[From another thread:] Well now we have a new definiton for c because a "light year" doesn't make any sense in a Newtonian world!

Will someone please explain to Aer that a “light year” is just a certain distance and, as such, makes sense in Newtonian mechanics?

[From another thread:] Yes, all you who believe a "light year" in Newtonian mechanics is the same as a "light year" in Special Relativity, please come forward!

Will someone please explain to Aer that a “light year” is just a certain distance and, as such, makes sense in Newtonian mechanics?Sorry, I can't. Why? Because if a "light-year" is to be a unit (which it most certainly is), then light speed has to be a constant. Otherwise it's a moveable feast, so to speak.

Light speed is not a constant in Newton's world.

The question refers to the constant, not necessarily the distance that light travels in one year. My dictionary says that a light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion km. Aer is saying that this distance has no meaning in Newtonian mechanics. Can you or anyone confirm?

Wow, Quarkhead, someone better warn all those educators out there who are using “light years” in a Newtonian context. I found four sites in five minutes! This is apparently a huge unnoticed problem in science!

The question refers to the constant, not necessarily the distance that light travels in one year. My dictionary says that a light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion km. Aer is saying that this distance has no meaning in Newtonian mechanics. Can you or anyone confirm? definiton: c - the speed of light.

Special Relativity: postulate - the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

Newton: postulate - there exists an ether in which the speed of light travels at a constant velocity.

Does your definition of c agree with any of the above? How is the distance that light travels in one year known in this Newtonian world? I don't know what the ether frame is in this world to be able to define how far light travels in one year. Apparently you do, so tell me, how fast is the Earth moving with respect to this ether?



Wow, Quarkhead, someone better warn all those educators out there who are using “light years” in a Newtonian context. I found four sites in five minutes! This is apparently a huge unnoticed problem in science! Go ahead, link to these findings of yours. It won't be the first time I've found derivations posted by professors of various institutions that are so blantantly flawed. I'll post why they are flawed here as well as take the time to email or call the professor to let them know of their mistake.

The question refers to the constant, not necessarily the distance that light travels in one year. And what sense that statement make? None to me! If light speed is a constant, then so is one light-year. So how can you seperate the two.

Wow, Quarkhead, someone better warn all those educators out there who are using “light years” in a Newtonian context. I found four sites in five minutes! This is apparently a huge unnoticed problem in science!Ha! You really believe all that nonsense one can find on the net? I'll bet there are more cranks out there than there are in here. And even here there are too many for my taste.

definiton: c - the speed of light.

No, the definition of c is 299792458 meters per second. Nothing to do per se with the speed of light.

From here ( http://home.earthlink.net/~djmp/ScientificResearch.html):
c = 299792458 Meter/Second

The number 299792458 is exact because it was DEFINED by a committee.

Special Relativity: postulate - the speed of light is constant in all inertial frames.

Newton: postulate - there exists an ether in which the speed of light travels at a constant velocity.

Does your definition of c agree with any of the above?

Irrelevant. c is not defined as the speed of light.

How is the distance that light travels in one year known in this Newtonian world?

c is a specific number (of meters per second). It has nothing to do per se with the distance that light travels in one second. Likewise, a light year has nothing to do per se with the distance that light travels in one year--it's just a constant. A specific number is the same number in Newtonian mechanics as in relativity.

Apparently you do, so tell me, how fast is the Earth moving with respect to this ether?

Irrelevant.

Go ahead, link to these findings of yours. It won't be the first time I've found derivations posted by professors of various institutions that are so blantantly flawed. I'll post why they are flawed here as well as take the time to email or call the professor to let them know of their mistake.

Be my guest! I can get you lots more where these came from; I found those by the 4th page of 1,380 pages returned by my search. But get some replies first.

link 1 ( http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~outreach/phys420/p420_95/tracy/newton.html)
link 2 ( http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/arny/student/webtutor/dark_matter/mw_math.htm)
link 3 (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/physics/ph11/lectures/units.html)
link 4 (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/ps21mt1.html)

These links have in common that they mention “light year” and “Newton” but not “relativity.” I see no warning to students that a “light year” has no meaning in Newtonian mechanics.

Woah.

Zanket is right. It's like saying that one second is so many bazillion oscillations of a cesium atom.

1 light year is just how far a photon will travel in a year based on the measured speed of light in vacuo. I could make up a unit called a "sound second" and say its 1000 feet. I just made up a constant. It's just now a simple way of saying one-thousand-feet! A sound second!

299792458 meters is one lightyear.

one horse power is exactly 745.699872 watts and has nothing to do with actual horses. It's just a constant.

And what sense that statement make? None to me! If light speed is a constant, then so is one light-year. So how can you seperate the two.

See my post above to Aer.

You said “Light speed is not a constant in Newton's world.” That’s irrelevant. c is a specific number of meters per second. A light year is a specific number of meters. Neither c nor “light year” has anything to do per se with the speed of light.

For example, when you use c in a calculation, whether it's Newtonian or relativistic, you are making a substitution for the equivalent of 299792458 meters per second, regardless of the speed of light in the particular theory or even as measured. If, hypothetically, the speed of light were found to be 299792457 meters per second today, c would still be 299792458 meters per second tomorrow, unless a committee adjusts its value.

No, the definition of c is 299792458 meters per second. Nothing to do per se with the speed of light.Who's definition? c is light velocity.

Irrelevant. c is not defined as the speed of light.Of course not. It's defined as..er..cucumber.

Likewise, a light year has nothing to do per se with the distance that light travels in one yearOh dear. Anybody else see a problem with this?

Woah.

Zanket is right. It's like saying that one second is so many bazillion oscillations of a cesium atom.

1 light year is just how far a photon will travel in a year based on the measured speed of light in vacuo. Say it aint so, you weren't tricked by a crackpot were you?

I could make up a unit called a "sound second" and say its 1000 feet. I just made up a constant. It's just now a simple way of saying one-thousand-feet! A sound second! Your "sound second" is different in different inertial reference frames. "light year" is the same in all inertial reference frames. Your logic fails.

299792458 meters is one lightyear.

one horse power is exactly 745.699872 watts and has nothing to do with actual horses. It's just a constant. You need to reconsider what you are comparing here, Quarkhead has it right, you and zanket are off the wall.

Oh dear. Anybody else see a problem with this? Ha Ha! I know, it is almost laughable funny except for the fact we have two people here agreeing to this nonsense.

No, the definition of c is 299792458 meters per second. Nothing to do per se with the speed of light. This is the craziest thing I have ever read!

speed of light (http://www.google.com/search?hs=zHB&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=define+%22speed+of+light%22&btnG=Search): Light speed equals 299,792,458 meters/second (186,000 miles/second). Einstein's Theory of Relativity implies that nothing can go faster than the speed of light.





Irrelevant. c is not defined as the speed of light. Ha ha! Crackpot.



Be my guest! I can get you lots more where these came from; I found those by the 4th page of 1,380 pages returned by my search. But get some replies first.

link 1 ( http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~outreach/phys420/p420_95/tracy/newton.html)
link 2 ( http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/arny/student/webtutor/dark_matter/mw_math.htm)
link 3 (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/physics/ph11/lectures/units.html)
link 4 (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/ps21mt1.html)

These links have in common that they mention “light year” and “Newton” but not “relativity.” I see no warning to students that a “light year” has no meaning in Newtonian mechanics. Thank you, I will get back to you :-)

Be my guest! I can get you lots more where these came from; I found those by the 4th page of 1,380 pages returned by my search. But get some replies first.

link 1 ( http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~outreach/phys420/p420_95/tracy/newton.html)
link 2 ( http://www.mhhe.com/physsci/astronomy/arny/student/webtutor/dark_matter/mw_math.htm)
link 3 (http://cassfos02.ucsd.edu/physics/ph11/lectures/units.html)
link 4 (http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~fringwal/ps21mt1.html)

These links have in common that they mention “light year” and “Newton” but not “relativity.” I see no warning to students that a “light year” has no meaning in Newtonian mechanics. These sites all define a "light year" assuming the speed of light is constant. This is completely acceptable. They are using "light years" instead of any other unit of distance measurement because they are talking about the distance between galaxies. They don't talk about traveling at any speed that may even come close to approaching the speed of light which is why a discussion on relativity does not exist. There is nothing wrong with this. Newtonian mechanics are an approximation to the relativity equations at velocities much less than the speed of light. In your paper, you are talking about traveling between galaxies at near the speed of light - so your assumption that you can use Newtons approximations to relativity is incorrect.

No, the definition of c is 299792458 meters per second. Nothing to do per se with the speed of light.

This is the craziest thing I have ever read!

Ha ha! Crackpot.

I just had to immortalize this one. Pardon me if I don’t reply on the other thread, given our disagreement on a definition you could easily look up.

I just had to immortalize this one. Pardon me if I don’t reply on the other thread, given our disagreement on a definition you could easily look up. It is already immortalized in my mind! It is even funnier that you still think you are right!

Newton: postulate - there exists an ether in which the speed of light travels at a constant velocity.

Does your definition of c agree with any of the above? How is the distance that light travels in one year known in this Newtonian world? I don't know what the ether frame is in this world to be able to define how far light travels in one year. Apparently you do, so tell me, how fast is the Earth moving with respect to this ether?
According to Michelson-Morely and Dayton Miller, the earth is moving approximatrely 8 km/sec with respect to this ether.

Geistkiesel

According to Michelson-Morely and Dayton Miller, the earth is moving approximatrely 8 km/sec with respect to this ether.

Geistkiesel Cute.

Look folks,

If I said that G was measured to be 6.67300 × 10^-11 m³kg^-1s^-2 and was a universal constant, and when you use G in formulas it's the value above, would there be a problem?

So if I measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 meters/second in vacuum, a universal constant, and decide to call a lightyear that number multiplied by the number of seconds in a year, where's the problem?

The speed of light varies in different media (glass, water, air). It's vacuum speed is a constant.

So, the little 'c' you see (!) in calculations is defined to be 299,792,458 meters/second - a constant. Like pi in Euclidean space is a constant. (it varies in different geometries e.g. spherical space).

So, no matter what frame you inhabit a photon will travel 9.4605284 × 10¹⁵ meters in one year as measured by you.

What am I missing?

Their position is that the constants c and “light year” have no meaning in Newtonian mechanics, because the speed of light is not constant in that theory. (It seems that Aer makes an exception on “light year” for nonrelativistic velocities.) They are confusing a constant value with the constancy of the speed of light in relativity. This confusion apparently stems from the fact that the constancy of the speed of light was leveraged to define c and “light year.”

Ok.

Well, it's a simple definition of a constant. What does this have to do with Newtonian Mechanics anyway? What was the last newtonian equation you ever saw with 'c' in it? Newton falls apart at high speed and high gravity anyway. Newton is superceeded by Einstein, but is a fine approximation at low speeds. I'm really confused by this thread.

Their position is that the constants c and “light year” have no meaning in Newtonian mechanics, because the speed of light is not constant in that theory. (It seems that Aer makes an exception on “light year” for nonrelativistic velocities.) What velocities were you intending!! Anyway, it doesn't matter, at nonrelativistic velocities, the distance is still slightly off for the newtonian equation: v = a * t, but it is so insignificant that the approximation is acceptable. In your paper, you are not dealing with such insignificant velocities and still want to apply your condition that the distance speed of light travels in one year is constant to Newton's equation!

They are confusing a constant value with the constancy of the speed of light in relativity. No! You are misapplying Newton's equation.

This confusion apparently stems from the fact that the constancy of the speed of light was leveraged to define c and “light year.” What else do you think c is!

Ok.

Well, it's a simple definition of a constant. What does this have to do with Newtonian Mechanics anyway? What was the last newtonian equation you ever saw with 'c' in it? Newton falls apart at high speed and high gravity anyway. Newton is superceeded by Einstein, but is a fine approximation at low speeds. I'm really confused by this thread. That is precisely the point. I see why you made the statement you did now. You are appropriately assuming that if you use Newton's equations that you are traveling at nonrelativistic speeds. However, this was not the case Zanket is using in his paper on General Relativity. He is using Newton's equations for relativistic equations which I tried to explain to him in countless different ways is wrong!

Aer,

He is using Newton's equations for relativistic equations which I tried to explain to him in countless different ways is wrong!

Well, I've only skimmed Zankets paper, but if that's the case, clearly all bets are off.

Well, I've only skimmed Zankets paper, but if that's the case, clearly all bets are off. I tried my best to read as little of his pointless results and conclusions sections as I could as I knew his derivations had to be in error.

What does this have to do with Newtonian Mechanics anyway?

In another thread Aer is saying that, in Newtonian equations, because the speed of light is not constant in Newtonian mechanics, it is meaningless to adjust the values of the variables so that c = 1, like choosing units of light years for distance and years for time so that c = 1 ly / yr, in which case, for example, the Newtonian equation v = g * t returns a value for v that is a fraction of c. My position is that c is just a constant, so of course you can do that. Doing this is what Aer refers to as “using Newton's equations for relativistic equations.”

In another thread Aer is saying that, in Newtonian equations, because the speed of light is not constant in Newtonian mechanics, it is meaningless to adjust the values of the variables so that c = 1, like choosing units of light years for distance and years for time so that c = 1 ly / yr, in which case, for example, the Newtonian equation v = g * t returns a value for v that is a fraction of c. My position is that c is just a constant, so of course you can do that. Doing this is what Aer refers to as “using Newton's equations for relativistic equations.”
Here are your derivations, 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.5 and my analysis:

10.1

v = (a * t) / sqrt(1 + (a * t)^2)

γ = sqrt(1 + (a * t)^2)

v = (a * t) / γ

v * γ = a * t

γ = 1 / sqrt(1 - v^2)

v / sqrt(1 - v^2) = a * t

veff = v / sqrt(1 - v^2)

veff = a * t



10.2

v = (a * t) / sqrt(1 + (a * t)^2)

veff = a * t

v = veff / sqrt(1 + veff^2)



10.3

Newton: v = sqrt(R / r), since Newton: v = a * t,

veff = sqrt(R / r)

v = veff / sqrt(1 + veff^2)

v = sqrt(R / r) / sqrt(1 + sqrt(R / r)^2)

v = sqrt((R / r) / (1 + (R / r)))

v = sqrt((R / r) / ((r + R) / r))

v = sqrt(R / (r + R))




10.5

v = sqrt(R / (r + R))

1 / γ = sqrt(1 - v^2)

1 / γ = sqrt(1 - sqrt(R / (r + R))^2)

1 / γ = sqrt(1 - (R / (r + R)))

1 / γ = sqrt((r + R - R) / (r + R))

1 / γ = sqrt(r / (r + R))




First of all, let's establish some definitions for the variables you use which are v, a, t, γ, veff, r, and R.

You've non-dimensionalized "v" by dividing it by "c" as is apparent in your change to the relativistic rocket equaton. Also, you divided "a" by "c" as well giving "a" the units of frequency (e.g. hz, 1/s). "t" is apparently left alone so we can assume it has the units of time. From the equations for "γ", it is easily seen that "γ" is non-dimensional. "veff" is also non-dimensional by definition. "r" and "R" are given in units of length. So we are dealing with some non-dimensional variables (v, γ, and veff) and some variables with altered dimensions (a) and other variables with their original dimensions (t, r, and R). This is very strange and I am sure this is the origin of your error somewhere.

Now these are not physical definitions, just merely unit analysis. But this should be sufficient enough to continue.

Everything seems fine until we get to section 10.3. You say Newton's equation for velocity is v = a * t. Which is true when v is a velocity, a is acceleration, and t is time. But your definitions of v, a, and t seem to be different as only t has the units of time. In a Newtonian world, it is meaningless to divide velocity and acceleration by some arbitrary constant (in this case, c). I don't think your v and a as you've defined them can be considered exactly velocity and acceleration in a Newtonian world. Therefore, your jump to veff = sqrt(R / r) is incorrect.

That means, Einstein's derivation is correct and your derivation is not. And your veff is still meaningless (at least in a Newtonian world).

Instead of obfuscating, if you have a problem with how I stated your issue, why not just clearly state it, with one or two examples? It does not require a big dump of stuff. Especially not in this thread. Your issue here just has to do with the use of c and "light year" in Newtonian mechanics. The issue need not be put in terms of my paper.

Your issue here just has to do with the use of c and "light year" in Newtonian mechanics. The issue need not be put in terms of my paper. Your entire premise is stupid and is defended by absurdity as spouted above ^^^. How might one use c and "light year" in Newtonian mechanics? What are the limitations to these uses? Can you answer either of those questions? Answer: Irrelevent

This confusion apparently stems from the fact that the constancy of the speed of light was leveraged to define c and “light year.”

What else do you think c is!

It was leveraged, to create a constant that is thenceforth independent of the speed of light. First, the constancy of the speed of light was taken advantage of, to define the meter. Then c was defined as 299792458 meters per second. This locked c onto the value of the speed of light observed when c was defined. From then on, c is not tied to the speed of light; it is just a constant. A light year is c (as defined) times the number of seconds per year. It also is not tied to the speed of light.

From The speed of light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light):

This exact speed [299792458 meters per second] is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre itself is defined in terms of the speed of light and the second.

...

In 1983, the General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the metre as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second (i.e. one metre is 1/299,792,458 light second). This relies on the constancy of the velocity of light for all observers. "What, then, does it mean to measure the speed of light?", one may ask. The answer is that finding any measured difference from the defined value means that one's length or time standard is wrong, or is exhibiting a change since it was calibrated. If such change is true physics, and not error or ascribable to a perturbation (such as temperature change or mechanical shock), one has made an important discovery.

How might one use c and "light year" in Newtonian mechanics? What are the limitations to these uses? Can you answer either of those questions?

You can use them as the quantities they represent, with no other limitations.

Fair warning re your 06:03 PM post today: FWIW, I reported your post to the mod with: “Aer has a habit of obfuscating by dumping stuff unrelated to a thread or issue, making a big confusing post instead of a clear point. This seems to be done intentionally; that is, to cloud an issue intentionally. It lowers the quality of the thread. The one I'm reporting is a good example.”

Aer,
Is there really a conceptual problem with reading "9.46 trillion km" for "light-year"?

Pete

It was leveraged, to create a constant that is thenceforth independent of the speed of light. First, the constancy of the speed of light was taken advantage of, to define the meter. Then c was defined as 299792458 meters per second. This locked c onto the value of the speed of light observed when c was defined. From then on, c is not tied to the speed of light; it is just a constant. A light year is c (as defined) times the number of seconds per year. It also is not tied to the speed of light. You can't do this!





You can use them as the quantities they represent, with no other limitations. You are telling me you define c as the speed of light. Find that this speed is found to be 299792458 m/s. Then you are going to say that c is not neccessarily the speed of light but it keeps its numerical value of 299792458 m/s. I know of no theory that defines a variable with a quantity with no firm definition of what that variable is. Do not think that because your case is unique that it is special, no it is stupid.

Fair warning re your 06:03 PM post today: FWIW, I reported your post to the mod with: “Aer has a habit of obfuscating by dumping stuff unrelated to a thread or issue, making a big confusing post instead of a clear point. This seems to be done intentionally; that is, to cloud an issue intentionally. It lowers the quality of the thread. The one I'm reporting is a good example.” I guess you've given up trying to argue your point. Can't beat 'em then shut 'em up. It won't work :-). This thread was started BY YOU with a quote from another thread. I brought back my initial point in that thread because you want to ignore it. Sorry, not going to happen. I disproved your theory, now acknowledge it.

Aer,
Is there really a conceptual problem with reading "9.46 trillion km" for "light-year"?

Pete In a newtonian world, yes. If you are traveling at 10 trillion km / yr in a Newtonian world (Newton doesn't say there is a limit to how fast you can go). What is the speed of light?

This exact speed [299792458 meters per second] is a definition, not a measurement, as the metre itself is defined in terms of the speed of light and the second.

...

In 1983, the General Conference on Weights and Measures defined the metre as the length of the path travelled by light in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second (i.e. one metre is 1/299,792,458 light second). This relies on the constancy of the velocity of light for all observers. "What, then, does it mean to measure the speed of light?", one may ask. The answer is that finding any measured difference from the defined value means that one's length or time standard is wrong, or is exhibiting a change since it was calibrated. If such change is true physics, and not error or ascribable to a perturbation (such as temperature change or mechanical shock), one has made an important discovery.

How might one use c and "light year" in Newtonian mechanics? What are the limitations to these uses? Can you answer either of those questions?
You can use them as the quantities they represent, with no other limitations.

Did you even read the quote you gave as given above? Explain to me how the sentences in red relate to a Newtonian world.

In a newtonian world, yes.
In any world... "light-year" is just a word that happens to signify a particular distance. If the distance is meaningful, then so is the word.

If you are traveling at 10 trillion km / yr in a Newtonian world (Newton doesn't say there is a limit to how fast you can go). What is the speed of light?
The speed of light is one light-year per year, which is of course why the term "light-year" came to correspond to that particular distance...

But really, it's not relevant. A light-year is just a unit of distance, just like any other.

It's just words.

How long is a foot?
How long is your foot?
Must the two be necessarily related?

But really, it's not relevant. A light-year is just a unit of distance, just like any other.

It's just words.

How long is a foot?
How long is your foot?
Must the two be necessarily related?
Please go back and learn relativity. Perhaps you will find this course (http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Physics/8-033Fall2003/CourseHome/index.htm) of use.

Condescension will get you nowhere.

Do you have a conceptual problem with the idea of a simple unit of length?

If I made up a unit of length called a "astrol", and defined it to be equal to 9.46073x10¹⁵m, would that be wrong?

It's just words!

You are telling me you define c as the speed of light. Find that this speed is found to be 299792458 m/s. Then you are going to say that c is not neccessarily the speed of light but it keeps its numerical value of 299792458 m/s.

Yes.

I know of no theory that defines a variable with a quantity with no firm definition of what that variable is.

It’s not a variable. It is a constant with a firm definition of 299792458 m / s.

This thread was started BY YOU with a quote from another thread. I brought back my initial point in that thread because you want to ignore it.

Started by me, to get some input from others on one issue you brought up, that need not involve my paper here. You’d have the same issue for any paper that did the same as mine. Your post above has lots more stuff in it than the issue here. That’s a breach of etiquette. As far as calling me a crackpot, you could learn some manners for that too, especially seeing as how I’m taking the time to teach you here.

Did you even read the quote you gave as given above? Explain to me how the sentences in red relate to a Newtonian world.

The sentences in red make my point. The first sentence shows that the definition of the meter relies on the constancy of the velocity of light for all observers. That is, there is an assumption implicit in the definition that the speed of light is, and will remain, constant. Standards for the meter (that is, metersticks and other measuring tools) were created based on the described experiment. The second sentence shows that c is not tied to the speed of light. If the speed of light changes in nature then a measurement of it (using a standard for the meter that was created based on the prior experiment) will differ from c, the constant. The assumption implicit in the definition of the meter will have failed, but c will remain equivalent to 299792458 meters per second, where a meter is the standard based on the prior experiment, until a committee changes its defined value.

It’s not a variable. It is a constant with a firm definition of 299792458 m / s. Ok, you got me! I said variable instead of constant. It doesn't matter - the constant has no definition (words describing its physical significance) just a value. No theory does this.



Started by me, to get some input from others on one issue you brought up, that need not involve my paper here. Your answer was given by Quarkhead. Notice that I didn't involve myself in the thread until someone else already answered your question. Now for my involvement: Others, such as superluminal, were mislead into believing that you are using non-relativistic velocities when applying Newton's equation: v = a * t. But that just isn't so, so I brought back the issue to prove that you are in fact using relativistic velocities! No foul play on my part!

You’d have the same issue for any paper that did the same as mine. Show me one paper that does the same thing as yours.

Your post above has lots more stuff in it than the issue here. Your issue had already been answered. Bringing new things to the thread that were required based on previous posts is totally warranted!

That’s a breach of etiquette. You are in breach of science and spouted your nonsense to a scientific community.

As far as calling me a crackpot, you could learn some manners for that too, especially seeing as how I’m taking the time to teach you here. You've taught me nothing. And you are the one that is being stubborn, you often answer with "irrelevent" or "off-topic" when someone asks you a relevent question that you must not be capable of answering!



The sentences in red make my point. The first sentence shows that the definition of the meter relies on the constancy of the velocity of light for all observers. You apparently do not know what that means. Use Newtons equations to show me the velocity of light is constant for the following observers: A is moving at 0c relative to the Earth. B is moving at .9c relative to the Earth.

That is, there is an assumption implicit in the definition that the speed of light is, and will remain, constant. Standards for the meter (that is, metersticks and other measuring tools) were created based on the described experiment. Your answer to the above should enlighten you to the foolishness of these statements.

The second sentence shows that c is not tied to the speed of light. !!! The second sentence was intentionally highlighted by me for the very reason that it assumes something that isn't true and contradictory to the first sentence! Re-read it!

If the speed of light changes in nature then a measurement of it (using a standard for the meter that was created based on the prior experiment) will differ from c, the constant. The assumption implicit in the definition of the meter will have failed, but c will remain equivalent to 299792458 meters per second, where a meter is the standard based on the prior experiment, until a committee changes its defined value. Ha ha!

Condescension will get you nowhere.

Do you have a conceptual problem with the idea of a simple unit of length?

If I made up a unit of length called a "astrol", and defined it to be equal to 9.46073x10¹⁵m, would that be wrong?

It's just words! Perhaps you know nothing of time dilation and length contraction when moving at very fast speeds. The length "light year" is the distance light travels in one year. The quanity is depended on time and length. The fact that "c" has to lose its meaning of "the distance light travels in one year" to be able to be used in a Newtonian sense should set off alarm bells in your head. But alas, it doesn't.

This is just common sense people.

If I made up a unit of length called a "astrol", and defined it to be equal to 9.46073x1015m, would that be wrong?

Aer,

Help me.

Could you please show a simple example of what you mean?

I smell a semantics debate. Hate those. Hope I'm wrong...

Aer,

Help me.

Could you please show a simple example of what you mean?Quote something I said that you want an example of.

Aer:

The fact that "c" has to lose its meaning of "the distance light travels in one year" to be able to be used in a Newtonian sense should set off alarm bells in your head

An example of "c" used in a newtonian sense, in which it loses its meaning.

Not trying to fight here, just looking for clarification of what you mean.

If I made up a unit of length called a "astrol", and defined it to be equal to 9.46073x1015m, would that be wrong? Everything is measured as a fraction/multiple of this unit? That is not the point. You are getting off track because of Zanket's statement that goes something like: "c no longer means the speed of light, and the distance "light year" retains it's value from before" This doesn't even apply to the issue zanket and I have been discussing. the issue was and always has been the fact that zanket divides his v and a by c without renaming them. (i.e. w = v / c and b = a / c is how he should do it). If he did this then I think you'd object very much to the equation: w = b * t as a Newtonian equation. Keep in mind that this equation is used to derive something used in relativity were c retains it's meaning as the "speed of light".

An example of "c" used in a newtonian sense, in which it loses its meaning.

Not trying to fight here, just looking for clarification of what you mean. See my response to Pete, that is the real issue.

This doesn't even apply to the issue zanket and I have been discussing. the issue was and always has been the fact that zanket divides his v and a by c without renaming them. (i.e. w = v / c and b = a / c is how he should do it).

I think I put this better in my 05:56 PM post today:

In another thread Aer is saying that, in Newtonian equations, because the speed of light is not constant in Newtonian mechanics, it is meaningless to adjust the values of the variables so that c = 1, like choosing units of light years for distance and years for time so that c = 1 ly / yr, in which case, for example, the Newtonian equation v = g * t returns a value for v that is a fraction of c. My position is that c is just a constant, so of course you can do that. Doing this is what Aer refers to as “using Newton's equations for relativistic equations.”

Everything is measured as a fraction/multiple of this unit?
That would be ridiculous.
That is not the point. You are getting off track because of Zanket's statement that goes something like: "c no longer means the speed of light, and the distance "light year" retains it's value from before" This doesn't even apply to the issue zanket and I have been discussing.
I don't care what you've been discussing.
The point of this thread is whether "light-year" can be treated as a simply defined unit of distance, just like "foot", for example.
You haven't shown any reason why it can't.

If you want to get off this track and on to your previous track, perhaps you should be in the other thread?

Sorry, I'm dense. I don't follow. If I have to refer to and understand Zankets use of a's, b's, c's, w's and t's then I'll just bow out. An illustrative example of the problem, with variables and units is what I was after, but if that's too hard, so be it.

You see Aer, do you not, that all I'm trying to do is take a step back and clarify the issue. There is clearly enough confusion to go around.

I think I put this better in my 05:56 PM post today:

In another thread Aer is saying that, in Newtonian equations, because the speed of light is not constant in Newtonian mechanics, Where did I say that the speed of light is not constant in Newtonian mechanics? Surely I was not foolish enough to make this statement (though I may have, we all slip up sometimes) If I ever said that I retract that statement! Please show me where I said this. The fact is, the speed of light isn't defined in Newtonian mechanics, that is why Relativity was introduced.

it is meaningless to adjust the values of the variables so that c = 1, like choosing units of light years for distance and years for time so that c = 1 ly / yr, That would be fine if that is what you did! But I've tried to tell you countless times that is not what you are doing. It is not a matter of unit conversion as you say.

You define [ v = w / c ] where w is an actual measureable velocity which I certainly hope is less than 1 if c = 1. v is a non-dimensional velocity term.

You define [ a = b / c ] where b is an actual measureable accerleration in the units of ly/yr^2 if c is in the units of ly/yr. This makes your "a" term a frequency (1/yr).

You leave "t" alone (i.e. in the units of yr).


in which case, for example, the Newtonian equation v = g * t returns a value for v that is a fraction of c. The only case you could make is that you scaled your distance measurement with c and lost the definition that c is the speed of light. But that would just be retarded wouldn't it.

My position is that c is just a constant, so of course you can do that. Doing this is what Aer refers to as “using Newton's equations for relativistic equations.” Theres a whole list of reasons why you can't do what you are doing. I've had to explain it so many times I don't even remember the context in which I made that statement. But needless to say - you are obviously mixing Newton's equations with Relativity equations inappropriately.

v is a non-dimensional velocity term.

Just what the hell is a "non-dimensional velocity term"?

Do you mean like beta (v/c) in the lorentz transforms?

That would be ridiculous. What is the point of your unit? I can tell you the point of zanket's unit, and it is in that context of which I am telling him he is wrong.

I don't care what you've been discussing. Explainations have been taken out of context, maybe this is where you are confused.

The point of this thread is whether "light-year" can be treated as a simply defined unit of distance, You want the point of this thread? Here it is:

Well now we have a new definiton for c because a "light year" doesn't make any sense in a Newtonian world! Can you tell me the context in which this statement was made? This is the statement zanket wants to discuss. I made that statement, zanket didn't like it. He couldn't make his point so he started a new thread to discuss it. He was partially successful in losing the context of what I meant, but I'm not going to let that pass anymore!


just like "foot", for example.
You haven't shown any reason why it can't.

If you want to get off this track and on to your previous track, perhaps you should be in the other thread? Please, this is stupid.

If I have to refer to and understand Zankets use of a's, b's, c's, w's and t's then I'll just bow out.

Not mine!

An illustrative example of the problem, with variables and units is what I was after, but if that's too hard, so be it.

Yeah, I'd like to see that from Aer too, then I wouldn't have to paraphrase. It's been too much to expect so far. How hard can it be to make a single clear point?

Yep.

You see Aer, do you not, that all I'm trying to do is take a step back and clarify the issue. There is clearly enough confusion to go around. Sorry, I was responding to the other posts first.

No prob.

Not mine!



Yeah, I'd like to see that from Aer too, then I wouldn't have to paraphrase. It's been too much to expect so far. How hard can it be to make a single clear point?
I already gave you clear examples of what superluminal is asking for in the "other" thread! In fact I am going to go dig them out and quote them!

I made that statement, zanket didn't like it. He couldn't make his point so he started a new thread to discuss it.

I disagree with it. I started a new thread to ask others about it.

He was partially successful in losing the context of what I meant, but I'm not going to let that pass anymore!

Great! State the issue in your own words, but concisely; make one point. (Apparently I don't even know what the issue is yet.) Include an example, and keep it as simple as possible. You probably don't need to refer to the paper.

Yar matey's! Me thinks thars somethin' amiss in the state o' Denmark now. Yarrr!

Sorry, I'm dense. I don't follow. If I have to refer to and understand Zankets use of a's, b's, c's, w's and t's then I'll just bow out. An illustrative example of the problem, with variables and units is what I was after, but if that's too hard, so be it.

Ok, first of let me just say that there really isn't much to comprehend here. We are only considering the Newtonian equation v = a * t. I made the decision to defined what v, a, and t were in terms of w & c, b & c, and t respectively for the simple fact that what zanket was doing is improper. zanket defined v as v/c, a as a/c and t as t. You were very correct in your reference to β being equivalent to zanket's non-dimensional velocity term which he labeled v. Now a/c just defies all logic, but that is another issue (the frequency issue). Therefore I concluded to zanket that his Newtonian equation was in the units of:

v = a * t
(non-dim) = (1/time)*time

Here was his response:

This is simple stuff. Let c = 1. Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. Then a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. Let t = 1 yr. Then v = a * t = 1.03 ly / yr^2 * 1 yr = 1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c. That’s a valid Newtonian answer.

And as this was about the 100th time he dismissed my argument without addressing the issues I raised, I responded with:

OMG this is stupid. This "a" is not the same as the "a" you defined. CHECK YOUR UNITS. c=1 is an improper statement by you. You should say c = 1 ly /yr. that makes a = a / c = 1.03 (1/yr). Notice the stupidity of that formula as well... a = a /c. Either the a on the left side or the a on the right side should be a different variable since they represent different things. You just failed to realize this because you thought you were dividing by 1, whereas you have to divide by 1 ly/yr!

OK, I stand by my comment above. Let's see what shakes out.

Edit to add: That example returns the Newtonian velocity, as a fraction of c, for an object that accelerates at 1 Earth gravity for one year of universal time t.

Great! State the issue in your own words, but concisely; make one point. (Apparently I don't even know what the issue is yet.) Include an example, and keep it as simple as possible. You probably don't need to refer to the paper. I realize there are about 348 separate and unrelated problems with your paper and you can't handle more than one at a time, but you really should be able to pick out the issues I raise one at a time on your own. Read my reply to superluminal, I tried to keep the issue as best I could to your faulty unit confusion.

OK, I stand by my comment above. Let's see what shakes out. Good.l

Zankets original response:

My notes in ()

This is simple stuff.

Let c = 1. (fine)

Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. (Ok, a = m/s²)

Then a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. (This is m/yr²? Odd units, but Ok.)

Let t = 1 yr. (Ok)

Then v = a * t

= 1.03 ly / yr^2 * 1 yr (Ok. m/yr² * yr = m/yr)

= 1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c. (Ok. m/yr)

So 1 ly/yr = c, yes. (1ly = 9.4605284 × 10¹⁵ meters/3600*24*365.25 seconds = 'c')

That’s a valid Newtonian answer.

Don't know where the derivation comes from or is heading, but the maths seems to work just fine.

EDIT: There are indeed two 'a''s defined. One in meters per second and one in meters per year.

No?

It was just an example for Aer, to show that you can use c and units of a light year in Newtonian mechanics, and get a valid answer.

EDIT: There are indeed two 'a''s defined. One in meters per second and one in meters per year.

Let me clarify:

Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. In units of light years for distance and years for time, c = 1 ly / yr and a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. That is, a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2.

This value for a comes from The Relativistic Rocket (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html) and other sites.

Zankets original response:

My notes in ()



Don't know where the derivation comes from or is heading, but the maths seems to work just fine.

No?You're very first note is wrong. c=1. What is c? Certainly it can have the value of 1. But what you and zanket are missing is the c is by definition the speed of light. Read that again. "speed" .... "of light" did you read speed? If not go back and try again. what are the units of speed? length/time.

I've made this point too many times, even in the original post, it is my very last statement. SIGH.

The first 'a' seems superfluous as you never use it. (m/s that is)

EDIT: There are indeed two 'a''s defined. One in meters per second and one in meters per year. I can't agree with your analysis, sorry.

Aer,

You are correct. He never uses it though. 'c' only appears in the last result:

1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c. (Ok. m/yr)

as a transform from ly/yr to 'c' which is correct, Yes?

The first 'a' seems superfluous as you never use it. (m/s that is) the units meter and second are never used in zanket's paper, only c = 1 ly/yr. But he confuses this, as you did, with c = 1 (no units). Sorry, that is a very grave error.

What if we ignore the first two statements which I see as superfluous?

I am not disagreeing with you. I do not know the details of his paper.

Aer,

You are correct. He never uses it though. 'c' only appears in the last result:



as a transform from ly/yr to 'c' which is correct, Yes? First of all, this

v = a * t = 1.03 ly / yr^2 * 1 yr = 1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c is wrong. v as defined by zanket is equivalent to β as you know it, that is v/c. so the fact that v = 1.03c shows by itself that zanket's analysis is inconsistent with his paper. I had missed this before.

a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2.

What is this?

I am not disagreeing with you. I do not know the details of his paper. That is why I included some definitions for the variables, did you read those and include them in your analysis? They are very strange and I might add it took a little more than looking at zanket's definitions section to figure out how they were defined to be consistent with his equations. This is a major reason why his responses are never consistent, he isn't sure what he defined the units as himself.

is wrong. v as defined by zanket is equivalent to β as you know it, that is v/c. so the fact that v = 1.03c shows by itself that zanket's analysis is inconsistent with his paper. I had missed this before.

Aer, there are many assumptions here of which I'm not aware. If v = v/c (beta) then that is nonsense in terms of v = a * t.

What is this? Gravity.

That is why I included some definitions for the variables, did you read those and include them in your analysis?

No I did not. I assumed v was velocity in m/s (or m/yr - whatever)

Aer, there are many assumptions here of which I'm not aware. If v = v/c (beta) then that is nonsense in terms of v = a * t. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU. That is the entire point! I've said it so many times but zanket doesn't listen.

No I did not. I assumed v was velocity in m/s (or m/yr - whatever) Ahh, well, the definitions are not mine, they are indirectly zanket's definitions.

What is this?

From The Relativistic Rocket (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html):
To do some example calculations it is easier to use units of years for time and light years for distance. Then c = 1 lyr/yr and g [at the Earth's surface] = 1.03 lyr/yr².

a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2.

1.03 * 9.4605284 × 10^15 meters / (3600 * 24 * 365.25)^2

= 9.8 m/s It does work out. The odd units threw me.

If v = v/c (beta) then that is nonsense in terms of v = a * t.

Ok big Z. What does this mean?

You think the Relativistic Rocket and lots of other sites are wrong

No. You missed my next post. No problem.

...what are the units of speed? length/time.
*Putting on my Picky hat*

I see you're assuming that length is more fundamental than speed, but this is really just a convention.
It would be equally valid to choose speed as a fundamental unit, and make the units of length speed.time.

If v = v/c (beta) then that is nonsense in terms of v = a * t.

Ok big Z. What does this mean?

I'm not sure what you mean by beta. That's not my term. v is a fraction of c, no units. The answer, 1.03c, is 1.03 times c.

From The Relativistic Rocket (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html):
Zanket, your defintion of "v" and "a" are not the same as on that site. You told me you divided v by c and a by c.

I'm not sure what you mean by beta. That's not my term. v is a fraction of c, no units. The answer, 1.03c, is 1.03 times c. In that case, my initial intepretation was correct and you did not non-dimensionalize v!

Edit: This was my initial interpretation in the "other" thread and zanket told me I was wrong.

Well, v (velocity) = m/s

c = m/s also.

v/c = unitless and is commonly called beta in the Lorentz transforms.

If you set some variable x = v/c then you have a dimensionless number.

You cannot use x = a * t, it makes no sense whatsoever.

By setting v = v/c and then stating v = a * t you have committed a grave error as Aer points out.

Wow, this is getting wierd...

Zanket, your defintion of "v" and "a" are not the same as on that site. You told me you divided v by c and a by c.

I told you that I set c = 1 in those equations, making v a fraction of c. My a is in units where c = 1, and I give the example that "In units of light years for distance and years for time, c = 1 ly / yr and g at Earth’s surface = 1.03 ly / yr^2."

Aer's right, zanket... You need to be very pedantic with your units.
for example, in a system of units where c is 1, g's value will depend on the unit of time.

I'm not sure what you mean by beta. That's not my term. v is a fraction of c, no units. The answer, 1.03c, is 1.03 times c.

Ok, here is what you said:

When c = 1, as it does here, it is dimensionless; no units. See also here and here (search for "no units"). When v is a fraction of c, it is also dimensionless.. Now this just is not true. I thought you were dividing v by c because you said it had "no units". No units is synonymous with non-dimensional. However, careful inspection of your wording indicates that you mean when you set c=1 that it has no units. I ask of you, what is a ly/yr? I hope you know that the only case when c=1 is when it is in the units of ly/yr.

c=1 is meaningless by itself. c = 1 ly/yr is valid. All algebraic manipulations must carry the correct units otherwise you are doomed before your pen touches paper.

I hope you know that the only case when c=1 is when it is in the units of ly/yr.
*Picky hat!!*

...or light-seconds/second, or meters/(1/299792458 s), or any other suitable pair.

v/c = unitless and is commonly called beta in the Lorentz transforms.

Thanks.

By setting v = v/c and then stating v = a * t you have committed a grave error as Aer points out.

You're keeping in mind that this is Newtonian mechanics, right?

Let v be in units of m / s. Let a = 9.8 m / s^2. Let t = 1 yr = 31,536,000 s. Then v = a * t = (9.8 m / s^2) * (31,536,000 s) = 309,052,800 m / s = 1.03c.

...or even c = 1 lightspeed; a pure speed unit, like Mach.

Zanket:

You're keeping in mind that this is Newtonian mechanics, right?

Let v be in units of m / s. Let a = 9.8 m / s^2. Let t = 1 yr = 31,536,000 s. Then v = a * t = (9.8 m / s^2) * (31,536,000 s) = 309,052,800 m / s = 1.03c.

Yes, but apparently (I've lost track in all this crazyness) you had stated that v = v/c which is unitless and then proceeded to set v = a * t. You redefined v in mid stream. Bad boy. Much confusion.

*Picky hat!!*

...or light-seconds/second, or meters/(1/299792458 s), or any other suitable pair. Ahh yes, sorry I overlooked that :-) I note though that none of your examples are "no units".

Yes, but apparently (I've lost track in all this crazyness) you had stated that v = v/c which is unitless and then proceeded to set v = a * t. You redefined v in mid stream. Bad boy. Much confusion. I don't think zanket ever actually did set v = v / c, but that is the only way he could have "no units". That is why I assumed that.

Ugh, my head...

c=1 is meaningless by itself. c = 1 ly/yr is valid. All algebraic manipulations must carry the correct units otherwise you are doomed before your pen touches paper.

Agreed. For c the paper says, "in units where c = 1, e.g. 1 ly / yr".

Above I said, before we got into this,

Let me clarify:

Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. In units of light years for distance and years for time, c = 1 ly / yr and a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. That is, a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2.

Ok then. Now that that's all cleared up, is there still a problem?

Ok then. Now that that's all cleared up, is there still a problem? Yes, the use of Newtons equation. though I don't think there is anything to discus regarding c.

Agreed. For c the paper says, "in units where c = 1, e.g. 1 ly / yr".

Above I said, before we got into this, Zanket, there is no need to go into this point, we settled it already!

Yes, but apparently (I've lost track in all this crazyness) you had stated that v = v/c which is unitless and then proceeded to set v = a * t. You redefined v in mid stream. Bad boy. Much confusion.

That's not my intent there. This is in response to you saying "By setting v = v/c and then stating v = a * t you have committed a grave error as Aer points out."

The intent of the post is, how could I commit a grave error and get an answer, when using units of m / s, that is equivalent to what I get when v is a fraction of c?

In my book, Exploring Black Holes, by Taylor and Wheeler, v is a fraction of c, no units. v = a * t works fine in that book.

In my book, Exploring Black Holes, by Taylor and Wheeler, v is a fraction of c, no units. v = a * t works fine in that book. What do you mean by "no units"?

Edit: On second thought, I think you mean v = .8c is an example of what you are talking about. Since we see no units, you refer to it as "no units" but we all know that c has to have some units of some sort and it is in c where the units are stored. So this example could be expanded to mean v = .8c = .8 ly/yr where c = 1 ly/yr.

Is this what you mean?

Yes. Here is my understanding of why they say "no units": because 0.8c could be 0.8 ly / yr or 0.8 light minutes per minute or 0.8 light seconds per second, etc. The units don't matter, so long as c is in units where c = 1. In this case v is best thought of as a unitless percentage of c (v can exceed 1 = 1c in Newtonian mechanics).

(v can exceed 1 = 1c in Newtonian mechanics). Newtonian mechanics are only valid when you consider c to be infinity. for purposes where c = 1 unit-length/unit-time, v must be less than .3 (or less depending on the accuracy required).

Edit: please note the definition of infinity before you say c can not be 1 and infinity at the same time...

Infinitity is just an upper limit greater than the scope of what you are analyzing.

Velocities greater than c can exist in real life... just not velocities of information carrying entities.

Consider the superluminal scissors (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/scissors.html):
The contact point where the two blades meet is not a physical object. So there is no fundamental reason why it could not move faster than the speed of light, provided that you arrange your experiment correctly.

Velocities greater than c can exist in real life... just not velocities of information carrying entities.

Consider the superluminal scissors (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/scissors.html): I am well aware of this. However, by definition these objects are not physical and thus have no mass. Special relativity deals with physical objects with mass. That is why a photon, massless as best as can be measured travels at the speed of light while special relativity does not allow anything to travel at or faster than the speed of light (read anything as object with mass).

Newtonian mechanics are only valid...

Yes, I understand that the predictions of Newtonian mechanics diverge from those of GR. But my understanding is that the issues presented in this thread are unrelated to the validity of Newtonian mechanics, but rather related to how Newton’s equation v = a * t can be used to return a result predicted by Newton. For example, if you use different units for time in a than you do for t, you will not get a result predicted by Newton.

As I understand, you have disagreed with the validity of my using, in Newton’s equation, things like c in units where c = 1, light years, v as a fraction of c (no units), a in units where c = 1, etc. My position is that the usage of these is valid; that is, when you use them you get a result that is equivalent to the result you get when you use units like meters per second.

I am assuming at this point that no unresolved problem has been found with my claim posted above, that a valid Newtonian answer is returned by the following:

Let c = 1 in units where c = 1. Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. (In units of light years for distance and years for time, c = 1 ly / yr and a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. That is, a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2. ) Let t = 1 yr. Then v = a * t = 1.03 ly / yr^2 * 1 yr = 1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c. The v is a fraction of c, with no units.

I’m awaiting superluminal’s response to my post above. He mentions a “grave error” by me, but I showed that I get the same answer using units of meters and seconds. In the meantime I will assume that his is a misunderstanding on the “no units” for v.

On “no units” for v my book says:

From Exploring Black Holes:
Measure distance s and time lapse t in the same unit. For example, a spaceship travels half a light-year of distance during one year of time; its speed is then 0.5 year / year and the units cancel. As another example, if an elementary particle moves 0.7 meter in one meter of light-travel time its speed is 0.7. Hence the speed v has no units. In this book the symbol v represents the speed of an object as a fraction of the speed of light.

Yes, I understand that the predictions of Newtonian mechanics diverge from those of GR. That's a start.

But my understanding is that the issues presented in this thread are unrelated to the validity of Newtonian mechanics, The issue presented in this thread was my statement:

Well now we have a new definiton for c because a "light year" doesn't make any sense in a Newtonian world!

Go back and read the first post made by yourself. Now you brought this comment up that I made without initializing the context in which it was made. The only reason I made this statement is because you wanted to define c = 299792458 m/s. Which is perfectly fine, except for the fact that we are dealing with your paper in which you require throughout that c = 1 unit-length/unit-time. Why not stick to just dealing with this - setting c = 299792458 m/s does nothing that c = 1 unit-length/unit-time cannot accomplish.

but rather related to how Newton’s equation v = a * t can be used to return a result predicted by Newton. How about you define a result predicted by Newton.

For example, if you use different units for time in a than you do for t, you will not get a result predicted by Newton. This is hopelessly inadequate as a definition of a predicted results by Newton. Try again.

As I understand, you have disagreed with the validity of my using, in Newton’s equation, things like c in units where c = 1, light years, v as a fraction of c (no units), a in units where c = 1, etc. NO, and I might add that we already resolved this issue, you might want to re-read a few posts above as I think you have a reading comprehension issue. The issue was all along what you were defining v and a as - this issue has been resolved, again re-read a few posts above.

My position is that the usage of these is valid; that is, when you use them you get a result that is equivalent to the result you get when you use units like meters per second. You are still harping on the same issue already resolved in a few posts above.

I am assuming at this point that no unresolved problem has been found with my claim posted above, that a valid Newtonian answer is returned by the following:

Let c = 1 in units where c = 1. Let a = g at Earth’s surface in units where c = 1. (In units of light years for distance and years for time, c = 1 ly / yr and a = 1.03 ly / yr^2. That is, a = 1.03 ly / yr^2 = 9.8 m / s^2. ) Let t = 1 yr. Then v = a * t = 1.03 ly / yr^2 * 1 yr = 1.03 ly / yr = 1.03c. The v is a fraction of c, with no units. There are many issues with your paper, this issue has already been resolved in a few posts above. The current issue with you paper (as was one of the issues I brought up a long time ago) is currently being discussed in the other thread.

I’m awaiting superluminal’s response to my post above. He mentions a “grave error” by me, but I showed that I get the same answer using units of meters and seconds. In the meantime I will assume that his is a misunderstanding on the “no units” for v. Issue has already been resolved, why do you need to keep harping on this issue. Is it your last saving grace?

On “no units” for v my book says: Issue has already been resolved - I've told you this how many times now (I lost count).

Try as I might, unlike most posters, I cannot tell what you're getting at most of the time. I can't be sure all issues are resolved in an involved thread like this one. And I'd like confirmation that they were all resolved in my favor. Can you just clearly state what issues, if any, you still have here, that relate to this thread? Otherwise I'll assume there are none.

Try as I might, unlike most posters, I cannot tell what you're getting at most of the time. I can't be sure all issues are resolved in an involved thread like this one. And I'd like confirmation that they were all resolved in my favor. Can you just clearly state what issues, if any, you still have here, that relate to this thread? Otherwise I'll assume there are none. I have no idea what your definition of a "Newtonian World" is. I tried to define it with Pete, but atlas I think Pete finally figured out the entire concept was infact retarded as I've been saying all along:

I cannot say with 100% certainty what the knowledge of science was at that time, hence I asked you for the implications. I believe one of the implications is that there would have to be an absolute rest frame in which c travels. Earth most certainly has to be considered to be moving in this ether - but as we all know, this velocity could not have been known as the premise was proven to be false later. I'm not sure it even makes sense to attribute an actual velocity to light under these conditions. How could the velocity of light be measured at this time as 299792458 m/s or approximately so in all directions relative to the Earth and the premise of an ether not be challenged?

I thought "Newtonian world" was coined by you to mean Newtonian mechanics. I wasn't confused by it.

It's all moot anyway, since v = a * t is not used in any calculation or derivation in the paper. You just assumed it was. This whole thread was, I thought, about whether or not the variables and units I defined for that equation are okay (that is, okay in Newtonian mechanics), starting with the use of "light year".

I thought "Newtonian world" was coined by you to mean Newtonian mechanics. I wasn't confused by it. Do a google search for "Newtonian world". Being as it may that I coined the phrase, it sure must have spread fast!

It's all moot anyway, since v = a * t is not used in any calculation or derivation in the paper. Horsehit. Go to the other thread to discuss this issue.

You just assumed it was. No.

This whole thread was, I thought, about whether or not the variables and units I defined for that equation are okay (that is, okay in Newtonian mechanics), starting with the use of "light year". Like I said, you do appear to have reading comprehension issues.

Do a google search for "Newtonian world". Being as it may that I coined the phrase, it sure must have spread fast!

I mean coined in the other thread.

Horsehit. Go to the other thread to discuss this issue.

Done. Issues resolved there.

No.

You must have, because my use of it in a calculation or derivation is nowhere in the paper.