On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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?

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:18 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

None of the above is interesting.

Of course not, because you don't understand it.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:39 PM

-------------------------------------------- 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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

-------------------------------------------- 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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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!

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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???

**arfa brane** · 12-22-10, 05:45 PM

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

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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?

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by chinglu

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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

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.

**Neddy Bate** · 12-22-10, 05:57 PM

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.

**chinglu** · 12-22-10, 05:59 PM

Originally Posted by Neddy Bate

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.

**Motor Daddy** · 12-22-10, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Neddy Bate

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?