• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

The direction of the big bang

cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
guy incognito said:
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?
Click to expand...
Guy, you are pointing out my prime complaint about Seedling's claim. His "preferred frame" is the same thing as positing an aether. And Michaelson-Morley put paid to that.
I also agree with you that the image link Seedling provided only works if one assumes a privileged or null frame, and that's where it diverges with observation. cn
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
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
Click to expand...
This is why I tried to step back from Einstein and SR and see how his model works with classical mechanics. Even when absolute time and space is assumed, physics still demonstrates that all inertial frames are equal with respect to physical laws. It is only when the speed of light is introduced, where we have demonstrated it does not need a medium to move throws everything off.

There are only two possibilities -
1. that time and space are absolute and different observers must measure the speed of light different depending on their point of view,

OR

2. the speed of light is constant for every observer and time and space are malleable.

Seedling seems to want to introduce a third option, but there cannot be one. He claims constant speed of light but when we ask him about observations outside of his mythical frame, he dismisses it without explanation.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
Guy, you are pointing out my prime complaint about Seedling's claim. His "preferred frame" is the same thing as positing an aether. And Michaelson-Morley put paid to that.
I also agree with you that the image link Seedling provided only works if one assumes a privileged or null frame, and that's where it diverges with observation. cn
Click to expand...
I know, i'm trying to word it so he can understand the fallacy he is making. I know it's been explained by you and mindphuck in this thread, but he still doesn't seem to grasp it.

Yes his image is the exact same as the one with a train with a light bulb on it that everyone who has trawled through some relativity forums has seen countless times.
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
Seedling to[B said:
guy incognito[/B] ;8024223]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?
Click to expand...
Guy, I expect an answer to this question.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
OK, I read it again. Just for you. I can say certainly that the math works to exclude, for the train's reference, the answer of simultaneity for these lightening flash events.

Furthermore, you cannot provide the math that will give the answer you propose.

And to tie it to the entirely man-made concept of Meter, is the false trail.
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Seedling said:
Guy, I expect an answer to this question.
Click to expand...
I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.

Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.

Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)
Click to expand...
You are standing on the road 299,792,458 meters from the start line. What meter marker is the car at when the light hits you?
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Seedling said:
You are standing on the road 299,792,458 meters from the start line. What meter marker is the car at when the light hits you?
Click to expand...
Seedling said:
I'll wait.
Click to expand...
guy incognito said:
I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.

Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)
Click to expand...
post 131 for those of you that are retarded/illiterate (seedling):

guy incognito said:
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.
Click to expand...
Just in case you cannot read large red letters I have stated that, FROM MY FRAME OF REFERENCE (which is standing on the road not moving relative to the road), that after 1 second (as measured by me) light will have traveled 299,792,458 meters (as measured by me) and your car will have traveled 296,794,533.42 meters (as measured by me). Because of your learning disability and comprehension problem I feel like I need to reiterate that the time, and all distances are measured BY ME from MY FRAME OF REFERENCE and ARE NOT THE SAME AS YOU WOULD MEASURE.
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
Just in case you cannot read large red letters I have stated that, FROM MY FRAME OF REFERENCE (which is standing on the road not moving relative to the road), that after 1 second (as measured by me) light will have traveled 299,792,458 meters (as measured by me) and your car will have traveled 296,794,533.42 meters (as measured by me). Because of your learning disability and comprehension problem I feel like I need to reiterate that the time, and all distances are measured BY ME from MY FRAME OF REFERENCE and ARE NOT THE SAME AS YOU WOULD MEASURE.
Click to expand...
The light sphere is a reality, it is not going away. The radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 meters at t=1 in your frame. In the frame of the car, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you?
 
guy incognito

guy incognito

Well-Known Member
Seedling said:
The light sphere is a reality, it is not going away. The radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 meters at t=1 in your frame. In the frame of the car, how far ahead of the car is the light?
Click to expand...
See what you did there? You claim the light sphere is a reality, and is 299,792,458 at t=1 in my frame of reference. Then you ask how far ahead of the car the light sphere is IN THE FRAME OF THE CAR. The implication you have made is that time is absolute and t=1 for me is the same as t=1 for you in the car. That is not the case. The light sphere is indeed a reality to me, in my frame of reference. You will have your own light sphere according to your own measurements.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Seedling, please address post #112 and answer some questions that I have asked multiple times. It will help clarify to those that accuse you of holding contradicting views. If you continue to avoid answering some of these questions, you will continue to frustrate people that are trying to understand your claims. It will also help identify to you the points we think you are missing.

So once again, how do you determine who has velocity when the two of us are closing .99c when both of us feel we are at rest? BTW, for simplification sake, let's round up and use 300,000,000 m/s for c rather than the actual value. It won't change anything and make the math easier to do and read.
 
T

TroncoChe

Active Member
I've seen some videos on YouTube that show pretty good evidence that the big bang didn't happen and that its electric. Just a thought.
 
Doer

Doer

Well-Known Member
Oh, I see. Let me check. Nope, I answered. The Ball is still in your court to answer what I said about the lightening thought experiment.

OK. No time out is called. Begin.
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
guy incognito said:
See what you did there? You claim the light sphere is a reality, and is 299,792,458 at t=1 in my frame of reference. Then you ask how far ahead of the car the light sphere is IN THE FRAME OF THE CAR. The implication you have made is that time is absolute and t=1 for me is the same as t=1 for you in the car. That is not the case. The light sphere is indeed a reality to me, in my frame of reference. You will have your own light sphere according to your own measurements.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you anything about the clock in the car frame, I asked you, in the car frame, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you? According to the car observer and his meter stick, how far ahead of the car is the light when it hits you?
 
Seedling

Seedling

Well-Known Member
mindphuk said:
So once again, how do you determine who has velocity when the two of us are closing .99c when both of us feel we are at rest? BTW, for simplification sake, let's round up and use 300,000,000 m/s for c rather than the actual value. It won't change anything and make the math easier to do and read.
Click to expand...
I answered you several times and you fail to acknowledge I answered your question, but I did. I told you about measuring one-way time along a stick, and when the one-way times were the same in all directions then the stick had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I also stated that if those times were 1/299792458 of a second, then that stick was a meter stick.

I then answered your question in graphic detail by posting a link to a pic outlining the concept, with actual distances and times as measured, and the formulas to boot! What else do you want? Do you not understand the diagram, the formulas and the numbers? Maybe you should show me SR's numbers of the situation? Oh, that's right, the only pic SR knows how to draw is a cube with a circle exactly touching all the receivers at the same time. What a load of crap!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top