On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

What you seem to be saying is the distance, defined in terms of the motion of light, is changing because of ... the motion of light.

Einstein synchronization is in a stationary frame.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You don't get it.

Stationary to what? You simply imply that the distance between clocks is unchanging. Great. Fine and dandy. Do you think it's possible that the two clocks can be traveling towards light, all the while maintaining the same distance between each other?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yet, "Einstein's methods find the distance" between GPS and ground clocks routinely. You flunked again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, you don't get it.

Don't you know what a stationary frame of reference is?
What does "traveling towards light" mean?

 

Wrong again, Bucko!

I'll ask you the same question, is it possible for two lights to be in motion traveling towards a light coming towards them, all the while maintaining the same distance between the clocks???

 

Motor Daddy, I'll ask again:

Do you not understand what a stationary frame of reference is?

 

It means that the distance between light and the clocks is closing faster than 299,792,458 meters per second. Light travels 299,792,458 meters per second. If the clocks are traveling towards the light, the distance between the clocks and the light is closing at a greater rate than 299,792,458 meters per second.

Einstein has no clue of the distance between the clocks, because he doesn't know the velocity of the clocks.

 

What light?

You mean the light you send from one clock to the other?

 

It doesn't matter, the time starts when the light leaves one clock. The time stops when the light arrives at the other clock. If the clocks are on each end of a meter stick, and it takes .000000000000000000000000001 second for light to arrive at the other clock, how much distance is between the clocks?

 

I'll wait.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Perhaps. But he makes what appears to be a reasonable assumption: that two identical clocks can be a constant distance apart.

This is quite analogous to assuming the earth and moon are a (roughly) constant distance apart, or that a satellite stays in a circular orbit.

Let me guess, is it: one metre?

 

Great assumption, that he assumes the distance of a board is the distance of a board.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

That says NOTHING about how much time it takes light to traverse the board. In order to know how long the board is you need to know how fast it is going. If you assume light always takes 1⁄299,792,458 of a second to traverse a meter stick, you assume the board can not have a motion. We all know that is a false assumption!

 

Yea!!!! You did it!! So that leaves you no alternative but to say the meter stick has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That is if light took more or less than 1⁄299,792,458 of a second to traverse a meter stick.

 

What if, instead of a "meter stick" you have "one metre of vacuum in one spatial dimension"?

Does space have (at least) one dimension? Does light "have motion" in space and is the frequency of light used to define the time it takes for light to travel one metre?

 

Light always travels the same speed. The speed of light is not compared to the time it takes light to traverse a meter stick. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum, period!

 

The metre is defined as the distance light travels in a fixed time--I'm sure you know this amount of time, you've posted it often enough.

Distance depends on speed: the speed of light. You just contradicted yourself again.

 

How much distance does light travel from one end of the meter stick to the other if it takes light two hours to get from one end to the other???

 

If it takes two hours, the "meter stick" can't be one metre long.

The distance light travels in two hours is two light-hours. In two years, it's two light-years. Oh yeah, in two seconds, it's two light-seconds. Distance is well-defined in terms of the speed of light, which contradicts what you posted.

 

Wrong, that's what Einstein says, and he's dead wrong, because he fails to acknowledge that the meter stick could have a motion.

Light travels 2,158,505,697,600 meters in two hours. The stick traveled 2,158,505,697,599 meters in two hours.

You are dead wrong about the meter stick not being a meter, just because it took light two hours to traverse it from end to end doesn't mean it isn't a meter stick. You fail to acknowledge the stick's velocity, as does Einstein, which makes you both wrong!

 

But did the stick stay the same length?

What if the "stick" is a metre length of vacuum, as I asked before? Does it's length change? Does it matter what the stick is made of, or if it's made of "nothing", i.e. space?