Author Topic: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!  (Read 9908 times)

Hydra009

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2018, 12:57:27 PM »
NASA sends Lazer beams to reflectors on the moon.
Getting in a physics argument with someone who seriously spells laser with a z.  Oy vey.

Light amplification by zimulated emission of radiation?  Little wonder that this isn't taken very seriously.

Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2018, 01:17:12 PM »
Just work it out again from this perspective.
What was the time you left Earth?
Noon.
By earth's clock.

Quote
What time did you arrive at the Moon?
1 sec past Noon.
By the moon's clock. I have to use the moon's clock because I can't see the time on the Earth's clock yet, being that it's one light second behind me and not here where I can see it. But that's not a problem if I think that the two clocks are synchronized.

Quote
Why?
Because you were travelling at C.
You were traveling at c? On the rocket, you see yourself traveling at 0 mph. The earth and the moon are traveling at c in your frame of reference. You see everything operating normally, including that light travels at c relative to you in your frame of reference, and that clocks traveling with you tick normally.

Quote
Which will be, 300 000 Km per second!
You traveled for ONE SECOND
Only from the Earth-Moon perspective. From the rocket's perspective, the earth and moon clocks are badly out of synch, and therefore I don't have to believe that subtracting the time on one clock from the time on the other clock has anything to do with the amount of time that I've traveled.

Put another way, if I see two clocks side by side and one is an hour behind the other, does this mean that one hour passed between the time I took to look from one clock to the other? Of course not. I simply say that the clocks are out of synch and their difference doesn't mean a thing.

Quote
How did time stand still?

It never did.
Of course YOU never see your time stand still. How could you? If your time is standing still, you never go from not realizing your time is standing still to having realized your time is standing still. Physically impossible.

What we observe, and what special relativity predicts, is that clocks moving relative to you tick slowly. And they do. Again, we have a wealth of evidence that it happens and technologies that have to take the effect into account to operate properly.

You have not shown that the guy on the rocket has any reason at all to believe that the Earth and moon clocks are synchronized with each other and as such should be believed when they arrive at the moon with the moon clock showing one second past noon when they arrive and the Earth clock having shown noon when they left. That difference only means something if they believe the two clocks are in synch, but the rocket can perform an experiment that shows that, according to them, the earth and moon clocks are not in synch and there's no reason to believe that a comparison between the two represents their travel time. We moon-dwellers know that the clocks were always synchronized, but how do we prove that to the rocket passengers?

Quote
This is exactly what is wrong with your interpretation on the Lorenz transformation.
I've been tested on special relativity and I've passed. I think I know it better than you do.

Quote
You are measuring the time of S' as seen from S, and do not realize that what you see is the LIGHT travelling back to S.
The watch was still ticking on S', and on the S frame.

Sorry, you are wrong.
Time never stopped on the rocket.
I never said that the time would stop for the people on the rocket. I said that time on the rocket would be seen to hardly progress for people on Earth and on the moon. You have yet to show that this statement is wrong.

Quote
If it did, you would leave S (Earth) at noon and arrive on S (Moon)' at noon.
<snip>
The only thing I see is you don't know your special relativity. Every tool is bad if you use it wrong, and you are, in fact, using special relativity wrong.

The Earth and the moon have the same reference frame, S. The only thing here with a different reference frame is the rocket, with frame S'. The Earth and moon can keep their clocks in synch, and their clocks will tick at the same rate. Even Einstein will agree that this can be done. What he argues, and what experiment shows, is that the rocket cannot keep its clocks in synch with the earth and moon because his clocks will tick at a different rate from them.

So, no, I'm not trying to tell you that the rocket will arrive at noon on the moon. The rocket leaves the earth with the Earth's clock showing 12:00:00, and arrives on the moon with the Moon's clock showing 12:00:01. We agree on this. Please stop harping on this. These two clocks do not show time dialation between them, and would not show time dialation because in special relativity, the only clocks that show time dialation with respect to each other are clocks that are moving relative to each other, and the earth and moon clocks are not moving relative to each other.

There is only one clock that will show time dialation in your example, and that is the shipboard clock — the one that is moving relative to the other two. The shipboard clock reads 12:00:00 when it arrives on the moon. It will show about one second behind the moon clock. When the people on the moon look at the Earth clock through their telescopes, they will see that clock read 12:00:00, too, but they won't worry about that because they know that the Earth clock is one light second away, and as such it will take the image of the Earth clock reading 12:00:01 one second to get here. But the shipboard clock reads 12:00:00, and it's right here on the moon, right next to the moon clock reading 12:00:01, and everyone can see it's out of synch with the moon clock (and the Earth clock because they know the earth clock is in synch with the moon clock).

The SR ignorant among them will be scratching their heads trying to figure out how the shipboard clock got so out of synch with the Earth-Moon. Even the ones on the rocket will be scratching their heads, because they saw nothing unusual happen (other than the horrendous acceleartions at both ends) — and they will also be puzzled why their SR ignorant moon dwellers are insisting that the trip took one second when it was near-instantaneous for them. The people who do know SR don't see that anything unusual has happened; the universe is working as designed.

This, by the way, is point-for-point identical with the experiment where atomic clocks were loaded onto airliners and flown around the world, and coming back home with those atomic clocks significantly out of synch with home-based atomic clocks. And furthermore, this was NOT a gedanken experiment. This actually happened. Atomic clocks traveling on airliners did in fact come back home significantly behind land-based ones.

Time dialation is observed. It's not a theoretical thing; we observe it regularly in our experiments. It doesn't matter how much you crow about your (bad) math and physics, that is still the fact that you need to explain. All I see you doing is sticking your fingers into your ears and denying a readily observable effect.

Quote
The above is an experiment where measurements of science on the speed of light proves Time dilation incorrect.
You compared a stationary clock with a stationary clock, which is exactly the situation where you would expect to see no time dialation in SR.

Quote
Naaaa, you misinterpret Lorenz' transformation formula.
For someone who has obviously never properly used a Lorentz transformation, this is completely hillarious. No, I don't say that the rocket will arrive before the light beam returns. The rocket will not even see anything unusual happens with its clocks. The wierdness only begins when we compare clocks from different reference frames. You are not doing this, so of course you don't see the time dialation.

---

Allow me to show you how wrong you interpret the Speed of light with the wrong interpretation of Lorenz' transformation.

<snip>

So, when will we travel faster than Time?
Or as you claim, we will go back in time!

Never, you can travel at infinite X speed of light, it will take time!
You never use the Lorentz transformation even once. Ever. How can you show that my interpretation of the Lorentz transformation is wrong when you never use it at all? No, calculating the duration of travel of the super-rocket in the Earth-Moon frame is not a Lorentz transformation. Time travel will not show up here. You have to consider the frame of an object that moves relative to the starting frame to see time travel.

Quote
What now?
I thought you knew all about SR and GR?
Like I said before, it won't show up here. The Earth and the Moon are not different reference frames, and as such, you can propose FTL and it will seem to work without violating causality, and I'm telling you it won't show up until you consider another reference frame (not another location in the same reference frame) and —surprise, surprise— I'm completely right. You didn't change frames of reference, so it didn't show up. Causality violations don't show up in your calculations because you OMIT A CRITICAL STEP IN SHOWING THAT IT HAS OCCURRED. It's like someone who is trying to show a factory is broken by not turning on the final assembly machine.

MT: "Look! See? It doesn't make sedans properly! This factory is broken!"
HR: "You didn't turn on the final machine. What did you expect? Turn on the final machine, then see what happens."
MT: "See? The factory still isn't turning out proper sedans! I didn't turn on the final machine, but I don't have to! The factory is broken!"
HR: *facepalm*

It's very hard to show someone who doesn't know a subject that they're wrong. You clearly don't even know where to begin, because you are talking about using a Lorentz transformation within the same reference frame. It shows that you don't even have a basic grasp of what you're talking about. Again, it's like a man who claims to be a car mechanic and doesn't know how to change a tire.

----

You are running in circles.
In one instance you say that if you travel at C, then you arrive at the Moon instantaneous!
Only by the shipboard clock. The Earth-Moon clocks disagree with the shipboard clock.

Quote
Then you say, it will take one second.
Yes, by the Earth clocks and the moon clocks. The shipboard clock disagrees with the Earth-Moon clocks.

Believe it or not, these are two different statements. I do not assume that the two clock systems are measuring the same time, because the two clock systems are in different frames of reference. A clock can only properly measure time of the frame of reference in which it is stationary. Outside the frame of reference, all bets are off. You need to find the relation of time and space between the two frames of reference to progress further. That's what the Lorentz transformation does: it allows you to relate measurements taking place in one frame of reference to measurements in another.

Quote
Then you say, the clock on the space ship will stand still,
In the Earth-Moon time system.

Quote
then you say, the clocks on the Earth and Moon will have no time dilation, becaust it needs to move relative to each other, which is correct,
Not to each other. They're not moving relative to each other. Time dialation only occurs between clocks moving relative to each other, and the Earth and moon clocks are not moving relative to each other.

Time dialation doesn't mean anything unless you're referencing another clock.

Quote
but you forget that the rocket is the moving time frame.
I didn't forget. I wasn't talking about the shipboard clock right then. According to the shipboard clock (in which the Earth and moon clocks are moving relative to the shipboard clock), the rocket will see them tick slowly.

Quote
So, what is it, will it take you one second at C to travel to the Moon, or instantaneous.

From the rocket: Instantaneous, mostly due to the fact that in the rocket's frame of reference, the earth and moon are located practically on top of each other (length contraction).
From the Earth-Moon system: One second. Because the earth and moon are one light second apart in the Earth-Moon frame of reference, and the rocket is traveling at c in the Earth-Moon frame of reference.

These two statements are both true. The different frames of reference is what makes the difference between the two statements. Yes, that means that the two frames of references will disagree about how long the trip takes. That's why it's the theory of RELATIVITY and not the theory of ABSOLUTES.

----

<snip>
So, where do we go back in time when traveling faster than light?

We dont!

Time can not be changed, The Bible is correct again.
This is just a restatement of an earlier argument, one that I've already addressed. Again, nothing unusual happens if you only stay within one reference frame as you have done. (No, the moon is not a distinct reference frame from the Earth.)

And, again, time dialation is experimentally confirmed. Your bible can suck on it.

----

Getting in a physics argument with someone who seriously spells laser with a z.  Oy vey.

Light amplification by zimulated emission of radiation?  Little wonder that this isn't taken very seriously.

I admit, this is a little like trying to teach a camel how to bathe.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2018, 06:58:43 AM »
Getting in a physics argument with someone who seriously spells laser with a z.  Oy vey.

Light amplification by zimulated emission of radiation?  Little wonder that this isn't taken very seriously.
Thank you for volunteering to correct my spelling.
Highly appreciated pal!

Oh, by the way, do you know English is my 3rd language, and I am the first to say, I am bad, Bad , Bad with the British voice?

How many languages do you speak?
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #48 on: August 23, 2018, 07:24:15 AM »
By earth's clock.
Correct
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
By the moon's clock. I have to use the moon's clock because I can't see the time on the Earth's clock yet, being that it's one light second behind me and not here where I can see it. But that's not a problem if I think that the two clocks are synchronized.
Correct
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
You were traveling at c? On the rocket, you see yourself traveling at 0 mph. The earth and the moon are traveling at c in your frame of reference. You see everything operating normally, including that light travels at c relative to you in your frame of reference, and that clocks traveling with you tick normally.
Correct
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
Only from the Earth-Moon perspective. From the rocket's perspective, the earth and moon clocks are badly out of synch, and therefore I don't have to believe that subtracting the time on one clock from the time on the other clock has anything to do with the amount of time that I've traveled.

Put another way, if I see two clocks side by side and one is an hour behind the other, does this mean that one hour passed between the time I took to look from one clock to the other? Of course not. I simply say that the clocks are out of synch and their difference doesn't mean a thing.
Of course YOU never see your time stand still. How could you? If your time is standing still, you never go from not realizing your time is standing still to having realized your time is standing still. Physically impossible.
Not so, no.
In our instance,the clocks are indeed synchronized.By whatever means possible. WE can have all 3 clocks loaded on a rocket, travel halfway, load one clock on another ship, travel to the moon with one, and return the other 2 to the earth with the first rocket.
This will render a clock on the Moon that is exactly the same as the 2 on Earth. However, if we look at the one on the Moon, from the Earth, it will seem to be 1 second before our clock on Earth. And vice versa, because it takes 1 second for the light to travel back to each other.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
What we observe, and what special relativity predicts, is that clocks moving relative to you tick slowly. And they do. Again, we have a wealth of evidence that it happens and technologies that have to take the effect into account to operate properly.
And here we go again with this great "keep your mouth shut because we have evidence by experiment-argument"
Come on man, if you move a cesium clock to a high altitude, it will have an effect on the frequency it runs at due to gravitational differences.
If you measure Muons at high altitude, and at sea level, and manipulate the Iron covering accordingly, obviously you will get the same amount of Muons in both experiments.
Oh, and dont even come with the GPS proves relativity argument. as if it will have any effect on 1 000 Km from Earth.
All I could see was scientists who wanted to become the famous one to prove the SR and GR with experimentation. Just to get more grants! Dont fall for that man, go and see for yourself on how they manipulated the calculations.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
You have not shown that the guy on the rocket has any reason at all to believe that the Earth and moon clocks are synchronized with each other and as such should be believed when they arrive at the moon with the moon clock showing one second past noon when they arrive and the Earth clock having shown noon when they left. That difference only means something if they believe the two clocks are in synch, but the rocket can perform an experiment that shows that, according to them, the earth and moon clocks are not in synch and there's no reason to believe that a comparison between the two represents their travel time. We moon-dwellers know that the clocks were always synchronized, but how do we prove that to the rocket passengers?
I did explain my experiment to deliver 3 clocks at 2 different positions with a money back guarantee.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
I've been tested on special relativity and I've passed. I think I know it better than you do.
I never said that the time would stop for the people on the rocket. I said that time on the rocket would be seen to hardly progress for people on Earth and on the moon. You have yet to show that this statement is wrong.
This was what You said!
Why did you argue about it?
You were the one who claimed that if you travel at the speed of C to the Moon, you will be there instantaneous, with no time that passed for you!!
Now you are telling me that "It will only look like it to the people on Earth!"
And this is what I have been telling you all the time!
You are measuring how LIGHT WILL APPEAR TO DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES WHEN TRAVELLING AT HIGH SPEED!
Time will not stop or go faster!
I also passed my examination on SR and GR.
But the difference between us is that I understood what I learned!
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
The only thing I see is you don't know your special relativity. Every tool is bad if you use it wrong, and you are, in fact, using special relativity wrong.
realy?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
The Earth and the moon have the same reference frame, S. The only thing here with a different reference frame is the rocket, with frame S'. The Earth and moon can keep their clocks in synch, and their clocks will tick at the same rate. Even Einstein will agree that this can be done. What he argues, and what experiment shows, is that the rocket cannot keep its clocks in synch with the earth and moon because his clocks will tick at a different rate from them.
So I am correct!
It is only the appearance of Time dilation we observe!
It has sweet nothing to do with time that actually goes faster, or slower, or even stops!
You just proved me correct and Neil de Grase Tyson et al totally incorrect.
And the Bible true!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
So, no, I'm not trying to tell you that the rocket will arrive at noon on the moon. The rocket leaves the earth with the Earth's clock showing 12:00:00, and arrives on the moon with the Moon's clock showing 12:00:01. We agree on this. Please stop harping on this. These two clocks do not show time dialation between them, and would not show time dialation because in special relativity, the only clocks that show time dialation with respect to each other are clocks that are moving relative to each other, and the earth and moon clocks are not moving relative to each other.
Great! I agree!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
There is only one clock that will show time dialation in your example, and that is the shipboard clock — the one that is moving relative to the other two. The shipboard clock reads 12:00:00 when it arrives on the moon. It will show about one second behind the moon clock.
Why?
It left at Noon on Earth and traveled for one second!
the Moon clock was at noon when the rocket left Earth, and it took the rocket 1 second to get there.
Therefore upon arrival of the rocket on the Moon, both will be one second past noon.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
When the people on the moon look at the Earth clock through their telescopes, they will see that clock read 12:00:00, too, but they won't worry about that because they know that the Earth clock is one light second away, and as such it will take the image of the Earth clock reading 12:00:01 one second to get here. But the shipboard clock reads 12:00:00, and it's right here on the moon, right next to the moon clock reading 12:00:01, and everyone can see it's out of synch with the moon clock (and the Earth clock because they know the earth clock is in synch with the moon clock).
So, now you say you traveled faster than the speed of light!
And
Now you are again contradicting yourself.
what you say is that the clock for some magical reason just stopped to run during its travel. The occupants saw the clock run, but when they came to the Moon it was ctually standing still.
What university did you write that exam?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
The SR ignorant among them will be scratching their heads trying to figure out how the shipboard clock got so out of synch with the Earth-Moon. Even the ones on the rocket will be scratching their heads, because they saw nothing unusual happen (other than the horrendous acceleartions at both ends) — and they will also be puzzled why their SR ignorant moon dwellers are insisting that the trip took one second when it was near-instantaneous for them. The people who do know SR don't see that anything unusual has happened; the universe is working as designed.
In their deranged minds yeh!
What mysterious magic made the clock stop on its way to the moon.
You just claimed that the rocket can travel instantaneous, but the light that traveled from the Earth to the Moon took one second!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
This, by the way, is point-for-point identical with the experiment where atomic clocks were loaded onto airliners and flown around the world, and coming back home with those atomic clocks significantly out of synch with home-based atomic clocks. And furthermore, this was NOT a gedanken experiment. This actually happened. Atomic clocks traveling on airliners did in fact come back home significantly behind land-based ones.
So what is insignificant in your point of view?
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
You compared a stationary clock with a stationary clock, which is exactly the situation where you would expect to see no time dialation in SR.
For someone who has obviously never properly used a Lorentz transformation, this is completely hillarious. No, I don't say that the rocket will arrive before the light beam returns.
You did!
You said that the light that traveled next to the rocket will show the Earth clock time at Noon as it left the earth.
The Moon clock will show one second after noon.
but the occupants on the rocket arrived at one second before noon.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
The rocket will not even see anything unusual happens with its clocks. The wierdness only begins when we compare clocks from different reference frames. You are not doing this, so of course you don't see the time dialation.
Now I am astounded.
You flew a rocket at the speed of light over 300 000 Km, and somehow won the race against a light beam travelling at the same distance and you beat him to a full track length!!!!

Tell you what.
I only want to know from you this.
If you travel at C, will time stand still for you?
You are going to say Yes, but I want to know this:
Do you believe this because when you calculate the Lorenz transformation, you are observing where Light will be from reference frame S looking upon reference frame S'?

If so, do you agree that time does not stand still in S', but it seems to do so looking from S?
do you see the error of interpretation on Lorenz?
What you calculate is where the point of light is when looking from S to S'
It does not mean that the clock in S' stopped working.
It only means that you will see the time as light returns from S' to you.
just as we will see from earth, the clock on our rocket shows noon when arriving on the Moon, but the real time is one sec past noon.

This is the error on SR and GR.
You are interpreting observation with reality, which is nothing but observing old light!.

« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 08:13:05 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #49 on: August 23, 2018, 09:56:14 AM »
"You are interpreting observation with reality, which is nothing but observing old light!."

Exactly the point of Einstein's redefinition in philosophy of physics.  He was influenced by Ernst Mach.  Who was anti-Platonist.  For them, only observations are relevant, reality is not.  Newton's absolute reality (aka Platonist) is not observable in practice, though ordinary physics comes close.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't to that.

Sal1981

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2018, 10:37:54 AM »
The thing about relativity is that light ALWAYS travels at C in a vacuum, which I reckon where the confusion comes from. The Newtonian of adding speeds together for two reference systems simply doesn't happen for light in a vacuum.

Here's a (non-exhaustive) brief explanation of what Mousetrap simply isn't getting:
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2018, 11:17:47 AM »
Not so, no.
In our instance,the clocks are indeed synchronized.By whatever means possible. WE can have all 3 clocks loaded on a rocket, travel halfway, load one clock on another ship, travel to the moon with one, and return the other 2 to the earth with the first rocket.
Yes, the clocks start out synchronized. They don't remain synchronized. That's the problem that you are ignoring instead of addressing. The shipboard clock reads 12:00:00 instead of 12:00:01 on the moon at 12:00:01 (moon time) because it ticks slower in the Earth-Moon frame as it travels, not because it somehow launched at 11:59:59.

Quote
This will render a clock on the Moon that is exactly the same as the 2 on Earth. However, if we look at the one on the Moon, from the Earth, it will seem to be 1 second before our clock on Earth. And vice versa, because it takes 1 second for the light to travel back to each other.
Yes, we agree on this. Again, stop harping about this. The clocks all start synchronized, reading 12:00:00 in the same "now". The problem is that they don't remain synchronized in your example.

Quote
And here we go again with this great "keep your mouth shut because we have evidence by experiment-argument"

Evidence and experiment is king in science. It doesn't matter what the bible says, and it doesn't matter what you say, if a hypothesis doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.

The fact remains that we have observed the time dialation effect in experiments. The fact remains that we use technologies that must compensate for the time dialation effect or it will fail. There's no wiggle room for you to fit your constancy of time through. Time dialation is real.

Quote
Come on man, if you move a cesium clock to a high altitude, it will have an effect on the frequency it runs at due to gravitational differences.
And we know the magnitude of the gravitational redshift and can compensate for it. There's still a residual, which cannot be accounted for by the changes in altitude.

And of course, the reason why gravitational differences cause time dialation is because of GR, of which SR is a special case, and the time dialation of GR can be justified and deduced by triangulating off of SR.

And furthermore it's still time dialation. Whether it's caused by gravity or speed, time still is not uniform throughout the universe.

Quote
If you measure Muons at high altitude, and at sea level, and manipulate the Iron covering accordingly, obviously you will get the same amount of Muons in both experiments.
You made that up. You are now asserting that these scientists are either idiots or frauds. Sorry, replication would quickly expose either.

Knowing how many muons reach the earth's surface gives you data on how much radiation there is in space, and as such, it is important for aerospace applications. Thus, anything that affects how you measure radiation from outer space is going to be important to know about. Knowing the muon lifetime is also important to nuclear and particle physics, because the forces that affect the muon lifetime also affect the other particles in the Standard Model, and as such also affects how nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs work. It's important to get this stuff right, or your nuclear power and nuclear weaponry aren't going to work.

Quote
Oh, and dont even come with the GPS proves relativity argument. as if it will have any effect on 1 000 Km from Earth.
So on one hand, altitude (and speed) makes a difference in how atomic clocks tick (airliners), and on the other hand, altitude (and speed) makes no difference in how atomic clocks tick (GPS). You accuse me of arguing in circles, yet you are the only one actually doing it.

Quote
All I could see was scientists who wantd to become the famous one to prove the SR and GR with experimentation. Just to get more grants! Dont fall for that man, go and see for yourself on how they manipulated the calculations.
You obviously don't know how science works. If you were to disprove Einstein, with data and evidence, then you are up for a Nobel Prize. You would have the admiration of your scientific peers, and you would have grants coming into you anyway, because you are the fellow who disproved Einstein, and maybe your research can open avenues to the FTL drive, or even more mundane technologies, that tend to make inventors and companies very rich.

Seriously, this "Conspiracy of Dogmatic Science" canard has gotten stale.

Quote
I did explain my experiment to deliver 3 clocks at 2 different positions with a money back guarantee.
And, again, the problem is not synching them up initially, it's keeping them in synch. Notice that in every description of the problem from my end, all the clocks start out at 12:00:00. As soon as you light the rocket, the clocks go out of synch.

Quote
I did explain my experiment to deliver 3 clocks at 2 different positions with a money back guarantee.
And, again, the problem is not synching them up initially, it's keeping them in synch. Notice that in every description of the problem from my end, all the clocks start out at 12:00:00. As soon as you light the rocket, the shipboard clocks go out of synch with the Earth-moon clocks.

Quote
You were the one who claimed that if you travel at the speed of C to the Moon, you will be there instantaneous, with no time that passed for you!!
And I explained why. In the rocket's frame of reference, traveling at speed, the moon and earth are practically on top of each other due to length contraction, so the trip is short to the rocket because they don't travel very far in the first place. The rocket passengers don't see the Earth and moon as one light second apart, but very very much less than that. How much less depends on how fast the ship is going, but it's still not very far.

Quote
Now you are telling me that "It will only look like it to the people on Earth!"
And this is what I have been telling you all the time!
No. That is a mischaracterization of what I've been telling you. You keep insisting that the time elapsed on the rocket is the same amount of time that has elapsed for the Earth-Moon system. This is wrong.

When I say that the rocket experiences practically no time, I really mean that — when the guys on the rocket arrive on the moon, they are one second younger than everyone else in the Earth-Moon system by any means available to assess that. The rocket's radiological, mechanical, atomic clocks, biological clocks all agree that the crew is one second younger than the guys on the Moon — just like when commercial airliners came back to their home base, their atomic clocks were 50 someodd nanosecond younger than the clocks back home.

You are conflating the real differences in how time is measured in two different frames with an illusion — "It only seems like that, but it isn't real." No, it's very real. The shipboard clock measures a real, proper time, just as the Earth and Moon clocks do. It's just that the proper time along those paths are different. And, yes, it's bizarre, but that does turn out to be the kind of universe we live in.

Quote
You are measuring how LIGHT WILL APPEAR TO DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES WHEN TRAVELLING AT HIGH SPEED!
Light will always be observed traveling at c from any reference frame. Michelson and Morley were the first to show this, even though the didn't know what they were looking at at the time. Every experiment we have done confirms this fact. But in order for c to be constant from all reference frames, time and space have to vary, and vary together in a particular way.

Quote
Time will not stop or go faster!
Again, only within the same reference frame. Earth and Moon are in the same reference frame. The rocket isn't once it launches.

Quote
But the difference between us is that I understood what I learned!
No, you don't. You seem to think that the time effects of relativity is an illusion. It is not, but very real. You don't realize that the gravitational effects on clocks in GR is a time dialation as real and as observable as any other effect in physics, and you also don't seem to realize that GR incorporates SR into itself, with all of its timey-wimey wierdness. So, no, you DON'T understand what you "learned."

Quote
It is only the appearance of Time dilation we observe!
...
You just proved me correct and Neil de Grase Tyson et al totally incorrect.
And the Bible true!
No. The time dialation is real. By any means available to them, the guys on the rocket really do experience less time than the guys on the Earth and Moon on their trip. The rocket's clock is behind the Earth-Moon clock precisely because it ticks slower. That's time dialation.

And "Neil de Grase Tyson et al [are] totally incorrect"? Really? You think that you're smarter than all the other physicists in the world? What hubris you have, Mr. Dunning-Kruger.

Quote
It left at Noon on Earth and traveled for one second!
the Moon clock was at noon when the rocket left Earth, and it took the rocket 1 second to get there.
Therefore upon arrival of the rocket on the Moon, both will be one second past noon.
Only from the Earth-Moon system. According to any means available on the ship, the trip took very very much less than one second due to the fact that length contraction (which is also not an illusion) puts the moon very very much less than one light second away from Earth. The moon is also traveling near the speed of light from the rocket's frame of reference. The exact distance and travel time will depend on the exact numbers involved, but traveling one foot at almost the speed of light doesn't take very long, and is by any practical measure instantaneous.

Again, you speak as if everyone will agree on the time and distance that the rocket ship travels. They won't, and they'll all be correct.

Quote
So, now you say you traveled faster than the speed of light!
No. The distances are shorter. To the rocket, the entire universe is compressed along the Earth-Moon axis. All the distances are shorter in their frame. Shorter distances take less time to traverse than longer distances. The bleeding obvious.

Quote
Now you are again contradicting yourself.
No, I'm not. The clocks measure time along their path, and the paths each clock takes is different and cannot be directly compared with each other.

The situation is completely analogous to measuring the length of a speeding train by planting a stake in the ground where its nose is, and walking down its length and planting a stake in the ground where its caboose ends. You're not going to come up with the same measurement as the guy on the train because you have performed your experiment in such a way that time is very much tangled up with the way you measure space. What Einstein found was that space is just as much tangled up with your measurement of time.

<split for length>
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 11:21:11 AM by Hakurei Reimu »
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2018, 11:17:58 AM »
<continued>

Quote
what you say is that the clock for some magical reason just stopped to run during its travel. The occupants saw the clock run, but when they came to the Moon it was ctually standing still.
No. The guys on the rocket think that the Earth-Moon clocks were out of synch during their travel and as such aren't good indicators of the amount of time they spent traveling. Every means they have to assess that will reveal that the two are out of synch from the rocket's speeding frame, even though every means the Earth and Moon have to assess whether their clocks are in synch will reveal that they are and always were.

They're both correct, because measurements from one frame aren't commeasurate with measurements from a different frame. You have to relate the two measurement from different frames by the Lorentz transformation.

Quote
What university did you write that exam?
A good one, which teaches that the proper term is "take an exam." You are either lying about you being tested on either SR or GR, or your own "university" was a diploma mill.

Quote
You just claimed that the rocket can travel instantaneous, but the light that traveled from the Earth to the Moon took one second!
Because the two measurements are in different frames, and as such are not comeasurate with each other. They need not and in fact do not equal each other. In fact, along its own world line, the photon took no time either to travel its length, even though it took one second to travel the length in the Earth-Moon system.

Yes, I know what I wrote above. The photon experinces no time from beginning of its trip to its end, whereas the Earth-Moon clocks are experiencing one second for the exact same trip. Both statements are true, because you are measuring two physically different paths. So, yeah, it's not strange that measuring different paths would produce different answers.

Quote
So what is insignificant in your point of view?
Don't pretend that the both of us weren't glossing over the differences between almost-but-not-quite-c travel with actual c travel. You've been calling the rocket's travel c even though you initially acknowledged that it would merely be close to c. Personally, I think a difference of 3 billionths of a second is close enough for our purposes, but we can get as close as would satisfy you.

Quote
You did!
You said that the light that traveled next to the rocket will show the Earth clock time at Noon as it left the earth.
The Moon clock will show one second after noon.
but the occupants on the rocket arrived at one second before noon.
Liar. I kept telling you that nobody sees the rocket take off an instant before noon from any observation. I even specifically pointed out that the rocket arrives at 12:00:01 (Moon time), and that is absolutely NOT "one second before noon" unless you failed kindergarden.

Quote
Now I am astounded.
You flew a rocket at the speed of light over 300 000 Km, and somehow won the race against a light beam travelling at the same distance and you beat him to a full track length!!!!

At what point did you EVER compare the shipboard clock with the clocks on Earth and the Moon, because I cannot find a single reference to you comparing the Moon and Earth clock to the shipboard clock, even though that is exactly where the interesting stuff happens; that this is exactly the point we are aruging over. You instead simply assume that the shipboard clock would remain synchronized instead of working through what SR would actually tell you about the shipboard clock.

Quote
If you travel at C, will time stand still for you?
Strictly speaking, I cannot, as a mass-bearing object, travel at c at all. I can travel arbitrarily close to c, though, to any gamma-factor you desire.

I will not see or observe that my clocks are slowing down.

Everyone else will see and observe my clocks slow down. All of them, includiung my biological processes which make a crude clock. I will count off seconds slower, and even my voice will be slower and deeper due to Doppler shift, but all my clocks will tick in synch with each other.

I will, however, see and observe that the universe is squished along my axis of travel, and a corresponding shortening of all lengths associated with travel. All trips will take shorter time, because I have shorter distance to travel.

Nobody else will see or observe this squishing. I travel across the full distance and take about as much time (only an arbitrarily small amount longer) than an accompanying light beam. I won't notice, of course, because they see and observe my clocks ticking slower.

We will all be right, because they are all in a very real sense different measurements and as such they need not be equal.

Quote
Do you believe this because when you calculate the Lorenz transformation, you are observing where Light will be from reference frame S looking upon reference frame S'?
I observe no slowing because all of my clocks are ticking at the same rate. Of course, if all my clocks are slowed by the same factor, then I won't notice anything. I can only judge the rate of a clock by comparing it against another clock, and my biological processes and my subjective perception of time are slowed just as much as the other clocks. Time dialation affects all clocks equally, by the same factor. I don't need a Lorentz transformation to tell me that.

Quote
If so, do you agree that time does not stand still in S', but it seems to do so looking from S?
Not only seems so, by any real measurement, S' clocks were ticking arbitrarily slow ("staying still") in S during the trip, because when the rocket arrives on the moon at 12:00:01, the shipboard clock is a second behind the moon clock even though it would have started out in synch with the Moon clock (because it was in synch with the in-synch Earth clock). Ergo, the shipboard clocks ticked slow. This is not hard.

On the rocket, the trip length to the moon is very short indeed, a meter from Earth to the Moon, depending on how fast the rocket actually travels, and light and the rocket take a few billionths of a second to travel that distance. So the rocket experiences only a few billionths of a second of travel time between Earth to the Moon, practically instantaneously, so of course its shipboard clocks register hardly anything at all, and are still at practically 12:00:00 when they arrive on the moon. Again, this is not hard.

The two reference frames both think that the rocket experiences very little travel time, but for very different reasons: the rocket says that it only had very little distance to go, so of course it didn't take much time; the moon says that it's because the rocket's clocks were ticking slow, so of course it didn't take much time for them, but much longer for the moon and earth. They're both right.

Quote
do you see the error of interpretation on Lorenz?
No. All I see is that you are interpreting the situation wrong. The measurement of proper time elapsed on the moon is a different measurement from the proper time elapsed on the rocket. The paths the clocks take through space matters, and all three clocks are taking very different paths through space. That's why the shipboard clocks falls out of synch with the Earth and moon clocks.

Quote
What you calculate is where the point of light is when looking from S to S'
The Lorentz transformation takes all points in one coordinate frame (S) into another coordinate frame moving with respect to the first (S'). Physics evaluated in one frame only is completely valid. Furthermore, proper time between points is an invariant of the transformation, and it is what clocks measure. Both the rocket and the Earth-Moon system agree that the trip only took an arbitrarily very short amount of time on the rocket, much much less than a second, but they ascribe VERY DIFFERENT reasons for the cause.

Quote
It does not mean that the clock in S' stopped working.
That's right. It's properly measuring the proper time along that path... it's just that not much proper time elapsed along that path, arbitrarily small.

Quote
It only means that you will see the time as light returns from S' to you.
Even correcting for light delay, the time on S' is ticking slow in S. Even when they arrive on the moon, the shipboard clock will register that it is behind the moon clock by about one second, and that will line up with the experience of the passengers.

Quote
just as we will see from earth, the clock on our rocket shows noon when arriving on the Moon, but the real time is one sec past noon.
Yes, because they can look through their telescopes and see that the rocket's clock reads about 12:00:00 and right next to it, the moon's clock reads 12:00:01. But the rocket's clock was 12:00:00 when it left, which was in synch with their own clock at the time. Ergo, the rocket's clock registered hardly any time elapsed on its trip.

Again, because the measurements are of quite different paths.

Quote
You are interpreting observation with reality, which is nothing but observing old light!.
No. Time dialation really happens, even when correcting for old light. "Observing" here means locating each event taking place at its proper coordinates in space and time, as observed in that frame of reference. In SR, observation is not mere sight. It is the integration of all the measurements you have performed and constructing a consistent picture of what happened. When you observe that the rocket arrives on the moon at 12:00:01 moon time, it means that you have already taken into account the fact that the moon is one light second away. What you have seen is that at 12:00:02 Earth time, the rocket has arrived at the moon in your telescope. But that same sighting means that you have observed the rocket arrive at the moon at 12:00:01 Earth-Moon time (because Earth and moon clocks are synched).

I already know that there is light delay, and I am properly taking it into account. Time dialation has nothing to do with light delays. This really happens. So, no, there's no error in SR or GR.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2018, 02:59:02 AM »
The thing about relativity is that light ALWAYS travels at C in a vacuum, which I reckon where the confusion comes from. The Newtonian of adding speeds together for two reference systems simply doesn't happen for light in a vacuum.

Here's a (non-exhaustive) brief explanation of what Mousetrap simply isn't getting:

I would have liked to look at your video link, but unfortunately I dont see it.
I think it is because I am using South African servers or something.

Anyhow, I do not claim that if a rocket travels at say, 0.5 C, and if one sends a light beam out from its' front, that that light will now travel at 1.5C.
In relation to the movement of the Rocket, the light will now travel at 0.5C
But in relation to the point where the light beam was fired, light travels at 1C.

This is the difference between scientists that claim that light will still travel at 1C in the time frame of the Rocket; and what I see.
This is how RC proponents are making a mistake.

It does not matter at what speed you travel, light will only travel at 1C.
If you travel faster than 1C, time does not change, but you do is to overtake older light!
It will appear as if you are moving back in time, but once you arrive at the point of arrival, light will catch up with you because you are now traveling at 0C.
You still did not travel into history, because your time on the rocket was still syncronised with the point of departure and arrival's clocks.

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #54 on: August 24, 2018, 03:22:36 AM »
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
You were the one who claimed that if you travel at the speed of C to the Moon, you will be there instantaneous, with no time that passed for you!!
And I explained why. In the rocket's frame of reference, traveling at speed, the moon and earth are practically on top of each other due to length contraction, so the trip is short to the rocket because they don't travel very far in the first place. The rocket passengers don't see the Earth and moon as one light second apart, but very very much less than that. How much less depends on how fast the ship is going, but it's still not very far.
HR, I think your posts are too long, and think we should attempt to stay on specific topics per post.
The point you are making in the above is why I say you are interpreting the Lorenz transformation incorrect.

You need to make length to contract, and Time to stand still in order to manipulate the speed of light to remain at 'C' even if you travel at 2 C.

Let me explain.

If we travel to the Moon( at distance C), at velocity 1 C, It will take one second.
If we are on the rocket we will see 2 things.
1. Looking at the Light coming from the Earth(our special clock) it will seem to run zero the speed of C. (Because we are traveling with the light as we left Earth.
2. But, looking towards the moon, that light will seem to run 2XC. Because when we left Earth, the light arriving from the Moon was already one second old, and the clock's light was minus 1 second. As you travel towards the moon, it will take one second to get there, and seeing that you left at noon, and will arrive at noon +1 sec, but the clock on the moon showed -1 second originally and upon arrival was at +1 Noon, You will observe the clock on the Moon running twice as fast as you approach.

Therefore, the EARTH clock SEEMED TO HAVE STOPPED, THE MOON CLOCK SEEMD TO HAVE RUN TWICE AS FAST, AND THE ROCKET CLOCK WAS RUNNING NORMAL SPEED.

This is from the time frame of the Rocket.
From the time frame of the Earth, the rocket clock stood still, the Moon clock ran normal, but was -1 sec, and the Earth clock was running normal.

Do you see that the rocket's clock did not stand still, the Moon and Earth did not move towards each other?
It is only the observation OF LIGHT from the time frame of Earth about the LIGHT FROM THE TIME FRAME OF THE ROCKET AND MOON you are observing.

Sorry pal, time and distance does not change when you travel at C or higher.

« Last Edit: August 24, 2018, 03:26:38 AM by Mousetrap »
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Sal1981

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #55 on: August 24, 2018, 08:07:03 AM »
Well, at least I tried.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #56 on: August 24, 2018, 08:21:15 AM »
HR, I think your posts are too long, and think we should attempt to stay on specific topics per post.
The point you are making in the above is why I say you are interpreting the Lorenz transformation incorrect.

You need to make length to contract, and Time to stand still in order to manipulate the speed of light to remain at 'C' even if you travel at 2 C.
It is contracting, in its proper frame of reference, S'.

Quote
Let me explain.

If we travel to the Moon( at distance C), at velocity 1 C, It will take one second.
Correct, from S, where the length of the Earth-Moon distance is indeed 1 light second.

Quote
If we are on the rocket we will see 2 things.
1. Looking at the Light coming from the Earth(our special clock) it will seem to run zero the speed of C. (Because we are traveling with the light as we left Earth.
A light beam going at 0c? Incorrect. The light still travels at c. If you take the Lorentz transformation of the coordinates of a light beam in one frame of reference, which travels at c, then it will still be traveling at c in any other frame of reference. That's simply a fact of the transformation.

Quote
2. But, looking towards the moon, that light will seem to run 2XC. Because when we left Earth, the light arriving from the Moon was already one second old, and the clock's light was minus 1 second. As you travel towards the moon, it will take one second to get there, and seeing that you left at noon, and will arrive at noon +1 sec, but the clock on the moon showed -1 second originally and upon arrival was at +1 Noon, You will observe the clock on the Moon running twice as fast as you approach.
Again, incorrect. The light will travel at c in the rocket's reference frame. It is traveling at 1c in S, and it is traveling at 1c in S'. Again, this is a basic fact of the Lorentz transformation: A particle traveling at c in one frame of reference is traveling at c in any other frame of reference.

Quote
Therefore, the EARTH clock SEEMED TO HAVE STOPPED, THE MOON CLOCK SEEMD TO HAVE RUN TWICE AS FAST, AND THE ROCKET CLOCK WAS RUNNING NORMAL SPEED.
While the rocket sees something like this, yours cannot be the explanation, because the rocket will measure every beam of light traveling at exactly c. Not 0c for the receeding Earth and not 2c for the approaching moon. Both are going at c. They can use their own rocket as a ruler and their own clocks to judge how much time it takes a light beam to travel the length of their own ship, or any other aparatus they have to make this measurement, and it will come up with the same answer, c.

Because the light from the earth catches up to them just fine, they know that yours cannot be the explanation the fact that they see the clock on earth running slow. Furthermore, at the speed the Moon seems to be approaching (near c), to get out as far ahead as it did, that light beam had to be traveling a long while, much longer than 1 second, and so the apparant speed of the clock on the moon must be an artifact of old light.

Now, let's specify how fast our ship travels.

Let's set c = 300 000 000 m/s, and the rocket's velocity 1 m/s less than this, v = 299 999 999 m/s. It takes the rocket 1.000 000 003 s to transverse the 1 light-second distance from the Earth to the Moon, in refernce frame S. The proper time along this path is 81.6 microseconds in S. At v, this gives us a distance traveled of 24 494.9 m for the rocket in reference frame S' (the rocket is stationary in its own frame of reference, but the universe around it is moving at -v in S'). Length contraction of 300 000 000 m at v = 299 999 999 m/s yields the same value, 24 494.9 m.

So, we see that we arrive at a consistent answer. The shipboard clock registers a mere 81.6 µs travel time in whichever frame we consider. In S, it's because the ship's clock slowed down at v = c - 1 m/s; in S', it's because D/γ = 24 494.9 m (D = (1 second)·c = 1 light second), which takes only 81.6 µs to transverse at v. This proper time will only get smaller as the rocket approaches c.

This is what SR gives you. It gives you a proper time for the rocket's journey that is legitimately 81.6 µs regardless of which of S or S' you measure from. This is what the shipboard clock will register as it travels to the moon, and is practically instantaneous. It is also the time everyone agrees the shipboard clock has registered on its journey.

Once more, the rocket experiences very little time because in S', the journey was legitimately short (due to length contraction), and in S the ship's clock was ticking slowly. The rocket never outraces it's own light beams, because they always travel at c in any reference frame. In S, the light from it's launch is 1 meter and a bit ahead of it the moment it arrives on the moon. In S', the light from the rocket's initial launch is 24 494.9 m ahead of it (c·(81.6 µs)) when the rocket arrives at the moon. In only a fevered dream would either scenario constitute the ship arriving head of its own light.

Quote
Do you see that the rocket's clock did not stand still, the Moon and Earth did not move towards each other?
The rocket's clock will not stand still in its own frame, S', but I have proven above that the rocket's clock will not register as much time as the required 1+ second it would take from S.

I find it interesting that you have to violate one of the core principles of relativity to justify your assertion that everything is hunky dory and that time and distance do not change when you travel near c "or higher." You appeal to the Lorentz transformation, but it seems strangely absent from your calculation. So, don't spooge it, prove it. Use the Lorentz transformation to prove that these light beams really do travel at 0c and 2c. I double-dog dare you.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #57 on: August 24, 2018, 08:25:27 AM »
Well, at least I tried.
Which is of coarse to be admired.

I do know exactly what the transformation formula is about, and the SR and GR theory.
However, the more I ask Scientists to explain why they think Time and Length can change at the speed of light, the less they explain and become sentimental about what they learned as students.
What they just do not want to think about is that the Michelson Morley experiment proved that light does not need to travel through aether. They actually proved that Light travels at C at all times.
Even if it is projected from a moving body travelling at huge speeds, it will not just add up and go faster.

What the Lorenz transformation does is to measure the time delay as something moves away from another observation point.
This is the actual scientific observation and conclusion.

Time does not dilate, length does not contract.

It is only an observation of old light, nothing more.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #58 on: August 24, 2018, 08:29:39 AM »
Quote from: HR
If we are on the rocket we will see 2 things.
1. Looking at the Light coming from the Earth(our special clock) it will seem to run zero the speed of C. (Because we are traveling with the light as we left Earth.
A light beam going at 0c? Incorrect. The light still travels at c. If you take the Lorentz transformation of the coordinates of a light beam in one frame of reference, which travels at c, then it will still be traveling at c in any other frame of reference. That's simply a fact of the transformation.

Heck pal,
I never said light travels at 0C!
I said, it will seems as if light travels at 0C.

Let me make it simpler.
If you stand on the Earth, and look at the watch on the rocket as it leaves, the clock will seem to be standing still, because the rocket is departing with the light it had on Earth.
it does not mean that light stopped travelling, but it still needs to get back to us.
Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Mousetrap

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #59 on: August 24, 2018, 08:50:02 AM »
Quote from: MT
2. But, looking towards the moon, that light will seem to run 2XC. Because when we left Earth, the light arriving from the Moon was already one second old, and the clock's light was minus 1 second. As you travel towards the moon, it will take one second to get there, and seeing that you left at noon, and will arrive at noon +1 sec, but the clock on the moon showed -1 second originally and upon arrival was at +1 Noon, You will observe the clock on the Moon running twice as fast as you approach.
Quote from: HR
Again, incorrect. The light will travel at c in the rocket's reference frame. It is traveling at 1c in S, and it is traveling at 1c in S'. Again, this is a basic fact of the Lorentz transformation: A particle traveling at c in one frame of reference is traveling at c in any other frame of reference.
Again----Seem to...

But lets see what you are now claiming.
Because the rocket travels at C, the light inside the rocket will travel also at C if measured in the rocket.

Well, this is wrong.
Light will travel at C from its point of origin.
If the rocket travels at C, the light in the rocket will actually standing still.

This is the great distortion of the interpretation of Lorenz.
you will say that light will be measured at C if we place 2 detectors in the rocket.
One at the tail and one at the nose, and if we fire a light beam from the tail, it will reach the nose.

Well, this is not so.
The light fired at the tail of a rocket traveling at C, will stay at the tail!

This is the characteristic of light!

It travels at C which is 300 000 km per hour(about)

Look at this example.

We shoot a beam of light to the moon from our Earth observer.
our rocket had a running start, and exactly as he passed the earth  observer (at C)when he fired the light beam to the moon,
our rocket man fired a light beam to the moon also.
Now, reality has it that the light beam of the rocket, as well as the one from the earth observer will arrive at the same time on the moon.
therefore, the rocket man will see the point of the light beam and the rocket light beam travelling with him, and all 3 arrive at the same instance at the moon.
Therefore, the Rocketman will not be able to measure light at C, because light will slow down in his point of view.
He knows that the light is travelling at C, but from ITS SOURCE!
NOT FROM THE ROCKET'S SPEED ADDED TO C!

Evolution, the religion whereby one believes your children more human, and your parents more ape, than you!

The Human Mind, if it has nothing to do with Evolution...What an incredible entity...
If it does, what a waste!

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.