Existence

Hi, ICANTI think we're making some progress. Regardless of whether that is true, the condition of light speed being constant stated by you in your original posting of the problem in Message 307.You are also missing the point. We should be able to focus our discussion to be a disagreement about Postulate #2. We can disagree about whether it is true, but we should be able to agree about the consequences of the postulate being correct.Can I at least get you to agree that time dilation follows from Postulate #2. Did I or did I not properly answer your question, namely how could time dilation exist, and how could the age gap be closed if the speed of light is constant?I'll also note that in advancing your own position, you have felt free to invoke the constancy of the speed of light.For example in Message 430, if we're not assuming, for the purpose of argument, that the speed of light were constant, what sense would the following make: Apparently, your conclusion is that attaining the speed 109,638 mps is impossible if the speed of light is constant. If we relax that condition, then your objection becomes meaningless.Apparently it is okay for you to use that assumption, but it's wrong when I use it. Apparently, you think I'm required to start off every response to you with the assumption that you are right.It is certainly reasonable for me to attempt demonstrate that you are wrong about the theory. After all, I worship the one true, living God, and not god Hatch.I did not assume that time dilation exists; I showed, using the simplest way I could come up with, that time dilation is a consequence of the things given in your problem statement. It isn't my fault that you included a premise that reflects reality. I have already done exactly that. From the perspective of ICANT the cyclist, the space cycle does not travel 4 light years. I will note however, that the LET proposing scientists that you cite so often in your attacks on SR do require that Lorentzian length-contraction is real. Briefly, The two frames are not completley reversable. Unlike the situation involving relative motion, we can indeed feel and sense changes in direction. So we can easily answer the question of whether it was you or your wife that left, changed reversed direction and returned to the starting position.I would be willing to clear up the twin paradox question, but first I'd like to see a sincere discussion about what I've demonstrated already.But let's be clear; we both know that I could not convince you that I know the color of orange juice. But we should be able to reach a common conclusion if we agree on the assumptions.

NoNukes did a fine job of that. You forgot to add in duration dilation for the traveller due to the constant speed of light.

Hi NoNukes, In Message 307 I said:

quote:

---

If the speed of c is constant how could I close the gap between our ages?

---

emphasis added.I don't believe the speed of light is constant. 'If' there was a vaccum for light to travel in (nothing to slow it down) then it could travel at it's top speed. But the universe if filled with all kinds of substances that can slow the speed of light. Why should I agree with something that Postulate #1 refutes?How could the speed of light be a constant c when the distance I travel in 1 year at 1/2 the speed light travels in a light year can be changed by dilation according to you?Both can not be true.The following is assumed to be in a vaccum.#1. 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.#2. But you claim I can travel the 11,739,186,144,000 miles in 1239.26 days.If #1 is true then #2 is false.
If #2 is true then #1 is false.Which one is true? Since you started with a false assumption you proved that the false assumption was correct. You are not the first to do that and won't be the last. Here you can find a discussion of the math Refutation of The Length Contraction And Time Dilation Conclusions of Einstein’s Special Theory Of Relativity By Harry H. Ricker III My conclusion is that I would have to be traveling 109,638 mps is impossible if I am traveling 1/2 c unless c is 219,276 mps.My speed did not increase nor did it decrease during my entire journey.You are saying that because the clock ran faster it follows that time ran slower so I made the trip in less time than required. You have not attempted to explained how:I can travel 11,739,186,144,000 at 1/2 c (93,000 mps) in 1239.26 days without traveling c + 33,276 mps a total of 219,276 mps.Assuming the speed of light c = 186,000 mps 1460.97 days would be required to travel the 11,739,186,144,000 miles light can travel in 2 light years, if I am traveling at 1/2 c.The only way I could travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles in 1239.26 days is if I traveled at 219,276 mps.Show me where the math is wrong.If the math is not wrong then the theory is wrong. Am I at rest in my frame?
Is my wife at rest in her frame?If so then which frame is moving? Actually in reality both frames are moving.The question then arises, they are both moving in relation to what?If we say to each other, then which is moving away from the other?I think we would need a third reference point that was fixed to determine if I was moving away from my wife faster than she was moving away from me.This is experienced when I turn on my GPS receiver in my car as I travel down the road and it is receiving information from the GPS satellite. Both instruments are moving and require a fixed clock on earth for my GPS receiver to be able to place me on a map on the GPS receiver screen.

quote:

---

The Sagnac effect is the result of a non-isotropic speed of light and arises any time an observer or measuring instrument moves with respect to the frame chosen as the isotropic light-speed frame. And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in errorthe Sagnac effect illustrates that error....

​

Furthermore, the general-theory results (assuming they have been properly derived) are in conflict with the special theory to the extent that they do not give isotropic light speed with respect to the moving observer.

---

From RELATIVITY AND GPS by Ronald R. Hatch If you try please specify which orange and the place of their origin, you are talking about that the juice came from as they are many different types of oranges and they have many different color's. One of my Church members handles up to 100 semi-tractor trailer loads of oranges daily. He brings me fresh oranges all the time and they don't all have the same color juice, acid content, or sugar content.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : correct time passing faster to slower.

---

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

Matter does not slow light down. It absorbs and re-emits the light. The appearance of slowing is due to the time between absorption and emission. While the light is travelling between atoms of matter it is going c. c is the only speed that light can travel. No slower, no faster.Also, if the speed of light is not constant then how is it that there is a correlation between the energy output of stars and their mass? Afterall, E=mc^2 is the equation that governs the energy output of stars. If c is variable then the energy output would vary widely depending on what the speed of light was that day. Duration changes so that you observe the same speed of light as other observers. That is the whole point we have been trying to convey to you. NoNukes explained this perfectly. It depends on who is measuring the time duration. Near the speed of light you would observe nearly instantaneous travel times while another observer on Earth would observe a 4 year travel time. An observer near the event horizon of a black hole would witness travel times much faster than those made by an observer on Earth. According to which observer? I thought you rejected a constant speed of light? Even worse, you are measuring distances by how far light travels in a year (aka lightyear) even though you reject a constant speed of light. Care to explain?

Yes, you did say that. And I answered your question. If the speed of light is constant, then the consequences are exactly what I described in my message. When we refer to 'C', we mean the speed of light in a vacuum.I know you don't believe the speed of light is constant. But you are really barking up the wrong tree with this particular argument. Even admitting that light has a top speed is inconsistent with the argument you are attempting to make.What you really need to argue is not that the speed of light of light can vary because of material in the universe, but that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer.Nonetheless, I'll address the argument you did make.We know what the speed of light is in a vacuum. The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly 299,792,458 meters per second, because the meter is defined so that such is the case. We also know that the speed of light is in air differs by only a tiny amount from the speed in vacuum.In space of course, we would expect that the speed of light in the near vacuum of space to be essentially the same as the speed of light in a vacuum. Even if some materials could slow down the speed of light, we need not postulate that those materials affect our hypothetical. For example, we can enclose the light pinger in a transparent, vacuum chamber, so that none of those mysterious space particles enter the path of the light pulse. There are no fixed reference points. If we are going to conduct a simple analysis of the type I'm comfortable with explaining to you, we're stuck with evaluating things based on an inertial reference frame. You're free to pick any inertial frame you want.But ICANT, riding on his space cycle cannot be an inertial frame because he changes direction at the half way point. Do you understand what an inertial frame is? I do not claim #2 to be true. Only #1 is true. I started with your assumption, ICANT. I'm curious as to why you cannot admit that I've addressed your question as asked.We'll deal with your refutation of the assumption when I it appears that we've resolved our other differences. Let's first agree on what the consequences of a constant value for 'c' (i.e., the speed of light in a vacuum) really are. I've done everything except plug the numbers into the calculator for you. I'll do that here. Except that you are neglecting length contraction.Although I did not attempt to demonstrate it here, it is also possible to derive Lorentz's length contraction from the constancy of the speed of light.From ICANTs perspective, his own clock is accurate and he can cover the entire trip distance at 0.5c in only 1239+ days, because from his perspective, the journey is only 1.732 light years, which distance happens to be the amount that both SR and LET predict that ICANT would measure. At 0.5c, the journey can be completed in only 3.464 years.So there is no inconsistency. Under SR, observers in different inertial frames can disagree on measurements of time and distance, and even on the order of events that are not causally related. But the observers agree on things like the speed of light, conservation of energy and momentum, and the laws of physics.What you cannot do is mix and match measurements from two different reference frames. That is the error you make with claim #2. And of course if Ronald R. Hatch says so, it must be correct, right?
Believe me, I fully intend to discuss the anisotropic speed of light. Can I take it that you are relying on this in your own refutation of relativity?Edited by NoNukes, : add mix/matchEdited by NoNukes, : Fix calculationEdited by NoNukes, : fix value for 'c'Edited by NoNukes, : Fix up journey length.

Hi NoNukes, But the speed of light is not constant.Your words from the message I am replying too. You say the speed of light is different outside of a vaccum. That means the speed of light is not constant. Constant would mean it is the same speed anywhere, and everywhere all the time. I don't believe that the speed of light is constant because it is not the same speed everywhere.Can the speed of light be a constant in a vaccum? Yes.Can my car have a constant speed on salt lake flats with the cruise control set at 60 mph? YesCan my car have a constant speed if I manually control the speed of the car with my foot on the accelerator? No I will vary the pressure.Can the speed of light be a constant outside of a vaccum? No.Therefore the speed of light is not a constant speed. How can you make that assumption.90% of the universe is a material that no one knows what it is. If you do not know what it is, how can you know what effect it has on the speed of light? I will agree that there is no thing in the universe that is fixed as everything is moving relative to something else. I know what Newton says an inertial frame is.Newton’s first law — law of inertia: There are frames of reference, identified as inertial frames, in which any body will have zero acceleration if there is no net force exerted on it by other objects.So why can my wife be in an inertia frame and I can't?Every time she goes from one room to another she has changed her inertia frame. If you are not claiming I traveled 11,739,186,144,000 miles in 1239.26 days, then how many days are you claiming it took me to travel 2 light years which equals 11,739,186,144,000 miles? You started with the assumption that time dilates and then proved time dilates.That is not my assumption but the one you chose to present your argument on. What does the assumption that length of something traveling at a certain precentage of c will decrease in length of that something have to do with light traveling 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 1 year at the speed of c?That is the reason I continue to say 'IF' the speed of light is 186,000 mps and I travel my complete journey at 93,000 mps it will take me 1460.97 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles.Which you have agree is true. So did it take me 1460.97 days to make the 11,739,186,144,000 mile trip?ORDid it take me 1239.26 days to make the 11,739,186,144,000 mile trip? But it makes no difference what my clock or odometer says 'IF' I travel the distance light can travel in 2 years it will take an elapse time of 1460.97 days to make the trip.If my trip is shortened to 1.732 light years traveled in 1239+days then I have not traveled for 2 light years but for 1.732 light years. I am not mixing anything. I gave a thought experiment with the math and asked that the math be shown to be wrong.In Message 307 to Taq I presented my thought experiment.If you will read over my thought experiment you will see my journey was planned to go around a planet that the half way point of my journey was exactly 5,869,593,072,000 miles making the return trip exactly 5,869,593,072,000 miles.You have agreed that it would take light 730.485 days to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles at 186,000 mps. Thus it would take me 1460.97 days to travel the same distance at 93,000 mps.Yet you assert my trip only took me 1239+days according to the clock you installed on my space cycle.Then you assert I only covered 1.732 light years.That means I did not go around the planet.So you are telling me you installed a faulty clock to time my trip which made me make my turn before I got to the planet. But stupid me I did not pay any attention to your clock because I knew that v and the reduced gravitational field causes a clock to run slower the further I get from earth. So I proceeded to the planned turn point of my trip as planned.When I get back to earth my wife is suprised that I have aged 4 years instead of the three that she viewed.She viewed a 3 year trip because when she saw my turn around point I was already half way back to earth. She's over seventy years old so when she saw my turn around she made sure her calendar was showing 2 years because she knew that was how long it would take me to go the 5,869,593,072,000 miles to my turn around point. She just assumed she had turned too many pages somehow.I explain to her that when she saw my turn around point that I was already half way back before that image reached her.I reminded her that this trip was in a vaccum and that the speed of light does not change from 186,000 mps. It would take 730.485 days for light to travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles. Thus it would take me 1460.97 days to travel the same distance at 93,000 mps.You can't show that the math is wrong.In fact you have already agreed that the math is correct.Since the math is correct the concept that time dilates is false.There is no disputing that the clock will run faster because of v and the weaker gravatational field.The clock running slow has nothing to do with time running slow as the clock is not time.The clock is an instrument created by man to measure duration according to the units of measurement declared by man to represent one second.Duration in existence and existence are the only things that are constant in eternity they do not change. Not necessarily, especially if he was the only one, but he does not stand alone. There have been others mentioned in this thread and many many more could be mentioned.Joseph A. Rybczyk has several papers Here check them out and see what you think
A quote from The SR/MR Time Dilation and Distance Contraction Paradox

quote:

---

It will be shown in clear and unambiguous terms that the millennium theory of relativity spherical reference frames exactly represent the special relativity postulates and principles relating to time dilation and distance contraction. These findings take on the form of a paradox because distance contraction occurs equally in all directions in the millennium theory as opposed to only in the direction of travel as specified in special relativity. With the evidence presented in this paper an irrefutable case is made that the special relativity treatment cannot be correct. The only reasonable conclusion is full acceptance of the millennium relativity interpretation accompanied by formal rejection of Einstein’s erroneous treatment.

---

He is not your normal relativist.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."

Yes that's true. But due to your initial objection, our light pinger is now in a vacuum chamber, and the behavior of the light in the light pinger is what you need to worry about for the purposes our problem. (Quite frankly it does not matter, but I don't want to argue the point)The speed of light in the rest of the universe has no effect on our problem. When we say your space ship is on cruise control at 0.5c, we mean at 0.5 times the speed of light in a vacuum.None of that changes the fact that your question asked what happens IF the speed of light is constant. It is silly to continue the argument in this vein, but with the modified light pinger, we've removed even that question. So what? That observation doesn't help you in the least. ICANT, this factoid is wrong. Over ninety percent of the mass in the universe is postulated to dark matter or dark energy, but mass is actually spread quite thinly in the universe. Most of the universe is nearly empty space. Do you doubt that there is essentially vacuum on the moon? What do you expect the speed of light on the moon to be?But again it is irrelevant. None of that funky stuff you are worried about is in the path of the light pulse in our light pinger. Your wife makes teeny-tiny changes in speed/direction compared to both the speed of light and the complete course reversal at 0.5c that you make. For all intents and purposes your wife is in a single inertial frame. We can float her in free space if you want. I know that I answered this question in my last post.You and your wife would disagree on what what happened during the trip.Your wife would say that you traveled 2 light years (about 1461 days) over a four year period, that your clock is running slow and that you had aged more slowly than she, more than closing the gap in your ages.You would say that you traveled 1.732 light years over a 3.464 year period (about 1265 days) and that your light clock was running just fine and that you had aged at the normal rate. In both cases the rate of travel is 0.5c. You started with the assumption that time dilates and then proved time dilates.[/qs]Again, I answered the question of how the gap between your age and your wife's age could be closed if the speed of light were constant. The answer is that if the speed of light is constant (and it is enough that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant), then dilation is a direct consequence. I challenge you to show me a step where I assumed time-dilation rather than assuming constant light speed in a vacuum. It's one thing to disagree that special relativity is real, but you don't even know what the heck you are disagreeing about. From the space cyclist point of view, the distance from wifey to the turn around point is length contracted to .866 light years, but the ship is not length contracted. From the wife's point of view, the leg distance is 1 light year. Your wife would see your ship as being length contracted, but not the travel distance, which is the opposite of what you see. I've agreed that your wife would say that. I don't agree that the space cycle rider would say that. I know I've been clear about that point. I see that you've asked me exact same question several more times in this post. The 1239 value I provided was in error. It took 1265 days according to your clock on your space cycle. Length contraction of the distance. You left and came back after completing the entire trip as planned. Both you and your wife agree on that. You don't agree on the length of the journey. There is nothing wrong with your clock. It's as good as the atomic clock. You don't look at the clock to make the turn, you look at the planet and then turn at the correct point. This is just plain wrong. Your wife is perfectly capable of calculating the effect of the light travel time on what she can see. You've also repeated Gaasenbeek's stupid calculation error. As you already acknowledged in Message 334 that your wife can actually see your entire 4 year trip, with the images of your return trip appearing to be compressed. Plus, she sees you get off the ship 4 years after you left. No. It took three years before she could see you turn around, but from the turn around point essentially all of the light from your cycle reaches your wife before your return at the end of year four. For example, how long did light take to reach your wife when you were 0.5 light years from returning to her? When you were one mile from her?The other hilarious thing about your image calculations is that they silently assume that the speed of light is isotropic. Pretty funny I'd say... Well some of it is wrong. I had ignored all of the goofy stuff about when your image reached your wife because you had corrected it yourself. The image stuff is completely irrelevant. It's Gaasenbeek's red herring even when you don't make his error. What about your heart beat being seen to slow at the same rate as the slow clock? How do you feel about that? I'll get to at least some of your papers. I'm aware, some people don't accept relativity and it really isn't that difficult to find papers expressing doubts. I don't plan to simply label them cranks, but first I need to be clear about what I consider your errors in this post.At this point, it's okay that we disagree about whether the speed of light in a vacuum is constant. But we should agree that the consequences of the speed of light in a vacuum being constant are predicted by special relativity. At this point I'm not convinced that you do agree, and I'm not sure why.I am also curious about your own explanation for how velocity would slow the clock but not all other processes. I can at least understand your position for gravity slowing clocks. But your position on relative motion makes no sense to me.Edited by NoNukes, : Add challengeEdited by NoNukes, : fix tags, add mid to ICANT message

I took a brief look at his Millennium Relativity Theory paper, but I don't yet understand yet why you would cite him in support of your ideas or Hatch's.For example the quote below comes from the section 4. Constancy of Light Speed between Natural Systems in the unpublished paper. The quote does say something pretty funky about the speed of light.But that something is nothing like the opinion expressed by Hatch.

quote:

---

Since light has a constant speed c relative to a moving source, yet somehow has that same speed relative to a stationary observer, it is incorrect to say that the speed of light is unaffected by the relative motion between the source and the observer. It must be affected, otherwise as stated previously it would appear to have taken on the speed of the source relative to the observer in the stationary frame of reference. That is, light appears to somehow adjust its speed in inverse proportion to the speed of the relative motion between the source and observer.
Put simply, while light appears to maintain a constant speed c relative to the source, as viewed by an observer in the reference frame of the source, it appears to change its speed relative to the source, as viewed by an observer in a stationary frame of reference. To this stationary observer, the light must have either speeded up or slowed down in inverse proportion to the speed of the source, in order to be received by that observer at speed c. To resolve this apparent contradiction, let us now examine the entire process in detail.

---

So the light is transmitted at speed c relative to the source and is received at speed c relative to the receiver, which means that it must be seen to be moving at a different speed relative to the course at the receiver. Again, that's pretty funky, and I'm not sure it make sense. But it does not support Hatch.With regard to time dilation, Rybczyk says the following:

quote:

---

Although it will be shown that time is affected by relative motion, other associated effects are different from those of currently held beliefs.

---

In fact Rybczyk derives the following, familiar equation for time dilation on page 2: If we use this equation in our space cycle thought experiment, we obtain a time dilation factor of 1.1547.While he does obtain results for length contraction that are contradictory to SR, isn't the whole purpose of your denial of SR and GR to deny time dilation? Not only does Rybczyk not support Hatch, his conclusions don't help you in any way. No, but he wouldn't seem to be all that helpful to you. I do think he's a crank, but I'm not sure why you cite him. Was it just because he said something apparently controversial about the speed of light?

But if I travel towards you at 30mph I will measure your car moving at 90mph relative to me (if you started 90 miles away, it would only take you an hour to reach me). This cannot be said of light. If I travel towards light at 300 m/s I measure light traveling the same speed relative to me as when I travel away from it at the same speed.The speed of your car is relative, the speed of light isn't, it's constant. That doesn't mean it won't seem to slow down in water or air, it means it doesn't vary between observers.

That's because you're wrong. We observe it happening in many different ways, many of which have already been explained to you. No. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, which means that it is qualitatively different than the speed of a bullet or of any other physical object.The speed of the photon is C. The speed that you observe it closing on you from behind is C. The speed at which it passes your wife on Earth is C - it's always C regardless of your own relative velocity. And the way that it works out that it's the same speed no matter your relative velocity to it is that time and velocity are relative - your personal time slows down so that you perceive things outside of your reference frame happening faster, like photons closing on you from the rear. This is correct if you were being chased by a bullet.But you're being chased by a photon in a universe where the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, so the regular math doesn't apply. The math has to work out so that you observe the photon chasing you at the same speed that it passes your stationary wife on Earth, and the way it works out is by bending the definition of "time" - since velocity is distance traveled over time - such that velocity causes time dilation. The math is wrong where you do not take into account your personal time dilation as a result of traveling at .5 C.

Hi NoNukes, I cite Rybczyk because everybody here presents SR and GR as fact with no creditable person opposing the standard theory.There are a lot of people out there who disagree with SR and GR as well as many of the experiments that is presented here to support them.When scientist quit questioning everything said or presented for or against a theory, that theory becomes dogma which is a religion. Science has ceased to be science and has become a religion accepted on blind faith by the masses.When I get to the point I do not question everything the big shots say about what the Bible says and become a parrot I cease to be of use to my people as dogma has begin to rule. I did not spend all those years in school and then studying to accept what everybody says just because the majority believes something.And if you read much I have written on this site concerning the Bible you will come to the conclusion that I am way out of the main stream.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."

Physics is not my speciality, but the mistake seems to be in having a speed of transmission. There is no speed of transmission. There is only the speed that can be calculated after reception. You can only measure the speed of a photon once, not twice (once at transmission and once again at the receiver). Also, don't forget that the wavelength of light changes depending on the observer (think redshift in astronomy).

It has everything with time running slow. The clock runs slower because time is running slower.We could apply this same concept to height. If I am taller than my brother can he claim that in fact we are both the same height because rulers are a man made concept?

Hi Mod, And I will measure your car moving at 90 mph relative to me and we will meet in 1 hr.But wouldn't it be correct to say the distance between the 2 objects was decreasing at the rate of 90 mph?Becaue if I looked at my speedometer which I am doing 60 mph but I saw you approaching me at 90 mph I could quickly determine that you were actually approaching me at the rate of 30 mph. Why not?If you are traveling toward the light the light would observe you traveling toward it at the speed of c if you and the light was in a vaccum.If you are traveling 300 m/s in the same direction as the light the light would be traveling at c in relation to its source and would be gaining on you at 185,700 m/s.For the light to be closing the distance between you and the light at c it would have to be traveling at 186,300 m/s.Unless you insert magic.The speed of your car is relative,[/qs]Agreed. I disagree.But lets take your observing the light traveling at c.Lets put this at a distance so I can do a little math. Lets say 55,800,000 miles.Light............................You 55,800,000 miles apart.
Light traveling at 186,000 mps. You traveling at 300 mps.It will take the light 300 seconds to travel the 55,800,000 miles but it will still not have reached your location.During the 300 seconds it took the light to travel 55,800,000 you will have traveled 90,000 miles.It would take 0.4838709677419355 seconds for the light to travel that 90,000 miles in which you would travel 150 miles.I am not going to take the time to figure the rest you can if you desire.It would take the light 300.4838709677419355 seconds + for the light to reach you.Show me where the 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."

Hi Taq, Do you disagree that velocity and gravity affect the rate of the clock?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."