On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

You measure time of light travel. There are two separate measurements of the train and the skate.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Fine. Stand in your absolute rest frame and shine a laser in one direction. Let that be the x-axis of a coordinate system. Now shine aother laser 90 degrees to that laser. Let that be the y-axis. Now place a third laser pointer at point (0,0) and point it toward point (12,9). Turn on the third laser, and the beam will propagate from (0,0) to (12,9). Is this too complicated for you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't forget that rule about not being able to calculate the time intervals for each laser beam.

You have to measure them instead, with a clock or something.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why use three lights? Just shine a light and point it at your imaginary point in space. The light travel time is distance, period. Shine another light, same deal. There is no (12,9), there is light travel time, period!

 

Yes, and also don't forget that there's no "grid system" in space, so you can't talk about the point (12,9). Oh, and even if you could talk about that point, light can't go from (0,0) to (12,9) anyway, because light travels in spheres. lol. I give up.

 

Light travels away from the point in space it was emitted. Light travel time defines distance.

The train and the skate each have their own velocity in space, do you not understand that?

 

This message constitutes a response which isn't.

This message is also intended to notify you that you will be receiving a response. Or maybe not.

 

We're not talking about that. We're trying to see if you understand that light can travel from (0,0) to (12,9) in the absolute rest frame. Let me know when you admit that it can.

 

Still working on #912? Take your time and be as thorough as possible, I wouldn't want you to be to hasty and overlook anything.

 

There are two separate lights involved, and the light travel time is what happened. There are no corrections to be made, the actual travel time is measured.

 

Every time MD posts a reply that ends with "do you NOT understand that", I think he is really saying he didn't understand another question.

Which is why his responses are like my last post, #947, which demolishes his entire line of reasoning. Actually that last is probably more than a little generous, he doesn't know what reasoning is either.

 

The only light I'm talking about is the one that travels the length of the skate. If the skate moves from (0,0) to (12,8), and the skate is 1 unit long along the y-axis, that light should travel from point (0,0) to point (12,9) in the absolute rest frame. How can you dispute such a simple concept?

 

Keep working on #912, you're wasting time dilly dallying.

 

I'm on it. . . It's just, I'm kinda scared about catching up to your level.

 

The time it took the light to travel the length of the skate was measured. If the skate traveled from (0,0) to (12,8) from the start of light travel to the stop of light travel then the light travel time is correct.

 

Do you understand that the light would have traveled from (0,0) to (12,9) in that hypothetical case?

 

You must be scared because you'd have been all over it by now.

 

Yes, if the light travel time started at (0,0) and ended at (12,9) then the time is correct.

 

Actually the idea that someone can go through the American education system and arrive at the end, having formulated a theory they can't explain, that proves Einstein was wrong (nay, it demolishes his ideas!), is absolutely terrifying.

And you're the only one, huh? Well there are small mercies I suppose.

 

Alright, let's stop using my hypothetical numbers, and let's go back to the actual number you chose here:

Do you understand that the light traveled from point (0.00,0.00) to point (5.00,3.60)? Do you understand that means the light traveled this far?

H = sqrt(5.00^2 + 3.60^2)
H = sqrt(25.00 + 12.96)
H = sqrt(37.96)
H = 6.16 light.nanoseconds

And do you also understand that the amount of time you predicted for this was 5.00 nanoseconds? That means you have light traveling at a speed of 1.23c which is greater than the speed of light. That proves something is wrong with your equation for this case.