On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

6+2=8
4+4=8
2+6=8

When divided by 2 they are all 4. Two of them have motion, one is a zero velocity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Synchronize them any way you wish, as long as they both read the same time simultaneously, as if they were in a single time zone, and they tick as one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This mean you know your theory is failed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alright, I synchronized them using the Einstein synch method. The one-way times are 1⁄299,792,458 seconds each way. Can you tell me the length of the stick now?

 

Einstein's sync method is inaccurate. He can not tell you the length of the stick because he doesn't know the velocity of the stick, and you MUST know the velocity of the stick before you can determine the length of the stick.

Use my sync method and tell me the one way times, and I will tell you the velocity of the stick and the true length of the stick.

 

His method is filled with errors.

 

He can't tell me the velocity of the stick, but surely he would say the length of the stick is one meter. He would have said this based on the round-trip time of 2⁄299,792,458 seconds, as well as the one-way times 1⁄299,792,458 seconds each way.

I can't apply your "pull the wire" method, because I don't know how long it takes for tension to traveling through wires.

 

Einstein does not need that, only ignoramuses do.

Quite false, you fail.

Only you can. This is why you are in line for all the physics prizes.

 

There is no way he can tell you the length of the stick based on round trip time, as the stick could be in motion which means different one way times. Using round trip time and dividing by two gets the length wrong for anything other than a zero velocity. Since he can't tell you the velocity, he can not tell you the length. It really is that simple.

Measure as accurately as you can. Don't worry, nobody can ever measure time with 100% accuracy anyway. There is always a margin of error.

 

How much time does it take you to traverse a 30 foot long bus when you are doing 60 MPH?

See above.

You're right, I am the only one that can, which means I am the only one to be able to know the length, as you can't know the length without knowing the velocity. See above.

 

Mega crackpot.

 

Alright then, you tell me. Let's say that a physics experiment is to be perfomed on earth. What would you expect it to measure as the one-way times for light traversing a meter stick in a vacuum?

Bonus question: What if water were to be used, instead of vacuum?

 

I don't guess at one-way times, I measure them. I have no idea what the absolute velocity of the Earth is. That is why I need to measure the one-way times. It's the only way to know.

 

So your theory is unable to predict anything regarding light in a vacuum unless absolute velocities are known.

What if we use water instead of vacuum?

 

Absolute velocities must be known before the length can be known. Anyone that says otherwise is a crackpot.

Light doesn't travel at the same speed in water. The length of a meter is defined by light in a vacuum.

 

You should lay off whatever you have been smoking, it gives you serious delusions.

 

Still having problems determining how much time it takes you to traverse a bus? Surely you think the speed of the bus is irrelevant, as does Einstein assume the velocity of the meter stick is irrelevant.

 

It's good to think like Einstein, it just stinks to think like you. Luckily, there aren't many like you.

 

Actually, one of the main goals of science is to make successful predictions.
Your theory is less useful in this regard. You can't predict anything.

Can you tell me whether you think the speed of light through water depends on the "absolute speed" of the water?

 

There is no absolute velocity. Anyone that says otherwise is a crackpot.

Light travels through water by means of absorbtion by electrons and re-emission. That's why light travels through the medium slower than through vacuum.