1. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Since all observers agree on the length of that path
Evidence...?

2. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
That isn't true in relativistic motion, which requires application of the Lorentz transforms to account for where and when everybody is at any moment of observation.

However, under the low velocities described here, relativistic effects are small and can be neglected.

That leaves calculating where everybody is by a model, since all three are orbiting their own axes at various rates, at various lat/long coordinates on planets of various radii, and these planets are in some arbitrary phase of their elliptical orbits around the sun, traveling at various orbital velocities.

It turns it that the calculations involved basically use the same 3D rotation transforms as the Lorentz transformation for relativity. The programmer who gets to code this simulator will be grateful for that much.

It's kind of like relativity in a way - where you are with respect to me also depends on what time it is for you, since your planet will have rotated so many degrees about its axis and that amount changes your distance from me. On the other hand, the observer from the third planet is looking at you from a different angle. You may have moved away from me and towards him. So all of that has to be calculated correctly.

The way this is unlike relativity is that, due to everybody's low velocities, we can neglect relativistic effects and normally get away with it. That means we can all run the same calculation and get the same results at the same time which is why we'll be in agreement.

We'll just never be in exact agreement. There will be that miniscule relativistic error. There will be larger errors in our ability to pinpoint ourselves precisely in space, due to uncertainties we can't precisely measure (where the exact center of as of each planet is, for example).

But those are all differences as a practical matter, such as a simulation. Theoretically, yes, we have a way to always be in agreement. We'll just never be able to precisely implement it. This is why GPS is good - really good - but not exact.
The only data that can be observed is that which has already happened. There is no further motion after the clock stops. Example:

Two runners are lined up at a start line. They are going to race 100 meters. Ready.....Go! One runner crosses the finish line at t=17 seconds. The other runner crosses the finish line at t=23 seconds. Assuming the runners each ran at their own constant speed the entire race we can say EXACTLY where each runner was at every given time t. There is no relativity of simultaneity or time dilation, or length contraction because you can only observe the record of the past AFTER it has already occurred. There is no motion at that time!

Every object in the universe was at an exact location in the past, and every object in the universe MUST agree on what time is being looked at in the past, and where each object was at that time, and how far away from every other object that object was at that time. THERE IS NO MOTION when you look at the record of the past!!!! EVERY OBSERVER AGREES, just like each runner will agree how far they were from the start line at t=2.17 seconds when looking back on the race after it was completed.

3. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
The Earth doesn't occupy two different places in relativity. Everyone sees the Earth be at a single place and moving consistently. Their points of view are then linked by the transformation rules of relativity. Is this going to be another attempt by you to claim relativity says an object is at two places at once, like the light sphere thing? You completely failed to grasp relativity then, please don't let this be a repeat.
This got me to thinking: any observer won't locate an object precisely at some small scale where quantum uncertainty kicks in. Is the uncertainty principle a consequence of relativity at a quantum scale? Rephrasing it: is there some wavelength at which length (or mass, etc.) of a quantum object becomes indeterminate, merely because the EM wave that would "rotate the information (per Lorentz)" (so to speak) hasn't launched yet (completed a full 2π cycle)?

5. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id

6. Motor daddy, Chinglu et al, feel free to discuss whatever fairy story you think passes for physics - thread is now moved to alt theories which, given the start it had was depressingly inevitable.

7. OK, I think we have our "fairy story".

We must all agree on the earth's position in some solar system grid.

So, if the earth is at position (x,y,z) all observers in the solar system will agree it is there.

Then, when the earth returns to (x,y,z), again, all observers in the solar system will agree it is there.

Now, let's assume there is an observer on every planet and all sync to the earth's position at (x,y,z).

But, assume a light pulse is emitted from the earth when the earth is at (x,y,z).

Then, when it again reaches (x,y,z), all observers agree it is there.

But, what does Einstein say?

He claims, all frames will disagree on time. What is time? It is based on the position of the light sphere.

So, cordin to the great Einstein, all observers on the planets must disagree on the position of the one single light sphere that was emitted when the earth was first located at (x,y,z) or they agree or the timing of events regardless of their motion and gravity potentials, which contradicts relativity.

So, one light sphere must be located at different places when the earth returns to (x,y,z) if relativity is correct.

8. As usual your complete lack of any working understanding of relativity means you just make vapid and false assertions.

For example, you've given the point in terms of coordinates, which are frame dependent, yet said multiple frames use it. Different frames can call the same point in space different coordinates. You've also failed to include the time component, which is of vital importance in relativity since space-time's splitting into spatial and temporal pieces is frame dependent.

As I expected, you just wanted to make more nonsense claims about relativity. Didn't you learn anything from the light spheres threads in the past? You trumpeted Andrew Banks' work about some supposed contradiction but all you showed was how bad you are at relativity.

If you're so sure you're right why are you posting your work here? Why haven't you sent your work to a journal? Why hasn't Andrew Banks been published in a reputable journal? Why can't either of you accomplish anything other than a parade of your ignorance? The contradictions exist in your mind, in that you make false conclusions based on insufficient understanding. Seriously, basic Lorentz transforms is taught to 1st year undergrads, it's not hard. And yet it is beyond you.

9. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
As usual your complete lack of any working understanding of relativity means you just make vapid and false assertions.

For example, you've given the point in terms of coordinates, which are frame dependent, yet said multiple frames use it. Different frames can call the same point in space different coordinates. You've also failed to include the time component, which is of vital importance in relativity since space-time's splitting into spatial and temporal pieces is frame dependent.

As I expected, you just wanted to make more nonsense claims about relativity. Didn't you learn anything from the light spheres threads in the past? You trumpeted Andrew Banks' work about some supposed contradiction but all you showed was how bad you are at relativity.

If you're so sure you're right why are you posting your work here? Why haven't you sent your work to a journal? Why hasn't Andrew Banks been published in a reputable journal? Why can't either of you accomplish anything other than a parade of your ignorance? The contradictions exist in your mind, in that you make false conclusions based on insufficient understanding. Seriously, basic Lorentz transforms is taught to 1st year undergrads, it's not hard. And yet it is beyond you.
Let's keep this simple.

The sun is at the center of the grid.

So do you actually think all observers place this in a different region of space? that would be a contradiction.

Therefore, do you agree or disagree when the earth returns to (x,y,z), all observers in the solar system agree on this? if not, that is also a contradiction.

Finally, if they disagree on the position of the light sphere when the earth returns to (x,y,z), that would also be a contradiction.

Looks, like we have absolute time.

10. Originally Posted by chinglu
We must all agree on the earth's position in some solar system grid.

So, if the earth is at position (x,y,z) all observers in the solar system will agree it is there.
But that's wrong. Different observers don't agree on the position.

Suppose there are observers watching a game of football. Different observers (say, in the stands) will see different positions for the ball, and different directions the ball moves in. Although an observer on one side of the field can see where the ball is and so can an observer on the other side, they will disagree about whether the ball is to the left or right of say, one set of goalposts. Obviously one observer sees one team playing from the left, the other from the right. The observer on the other side of the field sees the opposite.

Shift to the frame of the solar system, different observers will see the earth in observer-dependent positions and moving in observer-dependent directions. Your statement is just wrong, it doesn't even apply in Galilean frames. An observer "above" the sun and an observer "below" the sun will disagree on the direction the earth is moving around the sun.

You don't seem to understand relativity, so it's a bit precious that you're trying to argue Einstein was wrong. What you're really doing is showing that you're the one who is wrong.

11. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id

MotorDaddy is a long time relativity denier. He lives in a different universe than the rest of us, whose only commonality with ours are science discussion forums.

12. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Looks to me like you're talking about a reality of the mind, one which can't wrap itself around relativity the way nature does.

If relativity were false, you wouldn't hear doppler in a siren, would you? It's not a perfect analogy, but it's a good place to start.

Originally Posted by AlexG
MotorDaddy is a long time relativity denier. He lives in a different universe than the rest of us, whose only commonality with ours are science discussion forums.
I see what you mean. Maybe it bothers him that the whole world is on another page. That would bother me, realizing that there's a method to confirm it. I would be confronted by the low probability that I can outsmart even a few people, much less the best minds in the whole world over a century or so. But I would be certain I must be wrong if were unable to master the requisite math and science by which they explain it, since it would contain errors that could be found, and I could take the Noble prize and have a great time with the prize money, just for proving it wrong. There would be people like AlexG who were never listening to me, and I would want them to eat crow. I would want to place bets with them, where would have to get down and bray and do donkey kicks, and I'd publish it on all the major media outlets. I would make exceptions for Stephen Hawking but I would at least require him to reprogram his voice synthesizer to a female voice.

Of course there is the empirical evidence which has to be overcome, so even if I did harbor wild dreams of greatness and revenge they would just have to be wrong. After all, I wouldn't want to go against the actual evidence. And if I were paranoid enough to believe it was faked, a conspiracy, I would look for some cheap ways to construct a test, and then publish on YouTube or somewhere, even if I had to wear a Ninja mask to evade the government agents who would invariably want to silence me.

This is why comic book characters are probably good for society. They help us normalize as kids to the idea that some kinds of worlds are just too fantastic to be true. Even bending time and space pales in comparison to that.

13. Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
Looks to me like you're talking about a reality of the mind, one which can't wrap itself around relativity the way nature does.
Looks to me that you can't understand the simple concept of light taking more time to reach you if you run away from a lamp post when the light is emitted vs standing there until it hits you.

Originally Posted by Aqueous Id
If relativity were false, you wouldn't hear doppler in a siren, would you?
Do you know the difference between frequency and distance? Evidently not.

14. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
The only data that can be observed is that which has already happened.
Aye, there's the rub.

It doesn't apply to observers in motion relative to what "already happened". But I know you don't believe that, your mind can't handle it so you can only insist it's wrong.

15. Originally Posted by arfa brane
Aye, there's the rub.

It doesn't apply to observers in motion relative to what "already happened". But I know you don't believe that, your mind can't handle it so you can only insist it's wrong.
What, are you saying observers in motion can observe data before it happens? Has your cheese slid off your cracker?

16. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Looks to me that you can't understand the simple concept of light taking more time to reach you if you run away from a lamp post when the light is emitted vs standing there until it hits you.
No one who understands anything about physics believes that! Since you don't understand relativity you make these goofy statements thinking you are clever.

17. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
What, are you saying observers in motion can observe data before it happens? Has your cheese slid off your cracker?

18. Originally Posted by arfa brane
But that's wrong. Different observers don't agree on the position.

Suppose there are observers watching a game of football. Different observers (say, in the stands) will see different positions for the ball, and different directions the ball moves in. Although an observer on one side of the field can see where the ball is and so can an observer on the other side, they will disagree about whether the ball is to the left or right of say, one set of goalposts. Obviously one observer sees one team playing from the left, the other from the right. The observer on the other side of the field sees the opposite.

Shift to the frame of the solar system, different observers will see the earth in observer-dependent positions and moving in observer-dependent directions. Your statement is just wrong, it doesn't even apply in Galilean frames. An observer "above" the sun and an observer "below" the sun will disagree on the direction the earth is moving around the sun.

You don't seem to understand relativity, so it's a bit precious that you're trying to argue Einstein was wrong. What you're really doing is showing that you're the one who is wrong.
No, I am not wrong.

An observer stationary to the barycenter coordinate system where and when the earth emitted light at some location in that coordinate system will be at the same coordinate when the earth returns to that position 1 year later.

Once that happens.....

Does the earth and that barycenter stationary observer agree that the light sphere is at the same location in all directions yes or no.

If they agree, then there is absolute time, contradiction.

If they disagree, then one light sphere with the same center is located at different positions, contradiction.

19. Originally Posted by chinglu
An observer stationary to the barycenter coordinate system where and when the earth emitted light at some location in that coordinate system will be at the same coordinate when the earth returns to that position 1 year later.
You've just defined an observer-dependent frame of reference. In order for the observer to be "stationary" they must be moving with the system of coordinates. If by "barycenter" you mean the sun, then the observer is stationary wrt to sun, which is moving around the center of the galaxy.

And no, different observers in relative motion will not see the same location or time for light emitted from the earth. This does not mean the light is at different locations, that's just asinine. It means there are two coordinate systems, one for each observer.

Your sentence "one light sphere with the same center is located at two different positions" just does not follow, since the center is also observer dependent.

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Looks to me that you can't understand the simple concept of light taking more time to reach you if you run away from a lamp post when the light is emitted vs standing there until it hits you.
My understanding is consistent with science: my observation of light within its frame of reference is consistent with its actual spectrum. If I am moving away, I will observe redshift. (It's related to velocity, not distance.)

Do you know the difference between frequency and distance? Evidently not.
Do you understand that velocity affects the pitch change of a passing siren, not distance? Evidently not.

#### Posting Permissions

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