On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

Inertial objects don't change length.

and the stick has nothing to do with a vacuum.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I gotta go. You need to understand that objects can have motion, and that motion changes the time it takes light to traverse the object's length. Simple as that.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I do understand that, it's fairly obvious that objects can have motion.

Doesn't that depend on whether an observer is moving with the stick?

So the stick is made of some kind of material, and measuring distance in a vacuum doesn't come into your model?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This is not the question you just flunked, this is the question that you flunked yesterday.

 

There is no absolute 12:00, I agree, but there is an absolute duration of time, as light always travels a specific distance in space. There is absolute distance and absolute time (duration). A duration of time does not dilate, it is a duration, do you understand what a duration of time is? I'm not talking about how fast clocks tick, I'm talking about a specific duration of time. Clock s measure duration, of which duration is real and absolute. Light always traverses space a specific absolute distance in a specific absolute time (duration).

You are absolutely wrong. If two lights meet in space, they traveled the same distance in the same time, simultaneously. It's not even debatable, as light always travels the same distance in the same time.

Light does not travel in reference to frames, light travels independent of objects. Do you understand that concept? If you don;t understand that concept, you will never be able to understand how to measure distance and time correctly using light. Einstein did not understand that concept, I guarantee you!

The speed of light was not measured, it was defined! You do not measure the time it takes light to travel a meter stick and calculate the speed of light. A meter is a specific distance that light travels in a vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. A meter stick can have motion, yes? So the closing speed between light and the meter stick can be greater than or less than 299,792,458 m/s, yes? So how much time does it take light to traverse a meter stick if the closing speed is 2 m/s? You need to honestly answer that question before you can start to understand what I am talking about.

No it isn't meaningless, since light travels a specific distance in a specific time, independent of objects. When you understand that then you will understand what I am talking about.

Light traverses space. Two lights can traverse space. Three lights can traverse space, all simultaneously, yes?

My numbers add up in and out of the box. That's the whole point of this exercise, to show that there exists a frame in which all motion is measured. Light travel time defines the distance of the frame. We measure the motion of objects in the frame against light travel time.

It will never happen using Einstein's methods, as Einstein's methods are incorrect. Einstein can NOT tell you the distance between clocks. Give me one example of two clocks separated by a distance, that you can use Einstein's methods to find the distance between the clocks, using just light travel time. You can't do that!!! You can;t because Einstein's argument is purely circular. He thinks the speed of light is measured against a meter stick, and that light always takes the same amount of time to travel the meter stick. He is dead wrong! Like I said, provide one example of you finding the distance between two clocks, using only light travel time.

I said nothing of outside the box, I performed these measurements inside the box, using light travel time. You can't do it because you don't understand that light travels independent of objects. You can't tell me the distance between the clocks inside the box. You can;t tell me the distance between any two clocks, anywhere, using light travel time.

Right, so that means boxes can have motion. We measure that motion. The motion is measured relative to the motion of light. Light always travels a specific distance in a specific time, like a car traveling 60 MPH travels a specific distance in a specific time on a road. Do you think a 60 MPH car always traverses the length of a bus in the same amount of time, even though the bus can be in motion? No? Then why do you think light always traverse a meter stick in the same amount of time, as light has motion and the meter stick has motion, just like the cars do.

My theory is dead nuts accurate, and I've given you all the proof you need. If you only understood the concept of light traveling independent of objects you would open your eyes to a new world, one in which you could refute almost every word Einstein ever wrote. It is actually laughable.

 

How did you determine the speed of the railway car to be 100 m/s using light travel times?? Please show your work using only light travel times and clocks.

Do you know the distance between clocks? How did you determine the distance between the clocks using only light travel times? Again, show your work. What is the speed of the ground? Again, using only light travel time, show your work.

I wouldn't ask anything of you I can't do myself. I've already showed you multiple times how I know these measurements using only light. I seriously doubt you can know those distances using only light times and Einstein's methods. In fact, I know you can not measure those distance using light, as Einstein did not understand light travels independent of objects.

 

Good.

Say there is a meter stick traveling from one end of a 10 meter long stick to the other end. Light is sent from one end of the 10 meter stick to the other. Remember, the speed of light is constant. Do you think it takes light the same amount of time to travel the meter stick, as compared to the time it takes light to travel 1/10th the length of the 10 meter long stick?

Light travel time defines distance. If you measure the time of light travel, you are measuring the distance the LIGHT traveled, not the distance of the meter stick. The meter stick could be in motion, affecting the time it takes light to travel the length of the stick. The speed of light is constant.

 

That just isn't true. It's something you've invented to convince yourself you know more about the problem than Einstein or thousands of physicists and astronomers.

You haven't got a good grasp of frames of reference. You don't seem to understand that distance is defined by the speed of light, and that time is defined by a fixed frequency of light, which also gives you a fixed number of wavelengths to the metre. Since light defines distance and time, every coordinate system refers to the motion of light. You don't undestand what a Lorentz transform is or why Einstein used it, or you think it's irrelevant.

You also seem to be unable to see that YOU are using circular logic, not Einstein. You appear to be entirely blind to this. You are the only one who thinks you have any kind of "proof that Einstein was wrong". Your logic is wrong.

 

I'm wrong, and yet I can measure the motion of a train, from inside the train, and you can't. How again am I wrong??

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not only that, Einstein's methods are so circular, that he uses the time it takes light to travel a meter stick, to arrive at the speed of light, which defines the meter. That is laughable.

To prove my point, how much distance is between two clocks, one at each end of a stick? Or for that matter, how much distance is between two clocks on a train, which aren't on each end of the train, but are on the train somewhere, a distance apart from each other?

 

Breaking news:
Nobel committee has you on the short list. They have a closed dark box ready for you.

 

And to say that it isn't true that light travels independently of objects is closing your eyes to the reality that light has motion, and objects have motion. It is closing your eyes to the fact that a light could be approaching an object while the object is in motion towards the light. That means if the object is a meter stick traveling towards light while light travels towards it, that the light will traverse the meter stick in less than 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. That is a rock solid FACT, which Einstein doesn't understand.

 

Time for this thread to move to pseudoscience.

Or maybe the cesspool.

 

You know what an atomic clock is don't you? It defines distance in terms of the wavelength of a certain atomic transition, and since the speed of light is constant it also defines time in terms of the frequency of the same transition.
Therefore the time it takes light to travel a meter (along a stick, through a vacuum, between two clocks) is defined in terms of the speed of light AND in terms of the frequency of the same atomic transition.

Einstein predicted this relation between a fixed frequency of light and the speed of light, it's actually one of the simplest things to understand about the constant speed of light and the relation to frequency--if you choose a frequency you also choose a wavelength and a wavelength is a distance.

It's apparent that you haven't understood this, because you keep avoiding questions about it and just go back to the same worn-out arguments and stupid questions you've asked repeatedly, I presume in order to deflect from your inability to answer questions or understand them.

And to say what you've said here is making shit up to help YOU (and only you) to believe you are on to something. You got nothin' pal.

 

The cesspool.

 

Light travel time defines the meter. Do you understand that? The speed of light is not measured, it is defined.

You don't take a meter stick and measure the time light takes to go from one end to the other, and then calculate the speed of light. How can you do that when you haven't defined the length of a meter yet? You don't know the length of a meter until you define the meter using the speed of light.

 

The length of a meter was fixed and defined long before light was used as the definition.

 

And so it goes . . .

 

...and they changed it in 1983 because they realized it was circular. How can you measure the speed of light without first having defined the meter??