cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
If .99c, then one-tenth of a light second. cn
The direction of the big bang
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
Doer
Well-Known Member
I think the real question is what was the acceleration of the photon. Infinite? It is instantly at the velocity, and "stays there." Why is it that it can't go faster? A photon instantly takes a virtual mass. A unity, All photons will always will strike a surface, a light sail, at the same imparted exchange of velocity vector. If the sail is a foot away or a mile. The light reflects, not as energetic a wavelength but still going the same speed.
But, what subjects it to this speed limit of light?
But, what subjects it to this speed limit of light?
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
Bullshit! You haven't answered any of the questions in any meaningful way. You keep using circular arguments to support your position, i.e. the frame where measuring times are all the same in all directions is not an answer because as I keep pointing out, this occurs regardless of where we are in space, even when in motion. That's the point that Einstein made. If every observer measures light the same, then time and space are variable, they are different for different observers. You can't keep saying there is a preferred frame when EVERY frame measures light the same. Unless you can point to an experiment that light appears slower or faster when in motion, you are just talking out of your ass.
Other questions ignored-
1. Michelson-Morley experiment, why doesn't it support your claim? If your hypothesis is correct, then the M-M experiment would demonstrate that.
2. How is it possible to have measured light anywhere on earth and not get conflicting values based on whether or not we are in summer or winter, or night or day? Why do you think we can ignore the motion of the earth, solar system and galaxy? Do you actually think humans have ever had a reference frame that is zero velocity with respect to space... EVER?
3. How can you ignore 400 years of physics where since Galileo, it has been recognized that motion can only be discussed in relation to something else? How do you assign any meaningful values of velocity to anything without something to reference it against?
4. Do you understand the concept of inertial motion? How do you explain that two objects in relative motion opposite of one another will get the exact same measurements for light, but get different measurements for time?
5. Consider that there are only two possibilities, either light speed is variable and depends on the frame it is measured in, or it is constant and Einstein was right. You keep implying there is a third alternative but have yet to explain how and why or even offer an experiment to test your claim. How do you think your claim can be verified? Einstein was proven right through experimentation. How do you explain the results of those experiments if he was wrong? Why does everything in this world appear to follow the laws of relativity?
6. Are you the biggest troll in the universe or just very stupid?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Mindphuk, compared to the Ambulatory Avian in Authority, Seedling is the lesser troll. Too narrow a répertoire. cn
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
relativity of simultaneity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWM2oZgi4E
and here is one that is exactly like your original figure about the box with mirrors. Hopefully you will see why I say the frame of reference in your diagram is incorrect.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
I called him out in this thread 5 days ago.
Just sayin.
The only reason i'm continuing to participate is because I know other non trolls do in fact believe some misconceptions and have a hard time grasping the reality of the situation. Hopefully someone gets interested in the heat of the thread and actually learns something.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
I can't think of how someone can believe that he has figured out that 400 years of physics has been wrong. As his claim is not merely about Einstein as he says, but about the equivalency of inertial frames. Someone like that is either stupid, delusional or trolling IMO. That he continually avoids questions and then acts impudent when he perceives others as avoiding his is evidence of his delusion IMO.
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
He is not being honest with us or himself. He's not reading posts and actually thinking about them but merely skimming them to look for what he perceives as an error. This is exactly like CWE IMO.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
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)
For the last f'ing time, are you measuring the speed of light or the speed of the earth? Are you admitting that if my method were correct that your results would have shown different, as the earth (lab) is in motion? 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!
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.
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???? 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!
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???
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, 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.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that the car observer says the light is 29,979,245.8 meters ahead of him when the light hits the road observer?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Then how do you know anything? We build upon the knowledge of others. Do you know anything about what goes on inside a nuclear reactor? How do you REALLY know though? Do you know anything about the composition of the sun? Or the ocean? Did you personally take the measurements that led you to those conclusions? Your ignorance of not only the results of that experiment, but the experiment itself, along with your ignorance of all the other experiments that have confirmed, reconfirmed, and reconfirmed yet again with even greater precision and accuracy is astounding and speaks volumes for your lack of understand of relativity.
I'm not surprised that you don't know enough about the experiment to comment, even though it's been brought up about 10 times in this thread, and is fundamental to understanding relativity. What they were looking to measure was exactly how YOU think light works. They were looking to measure the difference in the speed of light based on the direction of the "aether". They assumed we were in some non zero velocity frame, or that we were dragging through some type of aether that would affect the speed of light. So they set up an apparatus that had arms with mirrors and could rotate about the center. What they expected to find was a variable speed of light based on the influence of the aether. What they found was a constant speed of light in every direction.
We are measuring the speed of light. Yes, if YOUR understanding of the behavior of light is correct, then the results would indeed be different than they were; They would have demonstrated the behavior you claim will happen. However the results do not show different. They show the exact same results every time. How do you reconcile this with your belief of how light works? How do different people, at different locations, at different times of day, and different times of the year measure the same value for c?
Please explain the difference between measuring speed and measuring distance and time. It is my understanding the speed is defined as distance over time. I fail to see how any speed can be measured directly without measuring both distance and time.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Yes, we build upon the knowledge of others, but is that knowledge always correct? Science has shown over and over again that what it once held true is no longer valid. "It's valid until it isn't" should be the motto for science. It's lived up to that motto since science began. What you fail to realize with my pic is that it is a visual of the definition of the meter, as defined. There is no escaping those numbers or the concept of the object having an absolute velocity in the preferred frame which is created by the expanding light sphere. By the very definition of the geometry it represents there is no other possibility. For you to claim my pic wrong is for you to claim the definition of the meter invalid, and geometry itself obsolete. I'm not prepared to accept those terms from you. Never will I accept those terms, because I have shown you the geometry of the light sphere, and the velocity of objects in that frame (preferred frame).
So you are saying that they measured the speed of light to be c in every direction. Well duh, the light sphere expands its radius in every direction at the rate of c. If the experiment was trying to measure a closing velocity and came up empty handed, and then claimed light is always measured to be c in every direction, well WTF, Chuck? Who'da thunk? Do you know the difference between the velocity of light and measuring a closing speed?
So you are admitting that you are measuring a closing speed and calling it the speed of light?
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
The very same rigorous methodology which showed the fault behind FTL neutrinos is also why we trust the Michelson-Morley experiment. That "feeling" you are talking about is the implication that our entire paradigm would have to change if the information were true. That is why it is automatically suspect. This is the same feeling we get about your assertions here. The MM experiment was not a one time thing, but was repeated with more and more sophisticated controls and has been thoroughly peer reviewed. Strange that you would favor doubt over something so demonstrated when doing so supports your view, but shrug off doubt when it is aimed at your view. Your conclusion that the opposition must be brainwashed and your need to communicate eye rolling betrays your confidence. Such attitudes are the refuge of the indefensible. You seem to be unable to clearly demonstrate your position to anyone but yourself. IOW, you imagine you know, but you only know what you imagine. Unless you can offer a way to falsify the MM experiment, your position is not one of challenge, but denial.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
I demonstrated my position very clearly in the diagram, which you evidently brushed off. Your inability to comprehend the concept doesn't change the fact that it is correct. Show me the SR equivalent of a light sphere, and a cube in motion. Until you do that I will conclude that SR is not capable of responding to the concept, because SR is only valid when talking about relative velocities, of which we are not talking about. I can add a person walking around inside the cube and create relative velocities too, and could also measure closing speeds between the receivers and the person in motion. I could give the person's absolute velocity in the preferred frame, as I could give the person's velocity in the cube frame. I am speaking about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY IN THE PREFERRED FRAME!!!!
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
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.
You want the equivalent of a light sphere and a cube in motion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
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.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
No, which is why we test and retest and retest to get repeatable results. How many fucking times do you want them to perform the experiment to measure light and get the EXACT SAME results before you conclude it is right? 2 times? 10 times? 100 times? Is there a number that will satisfy you? Or will you disregard the results of all experiments that don't jive with your preconceived views?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
With apologies ... I think my answer was wrong. I need to reconsider. i remembered the relativistic (Lorentz) factor as being a simple square root. it contains an inverse term, and I need to wrap my head around that before continuing. cn
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
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.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
gamma = y = 1 / sqrt(1-B^2) where B = v/c
But with this specific example it gets murky as to what everything means. The car passes point A, and how far is he when light passes ME (who is up ahead)? Well classically we assume light is instantaneous. It is so fast compared to everyday speeds that when plugged into the equations it is essentially instantaneous, and we can then use simpler equations that are amazingly accurate. But how do you decouple the speed of light with the observer in the car at such high speeds without delving into relativity of simultaneity? What does it even mean to ask how much distance is between the front of the car and the person standing up there? What you really mean is how much distance is between us after the light has traveled all the way there, then reflected back to the car to be detected, which cannot be ignored at these velocities.
Without actually calculating it out I know the observer in the car will measure a much smaller distance, and a much smaller quantity of time elapsing. He will however agree that the every photon he observed traveling at precisely c.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
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