The direction of the big bang

[Seedling]

Hmm, seedling seems to be evading this discussion. Wasn't that the term he used when he accused Doer of not answering his questions? Ironic isn't it.
Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.

You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself???

You asked:

Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
or
b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?

I replied:

You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?

You later stated:

Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.

...and my reply is:
I guess that answer's my question, you do think there's a small chance that a stoner on a website could be right.

 

[Beefbisquit]

You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself???

You asked:


I replied:



You later stated:


...and my reply is:
I guess that answer's my question, you do think there's a small chance that a stoner on a website could be right.

There's a small chance you will sit down on your chair and vanish into an unknown, alternate universe too.


I'm going to go ahead and apply Occam's razor to this situation.


You seem to be clinging to this faint glimmer, that a stoner somewhere, might have out smarted hundred's of scientists that have devoted their lives to their respected fields.

Talk about clutching straws!

 

[Seedling]

There's a small chance you will sit down on your chair and vanish into an unknown, alternate universe too.


I'm going to go ahead and apply Occam's razor to this situation.


You seem to be clinging to this faint glimmer, that a stoner somewhere, might have out smarted hundred's of scientists that have devoted their lives to their respected fields.

Talk about clutching straws!

I'm not clinging to that, I was pointing out that it was a BS question. If you want to make a statement that nobody on a stoner website could possibly disprove SR and provide the correct method then be my guest. You know you'd be wrong to say that, because it is possible, unless you can show how it is impossible?? I'll wait.

In the mean time, can I have your opinion on these numbers from the previous conversation in this thread?

The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you. That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders. I can tell you the velocity of the frame, Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space, so he makes up his BS second postulate and claims all frames will measure the speed of light to be the same. That is simply an impossibility according to the definition of the meter.

Do you agree with these numbers? Just a simple yes or no will do.

 

[Doer]

Then the man made concept is wrong. The Meter is wrong, you are saying? So, NO.

And Science can easy disprove your idea because you lack the basics. You really don't understand that Science is discovery, only.

The simple reason that you are not credible is that you insist that your point source creates a stable, absolute velocity reference. But, it does not. As you have been shown. Science is not set up or useful for disproving any random straw proposal.

Education is so that we can stand on the shoulders of these giant thinkers. So that the proposals are original and not already refuted.

Education in the Method means you understand your entire approach to this discussion seems rather daft in part, unfinished. I can't tell yet, if you do actual have a cogent idea. Maybe drop the profanity? You aren't helping us to be so dismissive.

Perhaps if you understood that zero motion is impossible? Everything has velocity. Everything. And that there are more motions than we know, right? Nagging about this one little math trick you think you have found?
It is not even a trick, at all, in the broader sense. All is in motion.

More Education?

 

[Beefbisquit]

I'm not clinging to that, I was pointing out that it was a BS question. If you want to make a statement that nobody on a stoner website could possibly disprove SR and provide the correct method then be my guest. You know you'd be wrong to say that, because it is possible, unless you can show how it is impossible?? I'll wait.

Any one with 1/2 a brain wouldn't claim to know certainty, but to the same end, any one with half a brain isn't going to lend the same kind of credibility to 'a stoner on a website'.

Are you a physicist?

 

[mindphuk]

You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself??

I answered it by changing the thought experiment to one that you might find easier to understand. Since you ignored my comment that the car going .99c was relative to you. I determined the car had that velocity because that's the velocity I chose. All of your other questions about the car are red herrings because you are misapplying the idea.

Now how about reading the answers I gave you regarding why it is impossible for you to declare any FoR absolute or preferred?

You asked:

I replied:

Right. You replied to a question with a question and now you pretend you answered me. I wasn't interested in playing your game as to whether there's some ridiculously low probability that you might be correct, especially when it was obvious you have a some clear misconceptions and inadequate mathematical knowledge in order to actually be right, the answer is so close to zero that most non-delusional people would realize that.

If you don't want to continue learning about why you're wrong, that's fine with me but suffice it to say, you haven't been able to defend your position adequately. I can summarize your counter-arguments as, "nuh-huh."

 

[Seedling]

I answered it by changing the thought experiment to one that you might find easier to understand. Since you ignored my comment that the car going .99c was relative to you. I determined the car had that velocity because that's the velocity I chose. All of your other questions about the car are red herrings because you are misapplying the idea.

Now how about reading the answers I gave you regarding why it is impossible for you to declare any FoR absolute or preferred?

Right. You replied to a question with a question and now you pretend you answered me. I wasn't interested in playing your game as to whether there's some ridiculously low probability that you might be correct, especially when it was obvious you have a some clear misconceptions and inadequate mathematical knowledge in order to actually be right, the answer is so close to zero that most non-delusional people would realize that.

If you don't want to continue learning about why you're wrong, that's fine with me but suffice it to say, you haven't been able to defend your position adequately. I can summarize your counter-arguments as, "nuh-huh."

Actually it's what you don't say that sums up your position quite well. You can't reply with any integrity to my concept because it's upholding the definition of the meter and the proper use of reference frames. You know my statements are accurate so you change the scenario so you don't have to have an inner battle of what is correct, and what you've been told is correct and believe to be true.



http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

If you are familiar with Chapter 9 in the link I posted maybe you'd care to discuss it. I can school you on why it's nonsense according to the definition of the meter and the concept of reference frames.

 

[mindphuk]

Actually it's what you don't say that sums up your position quite well. You can't reply with any integrity to my concept because it's upholding the definition of the meter and the proper use of reference frames. You know my statements are accurate so you change the scenario so you don't have to have an inner battle of what is correct, and what you've been told is correct and believe to be true.

I changed the scenario to make it more clear. I wanted to eliminate any side-tracking using GR so I eliminated the variable of the car needing to accelerate to get up to a specific speed. Now how about answering it instead of continuing to throw out insults.
If both you and I are in EVA suits in empty space, and we are traveling toward each other at .99c, who has the preferred frame?

 

[Seedling]

I changed the scenario to make it more clear. I wanted to eliminate any side-tracking using GR so I eliminated the variable of the car needing to accelerate to get up to a specific speed. Now how about answering it instead of continuing to throw out insults.
If both you and I are in EVA suits in empty space, and we are traveling toward each other at .99c, who has the preferred frame?

It is not "traveling towards each other at .99c," that is a closing speed of .99c which you speak of. You have no clue which part of that .99c, if any, each of us posses as a velocity. A closing speed is not a velocity, it is simply the distance between us increasing or decreasing over time. Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity?


All objects travel in the preferred frame in which light travel time defines distance.

 

[mindphuk]

It is not "traveling towards each other at .99c," that is a closing speed of .99c which you speak of. You have no clue which part of that .99c, if any, each of us posses as a velocity. A closing speed is not a velocity, it is simply the distance between us increasing or decreasing over time. Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity?

You are sort of getting the point but not answering the question. Yes, that's the closing speed, good job. However, I never said either of us had a specific velocity, that was part of my question to you. Did you actually read it in the extended reply in post #92? How do YOU determine who has velocity in this scenario? One of us? Both of us? We both "feel" at rest, but it is clear we are not at rest relative to one another. If you cannot answer that question, how do you determine who sees light traveling at c when they turn on their lamps?

All objects travel in the preferred frame in which light travel time defines distance.

I can't tell if you are just being stubborn or incredibly dense but this is not any kind of answer. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this circular argument of yours can be applied to different situations. Merely repeating yourself is not answering questions. Unless light is measured in a vacuum at different speeds depending on where you observe it from, which experimentally has been proven to not occur, then you cannot say there are any preferred frames. I just don't know how to explain it any better. You haven't responded about the Michelson-Morley experiment, you haven't acknowledged how the principle of relativity has been proven since Galileo, and you haven't responded to where exactly in this universe you think some absolute stationary frame of reference can even exist and since no one in the history of mankind has ever been in a stationary frame with respect to other moving bodies, then how do you explain that the speed of light is ALWAYS measured the same?


Here's another thought experiment for you question about chapter 9. You and I are still in our EVA suits in space. We are now a fixed distance apart and we are holding a rope with a lamp exactly midpoint between us. Now, when the lamp is turned on, you should agree that the light sphere expands at exactly the same rate in all directions so we see the light at the exact same time. Now suppose that Doer now comes floating past us, or maybe we are floating past him, it's of course impossible to say either one is more correct. Let's say he is behind you and off to your left and apparently traveling in my direction, like if we were passing him on a highway. What would Doer see? He would see the lamp light reach me before it reaches you because from his perspective I am traveling toward the light shell and you are traveling away from it. So from his POV, the two events did NOT occur simultaneously.

 

[Seedling]

You are sort of getting the point but not answering the question. Yes, that's the closing speed, good job. However, I never said either of us had a specific velocity, that was part of my question to you. Did you actually read it in the extended reply in post #92? How do YOU determine who has velocity in this scenario? One of us? Both of us? We both "feel" at rest, but it is clear we are not at rest relative to one another. If you cannot answer that question, how do you determine who sees light traveling at c when they turn on their lamps?

So you agree that's a closing speed. Is that to say that you are acknowledging that at least one of us, maybe both of us have a velocity contributing to that closing speed? If so, in what frame would you say that velocity occurs? In other words, the closing speed is .99c. Let's just say that I can state as a fact that I have a velocity of .09c, and you have a velocity of .9c. In what frame do you think those velocities are relative to? In what frame do you think our individual velocities that make up the closing speed occur in?

I can't tell if you are just being stubborn or incredibly dense but this is not any kind of answer. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this circular argument of yours can be applied to different situations. Merely repeating yourself is not answering questions. Unless light is measured in a vacuum at different speeds depending on where you observe it from, which experimentally has been proven to not occur, then you cannot say there are any preferred frames.

You still don't get it. "Where" you measure it from is implying that you remain at a fixed point in space and measure the speed of light. The only way you can measure the speed of light from a "where" for a duration of time is if you remain at that "where" point for the entire duration, otherwise you were at multiple "wheres" for that duration, which makes your measurements of the speed of light inaccurate, because you failed to acknowledge your own frame's velocity and take that into account in your measurement. The speed of light is defined, if you measure something different than 299,792,458 m/s from your frame then you either performed the measurement incorrectly, or your frame has a velocity, take your pick!

Here's another thought experiment for you question about chapter 9. You and I are still in our EVA suits in space. We are now a fixed distance apart and we are holding a rope with a lamp exactly midpoint between us. Now, when the lamp is turned on, you should agree that the light sphere expands at exactly the same rate in all directions so we see the light at the exact same time.

Just because the distance between us remains fixed doesn't mean we don't each have a velocity. We could be traveling together through space at the same rate, like two cars on a highway that are traveling 75 MPH with a fixed distance of 50 feet between them.

You are assuming that we both see the light at the same exact time. That can only happen if we both remain the same distance from the point of emission of the light. Just because we remain the same fixed distance from the source the entire duration doesn't mean we remained the same distance from the point in space where the light was emitted. The source and you and me could have moved as a unit away from the point in space the light was emitted. If that be the case then the source is no longer at the point the light was emitted, hence the source had an absolute velocity away from that point and is no longer at the center of the light sphere.

 

[mindphuk]

So you agree that's a closing speed. Is that to say that you are acknowledging that at least one of us, maybe both of us have a velocity contributing to that closing speed? If so, in what frame would you say that velocity occurs? In other words, the closing speed is .99c. Let's just say that I can state as a fact that I have a velocity of .09c, and you have a velocity of .9c. In what frame do you think those velocities are relative to? In what frame do you think our individual velocities that make up the closing speed occur in?

Why are you asking me to tell you what I asked you to demonstrate? If we have a closing speed of .99c, how do you determine individual velocities if we BOTH feel we are at rest and it is the other person that is traveling? This is the entire crux of what I am trying to help you understand and you merely talk around it. HOW do you state for any fact that you are traveling .09c? Relative to what frame? The fact is there are no frames of pure space that anyone can say with any certainty that has absolute zero velocity. The measurement of any velocity is relative to where the measure is done. How fast is that car going? If you on earth measure, you might say 55mph. However, an observer on Jupiter will measure the speed as a combination of the earth's rotation and and orbital velocities in the tens of thousands mph. If an observer is outside the Milky Way, he would measure a velocity in the hundreds of thousands mph. EVERY velocity measurement is dependent on where the observer is. If you don't accept this, then it is up to you to show and explain why.

You still don't get it. "Where" you measure it from is implying that you remain at a fixed point in space and measure the speed of light.

What is my point fixed to? You keep saying that there is this implication and I'm explaining why this is a false assumption on your part. If I am in an inertial FoR, I do not experience motion, therefore, my frame is at rest, relative to me. Yet I keep demonstrating how this is factually untrue, that it is impossible for anyone to claim any point is completely at rest, but thankfully, math and physics show this doesn't matter. All physical laws operate the same in all inertial FoR. One inertial frame can be converted to another by a transformation, Galilean in Newtonian physics and Lorentz in relativity.

The only way you can measure the speed of light from a "where" for a duration of time is if you remain at that "where" point for the entire duration, otherwise you where at multiple "wheres" for that duration, which makes your measurements of the speed of light inaccurate, because you failed to acknowledge your own frame's velocity and take that into account in your measurement.

So quit stalling and demonstrate how this is even possible. I keep asking and you just keep repeating the same thing. If I can't even stay at the same spot in space by sitting in my living room, how the hell am I supposed to measure light? Did you understand the implications of the Michleson-Morley experiment? This is what they demonstrated, that even though the earth is rotating quite fast, and moving around the sun even faster the measurement of light remained the same in every direction, disproving there is something about space that can be fixed with respect to motion and measuring light speed.

The speed of light is defined, if you measure something different than 299,792,458 m/s from your frame then you either performed the measurement incorrectly, or your frame has a velocity, take your pick!

Ho do you know what the true speed of light is since no human in history has ever had a completely stationary frame? Everyone has had velocity.

Just because the distance between us remains fixed doesn't mean we don't each have a velocity.

True.

We could be traveling together through space at the same rate, like two cars on a highway that are traveling 75 MPH with a fixed distance of 50 feet between them.

exactly...

You are assuming that we both see the light at the same exact time

No assumption need to be made. We WILL measure the light at the same time, there is no relative motion between us, we both feel we are at rest. The only problem is from which vantage point the measurement is made.

That can only happen if we both remain the same distance from the point of emission of the light.

That was a given based on this problem. The lamp is directly in between us, it doesn't move, relative to either of us.

Just because we remain the same fixed distance from the source the entire duration doesn't mean we remained the same distance from the point in space where the light was emitted.

correct. This is exactly like measurements on earth. We can say we are at rest, but in fact we are never in the same "piece" of space- if you want to call it that - from one moment to the next.

The source and you and me could have moved as a unit away from the point in space the light was emitted. If that be the case then the source is no longer at the point the light was emitted, hence the source had an absolute velocity away from that point and is no longer at the center of the light sphere.

That's exactly true, you and I could have moved, however it could be that you and I are stationary and the observer is the one that is moving. The point is, and I hope you at least try to understand by now that there is no way to tell, therefore all frames are equally valid and all measurements therefore are valid. There is no preferred frame. If you don't accept that, then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can help with, especially if you can't answer the question of how you determine any part of space anywhere in the entire universe is fixed, and then answer fixed with regard to what.

 

[Seedling]

What are your questions and rebuttals concerning this diagram? Let us stay with this diagram so we are on the same sheet of music. Your errors are numerous as I've explained in my responses to you, and you don't respond to my leading questions because of the very nature of the question you see where you go wrong, and you avoid the concept of the question all together. Let's stay on course and use this example as our focal point.

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

Does the diagram answer your question as to how a frame can tell if it is at an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame? As you can clearly see in the diagram, the ONLY time the receivers will show a time of .5 seconds is IF the cube frame has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. If the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach all the receivers in .5 seconds. The cube is traveling in the preferred frame according to the definition of the meter and the speed of light, relative to no other object. The absolute velocity of the cube is not a closing speed with reference to another object, it is the cube's absolute velocity in the preferred frame. There are no other objects in this diagram. There is a cube with a source that stays at the center of the cube at all times, and there is the light that that source emits. "DATS IT!"

 

[Seedling]

Imagine a point in space that is comprised of simply an infinite amount of clocks all at that point. We'll call that time t=0. At t=0 there was a massive explosion, and all the clocks instantly traveled away from the center point in every direction so as to form an expanding sphere of clocks that keeps expanding. The clocks are moving away from the center point of the sphere where they all once resided. They are all moving away from that point at the speed of light. There is no difference between distance and time at any point in time, because the clocks are distance, by definition. As each second elapses the distance increases 299,792,458 meters. So two clocks that are traveling in opposite directions read exactly the same time at all times. They have each traveled 299,792,458 meters away from the center of the sphere of clocks, and the distance between them is 599,584,916 meters at t=1 seconds.

Do you agree with those numbers?

 

[guy incognito]

What are your questions and rebuttals concerning this diagram? Let us stay with this diagram so we are on the same sheet of music. Your errors are numerous as I've explained in my responses to you, and you don't respond to my leading questions because of the very nature of the question you see where you go wrong, and you avoid the concept of the question all together. Let's stay on course and use this example as our focal point.

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

Does the diagram answer your question as to how a frame can tell if it is at an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame? As you can clearly see in the diagram, the ONLY time the receivers will show a time of .5 seconds is IF the cube frame has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. If the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach all the receivers in .5 seconds. The cube is traveling in the preferred frame according to the definition of the meter and the speed of light, relative to no other object. The absolute velocity of the cube is not a closing speed with reference to another object, it is the cube's absolute velocity in the preferred frame. There are no other objects in this diagram. There is a cube with a source that stays at the center of the cube at all times, and there is the light that that source emits. "DATS IT!"

All those measurements are taken from the point of view of an observer looking at a topographical view of the map. From that point of view you can clearly see the box moving relative to yourself. Now if you were inside the box you would get different measurements. In fact you would measure the speed of light to be exactly the same in all directions. Further more every single one of your measurements of the speed of light will not only agree with each other, but with every other measurement made by every other person, in every other possible frame of reference.

 

[Seedling]

All those measurements are taken from the point of view of an observer looking at a topographical view of the map. From that point of view you can clearly see the box moving relative to yourself. Now if you were inside the box you would get different measurements. In fact you would measure the speed of light to be exactly the same in all directions. Further more every single one of your measurements of the speed of light will not only agree with each other, but with every other measurement made by every other person, in every other possible frame of reference.

There is not a "point of view," there were measurements of the amount of time it took for light emitted from the source to reach each receiver. Obviously if there were an outside observer that was 2 light seconds from the point of origin of the light sphere, the measurements were already completed BEFORE the expanding light sphere ever reached that outside observer.

You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube??? Are you out of your mind? Did you even understand the concept of the diagram?

 

[guy incognito]

And to expand on that point in case you still disagree with my previous post consider this:

I have a lab located on earth which is spinning around an axis, which is revolving around the sun, which is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. Also our galaxy is moving relative to all other galaxies. I can measure the speed of light in my lab. I can measure it in any direction, east, west, north, south, up, down, and any combination of those directions. I can measure at night when I am spinning in one direction on the earth, or I can measure in the day when my lab has reversed direction and is traveling the exact opposite way it was 12 hours previously. I can measure it at different times of the year when the earth is in different parts of it's orbit and is traveling in different directions. No matter when or where I measure the speed of light I will get EXACTLY the same speed. This has been proven experimentally. Every measurement of the speed of light is the same regardless of the source of light, or the frame of the observer.

 

[guy incognito]

There is not a "point of view," there were measurements of the amount of time it took for light emitted from the source to reach each receiver. Obviously if there were an outside observer that was 2 light seconds from the point of origin of the light sphere, the measurements were already completed BEFORE the expanding light sphere ever reached that outside observer.

You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube??? Are you out of your mind? Did you even understand the concept of the diagram?

I do which is why I pointed out the critical flaw in your logic of using it to measure your speed. You are implying there is an "absolute" time, which there is not. Time will elapse differently for the observer looking down on the diagram (and not being in the box) and the observer IN the box.

Also: "You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube?"

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. This is also what has been proved experimentally. It is the reality which we live in, so get used to it.

 

[Seedling]

And to expand on that point in case you still disagree with my previous post consider this:

I have a lab located on earth which is spinning around an axis, which is revolving around the sun, which is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. Also our galaxy is moving relative to all other galaxies. I can measure the speed of light in my lab. I can measure it in any direction, east, west, north, south, up, down, and any combination of those directions. I can measure at night when I am spinning in one direction on the earth, or I can measure in the day when my lab has reversed direction and is traveling the exact opposite way it was 12 hours previously. I can measure it at different times of the year when the earth is in different parts of it's orbit and is traveling in different directions. No matter when or where I measure the speed of light I will get EXACTLY the same speed. This has been proven experimentally. Every measurement of the speed of light is the same regardless of the source of light, or the frame of the observer.

Yes, because you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the earth, moon, galaxy, or any other material object. Light travels independently of objects. Light travel time is distance, they are inseparable when speaking about the distance and time of light travel.

 

[Seedling]

I do which is why I pointed out the critical flaw in your logic of using it to measure your speed. You are implying there is an "absolute" time, which there is not. Time will elapse differently for the observer looking down on the diagram (and not being in the box) and the observer IN the box.

Also: "You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube?"

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. This is also what has been proved experimentally. It is the reality which we live in, so get used to it.

If there is no absolute time then there is no absolute speed of light, as the length of the meter is defined by light travel time. Effectively what you are saying is that the radius of a light sphere grows at different rates, depending on what frame you are in. Is that what you think?