The direction of the big bang

[Seedling]

Wait, how do you know this? I've already asked you once. This was your reply:



Now can the women on the train not make the exact same argument?

In scenario B (the second set of strikes)
She is midway between the front and back of the train. She observes simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and back. She is equal distance from both front and back, so she concludes that SHE is the one at absolute rest. She never accelerated or decelerated, therefore she has always been at absolute rest.

If the radius of the light spheres were the same when they impacted her simultaneously at the midpoint then the time of light travel was the same, and the distances were the same, so yes, she would be at an absolute zero velocity. If she was in relative motion to the tracks then the tracks would have a velocity greater than zero. That is not the situation though, I explained that the tracks were at a zero velocity in the first scenario, and you said he ran down to the next platform and stood there (presumably at the midpoint.) That would put him at a zero velocity, and if the strikes impacted him at different times then the strikes occurred at different times. That means that the train lady is wrong to say that she was midpoint of the points of origin of the spheres when the lights impacted her.

 

[Doer]

You mean zero relative velocity, don't you? But, only relative.

 

[Seedling]

Go read it again, you still don't comprehend it. Only the guy on the platform agrees that all the marks were lined up and lighting struck all at the same time. The person on the train sees it differently.

Going with the nomenclature of chapter 9, lets say on the embankment the strikes occur at A and B. The man is standing in the middle at point M. The train we will say the strikes occur at A' and B', and the center of the train where the lady is is M'.

According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when A' passes A.

According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when B' passes B.

The man thinks both of these events happened simultaneously. That is what he sees. He sees M' passing him, and he sees both strikes of lighiting. He knows A->M = M->B, and c is constant, therefore both strikes must have occurred simultaneously.

The lady in the train thinks they were sequential. That is what she sees. She shes a strike at the the front when A' passes A, then a strike at the back when B' passes B. She knows A'->M' = M'->B', and c is constant, therefore one strikes must have occurred first.

Basically this is what you are saying:

You are standing at the 50 yard line of a football field. Two footballs, one from opposite directions hit you at the same time. You don't know how far the footballs traveled to reach you and you don't know how much time they were in flight, you simply know that two footballs hit you from opposite directions at the same time.

So, being smart as hell as you are, you make a declaration that the footballs were thrown at the same time because they hit you at the same time. WTF???

 

[guy incognito]

If the radius of the light spheres were the same when they impacted her simultaneously at the midpoint then the time of light travel was the same, and the distances were the same, so yes, she would be at an absolute zero velocity. If she was in relative motion to the tracks then the tracks would have a velocity greater than zero. That is not the situation though, I explained that the tracks were at a zero velocity in the first scenario, and you said he ran down to the next platform and stood there (presumably at the midpoint.) That would put him at a zero velocity, and if the strikes impacted him at different times then the strikes occurred at different times. That means that the train lady is wrong to say that she was midpoint of the points of origin of the spheres when the lights impacted her.

How was she wrong? She is in the middle of the train. One sphere had its origin at the front of the train, and one at the back, both equal distance from her. The light from both strikes got to her simultaneously. She saw it with her own eyes. What exactly is wrong? Did she measure the train wrong?

 

[Seedling]

How was she wrong? She is in the middle of the train. One sphere had its origin at the front of the train, and one at the back, both equal distance from her. The light from both strikes got to her simultaneously. She saw it with her own eyes. What exactly is wrong? Did she measure the train wrong?

The points of origin of the light spheres do not share the motion of the train. The points of origin are incapable of motion. They are a point in space. Just because the lady is sitting midpoint in the train doesn't mean she remains midpoint of the points of origin of the light spheres. The train can travel in the preferred frame relative to those points, which means the lady shares the train's velocity if she remains seated in the train.

 

[guy incognito]

Basically this is what you are saying:

You are standing at the 50 yard line of a football field. Two footballs, one from opposite directions hit you at the same time. You don't know how far the footballs traveled to reach you and you don't know how much time they were in flight, you simply know that two footballs hit you from opposite directions at the same time.

So, being smart as hell as you are, you make a declaration that the footballs were thrown at the same time because they hit you at the same time. WTF???

1. The footballs had the same velocity, c.
2. They hit me at the same time.
3. I saw where each ball was thrown from (this is the lightning strike).

I use the constant velocity and measured distance to determine flight time of each ball. They both have equal flight times. The flight times ended simultaneously (by hitting me). Therefore they must have been thrown simultaneously.

 

[guy incognito]

The points of origin of the light spheres do not share the motion of the train. The points of origin are incapable of motion. They are a point in space. Just because the lady is sitting midpoint in the train doesn't mean she remains midpoint of the points of origin of the light spheres. The train can travel in the preferred frame relative to those points, which means the lady shares the train's velocity if she remains seated in the train.

Depends on your point of view. From inside the train, yes they do. That is what I keep trying to tell you.

Say you are in a train, and you speed up to 299, 792,457 m/s relative to the tracks. You walk to the back of the train and turn a light bulb on. According to you the train is racing away from the light, so when the light is turned on the light will only propagate towards the front of the train at 1 m/s. Is this what you actually think?

 

[guy incognito]

And another thought experiment. Say you are standing on the platform and see a train race by at 200,000,000 m/s. The track next to it has a train going the opposite direction at 200,000,000 m/s. Both trains flash a laser toward the other train immediately after passing. Does train ever see the light from the other trains laser?

 

[Seedling]

1. The footballs had the same velocity, c.
2. They hit me at the same time.
3. I saw where each ball was thrown from (this is the lightning strike).

I use the constant velocity and measured distance to determine flight time of each ball. They both have equal flight times. The flight times ended simultaneously (by hitting me). Therefore they must have been thrown simultaneously.

If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?

 

[Seedling]

Depends on your point of view. From inside the train, yes they do. That is what I keep trying to tell you.

Say you are in a train, and you speed up to 299, 792,457 m/s relative to the tracks. You walk to the back of the train and turn a light bulb on. According to you the train is racing away from the light, so when the light is turned on the light will only propagate towards the front of the train at 1 m/s. Is this what you actually think?

And what is the track's absolute velocity? If I laid a meter stick on the tracks and measured the one-way time of light travel in each direction would the times be the same?

 

[guy incognito]

If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?

She does. The speed of light is constant. She measured the distance from herself to the front and the back. She used those 2 pieces of information to calculate the time. This is EXACTLY what the person on the platform does, absolutely no different. If it's valid for him to calculate the time that way, it is also valid for her to calculate the time that way. After all, how do you know who is actually at rest?

The man claims to be at rest because he measured distance, knows the velocity of light, and calculated the time for each of the strikes in the first scenario, and concluded they were the same, therefore simultaneous.

The woman claims to be at rest because she measured the distance, knows the velocity of light, and calculated the time for each of the strikes in the second scenario, and concluded they were the same, therefore simultaneous.

Now who is right? On the one hand you can say the man must be at rest because of his simultaneous measurement of scenario A. Therefore he must clearly be at rest and it is the train that is moving.

On the other hand you can say the woman must be at rest because of her simultaneous measurement of scenario B. Therefore she must clearly be at rest and it is the tracks/earth/platform that is moving.

 

[Seedling]

And another thought experiment. Say you are standing on the platform and see a train race by at 200,000,000 m/s. The track next to it has a train going the opposite direction at 200,000,000 m/s. Both trains flash a laser toward the other train immediately after passing. Does train ever see the light from the other trains laser?

Yes the trains do see the lights from the other train (assuming the tracks to be at a zero velocity), because the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s along the tracks, and the trains are traveling in opposite directions at 200,000,000 m/s. The speed of the trains is not a factor in the speed of light along the tracks. Since the train is moving slower along the tracks than the light is, the light will eventually catch the train.

 

[guy incognito]

Yes the trains do see the lights from the other train (assuming the tracks to be at a zero velocity), because the speed of light is 299,792,458 along the tracks, and the trains are traveling in opposite directions at 200,000,000 m/s. The speed of the trains is not a factor in the speed of light along the tracks. Since the train is moving slower along the tracks than the light is, the light will eventually catch the train.

You are right for the wrong reasons. the speed of light is indeed 299,792,458 along the tracks. If you measured the speed of the laser that eventually catches you you would also measure it as 299,792,458. You would conclude, "AHA I must be at rest, it is the ground that is moving at 200,000,000 m/s! The light is traveling light speed and I am at rest!"

The guy in the other train would conclude the exact same thing. You can't both be right.

 

[guy incognito]

If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?

She disagrees. One strike happened at the front of the train. She saw the strike hit the damn nose of the train. There is absolutely no question that the strike occurred at the front of the train, nor is there any question about the distance between her and the nose of the train. She also saw the strike hit the back of the train, and knows the distance. She calculates the same flight time for each pulse of light. But the strikes do no happen simultaneously. First one happens, then the other happens.

 

[guy incognito]

And what is the track's absolute velocity? If I laid a meter stick on the tracks and measured the one-way time of light travel in each direction would the times be the same?

YES. It will ALWAYS be the same. It CANNOT EVER differ.

 

[Seedling]

YES. It will ALWAYS be the same. It CANNOT EVER differ.

Yes it can differ, I showed you how in my diagram.

 

[guy incognito]

Yes it can differ, I showed you how in my diagram.

Your diagram disagrees with every real world experiment ever performed. How do you explain that?

 

[marc88101]

I had a big bang last night! I banged my chicks anal cavity.

 

[guy incognito]

I am done. I refuse to participate any longer until you explain how The Michelson–Morley experiment managed to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions while rotating. They have real world data to back up their claim. How do you refute their data?

 

[cannabineer]

I am done. I refuse to participate any longer until you explain how The Michelson–Morley experiment managed to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions while rotating. They have real world data to back up their claim. How do you refute their data?

Guy, you are dealing with a combination of a complete faith in the intuition of classical mechanics and stubbornness unto intransigence. cn