On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by RJBeery, Dec 8, 2010.

  1. Pete It's not rocket surgery Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,167
    But when you're asked, you can't tell us that motion for any object.
    All talk, no substance.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    MD doesn't pay any attention to experiments. If they don't agree with his pov, he ignores their existence.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425

    Two measurements are required if the distance between the transmitter and receiver is unknown. If the distance between them is known, one measurement will suffice.

    Say you are measuring the time it takes light to travel a known distance of 10 meters on the ship. If the time is 10⁄299,792,458 of a second, the ship has a zero velocity. If the time is 200/299,792,458 of a second, light traveled 200 meters and the ship traveled 190 meters. If the ship traveled 190 meters in 200/299,792,458 of a second, the velocity of the ship is 284,802,835.1 m/s. Cut and dry! Again, that is assuming the distance between the transmitter and receiver is known. Two measurements (one in each direction) are required if the distance is unknown.



    It's not a correction factor taking into account the velocity of the ship. However, it is wrong to disregard the velocity of the ship and incorrectly assume a correct measure of the speed of light.



    To measure the speed of light in any frame simply measure the one-way time and multiply by c. You then have the distance light traveled and the travel time, and that will always be the speed of light. Do you not understand that? You don't need sticks to measure the speed of light, it is defined.



    He uses band-aids and disregards the velocity of the object. No thanks, I'd rather know the speed of the object I am traveling in.





    You must use my sync method and equations in order to get correct answers according to my theory. You can't use Einstein's methods in experiments, and compare the results to my theory. Use my methods to test light and you will see!








    If balls moved at a constant velocity in space as light does we could base our unit of measure of the meter on the distance balls travel in a specific amount of time. Unfortunately, balls don't travel at a constant velocity in space. There's nothing special about photons other than they have a constant velocity in space and we use that as a basis for our unit of measure of the meter. That makes light travel time unique, as light travel time means distance, by definition.



    I just explained it to you. Balls don't travel at a constant velocity, light does.

    It's not a correction to take into account the velocity of the frame, it is a requirement to measure properly. Einstein wouldn't know, he blows it off because it is beyond his scope.




    No, I agree, but it is silly to mention, as it goes without saying.




    I'm saying incorrect theory matches incorrect measurements that were based on incorrect theory.


    At least you know how fast your ship is going in space using my method. I gave you a space speedometer, use it!!!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!








    So this discussion has been fruitful for you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    This is really confused and bass-ackwards.
    Either MD doesn't really understand what an observer is or does, or they are taking the piss. How does an observer know they can't detect motion from inside the ship but using the motion of light, they can?
    But space isn't anything, so you can't measure a velocity relative to it, you can't measure a velocity relative to nothing.
    No it isn't, "nothing whatsoever" is never a frame of anything.

    MD appears to think all you need is a half decent clock or two and a way to measure one-way light paths with the clocks. He has never specified how this would be done, but seems to believe it can be done.
     
  8. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    If a wise man & a fool argue for a long time, it becomes difficult to decide who is the fool.
     
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    According to my calculations:

    To find the velocity of known length:

    v=(ct-l)/t

    Where:

    v is the absolute velocity along the line of the length
    t is the one-way time
    l is the length

    Is that the equation for my idea from above?

     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Motor Daddy:

    There's no assumption about it. You make the measurement and you either get the right answer or the wrong answer. Einstein gets it right. You get it wrong.

    What band-aids? Einstein makes two straightforward measurements of length and time in any reference frame and from those calculates the correct speed for light. You, on the other hand, require no less than 8 measurements, plus some fancy formula finagling to do the same thing. Remind me who has the band-aids again.

    I'm not sure what your sync method is or how it differs from Einstein's.

    But your theory is immediately disproved once you observe that in a moving spaceship light still takes the same time to travel in both directions.

    If I use your method, then it only gives me the speed of light relative to the particular reference frame that the clocks I use to time the light are at rest in.

    It is because you assume that clocks in different frames always remain synchronised that you conclude that your measurements are absolute and imply an unambiguous "space".

    Having never actually made any measurements yourself, or apparently consulted anybody else's, you've managed to invent a fantasy world for yourself. In that world, your calculations work just fine. But the assumptions that underpin those calculations don't apply in the real world.

    This is most obvious in your expectation of measuring different travel times for light in two directions inside the ship, which doesn't actually happen in the real world.

    Not really. Once I worked out what your views actually were, they turned out just to be recycled Newtonian/Galilean relativity combined with the idea of an aether. Such views are commonplace on the internet. Every second person who comes onto sciforums disputing special relativity believes in an absolute-zero speed aether. Most of the time they turn out to lack any conception of what a reference frame is. I thought it might be worth investigating whether you had any idea. I think you've made a little progress during the course of the thread, but there's really no way to get past the fantasy universe in your head. I concluded quite a while back and stated that we had reached an impasse. We're still there; no new progress has been made in the intervening posts.

    So, to summarise, this discussion has pretty much gone as I expected it would. There's no way you're going to shift on anything, and I'm not really convinced you have any more of a handle on reference frames than you did when we started our discussion. You appear to share lots of other common traits with the rest of the internet anti-relativity crowd, such as little apparent grounding in mathematics, a limited ability to visualise physical situations, overconfidence in and overestimation of your own capacities, a lack of imagination and a mind firmly closed to learning anything new.

    I've played with your formulas (Are they yours? I don't see any evidence that you can do even moderate algebra) for my own amusement, and have thought about how I would go about making your argument if I shared your views. Your argument could be made considerably stronger with just a couple of small tweaks, but you seem determined to cling to even the most obviously unsupportable parts of it, even though it does not in essence depend on those parts.

    I haven't even attempted to get into a real discussion of things like length contraction and time dilation with you, since I don't think you'd be able to grasp the concepts without lengthy explanations, and you're not open to having those things explained to you anyway. Nor have I attempted to talk to you about real-world experiments, since I think (a) you won't understand the analysis, and (b) you'll dismiss all experimental evidence out of hand, refusing to even look at it.

    I must, however, thank you for keeping our discussion polite and civil. That is quite rare. Generally, I find that people who believe they have a theory of everything and have disproved Einstein etc. get rather defensive when their ideas are challenged. Lacking real responses, they usually resort to name-calling, personal attacks and/or repetitious trolling. Mostly, you have managed to avoid that.

    I have found it interesting to see just how long it takes you to grasp a point, compared to, say, the average first-year undergraduate student learning Einstein's relativity for the first time. Maybe my experience with first-year undergraduates has been with a reasonably select group of bright people. On the other hand, I suspect that having an open mind makes learning faster.

    In conclusion, I think we have gone about as far as we can go with this. From this point on, you'll just be repeating yourself. I'm sure you'd rather repeat yourself to a new audience than repeat yourself to me. You can go ahead and forget our discussion. You can put all the same points to other people that you've put to me. There are other internet forums, so no doubt you can pedal the same argument around until you get sick of it. You won't come across too many people who can incisively dismantle it; after all that requires a little knowledge, ability and a willingness to take the time. Most actually physicists won't bother spending the time on you. I'm sure you're used to being dismissed as just another crank by now. It must have happened quite a few times before I engaged with you. I'm sure you have developed a thick skin.

    So, thanks for the conversation, Motor Daddy. I think I'll leave you to it at this point.
     
  11. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Thank you, James. I really don't expect you, or anyone in the science world to acknowledge that my views are correct. People believe what they want to believe. I appreciate everyone's willingness to try and prove me wrong, unfortunately, not only did everyone fail to do that, but they also helped me with the equations (you and Neddy Bate) for my idea, in effect strengthening my case. These are now available for everyone, and I challenge anyone to try and prove them wrong. Cheers!

    Find velocity and length:

    v = (cT - ct) / (T + t)
    d = T(c - v)
    where:
    v is the absolute speed along the line between the clocks
    d is the distance between the clocks
    T is the greater time
    t is the lesser time


    Find length:
    L=(2cTt)/(T+t)

    Where:

    L is the length
    T and t are the one-way times in opposite directions


    Find velocity of known length:
    v=(ct-l)/t

    Where:

    v is the absolute velocity along the line of the length
    t is the one-way time
    l is the length
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2011
  12. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    Nature has already proven you wrong. The one-way travel times are always equal for light signals between any two naturally synchronized clocks. That includes your mechanically synchronized clocks. Using your own theory, you would be forced to conclude that EVERYTHING is at absolute rest. Your theory proves itself wrong as soon as you try to put it into practice in the real world.



    There are three components to velocity in three dimensional space. Starting in your "absolute rest frame", you could have traintracks nailed to the absolute frame. Now you can have a train rolling down the tracks, and there could be a large elevator inside the train moving upwards as the train rolls. Furthermore, there could be a girl on rollerskates inside the large elevator, and she could be skating sideways to the direction of the train.

    Now, using light signals, you want to find the speed and length of one rollerskate. If you were Einstein, you would use the rollerskate as a reference frame, and measure it directly. You could measure its speed from the elevator frame. But since you are Motor Daddy, and not Einstein, you have to determine the speed of the train, as well as the speed of the elevator, and the speed of the skate. You would actually need three times as many equations as you have.
     
  13. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    If the length of the roller skate is known, it's absolute motion can be found by using the equation v=(ct-l)/t. Don't have small enough equipment to perform the measurements? Too bad, my theory is not incorrect because you have bad equipment. v=(ct-l)/t is how it works in space. Deal with it.

    Like I said before, you admit my theory is correct and I'll admit Einstein's method is incorrect but easier.
     
  14. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Motor Daddy, if people have failed to prove you wrong it's because you ignore the stuff you don't want to read.

    I've asked this many times: Do we need to adjust the radio tuner as we travel around an FM tower? (The answer is no.) This fact plus observed gravitational frequency-shifting should be enough to convince you that your world, while mathematically consistent, is not consistent with observations.
     
  15. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    I answered you and told you that as long as the distance from the source to you remains the same there is no change in the time.

    Do you acknowledge if I drive away from the tower that light takes more and more time to reach me as each signal is sent from the tower?
     
  16. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    That is only true if the girl is skating down the tracks which are nailed to the absolute frame. She is actually skating inside the elevator, which is moving upward inside the train. Those are two different "absolute velocities".

    There are three components to all "absolute velocities." In this case, the absolute velocity of the skate includes a forward component caused by the train, as well as an upward component caused by the elevator.
     
  17. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    The velocity of the skate is in line with the clocks. You want to measure a different velocity, be my guest.
     
  18. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    Yes, I acknowledge Doppler effects but are you aware that gravity causes red and blue shift without relative movement?
     
  19. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,548
    OK then, please tell me the absolute velocity of the skate. You can use any length of skate you want, and any clock readings. Just make them up. I'll wait.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Switching the subject again? Now to gravity? So you acknowledge that I did in fact answer your question about driving around the tower, but you asked it again and said I never answered you. Then, you don;t answer my question in return. Do you acknowledge that if I drive away from the tower that it takes more and more time for a signal to reach me? Doppler is not the issue here. I am talking about sending new signals and timing how long it takes each one to reach me.
     
  21. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Do it yourself, I gave you the equation:

    v=(ct-l)/t
     
  22. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    I don't recall you answering the question, but it doesn't matter; you just did. What you're saying is that relative velocity + emission frequency determines received frequency. That is the very definition of Doppler effects.

    But that's why I mentioned gravitational frequency shifting as well. The travel time doesn't change, but the frequency does. For example, see the Pound-Rebka experiment, where they "drop light" from a tower. How can gravitational frequency shifting exist in your world?
     
  23. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Excuse me??? The travel time doesn't change?

    So I am 10 feet from the tower. You send a signal and I receive it. I then go to 100 feet from the tower. You send a signal. I receive it. Do you honestly believe that the two times are equal??
     

Share This Page