02-18-10, 09:24 PM #161
02-18-10, 09:26 PM #162
02-18-10, 09:26 PM #163
02-18-10, 09:27 PM #164
02-18-10, 09:30 PM #165
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!
02-18-10, 09:38 PM #166
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.
02-18-10, 09:48 PM #167
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?
This is not about clocks, Jack, it's about time.
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.
02-18-10, 10:01 PM #168Originally Posted by me
Now, here they are transformed to the rest frame of O':
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.
02-18-10, 10:01 PM #169
02-18-10, 10:02 PM #170
02-18-10, 10:05 PM #171
02-18-10, 10:07 PM #172
02-18-10, 10:16 PM #173
02-18-10, 10:20 PM #174
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.
02-18-10, 10:24 PM #175
02-18-10, 10:42 PM #176
OK, all things come to those who wait.
Once again, here is the spacetime diagram of the scenario in the rest frame of O'
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:
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
Last edited by Pete; 02-19-10 at 05:08 AM.
02-18-10, 10:50 PM #177
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.
Do you think that I am using clocks as a control?
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.
Last edited by Pete; 02-18-10 at 11:13 PM.
02-19-10, 02:41 AM #178
O' is stationary in post #152. Did you follow Pete's explanation in that post?
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.
Are you going to say if humans did not have clocks then the earth would not move around the sun?
Nope, Pete provided a linear drawing for O stationary and refuses to provide one with O' stationary so we can compare them.
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.
I provided the drawing and you all continue to use worldlines that do not consider the diverging origins.
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.
02-19-10, 03:43 AM #179
02-19-10, 05:10 PM #180
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.
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.
By Tiassa in forum PoliticsLast Post: 12-19-08, 11:29 PMReplies: 5
By fantasus in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 10-31-08, 03:26 PMReplies: 7
By BenTheMan in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 10-31-08, 12:37 PMReplies: 12
By WildBlueYonder in forum Religion ArchivesLast Post: 01-21-08, 04:57 PMReplies: 3
By neelakash in forum Physics & MathLast Post: 11-30-06, 10:42 PMReplies: 0