I've been showing you what happened for years now. http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k Would you like to talk about your misunderstandings now?
Motor Daddy believes that light propegates in a light sphere from a point at c independent of the inertial frame of the observer. The earth is circling the center of the milky way at 250 km/sec. This means that according to MD if we measure the speed of light in the direction the earth is traveling then c should be 300,042 km/hr and if the apparatuse to measure light is rotated 180 deg. then it should measure c to be 299,542 km/hr. That is not what we see - MDs belief is falsified.
T=0 is when the light sphere is emitted. No time has elapsed so there is no blue light sphere. If a very tiny time were to have elapsed you would have seen a very tiny radius light sphere according to the speed of light times the duration of time that had elapsed. If I showed a pic of t=.0000000000001, then the light sphere would have a radius of 0.0000299792458 meters. With me so far?
OK, that is a good example. In order to analyze that it would help to know the origin of the light sphere we are measuring with the apparatus. What I mean is, does the apparatus emit a light beam which gets sent out from a point of origin in the apparatus, then reflected by mirrors, etc. If so, I don't think that is what Motor Daddy is referring to. He can correct me if I misunderstand him, but in the case of the light emitted from the apparatus, he is saying that it will travel at the speed of light spherically away from the point of origin. If that is what he is saying, then the test apparatus would confirm his position because all such tests would give the same invariant result, wouldn't they?
Practice question: Two points in the absolute frame are separated by a distance of 299,792,458 meters. At t=0 a light sphere is emitted at both points. .25 seconds elapses. At t=.25 what is the radius of the light spheres?
Frame 2, T=.65 seconds, otherwise known as Einstein's time of death! The elapsed time since the light was emitted has been .65 seconds. The light sphere has a radius of 194,865,098 meters, which is dead on the speed of light for .65 seconds. But wait, if the light sphere is an absolute reality, and distance between the source and the z receiver in the cube frame is .5 light seconds, then why did it take light .65 seconds to travel to the z receiver?
There is one person on this site that I would like to give a shout out to and thank him for teaching me just what I needed to learn. Neddy Bate, you are the man! Thanks for discussing 3D coordinates with me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It doesn't matter how the equipement is set up. His position is that the relative speed of light is not invariant. He believes that if you were to turn on a light then the only time that the light sphere will move out from with you staying in the center of the sphere is if you are at absolute rest (whatever that is suppose to mean). If follows that any other inetial frame that light is measured (in MD universe) will give you a different relative speed for light. Try this one. A laser and a detector 100m are are hooked up to a ultra precise timer. According to MD if we are meausre the time it takes to for the laser to hit the detector in the direction of the earths motion around the milkyway we will get a different time than when we have the laser and detector set up facing in the opposite direction. This does not happen obviously.
Are you measuring the distance light traveled compared to the point it space it was emitted, or compared to the frame it was emitted in? In frame two of my pic, how would you know where the center of the light sphere is to measure that distance that light traveled since t=0?
I am at work so I cannot see your picture, but I think I can recall the drawing well enough to say, the problem is that your pictured does not reflect the reality inside the cubes reference frames.
Obviously, from the frame it was emitted in since that is the inertial frame that the laser, detector and the measurer are in. In the real world the speed of light is constant in all frames so you always can determine where the center of the light sphere is.
So like I said why in your drawings do the distances from the center of the box to the front and back of the box change, based on the definition of the meter?
Because light travels independently of the box. Light did not take the path from source to z receiver in the cube frame as the cube traveled away from the center of the light sphere. The light that traveled to the z receiver was traveling the hypotenuse of the triangle that is the z receiver, source, and point of origin of the light sphere. You see that triangle? Well light traveled the hypotenuse of that triangle to get to the z receiver, and the hypotenuse is .65 light seconds in length in the absolute frame. That is a reality! And the reality is that you have never measured the length of that hypotenuse, so you don't know what reality is because you've never measured reality.
Origin post Actually, the laser scenario clears up the question of the point of origin of the light sphere. From the laser scenario it is clearer that you meant for the light that was measured by the apparatus in the previous example to be star light from a distant source. Let's use the laser example. The speed of light was the same in both measurements, and your point is that falsifies MD's alternative theory. But does it? I'm not sure that experiment does falsify MD. You have proven that when the specific light sphere from the laser reaches the mirror in your apparatus it is traveling at the speed of light, and you measure it to be traveling at the speed of light both times. Your conclusion that his idea is falsified is because you say he says that the speed will be different. Where do you get that? I think he says that if you would measure the speed of light to be the same in both measurements in your scenario. But given the fact that you are measuring from two different inertial frames, then according to your interpretation of MD's theory, you say the result should be different, and they aren't. Now in MD's alternative theory, the measurements you are making are measuring the same light sphere emitted by the fixed laser at the center of the light sphere, at different points in time and space. He maintains the from the fixed laser source, the light sphere is increasing at the invariant speed of light. You have measured that to be true. Your motion does not change the speed of light expanding in the light sphere, it measures it relative to the source. You can't use light from one source, measure it from an inertial frame relative to that source, and get a different speed of light, and MD, unless I'm mistaken, has not said you could.
Yes. From his words and diagrams. You are mistaken. Look at his diagram. He thinks a light sphere always originates from a stationary point in absolute space - it is completely independent of the reference frame. For somone in the box the light sphere reaches the back wall before it reaches the front wall. It ain't that hard to realize that this means that the relative speed as measured by the observe in the box is that the time it takes the light to transit the same distance to the front of the box is greater than the time it takes to transit to the back of the box. I realize that you are desperately trying to agree with MD, but why not just agree with reality like us sane people do?
I'm putting you back on ignore, lol. No need to get personal, but you always seem to. And your interpretation of the box example does not recognize that the light sphere is expanding in space from the point of origin. But I will take another look at the diagram. What do you say about this, MD?
