# Thread: On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

1. Do you now understand that by definition, light always travels 299,792,458 m/s because we define the meter to be the distance light travels in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second? By definition, light travels 299,792,458 m/s because that is the way we defined the meter. That doesn't mean light can't traverse a meter stick in more or less time, as the meter stick is also capable of its own motion, which changes the time it takes light to traverse the meter stick.

2. Originally Posted by James R
Consider that laboratories on Earth are all moving boxes, in effect, and literally millions of experiments have been done in laboratories that confirm that light transit times are the same in both directions when measured in a lab.
Can you provide a link to just one of the million experiments that has measured the one-way times in each direction? I'm not talking about calculating the one-way times by dividing the round trip time by two, I'm talking about actually measuring the one way times using my sync method. How do they know the distance between the synchronized clocks? All they are doing is confirming the speed of light. So what, we defined the speed of light, do they expect to see a different speed using the very definitions that define it?

Do you understand that it is IMPOSSIBLE for one-way times to always be the same regardless of the velocity using my sync method and the standard definitions of the meter and the second? In effect, what you are saying is that a car that is traveling at a constant 60 MPH down the road, traversing a school bus, always takes the same amount of time to traverse the bus, regardless of the speed of the bus, or the direction of travel. That is simply impossible.

3. MD, if you're sure of yourself why haven't you submitted a paper for review?

Tach, kept egging you on with with the tempt of a Nobel Prize.

4. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
MD, if you're sure of yourself why haven't you submitted a paper for review?

Tach, kept egging you on with with the tempt of a Nobel Prize.
I know my theory. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician. I've never submitted a paper before and don't have the first clue how to go about doing that. That doesn't make me wrong.

5. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I know my theory. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a mathematician. I've never submitted a paper before and don't have the first clue how to go about doing that. That doesn't make me wrong.
All these shortcomings did not stop the Nobel committee to put you on the list. They are even offering you a dark box that locks on the outside for you to complete your epochal experiment.

6. Well, how long have you had this theory?

7. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Well, how long have you had this theory?

You know, it's not even really so much as a theory than it is doing things the way we are supposed to be doing them. I'm not making up some wild time dilation, length contraction, 13 universe theory, I am explaining why Einstein's methods are wrong, and how to do it the proper way, using the standard basic math and definitions of distance and time.

Do you see something new? No, it is just the concept of how to use known standards the PROPER way.

8. Well, do you feel you have something significant to say to a greater audience?

I'm trying to remind myself why I'm posting at the moment.

9. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Well, do you feel you have something significant to say to a greater audience?

I'm trying to remind myself why I'm posting at the moment.
Yes, but I've been trying to explain it for 30+ pages here and nobody seems to agree with me, what would make me think I could convince a room full of physicists, when I can barely speak their language?

10. Well, carry on.

I guess

11. Originally Posted by Tach
All these shortcomings did not stop the Nobel committee to put you on the list. They are even offering you a dark box that locks on the outside for you to complete your epochal experiment.
Funny

12. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Yes, but I've been trying to explain it for 30+ pages here and nobody seems to agree with me, what would make me think I could convince a room full of physicists, when I can barely speak their language?
I wonder why you can not speak their language.

13. Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw
Well, carry on.

I guess
What I hope to accomplish here is that someone of stature realizes I am correct, and then it snowballs from there. The problem is, even IF they know I am correct, they don't want to look silly and stick their neck on the line, so they just say nothing. Well, I'm just trying to set the record straight. If nobody cares to listen there is nothing I can do.

14. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
What I hope to accomplish here is that someone of stature realizes I am correct, and then it snowballs from there. The problem is, even IF they know I am correct, they don't want to look silly and stick their neck on the line, so they just say nothing. Well, I'm just trying to set the record straight. If nobody cares to listen there is nothing I can do.
You are not correct because your theory is not provable.

You assume the universe as an object is at rest.

Then, you go on inside the universe with objects making paths that are absolute relative to the fixed "universe" object.

Unless you know exactly what the universe is, you can not claim it is a object at rest.

15. Originally Posted by chinglu
You are not correct because your theory is not provable.

You assume the universe as an object is at rest.

Then, you go on inside the universe with objects making paths that are absolute relative to the fixed "universe" object.

Unless you know exactly what the universe is, you can not claim it is a object at rest.
I do NOT assume the universe to be an object at rest. I assume the distance of the volume of space is defined by light travel.

16. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I do NOT assume the universe to be an object at rest. I assume the distance of the volume of space is defined by light travel.
Keep reading what you wrote and you are exactly saying that the universe is at absolute rest.

17. Originally Posted by chinglu
Keep reading what you wrote and you are exactly saying that the universe is at absolute rest.
Is volume an object? No!

18. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Is volume an object? No!

No person said it was. But, to define a volume with a constant speed of light forces the volume to be constant and not moving. Otherwise your definition make no sense.

So since all this fixed, it is an object.

19. Originally Posted by chinglu

No person said it was. But, to define a volume with a constant speed of light forces the volume to be constant and not moving. Otherwise your definition make no sense.

So since all this fixed, it is an object.
The universe is an infinite volume, with objects that travel in that volume. The volume isn't anything other than distance, or space. Distance doesn't move, it is defined by light travel time!

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
The universe is an infinite volume, with objects that travel in that volume. The volume isn't anything other than distance, or space. Distance doesn't move, it is defined by light travel time!
You define an infinite volume with a finite speed of light?

I do NOT assume the universe to be an object at rest. I assume the distance of the volume of space is defined by light travel.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•