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

  1. #641
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You define an infinite volume with a finite speed of light?
    I define distance in that volume with light travel time. I'm not trying to measure an infinite volume, I'm measuring the distance light travels in that volume from point a to point b.

    How do you define distance in space?

  2. #642
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I define distance in that volume with light travel time.

    How do you define distance in space?
    No, that is not where your theory is.

    You claimed you defined an infinite volume of space with a finite object, the finite speed of light.

    That mean your theory is true if and only if you can define an infinite object with a finite object.

    So can you make the finite infinite, that is the problem for your theory to solve in order to be true.

  3. #643
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    No, that is not where your theory is.

    You claimed you defined an infinite volume of space with a finite object, the finite speed of light.

    That mean your theory is true if and only if you can define an infinite object with a finite object.

    So can you make the finite infinite, that is the problem for your theory to solve in order to be true.
    I am measuring the time light travels from point a to point b of an object. Since light travel time defines distance, I know how far the light traveled in space if I know how much time it traveled. By knowing how far the light traveled in space, I can then know the velocity of the object and the distance between the clocks.

  4. #644
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I am measuring the time light travels from point a to point b of an object. Since light travel time defines distance, I know how far the light traveled in space if I know how much time it traveled. From know how far the light traveled, I can then know the velocity of the object and the distance between the clocks.
    None of the above is interesting.

    You claimed you defined your infinite volume of space with a finite measuring stick, the finite speed of light.


    You definition requires that a finite object is exclusively able to define an infinite object.

    No human has ever done this.

    I want to see your proof. Without this proof your theory is trash.

  5. #645
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    None of the above is interesting.
    Of course not, because you don't understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You claimed you defined your infinite volume of space with a finite measuring stick, the finite speed of light.
    I never claimed to have measured an infinite volume with light, I said I use light travel time to measure distance in that volume, from point a to point b.


    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You definition requires that a finite object is exclusively able to define an infinite object.
    Wrong, just that you can use two point of an object to figure out how far light traveled in space, and hence know the velocity of the object, and subsequently the distance between the clocks.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    No human has ever done this.
    I did, in front of your very eyes!!! I can't help it if you don't understand it.

    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    I want to see your proof. Without this proof your theory is trash.
    The proof has been repeated in this thread over and over and over.

  6. #646
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Of course not, because you don't understand it.



    I never claimed to have measured an infinite volume with light, I said I use light travel time to measure distance in that volume, from point a to point b.




    Wrong, just that you can use two point of an object to figure out how far light traveled in space, and hence know the velocity of the object, and subsequently the distance between the clocks.



    I did, in front of your very eyes!!! I can't help it if you don't understand it.



    The proof has been repeated in this thread over and over and over.

    You made statement.

    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

    So, you are using a finite measuring stick, speed of light, to measure an infinite volume.

    No, you have not proven you can measure an infinite object with a finite measuring stick.

    No, I am not going to read all the junk in this thread because you can not prove this.

    If you can have at it. Otherwise you have to admit you can not prove your own theory.

  7. #647
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    -------------------------------------------- the distance light traveled in space in 1 sec

    --------- The length of the board it took light to travel from one end to the other in one second.

    Why is the board shorter than the distance light traveled in space? Because the board had a velocity so the light had to travel a greater distance to reach the other end of the board.

  8. #648
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    -------------------------------------------- the distance light traveled in 1 sec

    --------- The length of the board it took light to travel from one end to the other.

    You change subject. You scared of your own theory.

    Prove you can measure the infinite volume of your space with light. You said this not me.

  9. #649
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You change subject. You scared of your own theory.

    Prove you can measure the infinite volume of your space with light. You said this not me.
    That is your misunderstanding, not my words. Show me where I said, or even implied I could measure an infinite volume??? Provide the quote!

  10. #650
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    That is your misunderstanding, not my words. Show me where I said, or even implied I could measure an infinite volume??? Provide the quote!
    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

  11. #651
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    You made statement.

    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

    So, you are using a finite measuring stick, speed of light, to measure an infinite volume.



    No, you have not proven you can measure an infinite object with a finite measuring stick.

    No, I am not going to read all the junk in this thread because you can not prove this.

    If you can have at it. Otherwise you have to admit you can not prove your own theory.
    Wrong, I am using light travel times to measure distance from point a to point b in that infinite volume. The distance from point a to point b can be 2 inches. How does that imply I can measure an infinite volume???

  12. #652
    I think there might be an Integrated Quandle or two missing from the theory.

  13. #653
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    Wrong, I am using light travel times to measure distance from point a to point b in that infinite volume. The distance from point a to point b can be 2 inches. How does that imply I can measure an infinite volume???
    So you are now saying you were false to make those statements?

  14. #654
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    So you are now saying you were false to make those statements?
    No, I am saying I never claimed to measure an infinite volume, that is your misunderstanding.

  15. #655
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    No, I am saying I never claimed to measure an infinite volume, that is your misunderstanding.
    These are your words.

    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

    it is time to admit you are wrong.

  16. #656
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by chinglu View Post
    These are your words.

    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

    it is time to admit you are wrong.
    I'm not going to reply to you anymore about this as you fail to understand. I never claimed to be able to measure an infinite volume.

  17. #657
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Motor Daddy View Post
    I'm not going to reply to you anymore about this as you fail to understand. I never claimed to be able to measure an infinite volume.
    These are your words.

    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!
    http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=639

    it is time to admit you are wrong.

  18. #658
    Valued Senior Member Neddy Bate's Avatar
    Posts
    1,249
    Motor Daddy,

    Let's assume that we have a solid meter stick that was calibrated to light speed in your absolute reference frame. In other words, when the meter stick is at rest in your absolute frame, a beam of light takes exactly 1⁄299,792,458 of a second to travel down the stick.

    Now take that stick, and put it the surface of the earth, which is rotating at about 1000 MPH at the equator. How much time do you think light will require to travel down the stick? If you say any number other than 1⁄299,792,458 of a second, then you are saying that the stick no longer meets the definition of a meter!

    Please throw your "theory" away. Thank you.

  19. #659
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    1,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Neddy Bate View Post
    Motor Daddy,

    Let's assume that we have a solid meter stick that was calibrated to light speed in your absolute reference frame. In other words, when the meter stick is at rest in your absolute frame, a beam of light takes exactly 1⁄299,792,458 of a second to travel down the stick.

    Now take that stick, and put it the surface of the earth, which is rotating at about 1000 MPH at the equator. How much time do you think light will require to travel down the stick? If you say any number other than 1⁄299,792,458 of a second, then you are saying that the stick no longer meets the definition of a meter!

    Please throw your "theory" away. Thank you.
    I can help him with his false theory on this one.

    The meter stick was calibrated on earth and not in the absolute paradise of his theory.

  20. #660
    Valued Senior Member Motor Daddy's Avatar
    Posts
    4,547
    Quote Originally Posted by Neddy Bate View Post
    Motor Daddy,

    Let's assume that we have a solid meter stick that was calibrated to light speed in your absolute reference frame. In other words, when the meter stick is at rest in your absolute frame, a beam of light takes exactly 1⁄299,792,458 of a second to travel down the stick.

    Now take that stick, and put it the surface of the earth, which is rotating at about 1000 MPH at the equator. How much time do you think light will require to travel down the stick? If you say any number other than 1⁄299,792,458 of a second, then you are saying that the stick no longer meets the definition of a meter!

    Please throw your "theory" away. Thank you.
    The definition of a meter measures the distance light travels in space in a specific duration of time. Do you not understand that a meter stick can also travel in space, and that light can traverse a meter stick in different amounts of time?

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
  •