On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

There's 20 pages of this!

Is it tit for tat or science?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We put you inside the box and you measure the light transit time. Is the transit time E-W equal to the transit time W-E?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don;t understand the concept of light traveling independently of frames.

Play along...

You have two light sources in space, separated by a distance. If the lights emit light simultaneously, does the light impact each other at the midpoint?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First answer my simple question.

In what frame , Motor Mouth?

 

Two lights in space that maintain an exact distance between them at all times. Do the lights impact each other at the midpoint if they are emitted simultaneously???

 

Yet...

Motor Daddy, the above reason is why MMX does not need to rely on synchronized clocks and one-way light travel times. As you time the round-trip journey of the light in various directions, you would expect to get different times in your world. I could only make you see this by having the country cruise along at .9c absolute velocity, but the principle is the same with ANY absolute velocity.

Make sense?

And Tach, I don't think you're being constructive to the thread. If you disagree with folks and find yourself unable to change their thinking just move on...no need to act like a douche.

 

In which frame, Motor Mouth? The way you ask the question shows that you don't even understand what you are trying to ask.

 

Based on the mistakes in your posts, you should look in the mirror, you might see the douche.

 

What choices of frames do I have? There is two light sources in space, maintaining an equal distance between them at all times.

 

Two:

1. The frame containing the light sources
2. A frame moving with speed v > 0 wrt the light sources.

The distance between the light sources is D.
Please answer separately for each one.

 

A frame moving with speed v > 0 wrt to the light sources? Which frame would that be, as there is two lights in space?

 

Any frame.

 

There is 2 light sources in space. Are you saying there is a peeping tom off to the side, that I don't know about?

 

Right, there is an infinity of peeping toms moving at arbitrary speeds v. Now, stop stalling and answer the question.

 

wrong, there are no peeping toms, just two light sources at this point.

 

Better yet, is there a midpoint between two sources that maintain a fixed distance between them?

 

I gotta go, anyway. I'm already late. You think about it long and hard, as I am going to give you enough rope to hang yourself.

 

Tach, if I've made errors in my posts then you can call me wrong (I'd be curious to know where I've erred, though). You can even call me an idiot if you wish, which would be rude but still related to your point. But a "douche" is related to behavior, not knowledge, and I try to stay mature and civil. I'd like to point out that Motor Daddy generally appears to maintain civility as well.

These are good examples of douche-baggery. They aren't addressing the posts, they are attacking the poster. Your posts sound a bit like AlphaNumeric if he were about 20 IQ points dumber...(ok, NOW you can call me a douche

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

 

MMX ain't what it used to be!
In the MMX, the difference in calculated transit time for equal path
lengths (as setup) was expected to produce an interference pattern. None
were seen. The explanation at that time was length contraction.
Later the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment was done, with unequal path
lengths (as setup). No interference pattern was seen.

If length contraction explained the MMX result, it surely could not
explain the KDX result.
If path length was the determining factor for producing intereference,
and neither experiment produced any, it seems reasonable that
interference does not depend on path length. Therefore length
contraction is not the explanation for the MMX result.

A fact of unknown value.
The MMX used a continuous light source, therefore light from an earlier
part of the x beam, could have coincided with the arrival of the y beam
when recombined. This raises issues of persistence of vision for high
frequency changes of interference (if any).

The KDX was actually testing time dilation and concluded that the light
frequency changed according to SR. My understanding of this is a doppler
shift along the inbound and outbound paths which conserves wave number,
an invariant. A receiver can only detect the same number of wave lengths
that are emitted. This results in no phase shift, and thus no
interference.

 

People like you restore our faith in each other, always willing to help out!