I can't imagine time dilation or length contraction either. Not only can I not imagine them, but I just can't fit them into my theory, as there is no wiggle room in my theory. It's my way or the highway!
I think you can see that MD thinks that the light sphere moves out from the point at which it was emitted in 'absolute' space and his box is moving relative to 'absolute' space so the light sphere intersects the back wall before it intersects the front wall. This is what the picture is showing. I will not use the term reference frame if you like, it does not matter. Hopefully, you can agree up to this point. So the faster the 'absolute' velocity of the box the shorter time it takes for the light sphere intersect the back wall and the longer time it takes for the light to intersect the front wall. Now let's assume that the box is moving at an 'absolute' velocity of just under the speed of light, say 299,792,457.9 m/s. So you are in the middle of the box and you turn on the light and watch the light creep forward in the direction of travel and almost instantly intersect the back wall. You decide that you want to measure the speed of light so you walk ahead of the creeping light sphere and place a meter stick on the ground and when the light touches the meter stick you start a stop watch when when the light touches the 10 cm mark you stop the watch and low and behold the time on the watch is 1 second so the speed of light is 10 cm/sec as you measured it in the box. This is how it would work for MDs universe. Hopefully, you can see that this is an accurate concequence of his belief, if you cannot, well sorry that is the best I can do. I am sure you noticed it is difficult to get a clear concise answer out of MD on this velocity issue - like I said earlier I think he can see his idea does not conform to measurements so himing and hawing. When I say MD is wrong I do not mean that he is wrong theoretically, I mean that he is wrong because the speed of light quite simply does not show a different relative speed due to the motion of the person doing the measurements or the speed of the light source, and he says it does - wrong.
I know! That's why we talk about MotorDaddy space; a space where things like time dilation, invariant lightspeed etc don't exist. It makes it easier to keep the two mathematical systems separate.
Correct. Oh good. How much time did it take for the light to reach the back wall? What do you mean you "walk ahead of the creeping light sphere?" Do you have measurements to prove you walked? How much time elapsed during your walk? How far did you travel in the cube frame? How far in the absolute frame? You do realize that if the cube has an absolute velocity of 299,792,457.9m/s that you would have to increase your velocity from 299,792,457.9m/s to more than 299,792,458 m/s, which would virtually impossible to do. Don't try to pretend to know how something works in my world because you don't understand my world. You do not know how my world works and if you do you don't accurately reflect it. Of course not, because I am 100% theoretically correct. Again you open mouth and insert foot. Do you like the taste of that thing or what?
Yes. Correct. I'm with to here. Is the meter stick something you introduced or is it a tool that MD has introduced and used to measure the distance light travels. Is the stopwatch also MD's or is he using the distance light travels from the origin to the edges of the box to determine the length of time the light sphere has been expanding when it intersects the edges of the box? If the questions I have asked have been addressed by MD and you, and he agrees and can confirm he uses a meter stick and a stopwatch as you are using them, then I will have to agree, that the creeping light sphere would not be measured at the speed of light, falsifying the theory. But I don't think he will confirm the tools you are bringing in. However, I think MD is saying where the edge of the light sphere would be at various times as measured from the point of origin and using light itself as the measuring stick. So when you try to measure the creeping light in your example, you are making a measurement from a moving position in space that he is not making, and you are (might be) using tools he is not introducing, but you are. The measurement that he is making, i.e, the size of the light sphere as measured from the point of origin, places the wave front of the sphere precisely, and he is just diagramming the box relative to where he calculates the edge of the sphere from the point of origin. The placement of the box can be made to represent any velocity of the box he wants, but he is never measuring the wave front like you are. I'm sure he couldn't even detect the wave front when traveling at ~99.999% of the speed of light, but he can calculate where it would be, even from a box moving at so near the speed of light because he is determining where the wave front, which always travels at the speed of light, would have to be given the point of origin. He says that if you are in the box, and the box is moving at 99.999% of the speed of light, you would have to establish that point as a new origin and emit a new light, and he says that light will travel at the same invariant velocity from its point of origin and you would measure it from the relativistically moving box to be equal to the invariant speed of light. Now take a minute and think of the scenario as I interpret it before you go off half cocked. Then read this: There is some added complexity if you use your device to measure the speed of light of the wave front of the original sphere. When you are traveling so close to the speed of light as it passes, your meter stick will have to be adjusted (shortened) by what, ~99.999%. Assuming your clock is traveling with you, you will have to adjust for the clock running ~99.999% slower. If you make those adjustments you should come up with the invariant speed of light when you measure the velocity of the first sphere. That may well be the conclusion. Address my questions and my view of what MD is saying and let me respond after you do that.
And you have yet to show 'your world' is anything to do with the 'real world'. If your world is inconsistent with the real world then no one doing physics needs understand your world, it is nothing more than a poorly formalised figment of your imagination. Fortunately, despite your false dichotomy of 'my way or the high way' there are alternatives. And special relativity is 100% theoretically correct. As is Newtonian kinematics. As concepts they are each entirely sound but that doesn't mean that is how the universe really behaves. In fact it obviously cannot behave like both simultaneously, they are not compatible. So it comes down to which reflects reality, just as we must consider whether your claims reflect reality. You have yet to present evidence for that.
You won't have to make any adjustments for the ruler and time will still be valid (but have gone through length contraction and time dilation so that the speed of light comes out to c. You use whatever is in your frame to do the physics (e.g. measuring the speed of light) for the physics will be the same in every inertial reference frame.
AN, I would bet big money that you being the excellent mathematician that you are put my equations and numbers and geometry thru the ringer, with everything you know, and you couldn't prove them wrong, could you? Not only are they just "not wrong" but they are 100% exact. The only limitation is the error in the experiment. I don't mean to come across as pushy or anything, but have you had time to look at the torque/HP example?
I appreciate your response, but in that "complexity" measurement, you do realize that we are measuring the velocity of the original light sphere as it passes us while we are traveling at ~99.999% of the speed of light, don't you. I am saying that if you have the meter stick and the clock with you at the point of origin of the original light sphere, then you have to make those adjustments and if you make those adjustments, you will measure the speed of the original wave front to be the invariant speed of light. Do I have that wrong?
Sure they are. The math is just misapplied. For example, I can prove that there is no gravity. Distance = 1/2AT^2. Without any acceleration, things don't move at all. So if two masses are floating near each other, they won't get any closer, unless they have rockets or something. Without acceleration, (A=0) then distance=0. My math is perfect. So there's no such thing as gravity.
I have an absolute zero velocity red ball in space. I measured it and it is at rest in the absolute frame. At t=0 a blue ball is traveling towards the red ball at a constant velocity of 10 m/s. The ball crashes into the red ball at t=13. At every point in time I can tell you exactly how far away from the red ball the blue ball is. No matter which duration of time you look at the distance is always perfect for 10 m/s. So from t=3 to t=4 (a duration of one second) the distance between the balls decreased 10 meters. The velocity was constant and the acceleration was zero, and they crashed at t=13.
So you think Motor Daddy is a an ignorant dolt because he does not agree with you that time dilation and length shorting occurs?
Is that your response to my post? If so, I will consider the matter at rest, with my interpretation being accepted. As for what you say MD says, his response is that from the absolute frame, every new event has its own light sphere, and so there are no two frames to compare, only one frame and one light sphere with an absolute point of origin for every event, unless MD wishes to correct me.
I didn't ask that. I asked you if you think that distance = 1/2AT^2. That's a simple yes or no question. Can you answer it?
The equation you posted is the distance the ball traveled during acceleration. If there was no constant acceleration then there is nothing to calculate, as the object did not travel a distance while accelerating. However, the object did have a velocity, as in my example 10 m/s. The object did not accelerate during the trip, but it still had a velocity and it still crashed into the ball. Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. There was no change in velocity, so the acceleration is zero.
