On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

This much is true, in the absurd universe inside your mind, NO ONE can have a reasonable argument.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is MD's basic assumption, that there is an absolute frame. All his explanations and examples are circular, because he uses this basic assumption to prove itself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is your post.
Light path is a LINE SEGMENT in MMX.
Light path is a CIRCLE in Sagnac.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=431

Now I would like to understand if light travels in straight lines as you contend in ECEF with MMX, does that mean it does not in ECI with no sagnac as proven in ECI?

You have failed to answer this. Anyone confident in their argument would give answer. Readers want to know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, unfortunately he can't calculate anything from the perspective of the infinity of frames moving with respect to his absolute frame. Besides, MD is completely incapable to calculate correctly anything from the perspective of his "absolute" frame. This may be due to the fact that it is very dark inside his box. None of us will ever be able to fix his nuttiness.

 

It is not circular because the meter is defined by light travel time. Light travels independently of objects, ie, light can take one second to go from point a to point b of a train, but if the train had a velocity, the time you measured from a to b doesn't tell you the length from a to b. Do you understand that concept? Light travels independently of objects.

 

There is NO Sagnac effect in MMX INDEPENDENT of the frame of reference. I do not expect you to grasp this. Ever.

 

How do you think we know the length = diameter, of the observable universe?

Hint: it has to do with the time it takes for light to reach us from the most distant objects, and that the redshift is constant.

 

So the redshift is constant. That means the distance between you and the source is changing.

Again, how do you know the distance the object is away from you when it emitted light? Are you saying the object has an absolute velocity? Are you assuming our box's velocity to be zero?

 

Constant redshift means the universe must be expanding.
Or, the "walls of the box" are moving away from you in all directions.

How do you think astronomers determine the distance to any celestial object--galaxies, supernovae, etc?

 

I don't have a problem with that, as a matter of fact, I know that mass evolves to space. That the planets came from the sun. That our entire solar system is actually the sun expanding, so you can think of our entire solar system as the sun, which is evolving to space. It is getting less dense by way of expanding its volume.

I asked you.

 

Motor Daddy: perhaps you could read about the Hubble expansion and astronomical measurement.

This thread is now 25 pages (it seems to have an expansion rate which is independent of the amount of crap posted). I'm not keen to see another 25 pages of crap about astronomy and redshift, or even start the first one.

 

So do you have more questions about the absolute velocity of the box?

 

You did not answer question. That means you can not.

Also, I asked and you did not answer what is difference in MMX and GPS.

 

This make me laugh.

 

No, it only means that you cannot understand the answer.

I answered it several times, it isn't my problem that you are unable to understand.

 

Here is your post.
Light path is a LINE SEGMENT in MMX.
Light path is a CIRCLE in Sagnac.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=431

Now I would like to understand if light travels in straight lines as you contend in ECEF with MMX, does that mean it does not in ECI with no sagnac as proven in ECI?

You have failed to answer this. Anyone confident in their argument would give answer. Readers want to know.

 

Duh, when they were giving out brains you were out on an errand.

 

So, I think I've proved my position fairly well. Is everyone in agreement that the volume of the universe is the frame, and light travel elapsed time defines distance in the frame? Does everyone understand that objects travel in the frame, and relative to light, meaning objects travel relative to the frame?

I think that pretty much seals the deal.

The math and numbers stand on their own, and can't be disputed, because light travel time and distance are inseparable, by definition! Unless of course you say math is wrong???

 

So , from a frame moving at speed v wrt your "volume of the universe", what is the transit time E->W vs. the transit time W->E. You have not been able to answer this question.