The direction of the big bang

[guy incognito]

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

I know which is why I gave up. We have provided ample evidence for the way things really work. At this point he is refusing to acknowledge valid data in front of him.

 

[dvs1038]

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.

Ya wanna know what else is ironic. The guy who founded the Nobel Peace Prize also invented TNT.

 

[tyler.durden]

Awesome thread, gentlemen! For the last couple of days, I couldn't wait to get to my pc and read the latest posts. Great as usual, MP, but my hat goes off to guy for patience, humor and clarity. You are a front runner for this year's Anne Sullivan award

 

[Seedling]

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.

Look, I don't know how to say this any other way to get my point across. If you actually measured the speed of light, then why would you expect to get any other reading besides 299,792,458 m/s? I mean, if you ACTUALLY measured the SPEED OF LIGHT, and light always travels at c, then how is it possible for you to measure something different than c? If you do get a different result then you are NOT measuring the speed of light, you are measuring closing speed. It's like saying you are traveling down the highway in a car at a constant 60 MPH. Some other car on the highway wants to measure your speed (not the closing speed between you and the other car). If that car actually measured your speed they would have measured 60 MPH, regardless of their speed on the highway, or regardless of the relative motion between you two. If they were traveling 60 MPH towards you and they took a measurement claiming to be your speed, and their results were 120 MPH, then what they did is not measure your speed, they measured the closing speed.

So why are you so surprised when you get the same results measuring the speed of light regardless in which direction you take that measurement, and regardless of your motion??? Basically what you are saying is that you are surprised to get the same results when measuring the car's speed on the highway. You are measuring the car's speed and not the closing speed, right?

Saying you are measuring the speed of light is comparable to saying you are measuring the expansion of the radius of the light sphere in my diagram. The radius of the light sphere ALWAYS increases its length by 299,792,459 m/s, creating the preferred frame. Taking a time measurement from the source in my diagram to the z receiver is measuring a closing speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere. Since the point is incapable of motion when you measure a closing speed from that point you know all the components of the closing speed is the z receiver in motion, because it is impossible for the point to posses any component of that speed. From there I used the Pythagoras theorem to create the equation to know when and where the light sphere hits the receivers. The equation does not lie, and for you to say that it can be any other way is to say that the Pythagoras Theorem is incorrect.

 

[Seedling]

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.

She did not see the strike hit the nose, the only thing she knows is that the clock stops when the photon from that direction hits her. She doesn't see anything, as when the photon impacts her the measurement is complete. ...and here's the kicker, the clock stops when the photon hits her, but she has no clue as to when the clock started (when the strike occurred), so she has no way of knowing the time of light travel.

There is no question that she remains at the midpoint of the train, that is correct. The question is not of at what point she remains on the train, the question is what point does the train remain in the frame of the light sphere. The train moves relative to the light sphere. The point of the nose of the train is at the point of origin of the light sphere when the strike occurred. The question is whether the points remain together. If the points do not remain together then the train moved, as it is impossible for the point of origin of the light sphere to move. If the train moves then the lady also moves, as she was at rest in the train frame.

 

[Beefbisquit]

There is no absolute zero velocity.

Everything is always moving, in reference to something else.


At the point of the big bang, the singularity must have been motionless because space didn't exist for it to move around in. Perhaps that's the one point in existence we could call 'stationary', but we have no reference as to where that point exists now because of the expansion of the universe. Any reference point you select now, is flying through space at an inconceivable speed.

 

[mindphuk]

Look, I don't know how to say this any other way to get my point across. If you actually measured the speed of light, then why would you expect to get any other reading besides 299,792,458 m/s? I mean, if you ACTUALLY measured the SPEED OF LIGHT, and light always travels at c, then how is it possible for you to measure something different than c?

Here you go again with your equivocation and lack of detail.
If you want to measure the speed of light, you measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance. However, according to YOU, if you and the light source are in motion, you won't get a real result because you and the light source are moving with respect to the point in space where the light sphere began and thus you will not be measuring the actual speed of light but the apparent velocity, depending on if you are moving toward or away from the actual point where the light began it's journey.
Yet you keep ignoring the fact that we are constantly in motion and it has nothing to do with measuring the speed of anything else but the earth's rotation and orbit are not going to stop just so you can get an accurate measurement, yet the light is not connected to the earth in any way, making it impossible for you or anyone on earth to get a real measurement for light. You tell me that you cannot discount motion relative to the light sphere yet you are constantly doing so with every example you give. You cannot keep ignoring the fact that everyone that measures light speed have done so in a non-zero velocity frame but continue to get constant results. This is actually a test of your hypothesis and it continues to support the null hypothesis.

If you do get a different result then you are NOT measuring the speed of light, you are measuring closing speed. It's like saying you are traveling down the highway in a car at a constant 60 MPH.

60mph relative to the earth.

Some other car on the highway wants to measure your speed (not the closing speed between you and the other car). If that car actually measured your speed they would have measured 60 MPH,

My speed is 60mph with respect to the earth. With respect to you or the sun or Jupiter or Andromeda, you will get different results because you cannot define motion as absolute, it is ALWAYS relative. Do you disagree that a car moving west at 60mph relative to the earth can actually appear to be traveling east relative to a satellite sitting in position between the earth and the sun?

regardless of their speed on the highway, or regardless of the relative motion between you two. If they were traveling 60 MPH towards you and they took a measurement claiming to be your speed, and their results were 120 MPH, then what they did is not measure your speed, they measured the closing speed.

They are measuring relative speed, with respect to the frame they are in.

 

[mindphuk]

Saying you are measuring the speed of light is comparable to saying you are measuring the expansion of the radius of the light sphere in my diagram. The radius of the light sphere ALWAYS increases its length by 299,792,459 m/s, creating the preferred frame.

The light sphere relative to what? Earth? In every experiment ever done, the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of where the measurement is done from. If your light sphere was created by a flash of lightning right next to you, a split second later both you and the spot in space where the lightning struck has already moved. You keep claiming a preferred frame but that frame's speed is always relative to something. If you are standing still, then you measure it relative to the earth itself. You cannot deny that the earth is actually in motion though so there is still no absolute resting frame.

Taking a time measurement from the source in my diagram to the z receiver is measuring a closing speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere. Since the point is incapable of motion when you measure a closing speed from that point you know all the components of the closing speed is the z receiver in motion, because it is impossible for the point to posses any component of that speed. From there I used the Pythagoras theorem to create the equation to know when and where the light sphere hits the receivers. The equation does not lie, and for you to say that it can be any other way is to say that the Pythagoras Theorem is incorrect.

The point is incapable of moving, yet the earth still moves underneath any point that the light was emitted. Therefore, according to your hypothesis, no measurement of light taken on earth is capable of giving the correct answer, yet it always the same, regardless of where it is measured, whether stationary on earth, the moon, in a plane, train, or rocket ship. When we shoot a laser at the moon to measure it's distance, you do realize that the moon is in motion relative to the earth and the point from which the laser began has moved relative to it's original point in space as the earth rotates beneath it and the orbit adds another speed vector in a different direction making for complex, impossible calculations using your hypothesis. Good thing that light remains constant regardless of what frame it is measured from, as long as there is no acceleration.

 

[Seedling]

If you want to measure the speed of light, you measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance.

If you want to measure the speed of light then you need to measure the radius of the light sphere, period!

However, according to YOU, if you and the light source are in motion, you won't get a real result because you and the light source are moving with respect to the point in space where the light sphere began and thus you will not be measuring the actual speed of light but the apparent velocity, depending on if you are moving toward or away from the actual point where the light began it's journey.

Correct, I will take that closing speed measurement and use it to determine the real speed of light. I am measuring my velocity in space in the preferred frame when I take that closing speed measurement, because the point of reference I use to take that measurement (the point of origin of the light sphere) plays no role in any part of that closing speed, so I know it's all me!

60mph relative to the earth.
My speed is 60mph with respect to the earth. With respect to you or the sun or Jupiter or Andromeda, you will get different results because you cannot define motion as absolute, it is ALWAYS relative. Do you disagree that a car moving west at 60mph relative to the earth can actually appear to be traveling east relative to a satellite sitting in position between the earth and the sun?

They are measuring relative speed, with respect to the frame they are in.

All you are saying is that the closing speed of the two vehicles will vary depending in what frame you take those measurements from. For the last time, you are not measuring the closing speed between you and me, you are measuring my speed compared to the road. You are measuring my speed, not our relative speed.

 

[Seedling]

The light sphere relative to what? Earth? In every experiment ever done, the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of where the measurement is done from. If your light sphere was created by a flash of lightning right next to you, a split second later both you and the spot in space where the lightning struck has already moved. You keep claiming a preferred frame but that frame's speed is always relative to something. If you are standing still, then you measure it relative to the earth itself. You cannot deny that the earth is actually in motion though so there is still no absolute resting frame.

Let me get this straight. I am standing 10 feet away from a tree. Lightening strikes the tree. The earth (and the tree and I) moves after the lightening strike occurs. The tree was at the center of the light sphere at t=0. The earth and tree moved after t=0. Are you saying that as the tree moves that so too does the center of the light sphere? Effectively what you are saying when you say that is that as the tree moves the light sphere travels along with it, to ensure that the light sphere's radius is increasing at the same rate in every direction from that tree. Get real my friend, when the earth and tree travel in space, that has absolutely no bearing on the expanding wavefront of the light sphere in space. The wave front expands in every direction at the same rate away from the point it was emitted, whether the tree is still at that point after the strike occurred or not!!! Ever heard of the Doppler effect? How exactly do you think Doppler occurs if the source always remains at the center of the light sphere?

 

[Seedling]

Me to you: Measure my speed.

You to me: OK, we have a relative speed of 120 MPH

Me to you: No, I mean tell me my speed, not our relative speed.

You to me: You don't have a speed, only we have a speed.

 

[mindphuk]

If you want to measure the speed of light then you need to measure the radius of the light sphere, period!

And again, and again, I keep asking you how you think you can accomplish such a thing without knowing the summation of all of the velocities that take you away from that point in space where the light began. If the point is not stationary relative to earth, which it cannot be, since light doesn't need a medium to travel through, then how do you even know what direction you are moving and how fast?

Correct, I will take that closing speed measurement and use it to determine the real speed of light. I am measuring my velocity in space in the preferred frame when I take that closing speed measurement, because the point of reference I use to take that measurement (the point of origin of the light sphere) plays no role in any part of that closing speed, so I know it's all me!

Give an example, you are not being clear. Closing speed relative to what? If you say the closing speed relative to the point in space where the light was emitted, I contend that is an impossible task as no one knows how fast we are moving through space and what direction. The summation of all of the vectors that we are even aware of makes the situation you describe extremely complicated, not to mention the vectors we are not aware of.

All you are saying is that the closing speed of the two vehicles will vary depending in what frame you take those measurements from.

I am saying that all speed is relative to where you take the measurement from. The speed of the two cars relative to each other, i.e. the closing speed of the cars, is simple. The speed of the cars relative to something else

For the last time, you are not measuring the closing speed between you and me, you are measuring my speed compared to the road. You are measuring my speed, not our relative speed.

For the last time, you just explained how to measure speed relative to the road, i.e. the earth. This does not however tell you anything about your absolute speed through space. You keep arguing about absolute speed and an absolute zero velocity yet every time it is always relative to something, not absolute. Yet in spite of the fact that every frame is in motion relative to SOMETHING, we ALWAYS measure the speed of light exactly the same, in every single reference frame, without exception. How does this fact not contradict everything you are trying to claim.

If I do not feel that I am in motion, i.e. a non-accelerating, non-gravitational, inertial frame, then there are absolutely no forces acting on me. This by definition is a resting frame yet I can be zooming through space relative to the earth and zooming in a completely opposite direction relative to Saturn. I feel at rest, so I assume that it is Saturn moving in one direction, while the earth is moving in another. An observer on earth who thinks he's at reast sees me moving through space but I see him moving through space while I'm at rest. Neither POV is wrong. I'm moving relative to earth but we both measure the speed of light from the sun to reach us exactly the same.

 

[Seedling]

And again, and again, I keep asking you how you think you can accomplish such a thing without knowing the summation of all of the velocities that take you away from that point in space where the light began. If the point is not stationary relative to earth, which it cannot be, since light doesn't need a medium to travel through, then how do you even know what direction you are moving and how fast?

Give an example, you are not being clear. Closing speed relative to what? If you say the closing speed relative to the point in space where the light was emitted, I contend that is an impossible task as no one knows how fast we are moving through space and what direction. The summation of all of the vectors that we are even aware of makes the situation you describe extremely complicated, not to mention the vectors we are not aware of.
I am saying that all speed is relative to where you take the measurement from. The speed of the two cars relative to each other, i.e. the closing speed of the cars, is simple. The speed of the cars relative to something else

For the last time, you just explained how to measure speed relative to the road, i.e. the earth. This does not however tell you anything about your absolute speed through space. You keep arguing about absolute speed and an absolute zero velocity yet every time it is always relative to something, not absolute. Yet in spite of the fact that every frame is in motion relative to SOMETHING, we ALWAYS measure the speed of light exactly the same, in every single reference frame, without exception. How does this fact not contradict everything you are trying to claim.

If I do not feel that I am in motion, i.e. a non-accelerating, non-gravitational, inertial frame, then there are absolutely no forces acting on me. This by definition is a resting frame yet I can be zooming through space relative to the earth and zooming in a completely opposite direction relative to Saturn. I feel at rest, so I assume that it is Saturn moving in one direction, while the earth is moving in another. An observer on earth who thinks he's at reast sees me moving through space but I see him moving through space while I'm at rest. Neither POV is wrong. I'm moving relative to earth but we both measure the speed of light from the sun to reach us exactly the same.

Did you even bother to look at my diagram? It clearly explains the concept. Do you see a light sphere? Do you see the source? Do you see that the source is no longer at the center of the light sphere after it emitted light? Are you denying that is accurate?

 

[Seedling]

Apparently you are wrong, the source (red dot) doesn't stay at the center of the light sphere, as depicted by this Doppler scene. Do you notice the lengths of the red lines are different? What's that all about?? (rolls eyes)

 

[mindphuk]

Did you even bother to look at my diagram? It clearly explains the concept. Do you see a light sphere? Do you see the source? Do you see that the source is no longer at the center of the light sphere after it emitted light? Are you denying that is accurate?

Your diagram is wrong and we have explained why. From an observer inside the box, whether it is a train or rocket or merely a laboratory that is stationary on a moving earth, if a light in the center of the box is illuminated, the receivers at Z and X will see the light hit all sides of the box simultaneously. This is confirmed by experiment after experiment and is in essence the same as the M-M test. How do you not understand this? If you were correct, then every measurement on earth in a square room would get different times at Z and X as you claim but that never happens, therefore your claim is falsified... AGAIN.

 

[mindphuk]

Me to you: Measure my speed.

You to me: OK, we have a relative speed of 120 MPH

Yes, your speed is 120mpg relative to my frame.

Me to you: No, I mean tell me my speed, not our relative speed.

Your speed relative to earth is 60mph.

You to me: You don't have a speed, only we have a speed.

Your speed relative to the moon is 132,000mph. Your speed relative to the black hole at the center of the galaxy is, 52,493,093 mph (sure I made up the number but the point is still valid)

For not being able to understand speed is only meaningful when discussed relative to something, and that every speed I just mentioned is valid, I agree you should bang your head until it sinks in.

 

[Seedling]

For not being able to understand speed is only meaningful when discussed relative to something, I agree you should bang your head until it sinks in.

You telling me our relative speed is 120 MPH when I don't know your speed or my speed is the very definition of meaningless.

 

[mindphuk]

View attachment 2344823View attachment 2344824

Apparently you are wrong, the source (red dot) doesn't stay at the center of the light sphere, as depicted by this Doppler scene. Do you notice the lengths of the red lines are different? What's that all about?? (rolls eyes)

The speed relative to somewhere will give us a Doppler effect. Our own sun will red shift when viewed from another galaxy but from our FoR traveling with the sun, there is no Doppler effect because the source is not moving away from us at great speeds. So we only see a Doppler effect when viewed from a FoR that has relative speed toward or away from us

 

[mindphuk]

You telling me our relative speed is 120 MPH when I don't know your speed or my speed is the very definition of meaningless.

How is it meaningless, it gives me an exact figure that I can do calculations on? What's meaningless is assuming anyone is moving when not specifying what FoR you are discussing.

If I'm traveling at 20mph and you are traveling toward me at 100ph all relative to the road, everything will look identical as if I was traveling 60mph and you were traveling 60mph and the earth suddenly vanished. Without the road for a reference point, the only thing we can say is our relative speed (closing speed as you like to says) is 120mph, our individual speeds relative to a road that is no longer there is what is meaningless.

 

[Seedling]

How is it meaningless, it gives me an exact figure that I can do calculations on? What's meaningless is assuming anyone is moving when not specifying what FoR you are discussing.

Oh good, I was hoping you could help me figure this out:

I am traveling along a road and you are traveling towards me in the opposite lane. Our relative speed is 120 MPH coming towards each other. There is a Home Depot located exactly at the mid point between you and me at t=0. The distance to the Home Depot for each of us is 60 miles. How much time does it take each of us to get to the home depot?