# Everything we perceive is in the past due to finite speed of light

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Fork, Aug 8, 2013.

1. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
It should work just fine based entirely on the principles of optics and Motor Daddy's assumptions about how light moves through space. I'll get back to you later on your other questions.

3. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
Am I allowed to have a couple drinks every now and then? My judgement is not at question, I figured this stuff out LONG AGO! This is second hand to me. I can do it in my sleep now.

5. ### chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
I wonder who you are.

You are not stupid like these idiots around here.

7. ### TachBannedBanned

Messages:
5,265
It doesn't , where do you get all these wacky ideas?

8. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
I didn't bring MMX up, you did. I honestly don't even know what the acronym MMX stands for in this context, I simply assumed you meant we could detect Earth's rotation using Motor Daddy's proposal, if it were correct.

9. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
I know who you are, and the people around here are not stupid. They've been told what to think and they are defending what they've been taught. It's akin to a preacher telling the sheeple what to think. After a while they will defend what they think they know with their life. You must understand, a mind is programmed what to think, and from that beliefs are strong. It's very difficult to change the beliefs of someone. Why do you think religion has been going on for thousands of years??

10. ### chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
So, how exactly is MMX a valid experiment when it can't even detect the earth's rotational sagnac?

What exactly does MMX produce that we can conclude?

11. ### chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
In #304 you wrote,
You're dead fucking wrong. If I use a Michelson interferometer, I can compare the difference between the effective velocities of light moving towards x and z without knowing anything about the travel time.

You mentioned Michelson interferometer, that is MMX in today's terms.

I am surprised you did not know that.

12. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
Not many people would, they don't call it "MMX" in any of the textbooks I've ever read.

13. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
Well here's your chance to liberate everyone. Give me a single example of an experiment that successfully determines a non-zero velocity through "space".

14. ### chingluValued Senior Member

Messages:
1,637
"1887 – the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) produces the famous null result. A small drift is seen, but it is too small to support any "fixed" aether theory, and is so small that it might be due to experimental error. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_luminiferous_aether

15. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
I'm not here to change everybody's mind, I'm here to hand over the idea. If you want to test it, fine. If not, your loss. Maybe some of the real scientists that used to frequent this board are in the works of putting the idea to the test?? I've disclosed this information to many many many people, for free! Take it or leave it, it's up to you to determine if it's valid or not. If you discard it before fully analyzing it, well then it's your loss!

16. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
I'm saying your scheme has been tested for well over 100 years, starting even before Relativity was published. Do you want to discuss it or not?

17. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
Well perhaps that's the lingo used by people who either specialize in that work, or are obsessed with undermining the experimental foundations for Relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment there's no reference to the acronym "MMX" whatsoever.

18. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
You're wrong, my idea was never tested, you don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you should ask James R. if the theory is self consistent and mathematically sound??

19. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
Your idea is self-consistent and mathematically sound, but it's based on false postulates that don't match reality. Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment used very similar reasoning to yours in an attempt to detect the velocity of Earth's motion through "space", and found absolutely nothing regardless of countless improvements and repeat measurements all over the Earth at different times of year (and Michelson's original experiment was already incredibly precise as is). The rotation of the Earth, it's orbit around the sun... none of it made any difference, and their equipment was extremely delicately calibrated to notice even tiny motions. Are you at all familiar with this experiment?

Your concept of metres and seconds is historically backward. When the metre was originally defined, Relativity didn't yet exist. They made an extremely straight stick and took it to be the calibration standard, from which multiple copies were made, and multiple more copies from those, and so on, so everyone could use the same standard of measure. A similar procedure was undertaken to define a universal standard of 1 second, based on an extremely precise clock. That was when the SI system was originally founded.

Then people started going out and making precision measurements of the speed of light using their calibrated measurement tools, and they found that in vacuum they always got the exact same result, no matter how the detector or the source were moving. That was also a requirement of classical electromagnetism, which demands the introduction of Relativity in order to apply in a self-consistent fashion in all inertial frames. Then along came Einstein to explain all the weird results people were getting, using Relativity. Now we know that certain radioactive decays give off the exact same frequency of light anywhere in the universe, and we can use that to define units of 1 second in such a way that anyone could construct their own accurate clock without copying the standardized one in Paris. And knowing as we now do that any observer measures the exact same speed for light no matter how they move or how the source moves, we can use it to define a metre in such a way that anyone in the universe could construct a metre stick exactly matching the one in Paris without needing to ever travel there.

20. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105

All fine and good, but in 1983 the meter was defined as the length of the path that light travels in vacuum in 1/299,792,458 of a second. That is a rock solid fact! If the definition were to change it would make no difference, as the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum is unwaivering! That is to say, regardless of how you measure the radius of a light sphere, the radius is always, I REPEAT, ALWAYS CT! Do you understand the full implications of that? Certainly you don't, as if you did you would not be arguing with me. A light sphere has a specific radius at every point in time, and it is NOT left to interpretation! The universe doesn't care if the radius is measured or not, it is always c f'n t!

21. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
The universe also doesn't have a universal standard for the time to be plugged into t, that's why a pulse of light will appear to expand in a sphere to any observer, regardless of how they move relative to the source. It's you who doesn't understand the implications.

In Einstein's day, the speed of light was based on measuring it using standardized measuring instruments and clocks. Light speed was NOT a definition, it was a measured result (and also predicted by the laws of electromagnetism). Everyone got the same result, no matter how they moved around, how the Earth moved around, what direction they faced, nor how the source moved. None of it made any difference. If your postulate that light is only moving at $c$ with respect to one specific "rest" frame were true, the Michelson-Morley experiment would have easily picked that up by 1890 at the latest, when Einstein was just a little kid.

22. ### CptBorkRobbing the Shalebridge CradleValued Senior Member

Messages:
5,385
Motor Daddy, go read about the Michelson-Morley experiment and tell me why it didn't pick up any velocity through "space", ever. Please explain why no one ever measures any such thing. Believe me, people have been trying for more than 100 years to insane levels of precision using ever-newer equipment.

23. ### Motor Daddy☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼Valued Senior Member

Messages:
5,105
No it's YOU who doesn't understand the implications! The PATH LENGTH is a specific length at every time t, and it has no bearing on how fast an observer is traveling, or how clocks are synchronized, or how f'n cheap of a watch the observer has! The length of the path is a specific length, and the time is therefore the length of the path (radius) divided by c. Do you f'n understand that?