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

  1. #621
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    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. #622
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Motor Daddy; 12-22-10 at 04:14 PM.

  3. #623
    Transcendental Ignorance! Beer w/Straw's Avatar
    Posts
    917
    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. #624
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    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. #625
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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. #626
    Transcendental Ignorance! Beer w/Straw's Avatar
    Posts
    917
    Well, how long have you had this theory?

  7. #627
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    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. #628
    Transcendental Ignorance! Beer w/Straw's Avatar
    Posts
    917
    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. #629
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    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. #630
    Transcendental Ignorance! Beer w/Straw's Avatar
    Posts
    917
    Well, carry on.

    I guess

  11. #631
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Tach View Post
    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. #632
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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. #633
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Beer w/Straw View Post
    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. #634
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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. #635
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    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. #636
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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. #637
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    Keep reading what you wrote and you are exactly saying that the universe is at absolute rest.
    Is volume an object? No!

  18. #638
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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. #639
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post


    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. #640
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology
    Last Post: 12-30-10, 10:07 AM
    Replies: 1953
  2. By Scaramouche in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 01-18-10, 05:37 PM
    Replies: 69
  3. By Scaramouche in forum Physics & Math
    Last Post: 01-05-10, 07:19 AM
    Replies: 33
  4. By dkane75 in forum Science & Society
    Last Post: 01-06-08, 03:57 AM
    Replies: 34
  5. By noahfor in forum General Philosophy
    Last Post: 04-06-06, 02:17 PM
    Replies: 9

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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