
122210, 05:11 PM #641

122210, 05:14 PM #642
 Posts
 1,258
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.

122210, 05:18 PM #643
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.

122210, 05:22 PM #644
 Posts
 1,258
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.

122210, 05:27 PM #645
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.

122210, 05:37 PM #646
 Posts
 1,258
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.

122210, 05:39 PM #647
 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.

122210, 05:40 PM #648
 Posts
 1,258

122210, 05:43 PM #649

122210, 05:44 PM #650
 Posts
 1,258
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

122210, 05:45 PM #651

122210, 05:45 PM #652
 Posts
 3,595
I think there might be an Integrated Quandle or two missing from the theory.

122210, 05:46 PM #653
 Posts
 1,258

122210, 05:47 PM #654

122210, 05:48 PM #655
 Posts
 1,258
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.

122210, 05:50 PM #656

122210, 05:54 PM #657
 Posts
 1,258
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.

122210, 05:57 PM #658
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.

122210, 05:59 PM #659
 Posts
 1,258

122210, 06:02 PM #660
Similar Threads

By Paul W. Dixon in forum Astronomy, Exobiology, & CosmologyLast Post: 123010, 10:07 AMReplies: 1953

By Scaramouche in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 011810, 05:37 PMReplies: 69

By Scaramouche in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 010510, 07:19 AMReplies: 33

By dkane75 in forum Science & SocietyLast Post: 010608, 03:57 AMReplies: 34

By noahfor in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 040606, 02:17 PMReplies: 9
Bookmarks