Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1006 of 1229 (628746)
08-12-2011 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1005 by Taq
08-12-2011 1:06 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
A light beam is nothing more than a collection of singular photons, so his description of a one attometer long pulse really doesn't make sense anyway. It would be much more productive to look at a single photon, wouldn't you agree?
I think ICANT was reacting to my discussion of his definition of a light beam. As long as the pulse is short compared to other dimensions in the problem, I don't think the difference matters. A one attometer pulse of visible light is an impossibility given that the wavelength of visible light is on the order of 10^-7 meters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1005 by Taq, posted 08-12-2011 1:06 PM Taq has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1007 of 1229 (628748)
08-12-2011 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1002 by NoNukes
08-12-2011 11:48 AM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
I've already answered your question about where the photon would strike. Ignoring SR effects, the photon would strike S under my understanding of the problem,
For the pulse to strike S the laser pen would have to be mounted at a
26.57 angle to the travel of the car, as you would have to draw a straight line from the point emitted to the S.
y = pen
x = sensor
| = direction pen pointed when pulse emitted.
> = direction of car traveling at 0.5 c.
     |          |          |         |          |
     y          y          y         y          y
                |                      \
                |                        \
                |                        >>\>>>
                |                            \
     x          x          x          x        \ x
     S          D          S          D          S

                           N
                        NoNukes 
So for NoNukes to see the pulse hit the second S directly in from of him the pen at the second y would have to be mounted at a 26.57 angle to the travel of the car as the line from the fourth y to the third S shows.
But the laser pen is mounted at a 90 angle to the travel of the car.
Therefore for the 1 attometer long pulse to strike the S it could not travel in a straight line from the laser pen and strike the S.
If the 1 attometer long pulse travels in a straight line from the point emitted where the laser pen is pointed directly at the D detector the pulse will strike the D.
So does the pulse travel in a straight line in the direction the laser pen is pointed when the pulse is emitted?
Or does the pulse acquire a 26.57 angle after emitted and travel in a straight line from that point to strike the S?
I am trying to understand how the statement that the light will travel in a straight line independent of the motion of the emitter, can allow the pulse to travel at a 26.57 angle relative to the direction the pulse was traveling when emitted from the laser pen which is mounted at a 90 angle to the travel of the car.
All the math in the world will not explain that.
y
|\
| \
|  \
|   \
|    \
D     S  
You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1002 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2011 11:48 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1008 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2011 2:49 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 1009 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-12-2011 2:51 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 1010 by Taq, posted 08-12-2011 2:52 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 1013 by Son, posted 08-13-2011 5:13 AM ICANT has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1008 of 1229 (628760)
08-12-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by ICANT
08-12-2011 1:45 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
ICANT, ICANT
For the pulse to strike S the laser pen would have to be mounted at a 26.57 angle to the travel of the car, as you would have to draw a straight line from the point emitted to the S.
Your drawing is incorrect. It reflects the nonexistence of your understanding of inertial reference frames exactly as do all of your posts regarding thought experiments. I've already pointed out your errors with regards to a very similar drawing. I'm not going to bother doing so again. You can read my reply in Message 992 if you are the least bit interested.
I recommend that you take a look at the first few minutes of the Susskind video I've posted. It provides an excellent introduction to inertial reference frames. You don't need to accept SR to understand inertial reference frames.
Or don't. I like it when you post goofy stuff. It is funnier when you maintain your current ignorance on the subject.
I am trying to understand how the statement that the light will travel in a straight line independent of the motion of the emitter, can allow the pulse to travel at a 26.57 angle relative to the direction the pulse was traveling when emitted from the laser pen which is mounted at a 90 angle to the travel of the car.
I doubt that. You actually seem to be actively avoiding understanding. For the photon to strike point D, the photon must travel at an angle in the car frame of reference. Yet you don't see a problem with that. How do you avoid seeing a problem? By saying that the car driver did not see the event.
SR requires that the speed of light be independent of the motion of the source, and that the speed of light be c as measured in any inertial frame. It actually turns out that the angle in question must be 30 and not 26.57 in order to make that all work out. But you haven't even gotten to the point of understanding the 26.5+ result yet.
Assuming that the light strikes point D as you maintain, you have yet to explain events as they occur in the car reference frame. The 90 angle in the track frame means an acute angle must be produced in the car reference frame. But apparently the ability to grasp that a discrepancy even exists is beyond you. Instead you spout nonsense denials.
I and others will continue to explain. I'll continue to look for alternate arguments. But I am convinced that you will never get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 1:45 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1009 of 1229 (628761)
08-12-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by ICANT
08-12-2011 1:45 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
The reference frame is moving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1011 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


(2)
Message 1010 of 1229 (628762)
08-12-2011 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by ICANT
08-12-2011 1:45 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
For the pulse to strike S the laser pen would have to be mounted at a
26.57 angle to the travel of the car
The car is not travelling in the driver's frame of reference. It is the sensors and detectors that are travelling.
Why do you keep making this same mistake over and over? The photons from the laser are directly between the pen laser and tracks the entire time. Take a look at this animation:
http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/htmstuff/Clock2.html
This is what happens in the real world.
In your drawing, you will see that the pen laser is directly above the S when it strikes. This is completely consistent with what we have been telling you. The photon stays between the pen laser and the tracks the entire time.
And I see that you still can not draw the same diagram from the driver's frame of reference. Why is that? What are you afraid of?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1021 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 3:21 PM Taq has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1011 of 1229 (628768)
08-12-2011 7:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1009 by New Cat's Eye
08-12-2011 2:51 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
The reference frame is moving.
Which reference frame is that?
The drivers reference frame inside the car?
The cars reference frame on the Salt Lake Flats?
The Salt Lake Flats reference frame?
The pulse's reference frame after it is emitted in the vaccum?
Or NoNukes reference frame in my diagram?
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1009 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-12-2011 2:51 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1012 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2011 7:46 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 1014 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-13-2011 11:26 AM ICANT has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1012 of 1229 (628770)
08-12-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1011 by ICANT
08-12-2011 7:13 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi ICANT,
Or NoNukes reference frame in my diagram?
You are asking questions way over your own head.
In what way is the "NoNukes" reference frame different from the salt flats reference frame.
In what way is the driver's reference frame different from the car's reference frame.
If those pairs of reference frames are indeed different, then how are the Earth and PlanetX frames the same reference frame when they are a light year apart?
Yes, Catholic Scientist should have indicated which frame he meant was moving, but we all know very well what he means. You, on the other hand, aren't making any sense at all.
Added by Edit:
I wanted to add yet another recommendation regarding the Susskind lecture. I'd suggest the first 15 minutes as particularly relevant.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Recommend video
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1019 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 2:21 PM NoNukes has replied

Son
Member (Idle past 3830 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 1013 of 1229 (628814)
08-13-2011 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1007 by ICANT
08-12-2011 1:45 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
ICANT, I think you should take a look at those links:
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/...tclock.swf
http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/htmstuff/Clock2.html
They're from message 993 and are describing what the current theories actually say about this subject. I know you disagree with what they say, but if you look at it maybe you will at least understand what a reference frame is and what relativity actually says.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.
Edited by Son, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1016 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:55 PM Son has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1014 of 1229 (628836)
08-13-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1011 by ICANT
08-12-2011 7:13 PM


You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The reference frame is moving.
Which reference frame is that?
The drivers reference frame inside the car?
Yup!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1015 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1015 of 1229 (629059)
08-15-2011 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1014 by New Cat's Eye
08-13-2011 11:26 AM


Re Moving
Hi CS,
Catholic Scientist writes:
You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The reference frame is moving.
Which reference frame is that?
The drivers reference frame inside the car?
Yup!
The drivers reference frame inside the car is moving relative to what?
That reference frame resides inside the car's reference frame and is at rest relative to the car's frame of reference.
The car's reference frame resides in the Salt Lake Flats reference frame and is stated in the experiment to be moving at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats.
That would mean that relative to the Salt Lake Flats frame of reference the drivers frame of reference is moving at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats reference frame.
The laser pen is mounted at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the travel of the car relative to the Salt Lake Flats.
The pulse (we can call 1 or two photons) leaves the laser pen traveling at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car.
When the laser pen sends the pulse traveling at a 180 angle to the laser pen it is directed directly at the D (detector).
According to the laws of inertial that pulse must travel in a straight line from the point emitted in the direction the laser pen was pointed when the pulse was emitted.
The direction that pulse is traveling can not be changed unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
For the pulse to hit the S instead of the D an unbalanced force must be applied to the pulse as it is in a vacuum.
Therefore if the car is at rest relative to the D the pulse will strike the D.
Likewise if the car is moving at 0.5 c relative to the D the pulse will strike the D.
Now if you know of some unbalanced force that acts upon the pulse to change it's direction after it is emitted to cause it to hit the S please present that force and it's source.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1014 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-13-2011 11:26 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1017 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-15-2011 1:12 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1016 of 1229 (629061)
08-15-2011 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1013 by Son
08-13-2011 5:13 AM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi Son,
Son writes:
ICANT, I think you should take a look at those links:
I had already had a look but I looked again.
I can find nothing that changes what I believe the experiment as I have described would produce. You can find that in the post before this one I made to CS.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1013 by Son, posted 08-13-2011 5:13 AM Son has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1018 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 1:36 PM ICANT has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1017 of 1229 (629064)
08-15-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by ICANT
08-15-2011 12:50 PM


Re: Re Moving
The drivers reference frame inside the car is moving relative to what?
Everything else that is not within its reference frame.
That reference frame resides inside the car's reference frame and is at rest relative to the car's frame of reference.
And so are the laser and the detector. They are all motionless within the cars reference frame.
According to the laws of inertial that pulse must travel in a straight line from the point emitted in the direction the laser pen was pointed when the pulse was emitted.
Within a reference frame... that's the part you're not getting. And the laser and detector are not moving within the cars reference frame.
Its only when you have an observer in the reference frame of the ground, when they're watching the car go by and the laser beam hitting the detector, that we start to see any wierdness.
The direction that pulse is traveling can not be changed unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Within the cars reference frame, there's no need for force because nothing is moving.
Now if you know of some unbalanced force that acts upon the pulse to change it's direction after it is emitted to cause it to hit the S please present that force and it's source.
Think it through just a little bit further...
If the car moving across the salt flats means that the laser will miss the detector, then the fact that the earth is moving through the milky way would mean the same thing. Hell, I shouldn't even be able to read this monitor in front of me because we're both flying through the universe at millions of miles per hour! Why do you think that isn't happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 1018 of 1229 (629068)
08-15-2011 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1016 by ICANT
08-15-2011 12:55 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi ICANT,
I can find nothing that changes what I believe the experiment as I have described would produce. You can find that in the post before this one I made to CS.
I did not expect that the video would change your mind. I was hoping only that you would learn something more about the method for transforming the coordinates of events from one reference frame to another. Did you find that Susskind was wrong about one or more aspects of that topic? Were you able to appreciate that Susskind and I were telling you essentially the same thing?
The bottom is that no object or photon can travel a vertical path in every possible coordinate system. That simple fact means that you are wrong when you insist that photons need "tubes" to travel at angles just because the photons path is vertical in one reference frame or another. When you deny this particular point, it is pretty clear that
I can no longer pretend to believe your denials regarding this specific point are out of honest ignorance. You simply refuse to answer questions than pin you down to providing/calculating a path for "dragged photons" in a light clock or "paths of the light beam in the car reference frame" or the path of a photon inside a flat car using the flimsiest possible excuses. Of course if you ever admit that simple fact, very little would be left to talk about.
Alternatively, you could simply cite a source for your own interpretation of postulate #2. You've indicated that you could do this, but to date you have not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1016 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1020 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 3:18 PM NoNukes has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1019 of 1229 (629072)
08-15-2011 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1012 by NoNukes
08-12-2011 7:46 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
You are asking questions way over your own head.
Maybe, maybe not.
Does the driver have a reference frame inside of the car? Yes/No
Does the drivers reference frame reside in the car's reference frame? Yes/No
Does the car's reference frame reside in the Salt Lake Flats reference frame? Yes/No
In my diagram is NoNukes standing on the Salt Lake Flats ? Yes/No
Would NoNukes observe the car moving to his right at 0.5 c? Yes/No
Would NoNukes observe the pulse emitted from the laser pen travel in the same direction the laser pen is pointing in? Yes/No
Does the laws of inertial require that the pulse travel in a straight line in the direction the laser pen is pointed unless influenced by an unbalanced force? Yes/No
So, what unbalanced force cause's the pulse to hit the S which is 2 feet to the right of the point the pulse is emitted, rather than the D which is directly beneath the laser pen when the pulse is emitted?
NoNukes writes:
In what way is the driver's reference frame different from the car's reference frame.
The drivers reference frame resides inside the car's reference frame, having a coordinate system of it's own.
NoNukes writes:
If those pairs of reference frames are indeed different, then how are the Earth and PlanetX frames the same reference frame when they are a light year apart?
They both have their own reference frame and either is in the others reference frame.
But both are in the Sun's reference frame.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1012 by NoNukes, posted 08-12-2011 7:46 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1023 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 4:08 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 1020 of 1229 (629077)
08-15-2011 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1018 by NoNukes
08-15-2011 1:36 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
I can find nothing that changes what I believe the experiment as I have described would produce. You can find that in the post before this one I made to CS.
I did not expect that the video would change your mind.
I was not refering to the video in the statement you quoted above.
I was talking about the reference Son mentioned in Message 1013
http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/...tclock.swf
http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/htmstuff/Clock2.html
I did view the the video and found it informing and a little amusing on occasions as the professor reminded me of my algebra teacher in school.
NoNukes writes:
Did you find that Susskind was wrong about one or more aspects of that topic? Were you able to appreciate that Susskind and I were telling you essentially the same thing?
Susskind was not discussing my experiment in his discussion.
So no you both are not telling me the same thing.
You are telling me that the pulse emitted from the laser pen when it is directly over the D will not travel in a straight line that the laser pen is pointed in as the laws of an inertial frame requires.
The pulse must travel in a straight line unless altered by a unbalanced force. This is true in all inertial frames as that is what makes it an inertial frame.
If a unbalanced force is applied to change the direction of the pulse the frame ceases to be an inertial frame.
NoNukes writes:
Alternatively, you could simply cite a source for your own interpretation of postulate #2. You've indicated that you could do this, but to date you have not.
quote:
In his initial presentation of special relativity in 1905 he expressed these postulates as:[1]
The Principle of Relativity — The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems in uniform translatory motion relative to each other.[1]
The Principle of Invariant Light Speed — "... light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity [speed] c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
Source
In message Message 653 I said:
quote:
quote:
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Source
Where have I changed that definition.
I do require that the pulse travel in a straight line from the point emitted in the direction the laser pen is pointed at the time the pulse is emitted.
That is not demanded by postulate #2 but is required for the frame to be an inertial frame, by postulate #1, as it comes from the laws of Newton.
If you disagree present your argumentation.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1018 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 1:36 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1026 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 4:57 PM ICANT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024