Existence

No, ICANT. I am right. I certainly did. I even read the full section. In fact I read the entire paper.Guess what? They said exactly what I said. You did not read the paper with any comprehension or you could not have missed this.I asked some specific questions in Message 369.Care to answer these?

Hi NoNukes, Explain to me why I would see a blip of light instead of a solid line of light if the blip of light travels 149,896,229 times between the mirrors per second.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."

Wow. Your comprehension of the obvious is really bad.It's an illustration, ICANT. It is meant to convey a useful idea.If it helps ease your tired mind a bit just think of this as being played in your head in very, very slow motion.-------------------------------------------------------------------I just thought of something.ICANT, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you really this dense?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!You hadn't realized this yet? I think I find out over a year ago...

The blip is of very short duration. All that is required is that it be less than 2 meters in length. It is true that the blip will appear to the naked eye to be a continuous line, but the photo detector can still detect the leading edge of the blip.AZPaul's explanation is correct.There really isn't anything controversial in part one. I'll continue with part two. I welcome any objections are corrections.The wife's perspective:We assume that the wife has a super telescope that allows her to view the light pinger and the heat monitor out on the space cycle.So what does ICANT's wife see when the space cycle reaches the halfway point of the first leg? Well first, we note that the half way point on the first leg is 1/2 of a light year distant from wife. Accordingly, the wife see the cycle reach the half way point six months after the cycle reaches actually that point. After waiting those six months, wife observes the light pinger and the heart monitor through her telescope. She agrees with ICANT that 10 pings from the light clock correspond to 10 heartbeats registered on the light clock. She agrees that each ping corresponds to 149,896,229 round trips by the light pulse in the light pinger. But does she agree with the space cycle rider that only 10 seconds have expired during those 10 pings?The answer turns out to be no. When the wife observes the light clock, she sees the following: (Tip of the hat to fearandloathing for the moving graphic).Because the space cycle and the mirrors are moving relative to the inertial frame of the wife, in the wife's inertial frame, the light pulse is seen to travel in the sawtooth pattern shown above.One complete round trip for the light pulse is a 'V' shaped path. An illustration of a single round trip is shown below. Looking at the first half of the path (leftmost yellow diagonal line from top to bottom mirror, we see that the half path must be longer than one meter.Why? Well look at the right triangle illustrated above. The red leg of the triangle is clearly equal to the one meter separation between the mirrors. Since the half light path (yellow) is the hypotenuse of a right triangle in which one side is one meter, the half light path must be greater than one meter. It's pretty clear that the length of the second leg of the path is the same as the first leg, making the round trip for a light pulse something greater than 2 meters in length.Let's invoke the constant speed of light for the third time. From the wife's perspective, each pulse round trip in the light pinger is greater than 2 meters. Accordingly, the wife observes each round trip for the light pulse to take longer than the 1/149,896,229 seconds that the space cycle rider observes them to take. Can we figure out how much longer?Determining the size of the discrepancy...Look at the right triangle again. The height of the right triangle is one meter. We don't know the length of the base of the triangle. But if t' is the time taken to travel from the top mirror to the bottom mirror, the right triangle base (blue leg) is (0.5c)*t'.First apply the Pythagorean theorem to the red, blue and yellow right triangle. or (1)Since the speed of light is constant, we know that the distance traveled by the light pulse divided by its travel time equals c. or (2)Substituting equation 2 into equation 1 to eliminate L gives the following: A tiny bit of algebra allows us to solve for t' In metric units Now we are prepared to state how long one ping, or 149,896,229
round trips appear to take from the wife's point of view. Remember that a round trip is 2*t'. Holy cow! That 1.1547 number sure looks familiar. Didn't Taq cite a time dilation factor of about 1.15?As seen by ICANT, the duration between each beep of the light clock on the cycle is exactly 1 second. But the wife observes something completely different. To her, the duration between each beep of the light pinger on the space cycle represents one 1.1547 seconds as experienced in the wife's inertial frame. We can call this effect duration dilation, if that is less objectionable to some folks.What's more, given the wife's 1 beat per second heart rate, we can see when ICANT's heart beats 10 times, his wife's heart beats about 11.55 times. Indeed, the same thing can be said for every biological process happening to ICANT and his wife, including the aging process. From the wife's perspective, as long as ICANT rides that cycle at 0.5c, ICANT is aging 1.155 times slower that the wife.Although I picked a particular time to compare time rates, it is easy to show that the above calculations hold for every point on the 4 year trip, with the only difference being the size of the time delay before the wife can make the measurements.The wife experiences 1.1547 time as much time as ICANT including having her heart beat 1.1547 times more often than ICANT's. At journey's end, the wife knows that the trip took 1430.9688 days, while ICANT has experienced only the following: daysThe above result is a direct consequence of the speed of light being the same for both inertial observers. While that probably will not end the dispute regarding whether special relativity is correct, surely it should end the dispute about ICANT's thought problem given that the speed of light is constant.But it likely will not. I'll probably be accused of worshiping the god of geometry.So where is my math or science error, ICANT?ABE:To my chagrin, I must acknowledge that there is an error in the final step. The length of the trip as measured by wife is 1460.9688 days rather than 1430.9688 days. Accordingly, the very last calculation above is in error. The space cyclist experiences a trip duration of 1265.23 days rather than 1239.26 days. I'm probably carrying along two many significant figures to boot.Corrected calculation is below: Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : fix trip length.

So he's not really this stupid but he is pulling our leg?The least he could have done is to put a smiley face in there.Unless your saying he is deliberately lying being intellectually dishonest and an insufferable troll. He gets his jollies from appearing to all the world to be as dumb as a stump?Why would anyone do this? Does the man have no pride?

He's playing dumb and banking on you not fullfilling his unreasonable requests (but still, he's not really that smart).Recall that he loves to claim that he's been posting something here for X-timeframe and nobody has shown where he's wrong yet. When they do show he's wrong, he backs up the goalpost a bit and plays dumb like he doesn't understand why he's already refuted. No, no, no. That would break the illusion of sincerity and then he wouldn't get replies to defend himself against. Sort of, but not really. ICANT is *old*. He's happy with just tricking himself into maintaining the beliefs he's always had. (recall that he loves to claim that he figured this thing out when he was a kid and nobody's proved him wrong yet). He doesn't expect to convince anyone else, he just wants his position to be able to withstand any attack. If that means playing dumb to avoid a direct refutation then so be it. I figured this all out while debating my grandfather at his kitchen table. When its his turn to make a point, everybody better shut up and listen to him because its serious business and he has something important to say. When its your turn to make your point, its all fun and games and he jokes about whatever your saying and doesn't really pay attention much. Especially if its going to show he's wrong or make him rethink something. Its the same tactic ICANT uses. He does it to reinforce his beliefs. He's already got them a priori, now he'll put them up against the onslaught and when they survive and nobody's proved him wrong (because of the dishonesty he employs), then he can remain victorious and feel comfortible in holding a belief that he hasn't seen refuted yet in all these years

Your Message 425. Way to go Nukes!

Then your only complaint is that we call it time dilation instead of duration dilation? So let's use this example to explain what is happening with duration dilation. Before the two stop watches go off on separate journeys the coaches sit down and time the same races. They find that they their results match very closely, to within a few microseconds. From this they know that both of the stop watches are working the same. One of these coaches takes a spaceflight with his team. The other coach promises to watch their progress from Earth using the infinitely powerful and accurate telescope spoken of before.When the Earthbound coah takes a peak on the team in the space ship they are travelling at 0.5c. He times a few 100 meter dashes and records them. When the team gets back from their space trip the two coaches sit down and compare numbers. What do they find?To their surprise, the Earthbound coach thinks that the spacers were running slower than they were on Earth. The coach from the space ship vehemently disagrees. They sit down to compare numbers. In each and every case the Earthbound coach recorded times that were 1.15 times slower than the space ship coach recorded. The coach on the space ship would record 10.00 flat while the Earthbound coach would record 11.5 seconds. This is WAY MORE than the discrepancies seen between the stop watches seen on Earth.Since you have already agreed that stop watches are an accurate way to measure duration, then I can only assume that this example meets your criteria for duration dilation.

Hi NoNukes, Let me get this straight.I left my wife behind me and she is looking at my back. When I observe the so called light clock I see a verticle line of light 1 meter long.If it is possible for my wife to see through me, around me, over me or through some opening she would see whatever I see.Since you mounted the clock perpendicular to the direction of travel the velocity will not effect the light blip and it will stay verticle.So my wife will observe the same length for the trip that I do. With the pinger's light path perpendicular to the direction of travel there will be no dilation visible even if it exists. Nice equation work.But my wife will witness no duration dilation, since you mounted the pinger's light path perpendicular to the direction of travel.But if someone was off to my right and could view the pinger's light path mounted properly and you are right about the dilation they would only see a solid stream of light 1 meter high. Provided this assumption is correct. In my example I used 186,000 mps as the speed of light.
That means in one minute light travels 11,160,000 miles.
That means in one day light travels 16,070,400,000 miles.
That means in one light year light travels 5,869,593,072,000 miles.
That means to make a one year out and 1 year back light year trip would require 1430.9688 days, if the speed of light is constant.But you say I would have traveled in 1239.26 days.That means instead of traveling at .5 c I would have to travel at the speed ofThat means I would have to have traveled 109,638.1792359957 mps
instead of the 93,000 mps I traveled. If the speed of light is constant.Had a beam of light left my wife at the same time I did and made the same trip it would have taken it 730.485 days to return to my wife.Or do you claim would only take 619.63 days for light to make the trip.If the speed of light is 186,000 mps and I travel 93,000 mps it will take me 1460.97 days to make the trip.Would it take light 730.485 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles?If it takes light 730.485 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles then it will take me 1460.97 days to travel the same distance at 93,000 mps.You have already conceeded that this is the reality my wife will observe. You adopted and used a failed theory.The theory is wrong.My math is correct.You say the theory is correct.Then prove my math wrong.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."

Hi Paul, What is useful about a solid line of light to represent a second?But it is not presented as an illustration it is presented as evidence.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."

Hi Taq, Lets stick to one thought experiment at the time.Show me where my math is wrong.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."

Message 431No, CS, the man really is that stupid.

Hello ICANT, Your argument is that the sawtooth exists, but the wife cannot see it? Seriously, ICANT?You are saying that because the wife cannot actually see that the light beam strikes the bottom mirror further along the distance of motion than it struck the upper plate (in her inertial frame) due solely to perspective, that that set of events did not actually happen that way in her frame of reference?You're saying that the wife has no idea that the space cycle is receding from her at 0.5c and thus cannot know that the light pulse cannot possibly bounce between the plates without traveling in a sawtooth path?I'm sorry ICANT, but that's ridiculous. You might just as well ask what happens if the wife does not even look at the space cycle. Further, you are forgetting that the apparent timing change that results from the sawtooth path does not depend on the wife actually seeing the sawtooth. The timing I described depends only on the fact that the mirrors are moving relative to the wife and that a sawtooth is therefore necessarily generated in the wife's frame of reference. The sawtooth will exist for any viewer in the wife's inertial frame of reference unless light moves at an infinite speed. For example a viewer could be located along the path of the cycle while still being in the wife's inertial frame. What do you think would that observer see as the cycle zoomed passed? Is it really the same thing that you see on the cycle?Further, an observer even slightly off line from the direction of motion, but in the same inertial frame as the wife (i.e. having no motion relative to that of the wife) definitely would see the sawtooth (although it would appear narrowed by perspective). Further my calculations did not require on the observer measuring the horizontal advance of the light wave. That value was simply calculated.The wife and these other observers in the wife's frame of reference would agree on the timing of the light clock beeps, on ICANT's heart rate, and on their own heart rates regardless of whether her position allows the wife to visualize the actual flight of the light pulse. No, ICANT. I did not say that. I said that your wife would see you arrive after 1430.9688 days travel days based on her clock, but that you would only experience 1239.26 days based on your own clock. Your wife would say that your clock and heartbeat were slow. So there is no contradiction.You have said that you believe that relative motion does affect clocks, but you have yet to say how, and you did not provide any relevant math in your example. So show me where my 'nice' equation work is wrong. Let's not forget that you provided the assumption that the speed of light is a constant. Please point to the step in which the failed theory was adopted. I think you will find that rather than adopting a 'duration dilation' theory, I demonstrated, using the assumptions you provided, that duration dilation must exist. You hadn't done enough of the math, so I finished it for you AND demonstrated why that added math was necessary. I had hopes that we could put away this issue and then deal with whether or not light speed was anisotropic. But apparently, there is still some work to do.

Hi NoNukes, Actually that is provided by relativity theory. Postulate #2.The assumption I was refering too was that the speed of light is the same to every observer all inertial frames of reference. Postulate #1. The math you provided was to support a failed theory. That time dilation actually exists.When I use 'IF' in a sentence I am not confirming or saying something exists. I am questioning if it exists.Now if you want to put this to rest then explain how my math is wrong.By explaining how light can only travel 2 light years in 2 light years but when I travel at .5 c I can cover the same distance in less than 4 years.Then you can convince me that my wife is not the one accelerating away from me while I am at rest. Looking in my rear view mirror I see the clock in our living room and it is running slower than my clock. So when she gets back she is over 200 days younger than she was when she left. Yet I have aged 4 years.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."