to be different from c with respect to their own reference frame. This is known to be impossible.

43. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
At rest with respect to the light source.
That is laughable!

I am asking you how fast the bus is going, not how fast you are going compared to the seat.
But this is the crux of the problem. With respect to your seat, you are travelling at rest. With respect to the ground beneath the bus, you are travelling at say 30 miles per hour. Light doesn't obey the same rules with respect to this type of coordinate transformation.

44. both the bus and the ground would measure an incoming light ray to be moving at exactly c.

45. Originally Posted by TheObserver
The speed of light is c in your diagram relative the its source point (the rest frame). However, according to the math you have employed here, any receivers travelling at some velocity with respect to the light source are measuring the velocity of the light to be different from c with respect to their own reference frame. This is known to be impossible.
The speed of light is not relative to the source in my diagram, the speed of light is relative to the point of origin! The radius of the light sphere is expanding at c. The source has its own speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere.

46. Sorry, when I say relative to the source, I mean relative to the point of origin in your terms here.

47. Originally Posted by TheObserver
both the bus and the ground would measure an incoming light ray to be moving at exactly c.
That's because they can't start measuring the wavelength and frequency until the light is already hitting them. I am not talking about wavelength and frequency in my diagram. I am talking about the wavefront, which expands from the point of origin at c.

48. You are missing the point, in each of their own reference frames the wavefront moves at c. This isn't the case in your diagram and so your diagram is wrong.

49. Originally Posted by TheObserver
You are missing the point, in each of their own reference frames the wavefront moves at c. This isn't the case in your diagram and so your diagram is wrong.
No it is not wrong. The numbers add up perfectly. You are wrong, because you assume a frame to always be at rest, with no velocity, because you have no way of knowing that velocity, because you always assume that the speed of light is always measured to be c in all frames, and then you use a box of band-aids to make that statement true, which still leaves you back to where you started, not knowing the velocity of the frame.

50. No actually I'm assuming the unanimously understood fact that the velocity of light is c with respect to all non accelerating reference frames. Literally nobody disagrees with this. People measure the speed of light in labs every year all over the world.

51. Your diagram is not really wrong in a mathematical sense, its just using math that is not in agreement with a fact of nature that we learned by observation and experiment. We don't get to decide what math the universe has to follow.

52. Originally Posted by TheObserver
No actually I'm assuming the unanimously understood fact that the velocity of light is c with respect to all non accelerating reference frames. Literally nobody disagrees with this. People measure the speed of light in labs every year all over the world.
That's strange, I'm not aware of any one-way speed of light measurement. Can you post a link? The last time someone posted a link measuring the speed of light it was using round trip time. You know what problems that leads to, right?

53.

54. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
No actually I'm assuming the unanimously understood fact that the velocity of light is c with respect to all non accelerating reference frames. Literally nobody disagrees with this. People measure the speed of light in labs every year all over the world.
That's strange, I'm not aware of any one-way speed of light measurement. Can you post a link? The last time someone posted a link measuring the speed of light it was using round trip time. You know what problems that leads to, right?
I'm aware of the problem with one way speed of light measurements. Not round trip measurements.

55. Originally Posted by TheObserver
No it does not. I am not talking about transformations. I am talking about measuring the velocity of one frame in space, the box frame, using light.

56. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
I believe it ws "I'm smarter than Einstein and a thousands of scientists over the last century"
True enough. I haven't caught up with the whole thread yet: have we had "closed minded", "think outside the box", "conspiracy of silence", "science is a religion", etc. yet?

57. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
But again, I ask you to speak about my pic, not about SR. Tell me why the pic is wrong, specifically.
Your picture is not "wrong" per se. What is wrong is your thinking that because it shows things from a single frame of reference then that must be true for every frame of reference. Which, quite obviously (1), isn't the case.

If you were to draw the picture from he frame of reference of the moving box, you would have a circle (series of circles), showing the distance the light has travelled, centered on the box and reaching x and z at the same time (2).

As you don't want us to talk about relativity, there isn't really anything else to say.(3)

(1) have you heard of "GPS"? It's really rather clever; you should check it out.
(2) Modulo the effects of the (undefined) size of the box.
(3) It is a bit like showing a side-on picture of a horse and then saying it "proves" they have only two legs and "prove me wrong without talking about quadrupeds".

58. and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity
Bring it on. This should be interesting.
Bear in mind though that we are of course expecting a general proof, not just some numbers for a specific scenario !

59. Originally Posted by Strange
Your picture is not "wrong" per se.
Good, so you agree with the numbers for the box frame. Let's move along, shall we?

In the box frame, the round trip time of light from the source, to the mirror, and back to the source is 1.689999 seconds. In the box frame the distance between the source and the mirror is .5 light seconds. Explain how the box frame observer explains that, given he knows that light always travels at a constant speed of c?

60. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity
Bring it on. This should be interesting.
Bear in mind though that we are of course expecting a general proof, not just some numbers for a specific scenario !
I can and will do that at an appropriate time. That is an entire different thread, I assure you. It could go on for thousands of posts. How about I address your concerns about the pic? What is specifically wrong with the pic? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Let's not get 500 posts into this thread and you're backed into a corner, and then claim you don't agree with the pic.

61. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Your picture is not "wrong" per se.
Good, so you agree with the numbers for the box frame. Let's move along, shall we?
Errr... no. You have calculated things from a frame stationary (relative to the box); the frame represented by the "paper" if you like. If you can't see this, then that might explain where you are going wrong.

As I said, from the frame of the box, the wavefront would be a series of concentric circles centered on the middle of the box. In the frame of reference of the box, the light would take the same amount of time to reach all six side (assuming that the box was cubical in its own rest frame, which slightly contradicts your drawing).

62. Originally Posted by Strange
Errr... no. You have calculated things from a frame stationary (relative to the box); the frame represented by the "paper" if you like. If you can't see this, then that might explain where you are going wrong.

As I said, from the frame of the box, the wavefront would be a series of concentric circles centered on the middle of the box. In the frame of reference of the box, the light would take the same amount of time to reach all six side (assuming that the box was cubical in its own rest frame, which slightly contradicts your drawing).
I was sitting in the box. Light was emitted from the source at the center of the box. It took .65 seconds for the light to reach the z receiver. It took 1.3.... seconds to reach the x receiver. It took .30...seconds for light to return to the source from the mirror (x receiver). I drew the diagram. What do you not understand about that process?

I was not outside the box looking at it, or receiving light from it. I measured the time for the light to reach the receivers and I calculated the velocity of the box.

63. EDIT : Apologies, double posting.

64. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am not interested in your picture, nor do I need to see 500 posts from you.
Of course not, you're only interested in defending what you want to believe is true. You've effectively closed your eyes to the facts. This thread is about my pic. If you are not interested in the pic then don't let the door hit you on the way out. See ya.

65. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
and PROVE that there exists no relativity of simultaneity
Bring it on. This should be interesting.
Bear in mind though that we are of course expecting a general proof, not just some numbers for a specific scenario !
I can and will do that at an appropriate time. That is an entire different thread, I assure you. It could go on for thousands of posts. How about I address your concerns about the pic? What is specifically wrong with the pic? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Let's not get 500 posts into this thread and you're backed into a corner, and then claim you don't agree with the pic.
I am not interested in your picture, nor do I need to see 500 posts from you. I will not get caught up in discussing the petty details of just one scenario over dozens of posts. What I am asking you is to present a general mathematical argument that holds for all circumstance in which SR is applicable, just like SR is a model that holds for all inertial frames in general. You are the one saying that the established theory is wrong, so the onus is on you to provide the necessary evidence to support your claims; I don't have to prove anything to you. The appropriate time for this is right now. Because, and you might just as well admit that so that we can get on with things, you are really not interested in that particular picture also, what you want is to discredit all of Special Relativity, so make it a general case then. There have been many just like you on this forum before.
Even though I can't actually bring up your picture ( "Page not found" ), I can gather enough from your exchange with Strange to tell you that both observers ( light & box ) will measure the exact same thing once time dilation and length contraction are taken into account, and once it is established that all frames are indeed inertial ones. All of this has been played out so many times in so many different scenarios with spaceships and magnetic fields and clocks attached to moving light bulbs etc etc etc that I lost count of it, both here and on all of the other forums out there. No one has so far been able to disprove any aspect of SR using such scenarios. I think you are wasting your time because this has all been done already - but please, don't let me stop you.

66. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am not interested in your picture, nor do I need to see 500 posts from you.
Of course not, you're only interested in defending what you want to believe is true. You've effectively closed your eyes to the facts. This thread is about my pic. If you are not interested in the pic then don't let the door hit you on the way out. See ya.
I don't need to, others have done this before me. Besides, SR as a theory is in good agreement with observational evidence. Is yours ?
So I take it then that you don't have the proof I was asking you for.

67. His problem is that he thinks light moves at c relative to some absolute space instead of with respect to all reference frames.

68. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
There have been many just like you on this forum before.
Really?? You've seen people on here before claiming they can calculate the velocity of a box in space from inside the box, not relative to any other object? That is very strange indeed, as I have never heard of anyone making those claims other than myself.

69. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I was sitting in the box. Light was emitted from the source at the center of the box. It took .65 seconds for the light to reach the z receiver. It took 1.3.... seconds to reach the x receiver. It took .30...seconds for light to return to the source from the mirror (x receiver). I drew the diagram. What do you not understand about that process?

I was not outside the box looking at it, or receiving light from it. I measured the time for the light to reach the receivers and I calculated the velocity of the box.
Why can you not paste this pic inline in a post ? And can you not put your calculations in here as LaTeX code ?
Immediate question - did you consider time dilation or length contraction effects ? It would seem not, but correct me if I'm wrong.

70. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I am not interested in your picture, nor do I need to see 500 posts from you.
Of course not, you're only interested in defending what you want to believe is true. You've effectively closed your eyes to the facts. This thread is about my pic. If you are not interested in the pic then don't let the door hit you on the way out. See ya.
I don't need to, others have done this before me. Besides, SR as a theory is in good agreement with observational evidence. Is yours ?
So I take it then that you don't have the proof I was asking you for.
My theory stands on the definitions of distance and time, and the constancy of the speed of light. No band-aids required!

71. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
You've effectively closed your eyes to the facts.
Bingo!

Coming soon: "they laughed at Galileo"

I really can't be bothered to have this argument (1) with someone who has already made their mind up that they are right and everyone else is wrong (and, without seeing the irony, accuses others of being closed minded).

However, I am curious about your motivation: is this a religious thing? (2) Or political? (3) Or do you genuinely believe you are smarter than every scientist and mathematician in the last 100 years and have spotted that "obvious" flaw they all missed? (4)

(1) Yet again - it gets really tedious after the first few dozen people repeat the same basic misunderstandings and absolutely refuse to "open their eyes" and learn something.

(2) I don't care if it is, I'm just curious.

(3) Apparently some people think that relativity is some sort of communist plot. No, really, they do. How mad is that.

(4) Oddly, you are not alone in this.

72. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Why can you not paste this pic inline in a post ?
I tried, this site reduces the size of the image so that it's so small you can't read it. It is a 1920x1080 pic and it reduces it down to a thumbnail size pic.

73. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
There have been many just like you on this forum before.
Really?? You've seen people on here before claiming they can calculate the velocity of a box in space from inside the box, not relative to any other object? That is very strange indeed, as I have never heard of anyone making those claims other than myself.
You are really stuck inside your box, aren't you ?
What I am saying is that we have had plenty of people here saying : "SR is wrong, and this proves it" followed by some scenario involving moving ships, lights, clocks, electromagnetic fields in various configurations.
I say it again - I am not interested in a specific scenario, I want to see a general proof.

74. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Really?? You've seen people on here before claiming they can calculate the velocity of a box in space from inside the box, not relative to any other object? That is very strange indeed, as I have never heard of anyone making those claims other than myself.
Good god. If I had a penny for every crackpot who has claimed they have shown the "obvious" flaw in relativity I could ... well, buy myself a cup of coffee at least. The exact same arguments have been presented by dozens of other people who don't / refuse to understand what they are talking about. It is very, very boring.

75. Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.

76. Originally Posted by Strange
You've effectively closed your eyes to the facts.
Bingo!

Coming soon: "they laughed at Galileo"

I really can't be bothered to have this argument (1) with someone who has already made their mind up that they are right and everyone else is wrong (and, without seeing the irony, accuses others of being closed minded).

However, I am curious about your motivation: is this a religious thing? (2) Or political? (3) Or do you genuinely believe you are smarter than every scientist and mathematician in the last 100 years and have spotted that "obvious" flaw they all missed? (4)

(1) Yet again - it gets really tedious after the first few dozen people repeat the same basic misunderstandings and absolutely refuse to "open their eyes" and learn something.

(2) I don't care if it is, I'm just curious.

(3) Apparently some people think that relativity is some sort of communist plot. No, really, they do. How mad is that.

(4) Oddly, you are not alone in this.
Precisely !
That is why I want to see a general argument. No one is interested in the intricacies of some contrived scenario or other.

77. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Why can you not paste this pic inline in a post ?
I tried, this site reduces the size of the image so that it's so small you can't read it. It is a 1920x1080 pic and it reduces it down to a thumbnail size pic.
And it is extremely aggravating when people post text as images as it means we have to retype anything we want to quote.

Why not post the diagrams as four separate images and post the text as text (and the equations as Latex).

78. Originally Posted by Strange
Good god. If I had a penny for every crackpot who has claimed they have shown the "obvious" flaw in relativity I could ... well, buy myself a cup of coffee at least. The exact same arguments have been presented by dozens of other people who don't / refuse to understand what they are talking about. It is very, very boring.
I wasn't talking about other people who claim SR is wrong. I was talking about other people that claim to be able to measure the velocity of a box in space, from inside the box. Show me where the "exact same arguments" have been made???

79. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.
Exactly, and this will be easy to point out to him once he can give general maths for the general case. If we get stuck in some specific scenario then the thread always ends up dozens and dozens of posts long without anyone being any wiser in the end.

80. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
My theory stands on the definitions of distance and time, and the constancy of the speed of light. No band-aids required!
Perhaps you would like to explain how GPS works in a universe without relativity. And reformulate Quantum Electrodynamics while you are at it - that's be the most accurately tested theory every produced, by the way. Which is amazing as it is apparently based on a fundamental error. Who knew.

81. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I wasn't talking about other people who claim SR is wrong. I was talking about other people that claim to be able to measure the velocity of a box in space, from inside the box. Show me where the "exact same arguments" have been made???
Browse the pseudoscience forums here (some guy going by the name chinglu was probably the most recent) or on any of the other science forums. It is scary how familiar your argument is. You would imagine people with the insight and imagination to overthrow a century of fundamental physics would come up with something a bit more novel.

82. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
I say it again - I am not interested in a specific scenario, I want to see a general proof.
One dimensionally speaking,
v=(ct-l)/t

Two dimensionally speaking,

v(x)=sqrt(t(y)^2-l(y)^2)/t(y)
t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))

Three dimensionally speaking:

x time: .761972 seconds
y time: .761972 seconds
z time: .92 seconds

Component velocities:

v(x) = .2300c
v(y) = .2300c
v(z) = .4022c

Coordinates of source at center of cube at .761972 seconds: (0.17525356,0.17525356,0.3064651384)

x .761972(.2300c) 0.17525356
y .761972(.2300c) 0.17525356
z .761972(.4022c) 0.3064651384

Coordinates of source at center of cube at .92 seconds: (.2116,.2116,.370)

x .92(.2300c) .2116
y .92(.2300c) .2116
z .92(.4022c) .370

Coordinates of source at center of cube at 1.0 seconds: (.23,.23,.4022)

x 1.0(.2300c) .23
y 1.0(.2300c) .23
z 1.0(.4022c) .4022

Distance center of cube traveled from start coordinates (0,0,0) to (.23,.23,.4022) in 1 second is 155,072,655.74 meters, so the absolute velocity of the center of the cube is 155,072,655.74 m/s.

Component velocities
x .23c=68,952,,265.34 m/s
y .23c=68,952,,265.34 m/s
z .4022c= 120,576,526.6076 m/s

83. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.
Have you checked the definition of a meter lately?

84. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.
True.

He believes his little image and calculations can help him to calculate the speed of the box relative to the source of the light pulse, which requires that the light sphere behaves like a ripple in a pond. He seems to refuse to believe that the constancy of the speed of light from any perspective has in fact been experimentally verified, which would mean that all 4 detectors would detect the beam at the same time afaik.

Motor Daddy, I suggest you take a look at Janus' Relativity Primer thread on the first page in the physics section for a better understanding.

85. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
One dimensionally speaking,
v=(ct-l)/t

Two dimensionally speaking,

v(x)=sqrt(t(y)^2-l(y)^2)/t(y)
t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))

Three dimensionally speaking:

x time: .761972 seconds
y time: .761972 seconds
z time: .92 seconds

Component velocities:

v(x) = .2300c
v(y) = .2300c
v(z) = .4022c

Coordinates of source at center of cube at .761972 seconds: (0.17525356,0.17525356,0.3064651384)

x .761972(.2300c) 0.17525356
y .761972(.2300c) 0.17525356
z .761972(.4022c) 0.3064651384

Coordinates of source at center of cube at .92 seconds: (.2116,.2116,.370)

x .92(.2300c) .2116
y .92(.2300c) .2116
z .92(.4022c) .370

Coordinates of source at center of cube at 1.0 seconds: (.23,.23,.4022)

x 1.0(.2300c) .23
y 1.0(.2300c) .23
z 1.0(.4022c) .4022

Distance center of cube traveled from start coordinates (0,0,0) to (.23,.23,.4022) in 1 second is 155,072,655.74 meters, so the absolute velocity of the center of the cube is 155,072,655.74 m/s.

Component velocities
x .23c=68,952,,265.34 m/s
y .23c=68,952,,265.34 m/s
z .4022c= 120,576,526.6076 m/s
Do you call this a general proof ?
Where are you getting the "measured times" from ?

86. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.
True.

He believes his little image and calculations can help him to calculate the speed of the box relative to the source of the light pulse, which requires that the light sphere behaves like a ripple in a pond. He seems to refuse to believe that the constancy of the speed of light from any perspective has in fact been experimentally verified, which would mean that all 4 detectors would detect the beam at the same time afaik.

Motor Daddy, I suggest you take a look at Janus' Relativity Primer thread on the first page in the physics section for a better understanding.
You are seriously confused about the difference between wave length x frequency, and how much time it takes for the light to initially reach an object.

I throw baseballs at you at the rate of 1 per second. You receive them at the rate of 1 per second. Question, how much time did it take for the first ball to reach you? Sure, once the first ball reaches you you can measure the wave length and frequency. But guess what? As soon as the first ball reaches you the clock stops. The game is over. We are talking about how much time it takes for the first ball to reach you, not how often you receive additional balls and the space between each ball.

You can't even start measuring frequency because the clock has already stopped, the test is already complete when the wave front reaches you!

87. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Do you call this a general proof ?
Where are you getting the "measured times" from ?
Yes I do, I gave you the equations.

How else would you know the time to the receivers from the source, you measure it.

88. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Any general proof presented is useless because he believes that light moves at c with respect to an absolute space, a position that literally zero scientists hold.
True.

He believes his little image and calculations can help him to calculate the speed of the box relative to the source of the light pulse, which requires that the light sphere behaves like a ripple in a pond. He seems to refuse to believe that the constancy of the speed of light from any perspective has in fact been experimentally verified, which would mean that all 4 detectors would detect the beam at the same time afaik.

Motor Daddy, I suggest you take a look at Janus' Relativity Primer thread on the first page in the physics section for a better understanding.
Right, I see. I that case please allow me to quote from the Wikipedia article for "Emission Theory" :

"
• In 1910 Daniel Frost Comstock and in 1913 Willem de Sitter wrote that for the case of a double-star system seen edge-on, light from the approaching star might be expected to travel faster than light from its receding companion, and overtake it. If the distance was great enough for an approaching star's "fast" signal to catch up with and overtake the "slow" light that it had emitted earlier when it was receding, then the image of the star system should appear completely scrambled. De Sitter argued that none of the star systems he had studied showed the extreme optical effect behavior, and this was considered the death knell for Ritzian theory and emission theory in general, with .[11][12][10] The idea that perhaps the speed of light only has an effective value of cEMITTER while it is local to the emitter, as a "light-dragging" or "proximity" effect has been considered in detail by Fox. This can be expressed in terms of the "extinction effect", and it arguably undermines the cogency of de Sitter type evidence based on optical stars. However, similar observations have been made more recently in the x-ray spectrum by Brecher (1977), which have a long enough extinction distance that it should not affect the results. The observations confirm that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source, with .[2]
"

So it is actually experimentally proven that the speed of the light is independent of the source, just as SR predicts.

89. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Do you call this a general proof ?
Where are you getting the "measured times" from ?
Yes I do, I gave you the equations.

How else would you know the time to the receivers from the source, you measure it.
So someone has actually done this experiment in real life, and obtained those measurements ? Can you give references ?

90. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

So it is actually experimentally proven that the speed of the light is independent of the source, just as SR predicts.
What is your point? I already showed that the speed of light is independent of the source in my pic. You are confusing yourself.

91. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
How else would you know the time to the receivers from the source, you measure it.
And how exactly are you measuring it? You talk about this as if it were an experiment you had conducted that demonstrated that you were correct.

This is also a fairly common form of argument: "the results of my thought experiment prove ...", "the results of the experiment in my diagram prove ..."

I can draw a picture of a unicorn, it doesn't prove they exist.

92. oh wait, you are not concerned with the pic. (rolls eyes)

93. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

So it is actually experimentally proven that the speed of the light is independent of the source, just as SR predicts.
What is your point? I already showed that the speed of light is independent of the source in my pic. You are confusing yourself.
That's exactly my point. It is independent of the source, thus, due to the time dilation of the observer in the box, the times are the exact same.
I ask you again - where are you getting those measurement values from ? Is this a thought experiment, or has this been done in real life ?

94. Not particularly

Show the experiments.

95. Originally Posted by Strange
And how exactly are you measuring it?
Certainly not by measuring the frequency and wave length, as that would be ridiculous, seeing how we are measuring the time it takes light to reach the receiver and then stopping the clock when it does reach the receiver.

96. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That's exactly my point. It is independent of the source, thus, due to the time dilation of the observer in the box, the times are the exact same.
I ask you again - where are you getting those measurement values from ? Is this a thought experiment, or has this been done in real life ?
So what, I already showed it's independent. You haven't even looked at the pic and you are arguing against it. Look at the pic before opening thy mouth.

97. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Yes I do, I gave you the equations.
No, you only gave me number salad. This is what a general argument looks like :

Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As you can see this holds for all scenarios.

98. He ran a computer simulation. Basically a box with a light sourse is moving to the right in someframe. The light source emits a sphere of light at time t=0 which for some reason is only moving at c with respect to the current frame and not with respect to the moving box

99. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
And how exactly are you measuring it?
Certainly not by measuring the frequency and wave length, as that would be ridiculous, seeing how we are measuring the time it takes light to reach the receiver and then stopping the clock when it does reach the receiver.
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.

100. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
That's exactly my point. It is independent of the source, thus, due to the time dilation of the observer in the box, the times are the exact same.
I ask you again - where are you getting those measurement values from ? Is this a thought experiment, or has this been done in real life ?
So what, I already showed it's independent. You haven't even looked at the pic and you are arguing against it. Look at the pic before opening thy mouth.
I am arguing the fact that

1) You can't provide the source of your "measured" times
2) You don't appear to take into account length contraction and/or time dilation in your calculation
3) You still haven't provided a general mathematical argument as to why SR is wrong

101. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
You haven't even looked at the pic and you are arguing against it.
Oh yes, I always forget that one: "the only reason you disagree with me is because you haven't read what I wrote".

This might be modified to "haven't understood" when it is proven that you have read their nonsense - but most crackpots are too closed minded to change their story.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... 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