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

I have one small correction to make, which is my statement that Motor Daddy's numbers are correct for the times measured by the stationary system. They're not, at least not according to Relativity, because we also have to take length contraction into account. The stationary observer clocks the same time for the pulse to reach Z as Motor Daddy claimed, but at X the arrival time clocked by the stationary observer is equal to 1.19938s. In the train frame, the arrival times at X and Z are still both clocked at 0.5 seconds.

I just want to get this narrowed down so in future he won't have any grounds for argument, complaint or discussion until he can explain Michelson's anomalous results. Once we get to that point (we're pretty much there now) I won't be wasting my time any further, and in future I can refer to this conversation so other people don't have to waste their time either.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good. Further digging would only serve to illustrate you're willing to troll when you've already been given an infraction for your actions in this thread.

If you wish to rehash the same tired arguments you've been debunked on dozens of times before start such threads in the fringe section from here on. If you cannot bring anything new to the table there's no reason to have further repeats of previous discussions. In fact consider that a formal "suggestion", if this sort of discussion happens again from your instigation and all you're doing is wheeling out precisely what you've wheeled out before than it'll be taken as deliberate trolling and appropriate actions will be taken. When you have something new then let us know. I suggest you start by learning high school level algebra and calculus so you can at least speak the language of mechanics and relevant physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If the stationary observer uses the light pulse and a clock to determine the length of a meter based on the speed of light in their frame, and the train observer does the same thing based on the speed of light they measure relative to their frame, they will both end up with matching meter sticks. If the train observer were able to detect their motion through "space" as you presume, then their meter stick would be either far too short or far too long. Your understanding of how metres are defined is completely backward. Again, in Michelson's time the metre was defined using a standardized stick, there was absolutely no expectation on his part that light should have the same velocity relative to any observer (i.e. he absolutely did not expect that one's measured speed through space would always yield a null measurement, 0), and most physicists agreed with him, even though the laws of electromagnetism contradicted their view.

Again, the Michelson-Morley experiment takes all the same variables into account that you did. As seen from the stationary frame, the path lengths of the light beams through the detector should be different because the train is moving, which means the two paths should have different transit times, thus we should get a phase shift between the two beams and a corresponding shift in the resulting interference pattern. Yet no matter what direction the apparatus is pointing, no such phase shift is seen to occur, which means that in the train frame the path lengths and transit times are identical in both directions.

Tell me what's wrong with the Michelson interferometer, or else you should thank me for giving you an important lesson in the history of experimental physics you clearly never heard anything about (it's easy to think you're right and everyone else is wrong when you really have no clue what you're talking about).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hey AN, welcome back! Been a while, glad to see you're still around in some capacity, hope all is well on your end.

P.S. My apologies to everyone for using foul language on my own part. I don't take kindly when I go to loads of effort to explain something to someone and instead of analyzing my statements for critique, they just rip a fart, scream "nonsense" and start throwing cusses and insults at me.

 

Originally Posted by dumbest man on earth :
Odds are, Motor Daddy will soon "cut and run", again.


Originally Posted by Motor Daddy :
Odds are I'll be banned before I "cut and run." That's what happens when my foes run out of arguments and they have nothing left but to either admit defeat or ban me. They don't admit defeat, so there is one choice left!

 

Thanks. A number of things reordered various priorities for me over recent months and unfortunately moderating a forum, in perspective, slide right down the list. I'll be around a bit now, though obviously I've got some work to do to try to turn the forum around. Some of the threads created or derailed by certain members are ludicrous. Let's just say I'm going to be using the infraction/warning page a lot for a while, so people remember if they want to post BS there's other subforums for it, not here. Some of the hacks show their true colours and delusions when they aren't kept on a short leash, they're willing to post obviously pseudo nonsense and pretend it isn't.

I'm looking at you Motor Daddy. You've had your chance to present your case multiple times, including recent times when there's been no moderator action to cut you off or silence you, regardless of how incoherent or wrong about science you are. If you cannot bring anything new to the discussion keep your pseudo nonsense in the fringe section.

MD has been free of any moderator confinement or control in threads such as this one and he failed to present his case and was just as ignorant of science as he has always been.

It is funny how cranks have this persecution complex even when it is obvious there's no moderator persecution going on. Someone else in another thread a while ago kept accusing me of being desperate to close and delete the thread, saying he'd taken screenshots so he could later show my cowardly actions. Thread is still open and such persecution complexes serve more to highlight the hack's mentality, that they are paranoid someone will persecute them because if the roles were reversed that's what they'd do. MD has had plenty of opportunities, plenty of threads, summing up to thousands of posts of discussion, hardly silencing him. But now if he can only repeat previously addressed, debunked assertions he isn't adding to a discussion, he's just adding noise.

 

They have. See the CMBR dipole anisotropy. The CMBR rest frame isn't an absolute reference frame in the relativity sense, in that you have to look outside your box to gauge your motion through the universe. But it's as absolute as you can get.

 

I really do like the setup for alternative theories, fringe science, utter junk science... Lots of places for people to post their own ideas and speculations in a place where anyone who's actually interested can go check it out, freedom of expression. Too bad hardly anyone chooses to use those alternatives when they have the option, but the math/physics subforum certainly shouldn't be a place for mindless preaching when the evidence is lacking.

I figure the best approach is to simply let people have their say once or twice and then if they want to repeat the same discussions without addressing the counter-arguments, they can take it to the alternative sections.

 

Even then, the CMBR "rest" frame varies throughout the universe and over time, as it's only determined by the randomized distribution of mass and energy around the universe at the time of recombination. And of course as I'm sure you know, it has absolutely no bearing on the speed of light.

 

Sure. But LIGO is an interferometer, and it hasn't detected gravitational waves. We are however confident that they exist, so IMHO it's important to examine why a null result might arise. I don't know if you know, but length contraction doesn't work the way that people think. It's important to get that right before moving on.

 

It would probably be wrong of me to state that not one of any of the experiments mentioned, have ever been performed, or any of the theories mentioned, have ever been tested, outside of our "local" universe. Not even outside of our Sun's heliosphere.
As a child, I found it neat/odd/quirky that the "186" in the approximate thousands of miles per sec of the perceived speed of light, was exactly 2 times the "93" in the approximate distance between the Earth and it's Sun. ( true in metrical measure, also )
Our dreams and aspirations should always exceed our grasp, or our grasp would never expand.
But allowing our confidence/over-confidence to exceed our abilities, could negate any, and possibly all, of those abilities.
Just my $174.96 (2 cents - adjusted for inflation)

 

Don't give up now. The thread's only just got started.

 

Exactly. Which is definitive proof that your diagram is wrong.

 

Ok, just to wrap things up for now, I promised I'd answer the rest of Undefined's questions. Sorry about the wait...

So as I explained previously, each of the observers sees only one light sphere. Where the disagreements lie are in the respective points and times each observer associates with their sphere. One observer could track the light sphere they see and simultaneously mark off a bunch of points on the surface at a given time. The other observers will look at the points marked off and say they were marked off at different times, not simultaneously, and the shape traced out will be an ellipsoid rather than a sphere. The ellipsoid will be shifted to the left or right in the same direction as the motion of the observer who draws it, but it won't be centered on any of them (it won't appear to be centered on the observer who draws it either because the others don't even see its points being marked off simultaneously).

The central observer will see a light sphere centered on them, and that's the only pulse they see. The light pulse is like a piece of art that 3 audience members all see in slightly different ways (but the differences are due to their relative motions, not their personal opinions).

Again, each observer sees only one light sphere, with themselves placed at the center (assuming the pulse was emitted when they were located at the same point as the source).

Hope this helps.

 

Thanks, CptBork! No problem re tardy reply, as I myself have been rather busy and so have been tardy responding at times.

Anyhow, I must await Motor Daddy's answers to those same questions (unless the mod action has caused him to hesitate posting again for fear of 'triggering' the ban response. I hope you at least are allowed to make a post in answer to my questions, Motor Daddy? Please see my post #81 for the full list. Thanks, MD!) before I can properly proceed to study and compare your respective 'takes' in order to tease out where either/both are consistent or otherwise (both inherently to each, between each other and from my own naive perspective). Thanks again, I have enjoyed immensely your and others contributions to discourse in this and other aspects of the context/phenomena involved. Gotta go! Bye for now.

 

Here is a section to elaborate on CptBorks' shell explanation.
The U-frame is a universal fixed frame of reference.
The p plane is perpendicular to the x direction.
It shows that length contraction is necessary for consistent perception of phenomena, in any pseudo rest frame.

View attachment 6433

 

Why don't you just ban him?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The way that who doesn't think? "People" as in the person on the street or "people" as in the theoretical physicists and engineers who designed, built and operate LIGO?

If the latter then you really should have something to back up that pet theory claim of yours. Given that your pet theory doesn't contain any mathematics beyond trivial algebra I do not believe you have a viable model of any physical phenomenon relevant to LIGO and so cannot say you have an alternative understanding of length contraction, you can only assert qualitative that you do. Until such time as you can provide a working model consistent with observed relativistic phenomena which also provides an alternative understanding of length contraction your claims are baseless. Just as they have been for the last 5+ years.

So, do you have such a working model? If not why do you make the claim? If you do why do you not have it published?

Because despite the utterly baseless belief among the cranks that I'm so insecure I must close and then delete any discussion which might make me look bad, I have no problem with the crank community engaging in discussions in this sub-forum provided they can meet certain standards. These include having sufficient knowledge in the domain in question should they be making precise claims about some internal quantitative aspect of said domain, being willing and able to answer direct relevant questions when asked, being able to justify their assertions about either their own work or something in the mainstream and being willing to say "Fine, I was wrong" when shown to be so. Repeatedly making threads, of the space of many years, which are the same assertion phrased a different way and which show they do not know even the most elementary of relevant information contravenes those requirements and hence any such discussion is to be kept to the fringe section. Again, despite many hacks claiming otherwise, I do not wish to shut down any and all discussion of non-mainstream work and that is why we have the fringe section, somewhere to put all the crazy.

Much like religious de-conversion there's plenty of rational, vaguely informed people who used to be ignorant hacks and hence providing opportunity for hack claims to be addressed and debunked is a worthwhile thing. It provides an opportunity for us to address misconceptions the hack starting the thread might have, which in turn might address misconceptions the hack reading the thread might have.

On the flip side of that there is a point where we've addressed the same claim half a dozen different ways over as many years, by the same hack, at which point banning does become a viable option. It would not be appropriate to ban a hack, even a persistent hack, for starting a thread on an entirely new, previously not discussed, topic, as the points to be addressed would be new. If it's the 5th time in a year the same hack has posted the same topic then it is appropriate.

Motor Daddy would benefit enormously from learning basic vector mechanics and a tiny bit of linear algebra, namely working with matrices. It would allow him to work with the equations of 1+1 dimensional special relativity and to actually model the various scenarios he brings up using special relativity properly. Now he would then be welcome to discuss some aspects of that, as Lorentz transforms are quite counter intuitive to someone who hasn't worked with them before, but at least we'd move away from the constant :

10 Motor Daddy : Here's a scenario and SR says X
20 Us : No, SR says Y. Here, we'll show you....
30 Motor Daddy (thinking to himself) : I don't understand that maths stuff so I'll just repeat myself
40 Motor Daddy : No, it says X and obviously that's ludicrous
50 Us : No, it says Y and besides, X does not always imply a logical contradiction. Here, we'll show you...
Go to 10

The same can be said for chinglu, with his constant "SR disproven!" discussions which amount to him being unable to actually do SR in any way, shape or form.