The direction of the big bang

[guy incognito]

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.

But somehow if you are inside a box you don't measure the speed of light to be c? I don't understand how my lab is any different from the hypothetical box in your diagram. My lab is flying through space with a million different directional velocities, yet I turn my laser on and point it to the front of the lab and I measure the speed of light to be c, then I point it to the back and my measurement is the same. And it is the same no matter which way I point it, or what speed and/or direction my lab is traveling through space.

 

[guy incognito]

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?

That's the thing about the speed of light, it always APPEARS to have an absolute speed. No matter where you measure from it ALWAYS measures to be the exact same. Time and length can vary depending on your speed though. Time dilation and length contraction.

 

[Seedling]

But somehow if you are inside a box you don't measure the speed of light to be c? I don't understand how my lab is any different from the hypothetical box in your diagram. My lab is flying through space with a million different directional velocities, yet I turn my laser on and point it to the front of the lab and I measure the speed of light to be c, then I point it to the back and my measurement is the same. And it is the same no matter which way I point it, or what speed and/or direction my lab is traveling through space.

Again, you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the lab, correct? Or do you wish to imply that you are taking into account the lab is in motion into your results?

 

[Seedling]

Time and length can vary depending on your speed though. Time dilation and length contraction.

So which comes first, knowing the time and length traveled and then knowing your speed, or knowing your speed and then knowing the time and length traveled? Oh, you better be extremely careful on this one.

 

[guy incognito]

Again, you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the lab, correct? Or do you wish to imply that you are taking into account the lab is in motion into your results?

Yes you are measuring the speed of light.

Here is where you are going wrong: in your link http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

at t=0 light is emitted from the center of the box (or lab). If you are INSIDE the box light will hit all walls at the same time. It does not matter the direction you are moving or how fast.

From the reference point above it is clear that the box is moving to the right. You see the source of light pulse and a light sphere expand. You also see the box moving to the right.

But from INSIDE the box, right next to the light source, you see the light pulse and a light sphere expand. You do not see yourself moving relative to the light source. You measure the distance between the source and the receiver, and you also measure the time it took for light to get there. You plug those values in and lo and behold you just measured the speed of light to be exactly what it should be.

 

[guy incognito]

So which comes first, knowing the time and length traveled and then knowing your speed, or knowing your speed and then knowing the time and length traveled? Oh, you better be extremely careful on this one.

Speed by definition is distance over time.

 

[Seedling]

Yes you are measuring the speed of light.

Here is where you are going wrong: in your link http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

at t=0 light is emitted from the center of the box (or lab). If you are INSIDE the box light will hit all walls at the same time. It does not matter the direction you are moving or how fast.

From the reference point above it is clear that the box is moving to the right. You see the source of light pulse and a light sphere expand. You also see the box moving to the right.

But from INSIDE the box, right next to the light source, you see the light pulse and a light sphere expand. You do not see yourself moving relative to the light source. You measure the distance between the source and the receiver, and you also measure the time it took for light to get there. You plug those values in and lo and behold you just measured the speed of light to be exactly what it should be.

Those times are taken INSIDE THE BOX. What part of that don't you understand? The light was emitted and the timers on the receivers were started, and the timer stops when the light reached the timer. This is not one of Einstein's smoke and mirror tricks, this is a measurement of time of light travel from the source to each receiver. There is no "view." The measurements were taken and the results are posted. The results are a reality, every thing else is an illusion of distance and time!

 

[Seedling]

Speed by definition is distance over time.

So you are saying you first measure the distance and time, and then you do the math and arrive at the speed?

 

[guy incognito]

Those times are taken INSIDE THE BOX. What part of that don't you understand? The light was emitted and the timers on the receivers were started, and the timer stops when the light reached the timer. This is not one of Einstein's smoke and mirror tricks, this is a measurement of time of light travel from the source to each receiver. There is no "view." The measurements were taken and the results are posted. The results are a reality, every thing else is an illusion of distance and time!

No they were not. The diagram clearly shows a source of light, and a box moving relative to the source of the light. If the measurements were taken INSIDE THE BOX the light source would start at the center and not move relative to the box.

The diagram states that the source is at the center of the box, but the picture shows something different.

 

[Seedling]

No they were not. The diagram clearly shows a source of light, and a box moving relative to the source of the light. If the measurements were taken INSIDE THE BOX the light source would start at the center and not move relative to the box.

The diagram states that the source is at the center of the box, but the picture shows something different.

Maybe you are color blind? Do you not understand that the source (yellow dot) stays at the center of the cube at all times? The red dot is simply the origin of the light sphere, it is not the source! The light expands from the point of origin, regardless of if the source stays at that point or not!

 

[guy incognito]

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.

No no no no no no. No. That is not how it works. If I am standing on the side of the road and you drive by at .99c and flip your headlights that is what I would see and what I would measure as an observer on the side of the road, not moving. I measure 1 second, and I see the light from the head lights is 299,792,458 meters ahead of the point when you turned it on, and you are 296,794,533.42 meters.

The problem with this is that it depends on who is taking the measurement. One second ticking by on MY clock is the not the same as one second ticking on YOUR clock (which is in the car with you) because we are moving relative to each other. You are moving away from me at 0.99c. I assure you that if you measure the distance light travels in front of you, and you time it with an accurate clock, you will measure that light has moved 299,792,458 meters ahead of you after 1 of YOUR seconds. This will happen if you are standing still, or if you are traveling forward at .99, or if you are traveling backwards at .99c. No matter how fast you are moving, or what direction, or where you are when you measure it it will be the exact same.

 

[Seedling]

Let me guess, Einstein says it takes 1 second round trip time for light to travel the 1 light second total round trip distance? But how could that be, seeing how the real round trip time is 1.689999 seconds, which means light traveled a round trip distance in space 506,648,954 meters in 1.689999 seconds, which means light traveled at the speed 0f 299,792,458 m/s.

 

[guy incognito]

Maybe you are color blind? Do you not understand that the source (yellow dot) stays at the center of the cube at all times? The red dot is simply the origin of the light sphere, it is not the source! The light expands from the point of origin, regardless of if the source stays at that point or not!

No. Yes I understand it, but the diagram does NOT represent that.

Lets assume you are in a perfect sphere instead of a box, and the light source is at the center. You are inside next to the light source. You are not accelerating. From inside you cannot tell which direction you are traveling, or how fast*. You turn the light on. The entire inside surface of the sphere will be illuminated at the exact same time (from your point of view inside the sphere, moving with zero velocity relative to the sphere)


* This is the exact same principle of why you cannot tell how fast the earth is moving. We are spinning on an axis, and revolving around the sun, but to us this frame is at rest. It appears as though everything else is moving around us and we are stationary. If you go inside your house and close the windows though, you have no other "frame of reference" to even be aware that you are moving.

 

[Seedling]

No no no no no no. No. That is not how it works. If I am standing on the side of the road and you drive by at .99c and flip your headlights that is what I would see and what I would measure as an observer on the side of the road, not moving. I measure 1 second, and I see the light from the head lights is 299,792,458 meters ahead of the point when you turned it on, and you are 296,794,533.42 meters.

Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity?

So we painted a line on the road. The car is approaching the line at a constant rate. Just as the car comes in contact with the line the headlights are activated. The road is marked like a ruler at every meter. You are 299,792,458 meters away from the start line. When the light reaches you the position of the car is marked. At what meter point is the car when the light hits you?

 

[Seedling]

No. Yes I understand it, but the diagram does NOT represent that.

What do you mean the diagram doesn't represent that?? Didn't you see the color coding chart? Above that it says the source remains at the center of the cube. What do you not understand about that?

Lets assume you are in a perfect sphere instead of a box, and the light source is at the center. You are inside next to the light source. You are not accelerating. From inside you cannot tell which direction you are traveling, or how fast*. You turn the light on. The entire inside surface of the sphere will be illuminated at the exact same time (from your point of view inside the sphere, moving with zero velocity relative to the sphere)


* This is the exact same principle of why you cannot tell how fast the earth is moving. We are spinning on an axis, and revolving around the sun, but to us this frame is at rest. It appears as though everything else is moving around us and we are stationary. If you go inside your house and close the windows though, you have no other "frame of reference" to even be aware that you are moving.

So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place. Now, you fire the sphere's rocket engine for a duration of time and you accelerate the sphere (you can tell you are accelerating because the force between you and the seat increases dramatically!!) You accelerate for a duration of time and then you shut off the rocket booster. What you have done is change your velocity in space. Since you previously observed that the light hit the inner surface of the sphere in the same amount of time, when the sphere was at a zero velocity, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach the inner surface at the same time at every point on the inner surface of the sphere after the acceleration, due to the FACT that you can no longer be at a zero velocity, because you ACCELERATED for a duration of time. You CHANGED your velocity. Changing does not mean staying the same, it means it most certainly is NOT the same! So the velocity of the sphere is not zero, it is >0, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, which means there ain't no way in hell the light can possibly reach the entire inner surface at the same exact time in every direction. This is not even debatable, it is a rock solid mathematical, geometrical FACT!!!!

 

[guy incognito]

What do you mean the diagram doesn't represent that?? Didn't you see the color coding chart? Above that it says the source remains at the center of the cube. What do you not understand about that?

The legend does indeed state that, but the actual diagram does not represent that. What I mean is that simply saying "this yellow dot is the light source", and then placing that dot into a diagram does not mean that you are accurately representing the real world behavior of light.

So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place. Now, you fire the sphere's rocket engine for a duration of time and you accelerate the sphere (you can tell you are accelerating because the force between you and the seat increases dramatically!!) You accelerate for a duration of time and then you shut off the rocket booster. What you have done is change your velocity in space. Since you previously observed that the light hit the inner surface of the sphere in the same amount of time, when the sphere was at a zero velocity, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach the inner surface at the same time at every point on the inner surface of the sphere after the acceleration, due to the FACT that you can no longer be at a zero velocity, because you ACCELERATED for a duration of time. You CHANGED your velocity. Changing does not mean staying the same, it means it most certainly is NOT the same! So the velocity of the sphere is not zero, it is >0, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, which means there ain't no way in hell the light can possibly reach the entire inner surface at the same exact time in every direction. This is not even debatable, it is a rock solid mathematical, geometrical FACT!!!!

Did I personally do a test? No, but others have and every single one of their results verified that everything I said was correct.

For the last time, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE VELOCITY. It does not exist. And more importantly LIGHT does not acknowledge it's existence. Everything you have said in this paragraph is absolute rubbish.

Let me try to explain this one more time. You have a perfect sphere with a light source at the center. You have 2 engines outside of the sphere on opposite sides. You have your sphere sitting stationary on the top of a mountain. I am going to present 3 different scenarios:

1. You get in the sphere. You do not turn on the engines, you just stay where you are. You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

2. You get in the sphere. You turn on one engine only and accelerate west in a straight line until you are traveling at .99c relative to earth*. You then turn off the engine and remain at a constant velocity (ie not accelerating in any direction). You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

3. You get in the sphere. You turn on one engine only and accelerate east in a straight line until you are traveling at .99c relative to earth*. You then turn off the engine and remain at a constant velocity (ie not accelerating in any direction). You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

I know that it is totally mind blowing and goes against your basic intuition, but it has been proven experimentally. If you do not believe reality then I don't know how else to convince you.

* "0.99 c relative to earth" means that you, from inside your ship, look out the window and see earth (which we are considering "stationary" (as in example 1)) traveling away from you at 0.99c according to YOUR measurements of time and distance.

 

[mindphuk]

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!"

Why are you trying to bring something new to discuss? Please just try to answer some of my questions. If you can answer them, I can figure out what you are thinking. If you continue to dodge them, I have no choice but to assume you cannot answer them. I don't think you are even pondering them. If you did, you would at least understand what I am saying instead of creating a strawman and merely declaring I'm making mistakes. So how about you try to explain how physics has been wrong for 500 years and there is such a thing as an absolute reference frame and where exactly this mythical place is. Please explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment using your rules and frames. Please explain why in your world, different observers should be getting different results for the speed of light but in reality and experimentation, this does not occur. Until you answer these very basic points which should be simple since they are merely an expansion of the idea that you keep presenting, there is no reason anyone should take you seriously. You keep repeating the same thing without elaboration. You keep claiming how frames that are outside your mythical 'preferred' frame should be measuring light speed different, yet in reality they don't. If you make claims, back them up. Repetition is not proof.

 

[mindphuk]

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.

Yet if the observer is moving, you are claiming they no longer are at the same point in space where the light originated from, so how do they continually measure light speed as c? The point is those other velocities are irrelevant as long as we are not accelerating. ALL inertial frames are equal when it comes to measuring physical laws. This is not an Einstein trick, this relativity principle has been proven and understood for almost 500 years. You are introducing completely new paradigm without adequate explanation. If motion is not relative but can be linked to some absolute frame, this would overturn virtually all of physics, not just Einstein but Newton too. Everything we know about motion is wrong, yet for some reason all of our technology that is based on our current understanding of physics still works.

 

[cannabineer]

Mindphuk, Seedling has already declared special relativity to be "smoke and mirrors". His insistence on a preferred or null observing frame is part of the same circular argument. It puts me in mind of some of the Critical Thought Experiments puzzles, in which our human intuition can be fooled by a false correlation.
It's surprising to me that what I see as Einstein's act of genius ... to discard the concept of invariant time and distance ... Seedling sees as a deception.
And I agree with you and the others that Seedling's opinion about the Michaelson-Morley experiment (which is what compelled Einstein to take his radical step) would be informative. cn

 

[guy incognito]

So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place.

Again I want to point out that our sphere is no different than a lab located on earth. Earth is revolving around the sun at tremendous speeds. So at any given point earth is flying through space around the sun (which means my lab is flying through space at the same velocity). So how come if I measure the speed of light from a laser in one direction I get the exact same result as if I measure in the other direction? That can only occur when I am at absolute zero velocity correct? And When I measure again 6 months later when my lab is on the other side of the sun traveling at approximately the same velocity in the opposite direction (relative to when I last took measurements) I still get the same result no matter which way I point the laser?

By your theory shouldn't there be an "absolute" frame of reference? Shouldn't my measurements of the speed of the laser be different in different directions? and at different times of the year when my entire lab has a different direction and speed?