On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

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

  1. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Err, no. It can have any velocity. You fail.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    7,832
    So you're defining length as the distance between two synchronized clocks.

    What do you mean by "one-way light travel"? Do you mean light traveling from a clock to you, so you can see what time it's displaying?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,425
    Stop showing your ignorance! You evidently don't understand what I explained, nor do you understand that light travel time is distance, by definition.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    5,425
    The light travel time is the amount of time the light travels from point a to point b in the box.

    From one clock to the other. You are measuring the length from point a to point b. The length you measure in the box makes no difference, as the velocity will calculate to be the same.
     
  8. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    But how do you measure the time it takes for light to travel from a to b?
    You have, I suppose, a clock at a, and another clock at b? They were synchronized somehow before you placed them?

    Another point about using light which travels a really long way in a short amount of time: how accurate are the clocks, since any inaccuracy will mean you won't be able to say the box is definitely not moving--if there is a finite discrepancy no matter how small, there will be a possibility the box has an equally small velocity?
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Did you read the country experiment? I gave multiple ways of synchronizing clocks in this thread.

    There is a clock at a and a clock at b, they tick as one. They are absolutely synchronized as they would be if they were in the same time zone. It takes time for light to travel from point a to point b. If the light is sent from a at 12:00:00, and it arrives at b at 12:00:01, the light travel time is one second.
     
  10. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    You have absolutely synchronized and absolutely accurate clocks...

    I hope you realise that's impossible in practice.
     
  11. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Are you saying my theory is inaccurate because you have a cheap watch?
     
  12. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Too bad, deal with it. Measure as accurately as you can. These are theoretical watches and they are dead nuts!
     
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    But what about:
    ... any inaccuracy will mean you won't be able to say the box is definitely not moving--if there is a finite discrepancy no matter how small, there will be a possibility the box has an equally small velocity?

    Oh, of course, you're saying the box is only theoretically at absolute rest, because there is no practical way to make absolutely accurate watches, or synchronize them "absolutely"?
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  14. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Again with your cheap watch refutation. Deal with it, or get a better watch. This is how it works, and cheap watches don't make it wrong!
     
  15. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Every watch is a cheap watch though. You're saying you can make a watch that is absolutely accurate, which is demonstrably impossible. Even atomic clocks are only accurate to some degree--a very small discrepancy exists in any timing mechanism.

    That's how the world works.
     
  16. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425

    So lets throw all those watches away and forget about time, is that what you are suggesting? I mean, if we can't measure it with 100% accuracy, why bother at all??

    By the way, how does Einstein measure the velocity of the box, from within the box, with a theoretically 100% accurate watch??
     
  17. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Err, for a sane observer inside your box, the light transit times E->W and W->E are equal, so light speed is isotropic.BY DEFINITION.
    I understand that you are in the dark inside the box but one day perhaps you'll see the light.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  18. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    What Einstein says is: it doesn't matter how accurate the watches are, or how accurately you synchronize them, you can't measure the velocity of a box from inside the box.
     
  19. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    He doesn't. Einstein, great as he was could never do that. You know why? Galilei told him not to even try.
    If you can do it, you'll be greater than Einstein and Galilei combined.
     
  20. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Again, he was wrong.
     
  21. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Not only can I, I did, and I showed it to you already. See, the country is inside the box. I used no external frames to measure. However, I don't claim to be greater, just that absolute motion exists. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.


    ...and you don't need a college degree in physics to calculate distance and time using my way. Second or third grade math will suffice.

    If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Then, you should stop posting how you did it immediately and send a writeup to Stockholm, they are still accepting nominations for the Nobel prize for this year and you are in line.


    It is obvious.


    You already did, congratulations!
     
  23. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    I couldn't care less about a Nobel Prize.

    ...or for you folks that think in relative terms, I gives less than a damn.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!






    So do you feel like you wasted your hard earned money on learning BS?




    No, Einstein did. You fell for it, hook, line, and sinker.
     
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2010

Share This Page