# Thread: The burn mark problem

1. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric
I fail to see how anything you've said actually retorts my comments that you were incorrect and misusing terminology.

I'm saying the way you structure your sentences suggests you're not as familiar with the fundamentals as you'd like us to believe.

Why have you replied to the same post 3 times? And besides, Rpenner and I are not some two-some gang. I don't speak to him that much and he'll reply if and when he comes across the thread. I didn't bother looking in this thread till yesterday and no one PM'd me to say "OMG, this guy is asking for you and Rpenner!". Personally I have little interest in going through pretty tedious algebra with you just because you haven't spent much time learning relativity properly. Other people have done that in this thread in a very good way. You don't need Rpenner or myself to explain things to you, it would seem your mistakes are simple enough for a great many people to see.

Then why don't you PM him? It would certainly be a lot quicker than making some kind of physics gang notion and waiting for someone to stumble across your thread.
Personally I have little interest in going through pretty tedious algebra with you just because you haven't spent much time learning relativity properly. Other people have done that in this thread in a very good way. You don't need

Yes, if you do not understand SR is actually a theory of multiple emission points, then you would not get anywhere with me.

OH, say, since you are so brilliant, at least in your own view, why don't you explain the components of LT specifically and explain exactly what each term means and does.

I am quite sure everyone would be enthralled by your acumen.

I especially would love to see you do this.

2. Originally Posted by James R
Jack_:

Yes he did.

In post #139, the spacetime diagram for O stationary is given.
In post #152, the spacetime diagram for O' stationary is given.

Can you not understand these diagrams?

Correct. You do need time, though.

I'm going to say that if there was no time than the Earth would not move around the sun. Do you disagree?

He provided exactly that in post #152 - those shaded lines on a slope are the linear drawings you need.

Since you don't seem to understand spacetime diagrams, Pete has helpfully rotated those lines for you so they are horizontal, in post #176. Can you understand that simplified diagram?

You don't seem to even understand relativity. Are the spacetime diagrams in this thread the first ones you have ever seen?

I asked you to plot your "diverging origins" on a spacetime diagram. You seem unable to do it.

Pete has given you two equivalent spacetime diagrams that clearly show O and O' diverging. You don't seem capable of understanding those diagrams.

Pete has extracted from the spacetime diagrams two snapshot diagrams similar to your simple ones, that again show O and O' diverging. These are not in any way in conflict with relativity. You are showing no signs of understanding even these dumbed-down extracts of the full spacetime picture.

In short, you seem to be full of bluff and bluster, but either too dumb to understand this stuff or too closed-minded and lazy to make the intellectual effort required.

In short, you seem to be full of bluff and bluster, but either too dumb to understand this stuff or too closed-minded and lazy to make the intellectual effort required.

Nope, I have produced a distance differential based on light travel, frame travel and one marked point.

I posted another explanation of this.

Wordlines are a geometric description of

x' = (x - vt)λ

t' = (t - vx/c²)λ

It cannot explain this problem because it does not confess the divergence of the frames based on frame motion, light motion and a marked distance.

Further, thoese tools require t' = (t - vx/c²)λ to function.

Sure, time may go by in this experiment but it is a sideshow and not a control.

Light does what it does regardless of clocks.

Frames do what they do, relatively speaking, regardless of clocks.

A marked distance certainly has nothing to do with clocks.

3. Originally Posted by Pete
Do you think they would work without time?
Do you think that the moon would have motion if there was no such thing as time?

Jack.
Do you think that I am using clocks as a control?
Why?
Have I ever mentioned a clock in this thread?

Jack, you said wanted this scenario to be about the "real world".
So why do you pretend that time doesn't exist?

Count how often you used the word "when" in your opening post. That might give you a clue about why time is a critical element of this scenario.
Yes, I use when as a term to describe the relative motion of a frame as compared to light.

I also translated this into a logic statement, to wit

A frame moves a distance (v/c)d iff light moves a distance d, in some stationary frame.

Note, that I am not using any time control above.

Then, I place a burn mark which is a terminator to the experiment rather than some time period as the control.

Yes, I know this may be hard to grasp, but it works, in the real world.

So, work within the confines of the experiment and see what you get.

4. Originally Posted by Jack_
You included a clock to alter the diatances I noticed. We did not have any clocks.
Jack, when you can tell the difference between time and clocks, let me know.
Here's what should be a very easy question: Where is the clock you think I included?

Please, Jack, try to understand - You can't ignore time. I included time, because time is still important even when there are no clocks.
You are still pretending that if you don't have a clock, then time doesn't happen. Why?

Here are some easy questions for you:
Is the light emitted at the same time as O' meets the burn mark?
Is the light a distance d away from O at the same time as O' meets the burn mark?
How much time elapses between the light being emitted and O' meeting the burn mark? Would a clock change it?

If time is not involved in your experiment, then those questions should be meaningless.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Yes, I use when as a term to describe the relative motion of a frame as compared to light.
Bullshit. You use "When" to indicate that certain things happen at the same time.

These blue sentences are from your original post. The red sentences below mean exactly the same thing:
When O and O’ are co-located, O emits a light pulse.
O emits a light pulse at the same time as O and O’ are co-located.

O concludes when light moves a distance d, the observer O’ moves to the x coordinate –vd/c.
O concludes that the light reaches a distance d away at the same time as the observer O’ moves to the x coordinate –vd/c.
You can do a similar exercise for every other use of "when" in that post.

I think that you know this, and are deliberately pretending otherwise.
I say that you are dishonest, that you are lying to yourself, that you refuse to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong, and that you are clearly not open to learning anything.

5. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, when you can tell the difference between time and clocks, let me know.
Here's what should be a very easy question: Where is the clock you think I included?

Please, Jack, try to understand - You can't ignore time. I included time, because time is still important even when there are no clocks.
You are still pretending that if you don't have a clock, then time doesn't happen. Why?

Here are some easy questions for you:
Is the light emitted at the same time as O' meets the burn mark?
Is the light a distance d away from O at the same time as O' meets the burn mark?
How much time elapses between the light being emitted and O' meeting the burn mark? Would a clock change it?

If time is not involved in your experiment, then those questions should be meaningless.

Bullshit. You use "When" to indicate that certain things happen at the same time.

These blue sentences are from your original post. The red sentences below mean exactly the same thing:
When O and O’ are co-located, O emits a light pulse.
O emits a light pulse at the same time as O and O’ are co-located.

O concludes when light moves a distance d, the observer O’ moves to the x coordinate –vd/c.
O concludes that the light reaches a distance d away at the same time as the observer O’ moves to the x coordinate –vd/c.
You can do a similar exercise for every other use of "when" in that post.

I think that you know this, and are deliberately pretending otherwise.
I say that you are dishonest, that you are lying to yourself, that you refuse to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong, and that you are clearly not open to learning anything.
I think that you know this, and are deliberately pretending otherwise.
I say that you are dishonest, that you are lying to yourself, that you refuse to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong, and that you are clearly not open to learning anything

I know all of this.

I also know with that last post to you that the light paths are different.
No, I am no going to consider that I am wrong. Folks here an many places assume I do not understand LT. That is false.

Now, I provided specific logic and math.

I suggest if you want to learn something, you will abandon you mind confining worldlines and operate directly on the problem as I so easily can.

I have give very specific numbers and logic.

Simply stay in that game and refute it.

Your worldline tools are certainly mainstream but clearly do not work on this problem.

Oh, if I am wrong, I can easily admit it. But, I am not.

Now, can you operate on the primitives of this experiment and deduce something different?

6. Originally Posted by Jack_
Here is what O brings as the measuring rod with BM as the leading edge of the measuring rod.

BM---------------O>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>x............. ....(O is stationary)

Look at this, O says the light origin is far away from BM and the leading edge of the light wave on the measuring rod is x + (v/c)d from BM.

Now, O' walks into the room with its measuring rod.

It looks like this.
BM
O'>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>x/λ.

O' claims the light emission point is at the beginning of the rod and not far down as O claims.
Yes, that's completely correct.

I do not care what times are on any clocks. Clocks cannot explain the divergence of the light emission points.
That's also correct.
You still don't sem to have grasped that a that this is what Galileo was on about 400 years ago.

Think about the bike race again. You sit on a chair next to the starting point and watch the race begin. Some time later, the race is finished. Where is the starting point now? Is it where you are?

7. Originally Posted by Pete
Yes, that's completely correct.

That's also correct.
You still don't sem to have grasped that a that this is what Galileo was on about 400 years ago.

Think about the bike race again. You sit on a chair next to the starting point and watch the race begin. Some time later, the race is finished. Where is the starting point now? Is it where you are?
How funny.

You and a moving observer co-locate at the start of a race.

The moving observer is certain it is stationary.

The race begins.

Where is the starting point of the race when it finishes?

8. Originally Posted by Jack_
I think that you know this, and are deliberately pretending otherwise.
I say that you are dishonest, that you are lying to yourself, that you refuse to consider the possibilty that you could be wrong, and that you are clearly not open to learning anything

I know all of this.
You know that time is a critical element of your experiment?
You know that you can't ignore time when you analyse it?

9. Originally Posted by Pete
You know that time is a critical element of your experiment?
You know that you can't ignore time when you analyse it?
No, you are wrong.

I am using intelligence to calculate a burn mark instead of using time.
I then use the natural motion of the frame to control the experiment based on the co-location of the burn mark.

Can you not do stuff like this? You get around the normal rules legally. Face facts, you have never seen stuff like this.

I do not depend on time.

I want to change my name here. How do I do this?

10. Originally Posted by Jack_
How funny.

You and a moving observer co-locate at the start of a race.

The moving observer is certain it is stationary.

The race begins.

Where is the starting point of the race when it finishes?
What, you don't know? Try answering a question for a change.
When the race is finished, where is the starting point?

11. Originally Posted by Jack_
No, you are wrong.

I am using intelligence to calculate a burn mark instead of using time.
I then use the natural motion of the frame to control the experiment based on the co-location of the burn mark.
You're pretending time doesn't exist.

You think that without clocks, there is no time.

You are deluded.

12. Try this:

According to O, a certain time elapses between O meeting O', and O' meeting the burn mark, a time equal to d/c.
True or false?
Does O need a clock to know this?

13. Originally Posted by Pete
What, you don't know? Try answering a question for a change.
When the race is finished, where is the starting point?
this is the point of the thread, under SR it is not logically decidable.

Each frame believes its light emission point is correct.

14. Originally Posted by Pete
You're pretending time doesn't exist.

You think that without clocks, there is no time.

You are deluded.
you are wrong, I only circumvented time in this experiment.
You know that is a fact.

I am not really sure what time is. I know right now, it is measured as a fraction of the earth' motion around the sun.

So, now why don't you face facts about time.

I will use your primitive logic.

While the earth moves a certain distance around the sun, the frames moves a certain distance and so does light.

Did I get it right?

15. Originally Posted by Jack_
this is the point of the thread, under SR it is not logically decidable.

Each frame believes its light emission point is correct.
Jack, I'm asking what you think, not what SR says.

When the race is finished, where is the starting point?

16. Originally Posted by Pete
Try this:

According to O, a certain time elapses between O meeting O', and O' meeting the burn mark, a time equal to d/c.
True or false?
Does O need a clock to know this?
True and O does not need a clock.

17. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, I'm asking what you think, not what SR says.

When the race is finished, where is the starting point?
I know how to answer this but you are not ready. I know how to determine it. I have the logic and it is not easy.

This problem is logically decidable but not under SR.

18. Originally Posted by Jack_
you are wrong, I only circumvented time in this experiment.
See, you think that having no clocks circumvents time.
Time can't be circumvented, Jack. Face reality.
Do you think that you won't age if you never wear a watch or look at a clock?

While the earth moves a certain distance around the sun, the frames moves a certain distance and so does light.
You want to use the Earth-Sun system as a clock?
Interesting, and more than a little ironic.

19. Originally Posted by Jack_
I know how to answer this but you are not ready. I know how to determine it. I have the logic and it is not easy.

This problem is logically decidable but not under SR.
Come on, Jack, I know you can answer this.
Let's make it a true/false question.
The race begins at the starting line, and ends at the finish line.
When the race is run, the starting point of the race is still at the starting line.
True or false?

20. Originally Posted by Pete
See, you think that having no clocks circumvents time.
Time can't be circumvented, Jack. Face reality.
Do you think that you won't age if you never wear a watch or look at a clock?
Yesm but time under SR has skips and jumps. I was getting around those.

Originally Posted by Pete
You want to use the Earth-Sun system as a clock?
Interesting, and more than a little ironic.
What do you think a second is? It is a smalll motion of the earth. I will help you.

60 seconds = 1 minute
60 minute = 1 hour.
24 hours = one day.

365 days = 1 year, the time it takes for one earth orbit around the sun.