Author Topic: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!  (Read 8450 times)

Offline Cavebear

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #75 on: August 27, 2018, 06:38:26 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think this image will clarify everything that light has an origin, and travels at a certain speed.
Therefore, to say that if one travels in the same direction of light, light will still be measured at C from your position, is incorrect.
Frankly, just as gravity is a fact, so it is that light has an original start off point, and any time frame must be in reference to that point of origin.

Where is the way where light dwells (travels)? and as for darkness, where is its place (stationary)?  Job 38:19

Lightspeed does not equal lightspeed plus forward or backwards motion. 

I guess you are trying to explain how light can come from 13 billion years away when your assumption is that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #76 on: August 27, 2018, 07:03:39 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Lightspeed does not equal lightspeed plus forward or backwards motion. 

I guess you are trying to explain how light can come from 13 billion years away when your assumption is that the universe is only a few thousand years old.
On the contrary!
This is what guys such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind tries to sell.

I understand from the Bible that light travels at C.
I understand that distance is measured by triangulation, and that some galaxies are measurable in billions of light years.
I understand that it should mean that this light traveled for billions of years to reach us.

This is then also evidence that I am correct in claiming that, that light had an origin a few billion light years away.

This means that time and distance is a continuum.
Speed is distance traveled in a set time.

Now, this is what Lorenz tried to do.
He wanted speed to be a continuum, and distance and time to be variable.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 07:05:49 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.

Offline Cavebear

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #77 on: August 27, 2018, 07:23:41 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
On the contrary!
This is what guys such as Ken Ham and Kent Hovind tries to sell.

I understand from the Bible that light travels at C.
I understand that distance is measured by triangulation, and that some galaxies are measurable in billions of light years.
I understand that it should mean that this light traveled for billions of years to reach us.

This is then also evidence that I am correct in claiming that, that light had an origin a few billion light years away.

This means that time and distance is a continuum.
Speed is distance traveled in a set time.

Now, this is what Lorenz tried to do.
He wanted speed to be a continuum, and distance and time to be variable.

My apologies.  I am too used to theists "explaining" that the universe appears old because a deity created light in mid-travel, or some such nonsense.

But you never explained about the water source of the flood.  Want to explain that?
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #78 on: August 27, 2018, 02:50:07 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Therefore, Newton was correct, Einstein not.

Newton and Einstein were both correct - in the domain in which their theories were intended. At low speeds and lighter gravities, Einstein's solutions match Newton's.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Atheism: The belief that we have a long way to go before we even begin to understand the infinite complexities of the universe.
Religion: "The big magic sky-man made it all, now give me some money."

Offline Cavebear

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #79 on: August 27, 2018, 02:55:33 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Newton and Einstein were both correct - in the domain in which their theories were intended. At low speeds and lighter gravities, Einstein's solutions match Newton's.

Indeed, I think I read read somewhere that Newton had the data, but not the maths, for spacetime.  Still, it is all one shoulder to climb on at a time.  Without Newton, Einstein might have been a very good patent clerk.  Of course, in the opposite sense, if it weren't for those damn Greek geometry mystics, we might be on Alpha Proxima by now.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #80 on: August 27, 2018, 08:06:10 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indeed, I think I read read somewhere that Newton had the data, but not the maths, for spacetime.  Still, it is all one shoulder to climb on at a time.  Without Newton, Einstein might have been a very good patent clerk.  Of course, in the opposite sense, if it weren't for those damn Greek geometry mystics, we might be on Alpha Proxima by now.

You will never master the triangular or square number theory of Pythagoras!

Actually Einstein didn't do space-time, his teacher, Minkowski did that.  Then Einstein was smart enough to realize it was necessary, so he could extend Relativity to gravity (acceleration).  But it was a re-invention ... distance vs time diagrams go back to Galileo (who was the first to experiment quantitatively with motion).
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

Offline trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #81 on: August 27, 2018, 10:29:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Indeed, I think I read read somewhere that Newton had the data, but not the maths, for spacetime.  Still, it is all one shoulder to climb on at a time.  Without Newton, Einstein might have been a very good patent clerk.  Of course, in the opposite sense, if it weren't for those damn Greek geometry mystics, we might be on Alpha Proxima by now.
Certainly Newton was aware of the problem of universal collapse as predicted by his theory of gravity; he said it wouldn't happen if you had infinite stars scattered evenly over infinite space since there wouldn't be a central point to collapse to.

Newton was, of course, completely wrong.  There is no way to have a stable collection of massive objects in which gravity is always attractive that does not ultimately collapse.  What defeated Newton wasn't his lack of math, it was his dual assumptions that the universe must be static and that gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #82 on: August 27, 2018, 11:44:55 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Now, this will prove that light travelling in 2 different directions are influenced by anything such as "AETHER WIND" that might be travelling from one direction, and would have slowed down one of the beams resulting in a wave distortion, and evidence of Aether Winds!

Cool, they proved there was no Aether winds, and light travels at C, no matter which direction.

Now, please give me the experiments where it showed that light will travel at C in whatever reference frame it is observed!
The experiments that showed that Maxwell and Lorentz's electrodynamics is the correct theory of electrodynamics also establish the independence of c from the speed of the source. Thus, no matter what the source is doing, a shell of light propagating at c from a source would be centered upon the point in that frame of reference the shell was emitted.

Also, synchrotron radiation, produced from accelerating relativistic particles, do not travel at any speed measureably different from c in a vacuum. If the speed of the emitted light depended upon the speed of the source, here is where it would show up most profoundly and obviously. It does not. Synchrotron radiation is used every day to probe objects, and you kind of need to know when you should expect a scatter from your radiation to arrive at your detector so you can minimize noise. Discrepencies, especially as large as 2c, would be noted.

Here's the thing. Michelson and Morley knew the Earth was moving, and furthermore has a wide veriety of movement through space. This has been a long established fact in cosmology for hundreds of years by the 19th century. Yet the Michelson-Morley experiment established that, dispite this known motion of the Earth, the aparatus was behaving as if it were completely stationary.

Quote
Mickelson Morley's experiment does nothing of this sort.
That's because you don't know your physics. That's been obvous to us for about a month now.

Quote
Whats more, the reflected photons will now travel back to the earth, but the light beam must be positioned from the satellite to travel to a point on the earth again.

Great, now what does this mean?
It's basically a replication of the stellar abaration experiments that conclude that there was no aether dragging. The laser is behaving exactly as advertised.

Quote
Light does not travel in straight lines, but in a 3 D spherical shape.
Exactly wrong. If the light was traveling as a 3D spherical shape, why would they need to aim the laser at all?

Something's wrong with your logics, boy.

Quote
One piece of the sphere's surface can not travel faster than any other point of the spherical surface, but is dependent upon C from ITS' POINT OF ORIGIN!
How are you proving Einstien wrong here? Of course it does. If you emit a shell of light, that light will move out at c centered about where the light was emitted in your frame of reference. The thing is, that happens whatever frame you're considering. If the source is moving in your frame, then the source object will move off of that center point, but the center point of that shell will not move. But this also happens when you go to a moving reference frame — you see the exact same phenomenon.

Quote
THEREFORE, THE MICKELSON MORLEY EXPERIMENT ACTUALLY ONLY PROVED THAT THERE IS NO AETHER, AN THAT THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT BEAM THAT WAS SPLIT IN 2, WAS AT THE MIROR.
Oh, come on, people knew that the light beam split in two at the beam splitter. That's why it's called a "beam splitter." And, yeah, there's no aether to carry the weight of the Galilean transformation that you are so fond of using in defiance of the Lorentz transformation that is the actual way to translate between boosted frames.

Quote
AND THEY PROVED THAT LIGHT WILL TRAVEL AT THE SAME SPEED FROM IT'S SOURCE, NO MATTER IN WHICH DIRECTION YOU SEND IT.
That was already obvious from Maxwell's equations. What Michelson and Morley proved, among other experiments, was that there was no way to reconcile the principle of relativity with Maxwell's equations using the Galilean transform, which had up to that point proven to be quite effective in preserving the invarance of physical law to boosts in velocity.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
let me continue with the characteristics of light.

Light travels at C in a vacuum, FROM ITS SOURCE.
Travels at c according to whom? Please be specific about what conditions this will hold. I contend that it will travel at c regardless of the source or the receiver. Who will see the light travel at c? My answer is everyone, no matter how they happen to be moving, or even knowing whether they are moving and how fast.

Quote
it travels on a 360 degree SPHERE.
That would imply that light couldn't be columized, which it can definitely be.

Quote
if a light is flashed when a satellite travels at 7 000 Km per hour, the light will travel at C, FROM THE POINT OF ORIGIN.
actually, the satellite will travel away from the point of origin of the flash of light, and will experience the Doppler effect and will observe the light as red-shift.
Please compare the relativistic Doppler effect to the Doppler effect for sound. You will find a bit of a difference between the two.

Quote
If the satellite would ever be able to achieve C+ speeds, the satellite will travel outside of the Light sphere, and will not see the flash, untill the satellite slows down, and allows the light to gain.
Assertion of an impossible circumstance, even in a gedanken experiment. We can't get particles to move faster than the speed of light even with the lightest objects imaginable and with as much energy as we can pump into them. It's as if mass-bearing particles need infinite energy to even make it to c, let alone surpass it.

Quote
With the use of Light, one will be able to determine which satellite is travelling, and which is stationary.
And right there is a violation of the principle of relativity. Every other law of the universe obeys it; none of them care about who is stationary and who is traveling, and produce identical results regardless of who you consider to be each. Now you are proposing that this very well-established principle of relativity is wrong, using a phenomanon (light) that has already been brought under the umbrella of the principle of relativity, and in defiance of a theory that is the cornerstone of all modern physics.

Quote
This is exactly as we observe far off galaxies, where they are travelling away in relation to us.
Their light is measured in our frame of reference as red shifted, and our light at normal C.

Therefore, Newton was correct, Einstein not.
So you think that the Doppler effect is indicative of Newton? Bollocks. Look up "Relativistic Doppler effect", and you will see that Einstein also predicts that receeding objects will have redshifted light. After all, if all of the distant clocks are slowed down in the receeding object, wouldn't their oscillators slow down, and thus send out lower-frequency light?

No, you have not "disproved" Einstein here.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I had to find one discussion point in an attempt to show you what I mean.
Here we have the problem with SR and GR in a nut shell.
1. the Galilean transformation adds velocities up.
2. the Lorentz transformation shows how something behaves once it reaches huge speeds that can be measured in fractions of C.
And to which I agree.

But it actually shows you how light will appear to look from another time frame, in the observed time frame.
And it does not mean that Time and Length changed at all, but your interpretation of what you would observe about light is what you incorrectly now think is the error.
Wrong. All you have done is exposed your ignorance of what a reference frame is. If I have to keep in mind the "real" time and length of objects in a construct to do physics, even to assure myself that I'm not actually going mad, then you don't have a real frame of reference, but a mathematical curiosity. In order for it to be a frame of reference, you need to be able to forget about any measurement taken outside of that frame; you need to be able to derive what will happen using physical laws using how the world "appears" and treating it as if that were the reality. Again, that's what makes frames of reference special.

But if you don't have to refer to "real" times and lengths, ever, when doing physics then how are they "real"?

The Galilean transformation does not "add velocities." It takes you from one frame of reference into another where the frames are related by a boost velocity. In the tranformed frame, everything in the frame is moving with some additional velocity opposing the velocity that characterizes the transformation. You add velocities with a velocity addition formula. For Newtonian physics, that's the rather straightforward u = v + u' (where u' is the speed of whatever in the reference frame where something traveling at v is stationary). In relativity, u = (v + u')/(1 + vu'/c²). Why the difference?

Quote
Never did I say that Light can be stopped.
Light can never be stationary.
But travelling at C, It will appear to be just that!
If you have a true frame of reference instead of the mere mathematical curiosities you are actually using, you can treat the light as if it were actually stationary. That's the point of a reference frame. It is entire in and of itself.

Thank you for admitting that you are not actually using a Lorentz transforamtion, because no Lorentz transformation will allow you to see a light beam traveling at any velocity other than c, let alone "stopped." And you have already admitted that the Lorentz transformation legitimately shows how things would "appear."

Quote
2. the Lorentz transformation shows how something behaves once it reaches huge speeds that can be measured in fractions of C.
And to which I agree.

Quote
You see, this is what Lorenz and Einstein missed out on.
They presumed that it is impossible for us to determine if light, just as stationary objects, is moving or not.

If this is the case, then SR and GR is 100% correct.

However, the total contradiction about this characteristic of light is evident once we look at all the different claims made by physicists.
Yes, millions of physicists have it wrong when they claim that from all frames of reference c will appear at the same speed. You're right, c is a characteristic of light, but it won't allow you to determine who is moving and who is stationary. The laws of physics seem set up to preclude that.

Quote
For instance, even Stephen Hawking in his publications claims that light travels at C, and if you are travelling at C, and is not in the 3 dimensional sphere of light. (from its source obviously)[added by me], you will ever see that light!
Because obviously YOU know what Stephen Hawking meant better than the whole discipline of physics. Because, you know, if it was that obvious, then it wouldn't take Stephen Hawking to tell us this. I want to see which publication he makes the claim. I'm betting my life that you have missed an imporant piece of context.

Quote
Therefore, I conclude that Light has it's source, and Must travel from A to B, A being the origin, and B being our position.
This is not different from Einstein.

Quote
Sorry pal, you can not claim that light will have 2 measurable speeds, one where you travel at say 0.5C, and one stationary. and both will measure C.
Not only can I claim this, I do, and I have showed that the claim holds up. I already showed you the CALCULATION that shows that the Lorentz transformation (which you admit legitimately shows what each frame of reference will measure) will not change a velocity measured at c in one frame into a velocity measuring any other value in the other frame.

Quote
I know the Lorentz transformation by heart, and do not need you to give me the formulas.
For someone who knows them "by heart," you don't use them or understand what they are actually for. I call bullshit.

Quote
I need just one thing from you.

What, in your mind, does the Lorentz transformation measure.
The Lorentz transformation doesn't "measure" anything. It transforms how one frame of reference would place every event in it to how another frame of reference would place those same exact events, if those frames are related by a boost in velocity. Measurements are all carried out in their respective frames. In fact, they must be carried out in their respective frames; measurements made between events using coordinates from mixed frames of references are meaningless.

The term "transformation" comes from linear algrebra, and is in fact the main subject of that particular field. But I digress. A transformation transforms all object objects in the source vector space into their corresponding objects in the target vector space. The Lorentz transformation does analogously with frames of reference.

The fact that you ask such a question shows your lack of understanding.

Quote
Do it simple like,
take a vehicle that travels to the left at XV.
Shoot a laser forward.
shoot a laser backward.
now add both together.
Add the lasers together? Is that some sort of zen riddle?

Quote
Then explain why.
and and
I need to see where and what you see, that I dont.
I'll assume you're on the vehicle. I've already shown the calculations that tell you that a light beam will travel at c no matter what frame you're considering. So, I will see both light beams traveling at c according to my measurements. You also will see both light beams traveling at c according to your measurements. You have already accepted that the Lorentz transformation legitimately tells you what each frame of reference will measure.

Instead of asking me why you should observe all light beams going at c (you already knew what I was going to say), why don't you use the Lorentz transformation that you supposedly know "by heart" to show me how my description differs from your "reality".

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think this image will clarify everything that light has an origin, and travels at a certain speed.
Unlike you, I know what the bloody hell I'm looking at when I see the above. First off, that's for a given event, the one at the apex of the two cones. Second, that's for a particular reference frame. If you transform that same diagram onto another reference frame going at a different velocity, the image is going to be quite different. The cones will remain the same, though. However, the image of the time axis will be tilted and stretched in the direction of the boost velocity, and the hypersurface of the other frame's now will be tilted to the future in the direction of the boost velocity.

Quote
Therefore, to say that if one travels in the same direction of light, light will still be measured at C from your position, is incorrect.
Prove it using the Lorentz transformation. After all, you agree that the Lorentz transformation legitimately tells you how each frame of reference will measure.

If you're able to project another frame's diagram onto this one, you'll see the difference immediately.

Quote
Frankly, just as gravity is a fact, so it is that light has an original start off point, and any time frame must be in reference to that point of origin.
Special relativity and all of its implications are just as much fact as gravity. I'm sorry that it contradicts your Bible (but not sorry), but that is the fact.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline trdsf

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #83 on: August 28, 2018, 01:04:51 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login I can only say I admire your patience.
"My faith in the Constitution is whole, it is complete, it is total, and I am not going to sit here and be an idle spectator to the diminution, the subversion, the destruction of the Constitution." -- Barbara Jordan

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #84 on: August 28, 2018, 04:49:07 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
T...

Also, synchrotron radiation, produced from accelerating relativistic particles, do not travel at any speed measureably different from c in a vacuum. If the speed of the emitted light depended upon the speed of the source, here is where it would show up most profoundly and obviously. It does not. Synchrotron radiation is used every day to probe objects, and you kind of need to know when you should expect a scatter from your radiation to arrive at your detector so you can minimize noise. Discrepencies, especially as large as 2c, would be noted....
I have never claimed that the speed of light depends on THE SPEED OF IT'S SOURCE.
I CLAIMED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS C, BUT THAT LIGHT HAS AN ORIGIN AND TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF c FROM THIS POINT.
iF THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT WAS TRAVELLING AT 0.5 C FOR INSTANCE, THE LIGHT WILL TRAVEL AT C FROM THAT POINT ON, and not at 1+0.5 C.
lets clarify it more, if the source of the light beam travels at speed greater than C, then the source will totally overtake the light beam.
This is where you claim that the light beam will still be present on the source and will travel at C.
Therefore, you are the one that tells me that the speed of light is dependent upon the speed of it's source

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
Here's the thing. Michelson and Morley knew the Earth was moving, and furthermore has a wide veriety of movement through space. This has been a long established fact in cosmology for hundreds of years by the 19th century. Yet the Michelson-Morley experiment established that, dispite this known motion of the Earth, the aparatus was behaving as if it were completely stationary.
That's because you don't know your physics. That's been obvous to us for about a month now.
And they set one light beam from one point on their apparatus, to differnt directions in equal lengths of what, 2 meters, and tried to see if there was any distortion in the light waves when the light beams was meeting again.
It is as if I go clockwise, and you anti clock wise, and we hope one of us arrives earlier.
Quote from: Hakurei Reimu
I
Exactly wrong. If the light was traveling as a 3D spherical shape, why would they need to aim the laser at all?
Perhaps you do not know that even a laser flares out over distance.
This is exactly why it is a laser, because the light is concentrated in one direction.
The beam sent out to the moon is as thick as a telephone pole, but only a few photons manage to be detected upon it's return.




« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 05:13:11 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.

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #85 on: August 28, 2018, 05:28:18 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote from: Mousetrap on August 27, 2018, 03:12:38 AM
let me continue with the characteristics of light.

Light travels at C in a vacuum, FROM ITS SOURCE.[/quote
Travels at c according to whom? Please be specific about what conditions this will hold. I contend that it will travel at c regardless of the source or the receiver. Who will see the light travel at c? My answer is everyone, no matter how they happen to be moving, or even knowing whether they are moving and how fast.
I really think you are posting a lot more than what you should.
Look at this one for instance.
What dont you understand about my statement.
Light travels at C from it's source.
Thats not so difficult to understand.
If a flash sets off in space and light travels away from it's source, we can say that light travels at C from it's source to where we are now.

Here is the scientific evidence.
You are looking at light that came from outer space, and know it should be 5 billion years old.
the light you observe originated from a galaxy that is not there anymore.
why, because in 5 billion years it moved so far away, that its position as it is NOW, will only be visible in another 5 billion years.
However, the light that we now observe, came from its position of origin.
and it traveled in a straight line towards us.
But, this light was sent out into space in a 3D sphere, and we are lucky to be in the area where the surface of this sphere reached us.

Therefore, your claim that everyone will see light travel at C, is incorrect, and on the speed that we are moving away from the origin of the light beam, does prove that we see light moving slower. But not as slow to show it less than C, only to move it into a red shift.
This is your answer.

We observe light from distant galaxies at red shift.
Why?
Due to the Doppler effect.
Why?
Because we are moving away from the source of where the light came from.
So what will you say?
well, just as sound waves is observed lower in frequency as the source moves away from one, just so will the frequency of light lower, rendering a red shift.
Now, this is where I make a claim that you do not see light at C wherever you are, but I say wherever the light came from.

If I get on a rocket and travel away from the observed red shift galaxy I saw from Earth, It will increase in it's red shift.
As we travel faster we will eventually outrun the light received from the red shift galaxy, and will eventual catch up on light that was sent out prior to our departure.

In theory, travelling away from this galaxy at 5 billion times C, and we will catch up with the light that came from it 5 billion years ago.
It does not mean we became 5 Billion years younger.


« Last Edit: August 28, 2018, 05:52:15 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.

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #86 on: August 28, 2018, 11:06:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I have never claimed that the speed of light depends on THE SPEED OF IT'S SOURCE.
Your descriptions are so confused that I don't think even you know what you're talking about. Some of your descriptions only make sense if light depends on the source's speed. Others, not.

Quote
I CLAIMED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS C, BUT THAT LIGHT HAS AN ORIGIN AND TRAVELS AT THE SPEED OF c FROM THIS POINT.
iF THE SOURCE OF THE LIGHT WAS TRAVELLING AT 0.5 C FOR INSTANCE, THE LIGHT WILL TRAVEL AT C FROM THAT POINT ON, and not at 1+0.5 C.
Light will travel at c according to which reference frame, MT? Without a reference frame, without telling me who or what is doing the measurement, your statement that 'Light goes at c' is meaningless... unless you mean that every observer will measure light going at c — which blasts your claim that Einstein's relativity is false clear out of the water.

The question is simple: Who gets to see light going at its true speed?

To clarify, we normally specify speed in terms of some understood frame of reference. When it is said that I'm driving my car at 30 mph, that 30 mph is the speed relative to the road. When it is said that the surface of the earth spins at ~1000 mph, we mean that the earth's surface is going at ~1000 mph relative to its center point. When we say that the earth orbits the sun at 29.78 km/s, we mean that the Earth is moving zt 29.78 km/s relative to the sun. Get it? Specify who or what gets to see light moving at c, and you'll be talking.

Quote
lets clarify it more, if the source of the light beam travels at speed greater than C, then the source will totally overtake the light beam.
That is your assertion. I have yet to see any experiment or line of reasoning from you that demonstrates your assertion. I understand that if the Galilean transformation is the transformation between frames related by a boost velocity, then someone can go faster than c according to some (yet unspecified) privilaged frame of reference, but it's not. It's the Lorentz transformation that properly transforms between boosted reference frames; the Galilean transform is only an approximation of the Lorentz transformation.

Do you know what an "approximation" is, MT?

Quote
This is where you claim that the light beam will still be present on the source and will travel at C.
Amazing, two particles traveling at exactly the same velocity emitted from exactly the same point arrive at a distant point at exactly the same time. [/sarcasm] Of course, the ship can't travel at or over c, being a massive object.

Quote
Therefore, you are the one that tells me that the speed of light is dependent upon the speed of it's source
No. I cited the synchrotron radiation as specific proof otherwise. What I claim is that all observers will observe the same speed of light c from their frame of reference. If a ship traveling at nearly c in your reference frame emitting a pulse of light forward, then the light pulse will only be barely faster than the ship, exactly c; on the ship, that exact same light pulse will be measured as going as exactly c as well, but I outside the ship, explain the discrepency as the lengths and time on the ship being distorted. The ship will make exactly the same claim as I, my lengths and times are distorted to the ship.

It's a lot more subtler than your inane "you are the one that tells me that the speed of light is dependent upon the speed of it's source" strawman. It also tells me that you do not, in fact, understand special relativity.

Quote
And they set one light beam from one point on their apparatus, to differnt directions in equal lengths of what, 2 meters, and tried to see if there was any distortion in the light waves when the light beams was meeting again.
No. The light would produce an interference pattern regardless of what they did. They rotated the aparatus 90° and watched for changes in the fringe pattern, because the two arms would change roles, and light that arrived in phase x and y from each arm would instead arrive in phase y and x respectively, causing a change in the fringing pattern.

The time that the light takes to travel down the tube perpendicular to the speed of the Earth is straightforwardly t1 = 2l1/c·sqrt(1-v²/c²) while the parallel tube is t2 = 2l2/c·(1-v²/c²). As you can see, the expressions are different — they will produce different answers, and it will show up as a change in the interference patterns as the aparatus is rotated. With some approximation, the change in time between one orientation and another is Δt - Δt' ≈ (l1+l2) v²/c³. In the particular case of their experiment, the earth's orbit around the sun would have produced fringe shifts of 0.4, and their aparatus could detect them down to 0.01.

And before you say, "But that's aether!" the only thing necessary for this is to assume that the Earth has some speed relative to the special reference frame where the speed of light is exactly c. The aether only provided a physical grounding for this frame. This is why I say you have to specify the frame where c is the speed of light, if it's not c for everyone; it's what allows calculations and experiments such as this.

Of course, being cagey is perhaps what you want.

Quote
Perhaps you do not know that even a laser flares out over distance.
It does, but it doesn't disperse as much as a full 3D shell does. With reasonably good optics and a well-columnated beam over a sufficiently limited distance, a laser can be treated as if it were a line.


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I really think you are posting a lot more than what you should.
Look at this one for instance.
What dont you understand about my statement.
Light travels at C from it's source.
Which is what I've been saying, too, except that I assert that every frame will measure it at c, regardless of which one does it. You apparently think that the speed of light is constant according to some unspecified reference frame. Specify it. Because if you're using a Galilean transformation to transform between reference frames, only one particular reference frame will get to see light going at c. Everyone else will only get to see speeds of c-v (bolding indicates vectors) where v is the boost velocity that takes you from this special frame to yours.


Quote
Thats not so difficult to understand.
If a flash sets off in space and light travels away from it's source, we can say that light travels at C from it's source to where we are now.
That's because you're cutting too much out of your "understanding." Every other speed we talk about is done in a background of an assumed frame of reference. You need to say it explicitly here. Which frame of reference gets to see light traveling at c?

Suppose in your example, I observe light going some velocity c1, and my friend, who is traveling toward me in the opposite direction of the light beam at some v. Of course, he will see the light beam travel at c2 = c1+v (because if he saw it traveling at c1 exactly, that implies Einstein's relativity and your argument collapses). Now, who has observed the real speed of light? Have either of us observed the real speed of light? Do either of us know what the real speed of light is? How do we know that light has a constant speed, given that nothing else in the universe seems to?

Quote
Here is the scientific evidence.
You are looking at light that came from outer space, and know it should be 5 billion years old.
the light you observe originated from a galaxy that is not there anymore.
why, because in 5 billion years it moved so far away, that its position as it is NOW, will only be visible in another 5 billion years.
However, the light that we now observe, came from its position of origin.
and it traveled in a straight line towards us.
So far, you have not described anything different from Einstein's relativity.

Quote
But, this light was sent out into space in a 3D sphere, and we are lucky to be in the area where the surface of this sphere reached us.
If it's expanding in a 3D sphere, it's going to reach us with probability 1 — certainty. We are not particularly lucky. 3D shells of light also occur in Einstein's relativity.

Quote
Therefore, your claim that everyone will see light travel at C, is incorrect,
That's a non-sequitor. There is no logical connection between anything you have said above and the conclusion that I'm wrong. Everything you have said is consistent with Einstein's relativity, and Einstein's relativity does indeed have c as a constant for all observers. Your above "argument" doesn't get you there.

Quote
and on the speed that we are moving away from the origin of the light beam, does prove that we see light moving slower. But not as slow to show it less than C, only to move it into a red shift.
This is your answer.
Your answer is stupid. The cosmic microwave background is extremely redshifted, from the visible spectrum (~500 nanometers) to the microwave spectrum (~3 mm) which corresponds to a change in wavelength of 6000 times. This requires us to receed from the emitter of the cosmic microwave background at 0.9998c. This is decidedly in the realm of detectability, and we do not see any such light from the CMB going this slow.

Your notion that the observer sees c a different value because of his motion will also make it vulnerable to a Michelson-Morely type experiment.

Quote
We observe light from distant galaxies at red shift.
Why?
Due to the Doppler effect.
Why?
Because we are moving away from the source of where the light came from.
So what will you say?
Again, we have a relativistic Doppler effect. The mere presence of a Doppler effect does not indicate that your theory is true. But it does predict a different number for the frequency shift.

The nonrelativistic Doppler effect has f = (c ± v)/(c ± u) f0, where c is the speed of the wave (in this case, light), v is the speed of the receiver (positive for approaching, negative for receeding) and u is the speed of the source (positive for receeding, negative for approaching).

The relativistic Doppler effect has f = sqrt(c-v/c+v) f0, where v is the relative speed of the observer and source (negative if observer and source are moving towards each other, and positive if they are moving away).

And, nope, the relativistic Doppler effect is what is observed in experiments like the Ives–Stilwell experiments, Mössbauer rotor experiments, and sensitive spectroscopy experiments (because atoms emit in very precise thin-line spectra, and their shift can be readily quantified, and may be driven to very high velocities and their speeds can be very well controlled).

Quote
well, just as sound waves is observed lower in frequency as the source moves away from one, just so will the frequency of light lower, rendering a red shift.
Now, this is where I make a claim that you do not see light at C wherever you are, but I say wherever the light came from.
You do realize that sound does not change speed when it is Doppler shifted, right? That's why supersonic aircraft create sonic booms when they fly past. The nonrelativistic Doppler effect does not affect the propagation speed of the wave; the propagation speed of the wave is a property of the medium.

Quote
If I get on a rocket and travel away from the observed red shift galaxy I saw from Earth, It will increase in it's red shift.
Yes, it will. As it will do in the relativistic case.

Quote
As we travel faster we will eventually outrun the light received from the red shift galaxy, and will eventual catch up on light that was sent out prior to our departure.
This is the only part where the relativistic case differs from yours, and yours is based on speculation only. You have not done nearly enough to prove your case that any material rocket could catch up to previously emitted light waves.

Quote
In theory, travelling away from this galaxy at 5 billion times C, and we will catch up with the light that came from it 5 billion years ago.
It does not mean we became 5 Billion years younger.
It does not in the relativistic case, either. At no speed available to you in relativity (and FTL speeds are not available to you in relativity), there will be no case where you will observe a galaxy reverse-aging.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Offline Hakurei Reimu

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #87 on: August 28, 2018, 11:38:02 PM »
Let me take a stab at trying to explain the error in your thinking, MT.

Suppose you and your friend are trying to locate two points A and B on the Euclidean plane. This plane doesn't come pre-equipped with a coordinate system, so you have to roll your own. You come up with your own coordinates for A and B, and give the points PA = (xA, yA), and PB = (xB, yB). Your friend has chosen the the same orgin for his coordinate system, but his is rotated some angle ϕ from yours. He assigns the same points the coordinates P'A = (x'A, y'A), and P'B = (x'B, y'B).

Now, I hope that nobody thinks that the above is really any cause for argument if the coordinates assigned to PA, PB ≠ P'A, P'B. They're different coordinate systems, so the exact numbers assigned really don't matter. Heck, even the difference between the coordinates don't matter, because the coordinate systems for ΔP and ΔP' are different, so the values we come up with don't really matter that much. All we have to do is use the appropriate transformation to switch coordinate systems:

x' = x cos ϕ - y sin ϕ
y' = x sin ϕ + y cos ϕ

x = x' cos ϕ + y' sin ϕ
y = -x' sin ϕ + y' cos ϕ

No problem, right? All calculations of the lengths and angles are going to coincide, because they take into account the fact that x and y are mixing differently in the two coordinate systems.

Well, a Lorentz transformation is the exact same thing. It's a coordinate transform from one set of coordinates in one frame to another set of coordinates in another frame where the frames are related by some boost velocity, v. It gives different coordinates to the same events. As such, it shouldn't make a difference whether you use the t, x, y, z coordinates or the t', x', y', z' coordinates, so long as you don't try to mix coordinate of different systems. Both sets of coordinates and their coordinate systems are valid, but none are right in an absolute sense.

What you are insisting, MT, is that one particular set of coordinates are just that — right in an absolute sense. You are insisting that some difference in time coordinates denotes the "true" time, without considering the space dimensions that would mix with it over any significant distance. You are insisting that some difference in space coordinates denotes the "true" length between events, without considering the time dimension that would mix with it. Sorry, even if you may have come up with those numbers in good faith, those numbers you're coming up with are just coordinates, and they depend on how you choose to measure space and time, and are not "true" in any absolute sense.

There are measurements of time and space that do this, that are analogous to the distances and angles in the Euclidean plane and are invariant to the Lorentz transformation as the Euclidean distance and angles are invariant to the rotation transformation. The interval is the analogy to Euclidean distance in relativity, defined (ds)² = c²(dt)² - (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)².* The interval is not positive-definite, and in this form is in dimensions of length². If the interval is positive, then the proper time between points is dτ = sqrt((ds)²)/c and does not exist if the interval is zero or negative. If the interval is negative, then the proper length between points is dσ = sqrt(-(ds)²) and does not exist if the interval is zero or positive. Since the interval is Lorentz invariant, so too are proper time and proper length. (Note, in the above, Δ can be substituted for d if the spacetime is flat.) If any length or time is God's length and time, it's proper length and proper time.

* Note that the exact definition of the interval, proper time and proper length vary depending on the author, but they all come to the same result. Interval definitions differ only by sign and units. Proper time and length differ only by the choice of units for time and distance.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #88 on: August 29, 2018, 03:05:32 AM »
And again, I do not have any problems with the mathematics.
I have a problem with what is claimed with the results, on what is observed.

And with these long posts where you try to throw all the info as evidence that I am wrong, you are allowing a huge amount of info to smother a few important facts.

Please note.
We have ample time to go through the SR and GR theory.
one post at a time.

Now, before we continue, all I want to clarify is the following.
If we flash a light on THE OUTSIDE OF a moving satellite traveling at say, 0.5 C, will the light now travel at C when observed from a stationary satellite, next to the position of the stationary one when it fired?
If so, do you agree that the exact point of where the light flashed, is the starting point for the light to travel parallel with the moving satellite?

Lets keep it simple and short.

 
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.

Offline Baruch

Re: Time dilation, length contraction, Relativity and the Bible!
« Reply #89 on: August 29, 2018, 06:57:12 AM »
One wall of text is no more read than another wall of text.

But then I have studied this, and acknowledge that human intuition is wrong.

However people do draw false conclusions "that all things are relative, including morality" that don't follow from the math.
Zampa xiquihto.  Amo nimitzcuamachilia.
Say it again.  I don't understand you.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk