# Thread: The burn mark problem

1. Originally Posted by Pete
Yay, you have no clock!
When you figure out a way to eliminate time, come back and we'll talk.

What clock? I have never mentioned a clock. I have only pointed out that things in this scenario happen at different times.

Are you really maintaining that everything in your experiment happens at the same time, or are you just being obstinate?
OK, you win, the earth is still in orbit because we have no clocks.

Actually when we had sundials, the earth did not move during the night because the sundial did not register time.

2. Originally Posted by Jack_
Yea, he did not show it the way he showed O as stationary and he knows better.
Whoah, dude... give me time!
All the information you need is embedded in that diagram I gave you.
Please be patient while I dumb it down enough for you to understand it.

3. Originally Posted by Pete
Well, It's also about educating myself. I learn something new every time I work a scenario through, and dissecting it in this way is good.
I'm also learning some diagramming techniques, and coming up with ways of making them better.

yea, take O stationary and do the problem.

Then take O' stationary and do the problem.

Then map them together under the burn mark.
Let me know what you get.

4. Originally Posted by Pete
Whoah, dude... give me time!
All the information you need is embedded in that diagram I gave you.
Please be patient while I dumb it down enough for you to understand it.
OK dumb it down for me.

Once you get it the way you did O, we will work through LT.

5. Originally Posted by Jack_
OK, you win, the earth is still in orbit because we have no clocks.

Actually when we had sundials, the earth did not move during the night because the sundial did not register time.
WTF?
Your words say that time doesn't exist without clocks.
But, you're clearly being sarcastic, so you seem to imply that I am saying that time doesn't exist without clocks.

But right through this thread, I have said over and over again that clocks are irrelevant, but time is unavoidable.
You have been ignoring time and claiming it is irrelevant, because you don't have a clock.

Wake up, Jack! Not having a clock doesn't make time go away! It doesn't matter if there are no clocks in your scenario, because time still happens!

6. Originally Posted by Pete
WTF?
Your words say that time doesn't exist without clocks.
But, you're clearly being sarcastic, so you seem to imply that I am saying that time doesn't exist without clocks.

But right through this thread, I have said over and over again that clocks are irrelevant, but time is unavoidable.
You have been ignoring time and claiming it is irrelevant, because you don't have a clock.

Wake up, Jack! Not having a clock doesn't make time go away! It doesn't matter if there are no clocks in your scenario, because time still happens!
Do you have the O' frame stationary yes or no and then I can show you.

You are claiming that clocks make events happen.

Do clocks cause light to move?

Do clocks cause the earth to move?

The clock is incidental.

For example, assume a very long pole from the sun to the earth.

When the earth hits that pole, a light flashed. Did the motion of the earth cause the light to flash or did some clock cause it to flash.

That is the question and you have not evolved to this point of control. You are still under the tic of a clock without the ability to use your mind to control events.

7. Originally Posted by Jack_
You are claiming that clocks make events happen.
NO!
Fuck me, Jack, I am this close to reaching down this network cable and slapping you silly. Are you deliberately being obtuse?
When have I ever mentioned a clock in this thread?

There are no clocks in this scenario, there are no clocks in my explanation, there are no clocks in any diagram.

But as you oh-so-patiently point out, clocks don't matter, because time happens anyway.

That is why you can't avoid talking about time in this scenario, and why my explanation and diagrams have to include time.

8. Originally Posted by me
In the next post, we'll look more closely at those diagrams and your diagrams to confirm that your maths for transforming x to x' is correct.
Right. Just to refresh where we were, here are the snapshots at two different times in the rest frame of O:
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20reduced.png

Now, here they are transformed to the rest frame of O':
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20reduced.png

As shown, your calculation of the distance the light travelled according to O' is correct:
x' = (vd/c + d)λ

But, we can now see that the light has travelled that distance at t'=(vd/c + d)λ/c
...and this is not the same time at which the burn mark meets O', when t'=d/λc

If we want to know how far the light has travelled when the burn mark meets O', we need to consider what a snapshot of O' looks like - we can't just transform a snapshot of O.

9. Originally Posted by Pete
NO!
Fuck me, Jack, I am this close to reaching down this network cable and slapping you silly. Are you deliberately being obtuse?
When have I ever mentioned a clock in this thread?

There are no clocks in this scenario, there are no clocks in my explanation, there are no clocks in any diagram.

But as you oh-so-patiently point out, clocks don't matter, because time happens anyway.

That is why you can't avoid talking about time in this scenario, and why my explanation and diagrams have to include time.
OK, if time is not about clocks then what is it?

Anyway, back to my deal, do you have the O' thing so I can correct you?

10. Originally Posted by Pete
Right. Just to refresh where we were, here are the snapshots at two different times in the rest frame of O:
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20reduced.png
Nope, we need O' looking like the above or we cannot proceed logically.

11. Originally Posted by Jack_
OK, if time is not about clocks then what is it?
What do you think?
Do you think time is only about clocks?
If not, they why do you need it explained to you?

12. Originally Posted by Jack_
Nope, we need O' looking like the above or we cannot proceed logically.
Jack, did you even try to understand that diagram? I made it to help you see where you were right.

When I just show you a snapshot of O' (which even you could extract from the spacetime diagram with a few seconds though), all it will do is say that you were wrong.

13. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, did you even try to understand that diagram? I made it to help you see where you were right.

When I just show you a snapshot of O' (which even you could extract from the spacetime diagram with a few seconds though), all it will do is say that you were wrong.
No, I do not care about that.

I wanted you to put O' stationary as in O.

This will demonstrate the non clock control.

14. Originally Posted by Pete
Jack, did you even try to understand that diagram? I made it to help you see where you were right.

When I just show you a snapshot of O' (which even you could extract from the spacetime diagram with a few seconds though), all it will do is say that you were wrong.
OK, they are building in the keys off FL machines that use the tides to generate electricity.

Now, do these machines work off time or do they depend on the motion of the moon?

That is my point with this experiment. I am evacuating normal physics where clocks control experiments and I am using other controls based on natural motion. I get to see other things you cannot see with clocks as a control.

15. Originally Posted by Jack_
No, I do not care about that.
You most certainly do care about how you did the calculation right, because you've ben repeating it all thread.

Do you understand the following? It is useless to proceed if yout don't:
Originally Posted by Pete
As shown, your calculation of the distance the light travelled according to O' is correct:
x' = (vd/c + d)λ

But, we can now see that the light has travelled that distance at t'=(vd/c + d)λ/c
...and this is not the same time at which the burn mark meets O', when t'=d/λc.

16. OK, all things come to those who wait.
Once again, here is the spacetime diagram of the scenario in the rest frame of O'
http://public.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20frame2a.png
Two snapshots are highlighted, one at the time the light is emitted, and another at the time the burn mark meets O'.
Note carefully that your calculation of the distance light travelled is not in these snapshots - it is labelled up at the top of the diagram, clearly occuring well after the time the burn mark meets O'.

Looking more closely:
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...20reduceda.png
We see that according to SR, the distance light travelled when the burn mark reaches O' in the reference frame of O' is d/λ

17. Originally Posted by Jack_
OK, they are building in the keys off FL machines that use the tides to generate electricity.

Now, do these machines work off time or do they depend on the motion of the moon?
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?
I get to see other things you cannot see with clocks as a control.
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.

18. Jack_:

O' is stationary in post #152. Did you follow Pete's explanation in that post?
Yea, he did not show it the way he showed O as stationary and he knows better.
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?

I do not need clocks.
Correct. You do need time, though.

Are you going to say if humans did not have clocks then the earth would not move around the sun?
I'm going to say that if there was no time than the Earth would not move around the sun. Do you disagree?

Nope, Pete provided a linear drawing for O stationary and refuses to provide one with O' stationary so we can compare them.
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?

Oh, I can break relotovity many ways.
You don't seem to even understand relativity. Are the spacetime diagrams in this thread the first ones you have ever seen?

I provided the drawing and you all continue to use worldlines that do not consider the diverging origins.
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.

19. Originally Posted by Jack_
Otherwise, you agree I am correct and you can get back to that picture.
I fail to see how anything you've said actually retorts my comments that you were incorrect and misusing terminology.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Are you saying the below is false?
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.

Originally Posted by Jack_
Furthermore, why not have rpenner come here.
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.

Originally Posted by Jack_
He needs to explain
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.

20. Originally Posted by Pete
Right. Just to refresh where we were, here are the snapshots at two different times in the rest frame of O:
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20reduced.png

Now, here they are transformed to the rest frame of O':
http://lttodg.blu.livefilestore.com/...%20reduced.png

As shown, your calculation of the distance the light travelled according to O' is correct:
x' = (vd/c + d)λ

But, we can now see that the light has travelled that distance at t'=(vd/c + d)λ/c
...and this is not the same time at which the burn mark meets O', when t'=d/λc

If we want to know how far the light has travelled when the burn mark meets O', we need to consider what a snapshot of O' looks like - we can't just transform a snapshot of O.
You included a clock to alter the diatances I noticed. We did not have any clocks.

Assume the two do the experiment on their own and come back together in the same frame after the experiment to compare.

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.

I do not care what times are on any clocks. Clocks cannot explain the divergence of the light emission points.