The direction of the big bang

[guy incognito]

Agreed that the light needs to be measured out&return. In fact, you've helped me realize that the assumption/illusion of an instantaneous means to monitor the participants is equivalent with a preferred frame.
I did calculate gamma for .99c and find it to be about seven point one.
But here's the part about which I am unsure after this morning's reading. The relative speed of the participants is .99c, and if we invoke the symmetry of relativistic effects, will the perceived elapsed time be different for the two observers? cn

Are you asking if elapsed time for the observer in the car will differ from the stationary (with respect to ground) observer? Yes it will. At these speeds for long enough distances the difference will be severe.

For example take identical twins, one stays on earth and one heads out in ship at .99c. When the ship twin returns he will find that his twin has aged significantly more than he himself has. If you could travel fast enough, you could return from a journey where you only experienced a few minutes elapse and yet find millions of years has elapsed on earth and everyone you ever knew or loved is gone and has since been replaced in the robotic uprising.

 

[mindphuk]

I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off the results. In the not so distant past the neutrino was measured to be traveling faster than light. Did you jump up and down and claim it as a fact? I doubt it, you were probably a skeptic, that there was probably a mechanical problem in the system, human error was to blame, or there was something wrong with the method or mathematics. You know that feeling? Well that is the feeling I have about the MM experiment, not to mention that there is always a chance that a hidden agenda was an inspiration for an integrity problem. Sure, there was a bad connection later found to be the cause of the neutrino results, but that is hind sight. You may have been a skeptic of the results prior to knowing there was in fact a problem. So test until you get the results you are looking for, eh? I'll keep that in mind. (rolls eyes)

I think the idiocy of discounting this when you clearly do not know anything about it has been pointed out.

For the last f'ing time, are you measuring the speed of light or the speed of the earth?

You are measuring the speed of light while in motion, something you claim should yield different results if I were in motion one direction vs. the other. Since no frame on earth is at zero velocity with respect to light, the answers you get will be different according to you.

Are you admitting that if my method were correct that your results would have shown different, as the earth (lab) is in motion?

Right. I'm suggesting a way to test your hypothesis something you you keep ignoring.

You are measuring the speed of light, what don't you understand about that? Do you know the difference between measuring the speed of light, and measuring how much time it takes for light to traverse a length in a frame?? Evidently f'n not!

Yes, I know there is no difference between speed and time over distance. This is a fact by definition.

Again, you are confusing closing speed with velocity. Do you actually know what a velocity is? Certainly not, because you keep claiming a closing speed as a velocity.

No, I'm not confusing the two. If you are in empty space and feel at rest, there is no way to determine any velocity. You need something to measure it against. Velocity is a speed in a specific direction. Are you able to tell me the velocity you are traveling through space RIGHT NOW? It clearly is not zero.

Yes I do understand inertial motion, which is saying nothing more than "not accelerating." The real question is, do you understand that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity? Do you understand that an object has to have a velocity at all times, even if that velocity is zero????

Are you able to point to anything that has a zero velocity? Where?

If I can accelerate, which I can, then I must have an initial velocity in space in order for that acceleration to change that velocity. You don't have a f'n clue of which you speak, you are only parroting the yesteryear BS that you've been brainwashed with!

What if you accelerate to counteract the velocity you already have? I am purposely not discussing acceleration because that brings us to GR and you can't even grasp the simpler SR.

Again, you don't even know the difference between the speed of light and a measurement of the speed of light. You talk like your measurement of the speed of light is the speed of light. What the f don't you understand about the definition of the meter defining the speed of light? Are you for real???

The meter does not define the speed of light. The speed of light IS what you measure it to be. ALL speeds are what their measurement is. What else is speed but a measurement of something traveling a specific distance over a specific time?

So you couldn't find a mistake in the link I posted, you have no numbers for the pic according to SR, you don't know the difference between a defined speed of light and a measured speed of light,

How was the speed of light defined? Did God tell us? No, it was measured. It was found to be the same in every frame regardless of velocity. This is why it is called a constant.

you fail to grasp the concept of a light sphere and the center point of that sphere, you don't know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity, and you call me stupid?? Pot, is that you, this is kettle.

You fail to grasp the every light sphere ever produced has never been done in a resting frame with respect to space. If I turn on a light, a split second later I have dragged that light with me across space. The earth is spinning and orbiting, you CANNOT discount these facts no matter how hard you try. I'm not measuring the speed of the earth, I'm only taking it into account when trying to figure out if I am at rest with respect to a specific point in space.

 

[Seedling]

We have, repeatedly. As I said before, the diagram you posted showing the motion of the cube is NOT from the point of view INSIDE the cube. It is the view of someone outside the cube looking at the cube moving RELATIVE to himself. This is preciously the reason the cube moves to the right (because it is moving RELATIVE to the outside observer). I do not know how to state this anymore clearly than I already have.

There is no view, for the last time! The test was conducted in the cube. There were no outside observations. There was light emitted from a source that remains at the center of the cube at all times (motionless in the cube frame), and there were receivers in the cube, mounted at the center of each wall, each of them the same exact distance from the source. Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took 1.38 seconds to reach the y receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took only .305 seconds for the light to return to the source from the x receiver (which is a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame). How do you explain the fact that a cube observer would have 3 different measurements of light in the same frame? There is no outside observer!

Imagine that you are inside that cube, and it has no windows. You cannot see or measure anything outside of your cube. The only thing you have is an apparatus to measure the speed of light (because you can measure the length the light travels, and you can time it - and for the last time stop saying this is "closing speed" and not velocity). You don't know if this cube is sitting on earth, sitting perfectly still in space, or traveling in some direction close to the speed of light, you cannot determine that. You measure the speed of light with your apparatus in every direction.

According to you:

You get different results depending on which direction you measure in, and depending on your speed according to an outside observer.

According to einstein and thousands of confirmed experiments and reality:

You get the exact same result in every direction every time no matter which direction/speed you are traveling.

How many times do I have to tell you, light travels independently of the cube. Am I speaking English?? Do you fail to grasp what that means? So if you say you understand what that means then why do you keep insisting on measuring the time it takes for light to travel a length in your frame and think that is the speed of light? Only a moron would not recognize the fact that the cube is capable of motion relative to the light sphere, which means you first must KNOW the velocity of the frame before you try to measure the velocity of something that travels independently of the frame.!!!

 

[cannabineer]

Are you asking if elapsed time for the observer in the car will differ from the stationary (with respect to ground) observer? Yes it will. At these speeds for long enough distances the difference will be severe.

For example take identical twins, one stays on earth and one heads out in ship at .99c. When the ship twin returns he will find that his twin has aged significantly more than he himself has. If you could travel fast enough, you could return from a journey where you only experienced a few minutes elapse and yet find millions of years has elapsed on earth and everyone you ever knew or loved is gone and has since been replaced in the robotic uprising.

Yes, but in the twins paradox, the important thing is acceleration and turnaround ... it decouples the frames. It's the contribution of gravitational (more generally, accelerational) relativity. In the car instance, neither participant is accelerating, so their frames are coupled. Thus my wonderment. cn

 

[cannabineer]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle

 

[Seedling]

Uh, they did try to measure a closing velocity. Their assumption was that they were moving through an aether. If they were perfectly at rest then the light sphere should behave that way, it should expand equally fast in all directions. If however they were moving through the aether, lets say oh I don't know at 0.638971c like your graph, then they should get different values. But they don't. They get exactly c every time. And unlike your box they have windows they can look out of to solidify the claim. They measure it the same in all directions, then their lab accelerates and changes directions (as the earth does) and they repeat the experiment with repeatable results. Case closed.

The problem you are having with closing speed is that you think it is strictly summative like in classical physics. You drive a car 50 mph, and you throw a baseball 50mph and voila, clearly the ball is traveling 50+50=100mph. This is not true, and it is not how the world works.

p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) is the momentum of a particle. as v approaches 0 the term (v/c)^2 approaches 0 and hence the denominator approaches 1.

So if we plug v = 50mph (approx 25/ms) into the equation the denominator is essentially 1. In fact if you plug in 25,000 m/s (56,000 mph) the denominator is still .999999997, which is not noticeable to us, which makes sense because even at that speed we are only traveling a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light.

It does matter when your velocity is a significant fraction of the speed of light though, which is why all your examples using high velocity do not conform to classical physics.

Clearly you are putting words in my mouth by saying the bold print. If I measured the road to have an absolute zero velocity, and I was driving along the road at 50 MPH, and I threw a ball at 50 MPH, the ball would float along side the car as we both traveled at the same rate , with a zero relative velocity between us. We each have a 50 MPH absolute velocity in the same direction.

However...If you claim to not be able to tell what speed the road is traveling in space, then all your measurements are not absolute velocities, they are relative motion, measured as closing speeds. Zero closing speed is zero relative motion. A closing speed of .75c means just that, that the distance is changing at the rate of .75c. That has no insight into the measure of each of the objects absolute velocities in space. So, back to the road example. You don't know the road's absolute velocity, and you know the relative velocity between you and the ball is zero, so why do you claim to throw the ball at 50 MPH when there is relative velocity of zero m/s between you and the ball. All your measurements are taken along the road, correct? Why would you use the road to measure your speed, and know you have a speed of 50 MPH, and then turn around and claim the ball has a 50 MPH relative velocity to you, as if you had a zero velocity?

 

[guy incognito]

There is no view, for the last time! The test was conducted in the cube. There were no outside observations. There was light emitted from a source that remains at the center of the cube at all times (motionless in the cube frame), and there were receivers in the cube, mounted at the center of each wall, each of them the same exact distance from the source. Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took 1.38 seconds to reach the y receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took only .305 seconds for the light to return to the source from the x receiver (which is a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame). How do you explain the fact that a cube observer would have 3 different measurements of light in the same frame? There is no outside observer!

That is where you are wrong. You keep saying the test was conducted in the cube, but all the values you use for calculations is what an outside observer would measure.

Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame)

NO IT DID NOT. As you are sitting in your chair looking at the diagram and making measurements from where YOU saw the light sphere originate, and where YOU see the light hit receiver Z you can measure a distance and a time and calculate the speed of the box. If you were inside the cube and you measured it you would NOT measure the same distance OR time. That is what is wrong with your diagram. That is what is wrong with your view point. You seem to think that if you can look at it from in front of your computer and measure, that the person INSIDE the cube moving RELATIVE to you will somehow have the same distance and time measurements.

I don't like to resort to name calling but I think you may actually be retarded. Can anyone else chime in here? Am I explaining this correctly? Is it really that difficult to understand that if you were inside the cube actually taking measurements that you would get different values that someone that is watching the cube move relative to themselves?

Not only is that not what happens according to relativity, we have actually conducted this EXACT experiment a number of times and we keep repeatedly showing you the results.

 

[guy incognito]

Clearly you are putting words in my mouth by saying the bold print. If I measured the road to have an absolute zero velocity, and I was driving along the road at 50 MPH, and I threw a ball at 50 MPH, the ball would float along side the car as we both traveled at the same rate , with a zero relative velocity between us. We each have a 50 MPH absolute velocity in the same direction.

However...If you claim to not be able to tell what speed the road is traveling in space, then all your measurements are not absolute velocities, they are relative motion, measured as closing speeds. Zero closing speed is zero relative motion. A closing speed of .75c means just that, that the distance is changing at the rate of .75c. That has no insight into the measure of each of the objects absolute velocities in space. So, back to the road example. You don't know the road's absolute velocity, and you know the relative velocity between you and the ball is zero, so why do you claim to throw the ball at 50 MPH when there is relative velocity of zero m/s between you and the ball. All your measurements are taken along the road, correct? Why would you use the road to measure your speed, and know you have a speed of 50 MPH, and then turn around and claim the ball has a 50 MPH relative velocity to you, as if you had a zero velocity?

No I am not. You seem to not even grasp classical physics.

I will dumb it down and be even more specific since you are mentally challenged:

There is a train traveling north at 50 mph. I am standing on top of this train. Right as the train passed by you, I throw a baseball towards the front of the train (north) at 50mph.

How fast is the baseball traveling according to you?

EDIT: Also there is no air. We are on a hypothetical earth with no atmosphere so we can ignore the effects of air resistance.

 

[Seedling]

That is where you are wrong. You keep saying the test was conducted in the cube, but all the values you use for calculations is what an outside observer would measure.

Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame)

NO IT DID NOT.

Yes it f'n did!!! You're so hung up on visual illusions you don't know the meaning of reality! A light transmitter emitted a sphere of light at t=0. The radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters when it reached the z receiver. Distance and time are bound together when speaking about the distance light travels in a duration of time BY F'N DEFINITION!!! If the radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters then it was t=.65 seconds! DEAL WITH IT!

 

[guy incognito]

And a further thought experiment. Imagine there is an identical train traveling south on the same tracks. And instead of 50mph I am traveling at .99c. The other train is also traveling at .99c in the opposite direction. You observe us both traveling towards each other at 0.99c each, and you measure our closing velocity to 1.98c.

What velocity do I calculate the south bound train moving at?

 

[Seedling]

No I am not. You seem to not even grasp classical physics.

I will dumb it down and be even more specific since you are mentally challenged:

There is a train traveling north at 50 mph. I am standing on top of this train. Right as the train passed by you, I throw a baseball towards the front of the train (north) at 50mph.




How fast is the baseball traveling according to you?

EDIT: Also there is no air. We are on a hypothetical earth with no atmosphere so we can ignore the effects of air resistance.

50 MPH. You gave me the ball's velocity and your velocity as measured from the tracks. They are both traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks. Why would you use the tracks as your reference to speed, and use you as the ball's reference to speed?

 

[guy incognito]

Yes it f'n did!!! You're so hung up on visual illusions you don't know the meaning of reality! A light transmitter emitted a sphere of light at t=0. The radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters when it reached the z receiver. Distance and time are bound together when speaking about the distance light travels in a duration of time BY F'N DEFINITION!!! If the radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters then it was t=.65 seconds! DEAL WITH IT!

There you go with the universal time again. You think an outside observer and the person inside the cube will both measure t=0.65s when light reaches the receiver. Reality tells us otherwise, deal with it.

 

[guy incognito]

50 MPH. You gave me the ball's velocity and your velocity as measured from the tracks. They are both traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks. Why would you use the tracks as your reference to speed, and use you as the ball's reference to speed?

so you are saying if I am traveling on top of a train that is going 50mph, and I pick up a baseball and throw it at 50mph towards the front of the train, that the ball will simply hover above the train traveling at the same speed?

and no i didnt. I gave you the trains speed relative to the ground. I have you the balls speed relative to the train. You are an idiot for not understanding what i meant.

 

[Seedling]

There you go with the universal time again. You think an outside observer and the person inside the cube will both measure t=0.65s when light reaches the receiver. Reality tells us otherwise, deal with it.

So how much time do you think elapsed in the cube frame for the light to reach the z receiver??

 

[Seedling]

so you are saying if I am traveling on top of a train that is going 50mph, and I pick up a baseball and throw it at 50mph towards the front of the train, that the ball will simply hover above the train traveling at the same speed?

Correct. Maybe you wish to clarify your question a bit? Which best describes your idea of the situation:

A. The ball is traveling away from you at 50 MPH which means it is traveling along the tracks at 100 MPH.

B. The ball has no relative motion to you and is traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks.

 

[guy incognito]

So how much time do you think elapsed in the cube frame for the light to reach the z receiver??

1/2 second. That is what you would measure if you were inside the cube. You ready to have your mind blown? because you would also measure t=1/2s to hit receiver x.

I know, I know, "but how can they both be t=.5s? that means it happened at the same time, when clearly my diagram shows it didn't! z happened first, then x!"

*sad trumpet*

wah wah wah

Thus the problem of relative simultaneity. Some outside the cube (sitting in your chair viewing the diagram in 2 dimensions) would indeed take all the measurements that are on your diagram. They would also conclude that z happened, and then x, which is in agreement with their measurements.

INSIDE the cube however you will turn the light on, see a sphere emanate from the center as if you were stationary, and will measure z and x happening simultaneously at t=.5s

 

[guy incognito]

Correct. Maybe you wish to clarify your question a bit? Which best describes your idea of the situation:

A. The ball is traveling away from you at 50 MPH which means it is traveling along the tracks at 100 MPH.

B. The ball has no relative motion to you and is traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks.

bahahahahahaha.

 

[Seedling]

1/2 second. That is what you would measure if you were inside the cube. You ready to have your mind blown? because you would also measure t=1/2s to hit receiver x.

I know, I know, "but how can they both be t=.5s? that means it happened at the same time, when clearly my diagram shows it didn't! z happened first, then x!"

*sad trumpet*

wah wah wah

Thus the problem of relative simultaneity. Some outside the cube (sitting in your chair viewing the diagram in 2 dimensions) would indeed take all the measurements that are on your diagram. They would also conclude that z happened, and then x, which is in agreement with their measurements.

INSIDE the cube however you will turn the light on, see a sphere emanate from the center as if you were stationary, and will measure z and x happening simultaneously at t=.5s

That is simply an impossibility! A center of a light sphere can't travel along with a source that emitted the light sphere. You fail to understand that a light sphere increases it's radius, but that the center of the light sphere is incapable of motion, because it is not an object, it is a point in space.

 

[guy incognito]

That is simply an impossibility! A center of a light sphere can't travel along with a source that emitted the light sphere. You fail to understand that a light sphere increases it's radius, but that the center of the light sphere is incapable of motion, because it is not an object, it is a point in space.

Translation: I don't understand it so it must be wrong!

Again I want to point out the Michelson–Morley experiment. Should they have have gotten different results? I want to stress again just how fucking exactly similar the box diagram is to the real life measurement of the speed of light. Inside your box you think that you will measure different times for light to reach z and x, even though they are both the same distance when it is emitted. Experimentally it has been done to death and the results show that you are wrong.

 

[Seedling]

Translation: I don't understand it so it must be wrong!

Wrong again, Bucko! When you can explain to me how a light sphere can expand its radius, and at the same time travel along with an object then I will accept that the speed of light is always measured to be c in every frame. Until then you are just blowing hot air. The light sphere is a geometrical fact. SR twists and distorts the truth which is not correct geometry, it's, how you say....illusions!.