Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
So you can't tell me the absolute speed of the earth?
An Inconsistency Between the Gravitational Time Dilation Equation and the Twin Paradox
- Thread starter Mike_Fontenot
- Start date
So you can't tell me the absolute speed of the earth?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Nope, but I know it's in motion. If it is in motion in space, which we know for sure that it is, then a meter stick on Earth, with no relative motion to Earth, will take light a different amount of time than 1/299,792,458 of a second to travel the length of that meter stick.
If you claim it takes light 1/299,792,458 of a second for light to traverse that stick while it is in motion with Earth around the Sun, and the Galaxy, while rotating 1 per day, then your stick is NOT 1 meter, that is a FACT!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
You sound very sure of yourself. However, the problem with your idea is that no definition claims the meter stick has to be at absolute rest in order for the time for light to traverse it to be 1/299,792,458 of a second. In fact, no where in physics is the idea of absolute rest even used.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Neddy, How about a reply to my faster of slower thread?? Not willing to voice your thoughts on that? 
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
So physics doesn't have an idea of being at rest. Got it!
So Einstein has no ground to stand on when he claims that a train is at rest and it's the tracks that are moving. You can't define rest, and I can, but you're going to talk about being at rest?
I can PROVE at rest with MD's Box. It's when the light sphere contacts the receivers at the exact same time, in .5 seconds.
But you can clearly see it took light .65 seconds for light to contact the z receiver, and the distance from the center to that receiver is only .5 light seconds. So you have some explaining to do!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Here is a table showing historical measurements of the speed of light on earth:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
In 1972 the measured value was 299,792.4574 km/sec. That is pretty darn close to 299,792.458 km/s even though we know the earth is not at absolute rest. So that means either the speed of light does not require absolute rest, or the absolute speed of the earth is less than 0.0006 km/s. Which is it?
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/measure_c.html
In 1972 the measured value was 299,792.4574 km/sec. That is pretty darn close to 299,792.458 km/s even though we know the earth is not at absolute rest. So that means either the speed of light does not require absolute rest, or the absolute speed of the earth is less than 0.0006 km/s. Which is it?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I can't comment on some experiment that I'm not familiar with. I have no idea how accurate their measurements were. Heck, remember a while ago they claimed they measured neutrino speed to be something, only weeks later said, "oops", there was some problems with the wiring. LOL
You want to start somewhere, start with MD's Box and show me how it's wrong. Show me how it can be any different. It's all there, numbers and everything! A light sphere is a light sphere, right? A box is a box, right? Have at it!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
You can't comment on the speed of light being measured on earth to be within 0.0006 km/sec? The orbital speed of the earth is about 29 km/sec so we can rule out that the speed of light measurement could detect that motion, right?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Okay, start with the speed of light being the same constant 299,792.458 km/s regardless of the state of motion of the box. There is nothing in the definition of the meter which requires absolute rest, so that definition holds in your box as well, regardless of the box's motion. Now your box is useless for measuring absolute motion. This also explains why the speed of light measured on earth did not detect the orbital speed of earth around the sun.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You believe that Bro can claim half the meter sticks because his watch read half the time, just to keep the velocity .866c, so how am I supposed to know what method they were using to do the calculations of distance and time. If they used your (Einstein's) method then I know for sure it's BS! You've already shown me the Fudge, and I pointed it out. The sticks are counted, so that is a constant, which is not up for debate depending on how fast someone travels past them.
Traveler at 0c "Oh look, there's 10 apples."
Traveler at .866c "No, that's 5 apples"
Other traveler "No, that's 2.5 apples."
LOL
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
IN THE BOX the receivers are the same distance from the center to the receivers. Regardless of how much distance that is they will always be THE SAME distance from the center. If light speed was constant in the box to all the receivers then the light sphere MUST hit the receivers at THE SAME time for the speed of light in each direction to be the same. That is clearly IMPOSSIBLE! Look at the sphere, it CAN'T contact the receivers at the same time. There goes Einstein's second postulate! Cut and dry!
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
See post #71.
They just measure the speed of light on earth, nothing special. Where do you think your number 299,792.458 km/s comes from? Do you think they had to head out to deep space and find a place that was "absolutely stationary" to measure it? No they just measure it here on earth, which is moving, but the earth's movement is not detected in the measurement. Which is why your box is bunk.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Oh, just wanted to let you know that I am taking a vacation, so won't be posting for awhile. I would say about a year or two should do it. Have a nice life!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Enjoy your vacation.
Mike_Fontenot
Registered Senior Member
My Amazon book, titled "A New Gravitational Time Dilation Equation", and colored yellow/brown, was never updated by Amazon with the two sets of revisions that I submitted (although they claimed the revisions had gone through). I tried many times to get Amazon to fix that problem, but they were never able to fix it. Whenever a customer brought it up on Amazon's webpage, and clicked "look inside", it DID show the correct first page of the manuscript [which has a line between the title line and the author line which says "(2nd revised edition)"], but if a copy was then ordered, what got sent was the original version, NOT the second revised version.
The only way to solve the problem was for me to withdraw the first version (the one with the yellow/brown cover), and resubmit the revised manuscript as an new book, complete with a new ISBN number and with a new cover color: purple. That has worked fine. On an Amazon search of my complete name (Michael Leon Fontenot), the old version still shows up as "out of print -- limited availability", so they may try to sell some copies of that, that they have previously printed out and stockpiled, so beware.
