|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
ICANT writes:
I cite Rybczyk because everybody here presents SR and GR as fact with no creditable person opposing the standard theory. You claimed that you were not relying on Hatch alone, but then you cited someone who did not support your position. If your holding out Rybczyk as someone credible who is out of the mainstream, you didn't accomplish that goal either. You didn't even bother finding someone whose theory refuted time dilation.
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. There are no experiments supporting Rybczyk, and he admits as much himself. Here's a quote from an exchange with Rybczyk in which Rybczyk's theory is thoroughly examined and many of his errors are laid out for all to see.
quote: No experiments contradict GR or SR, and quite a few support mainstream relativity. This line of argument is going nowhere. Here is a fairly convincing quote from the exchange that ought to clue you that Rybczyk is out to lunch. From Rybczyk regarding his velocity addition formula:
quote: Rybczyk is seemingly unbothered by the fact that his predictions are contradicted in essentially every high speed accelerator experiment ever done.
ICANT writes:
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. Yes, questioning is fine, but that does not mean that every questioner is right and every non-mainstream hypothesis valid. With respect to SR and GR, given the success of these theories at prediction, we rightly expect that questioners will present evidence for their claims and back them up by making predictions based on their theories which are also confirmed. You don't seem to require any of that. Hatch makes predictions based on his theories that turn out to be wrong, and you aren't the least bit bothered. But if you really want to argue that you aren't relying on Hatch alone, I'd suggest that you need to find someone else even if you don't accept that your current selection is wrong. He just isn't helpful to you at all. Edited by NoNukes, : add accelerator statement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes: No. The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, Relative to what? Now here is a quote from the message you were replying too.
quote: Let me phrase this math a little differently. Distance light can travel in 1 light year traveling at 186,000 mps. 5,869,593,072,000 miles. Light travels 244,566,378,000 miles in 1/24 of a light year. At .5 c which is 93,000 mps light can travel 122,283,189,000 miles in 1/24 of a light year. At 6/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled 733,699,134,000 The photon leaves my wife traveling at 186,000 mps. At 7/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled. 855,982,323,000 The photon has traveled 244,566,378,000 miles. 8/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled 978,265,512,000 The photon has traveled 489,132,756,000 miles. 9/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled 1,100,548,701,000 miles. The photon has traveled 978,265,512,000 miles. 10/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled 1,222,831,890,000 miles. The photon has traveled 1,222,831,890,000 miles. The photon has now traveled as many miles as I have catching up to me. Assuming this took place in a vaccum and light traveling at 186,000 mps the photon leaving my wife when I reached 1/4 of the distance of my first light year the photon would catch me when I reach 5/12's of my first light year. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
ICANT writes:
I am traveling at 93,000 mps and the photon is gaining on me at 186,000 mps according to you. That means the photon is traveling at 279,000 mps or it is not aproaching me at 186,000 mps, unless I have stoped. There is no need to go any further. Your math is completely wrong. You are using the Galilean relativity to combine velocities that are significant compared to the speed of light, and Galilean relativity does not work in that realm. What do you think arguing along these lines demonstrates? Do you doubt that special relativity can provide an answer to this seeming paradox? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
And I will measure your car moving at 90 mph relative to me and we will meet in 1 hr. Yes.
But wouldn't it be correct to say the distance between the 2 objects was decreasing at the rate of 90 mph? If you like. If you travel towards light at 300m/s you won't measure the distance between you decreasing at a rate of 299 792 758 m/s but the distance will decrease at 299 792 458 metres a second. The same applies if you were moving away from the light - it would still be gaining ground on you at the same rate.
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. Relative to the ground, but not relative to me. Relative to me you are approaching at 90mph.
This cannot be said of light. Why not? It seems to be a fact about light, I don't know why.
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. It would be gaining on you the same amount as when you were traveling towards it at 300m/s which in turn is the same amount as when you aren't traveling away or towards it. It seems to be constant no matter what your speed. This has been observed.
Unless you insert magic. Then we have directly observed magic.
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. If 'It will take the light 300 seconds to travel the 55,800,000 miles' then it stands to reason it will take a little longer than 300 seconds to travel a little over 55,890,000 miles. What were you trying to illustrate with this maths?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: There is no need to go any further. Your math is completely wrong. You are using the Galilean relativity to combine velocities that are significant compared to the speed of light, and Galilean relativity does not work in that realm. What do you think arguing along these lines demonstrates? Do you doubt that special relativity can provide an answer to this seeming paradox? I see you are acquiring a trait that many on EvC have. The adding together of my speed and the light speed to get the set of numbers you are answering too, was some time ago and you did not answer them then. Why don't you read the part I reworked for the post you replied too. So why don't you address this part of the message.
quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Check out this link it will help you formulate your argument:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdfnRWGgbd0 keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Mod,
Modulous writes: If 'It will take the light 300 seconds to travel the 55,800,000 miles' then it stands to reason it will take a little longer than 300 seconds to travel a little over 55,890,000 miles. What were you trying to illustrate with this maths? To prove this statement false or magic.
Modulous writes: It would be gaining on you the same amount as when you were traveling towards it at 300m/s which in turn is the same amount as when you aren't traveling away or towards it. It seems to be constant no matter what your speed. This has been observed. Modulous writes: If you travel towards light at 300m/s you won't measure the distance between you decreasing at a rate of 299 792 758 m/s but the distance will decrease at 299 792 458 metres a second. If that statement is correct I am sitting still. OR The light is traveling at 299 792 158 m/s. OR this math is wrong.
quote: 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6
|
Show me where the math is wrong. It's not the math, ICANT, it's your initial assumption that the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames. That assumption is incorrect. Even though your math is correct, it stems from a false premise, and therefore your conclusion is still false. We know that your assumption is incorrect via direct observation. The speed of light remains the same regardless of how quickly you're moving towards or away from the source. The final arbiter, as always, is not mathematics, but rather observations of nature. You can add my two apples to your three apples and get five, but if you actually only have one apple, it doesn't matter how many times you do the math, there will be three apples instead of the five you expect. Your math is based on Newtonian mechanics. Newton's rules work just fine when you're driving in traffic, or figuring out when two trains will collide, or seeing how fast the kid running on the conveyor walkway at the airport is actually going. But Newtonian mechanics are wrong inherently. They give the right answer at the right scales...but Newton's math couldn't explain things like the odd orbit of Mercury. Einstein's relativity does. And every observation we've made since has only confirmed the predictions of relativity, which require time dilation in order to be accurate. That's simply all there is to it, ICANT. You can do as much math as you want, but your basic premise contradicts direct observations of reality. And reality trumps everything else, every time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
It's not the math, ICANT, it's your initial assumption that the speed of light is not constant in all reference frames.
I didn't see that assumption from him. He is saying that if you release light at the same time you release a moving object, the time it takes the light is longer. He is not changing the speed. Just the length the light traveled. The speed of light is only constant in a vacuum. The length of distance traveled is decided by the path light chooses to take; and that is the quickest. That’s why I put out the video. The math assumes both observers are traveling in straight lines and are subjectively At rest. Then the observers always view the light at the same speed, not the same distance. This is of course granting memory serves and I understood the video's explanation. Edited by tesla, : spacing keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
tesla writes: I didn't see that assumption from him. He is saying that if you release light at the same time you release a moving object, the time it takes the light is longer. He is not changing the speed. Just the length the light traveled. Then you missed it. What speed of light do ICANT's calculations reflect? ICANT says that light travels 5/24 of a light year (1,222,831,890,000 miles) in 4/24 of a year (10/24 - 6/24) in some inertial frame (apparently the wife's). To what speed do those numbers correspond?
That’s why I put out the video. The math assumes both observers are traveling in straight lines and are subjectively At rest. That's the way the observers are moving in ICANT's hypo.
Then the observers always view the light at the same speed, not the same distance. And? ICANT does not explicitly state that the speed of light is not the same for all inertial observers, but his calculations are not consistent with a constant speed of light. Then he asks us to check his arithmetic. ICANT is a relativity denier, apparently because time dilation conflicts with his existence hypothesis. He refuses to use time dilation or length contraction in any calculation.
This is of course granting memory serves and I understood the video's explanation. Seems to me that you do understand the video.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
If that statement is correct I am sitting still. OR The light is traveling at 299 792 158 m/s. Not according to actual observation. What do we open minded people do do when reality is different in observation than it is in our intuition?
OR this math is wrong. quote: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. Show me where the math is wrong. God Bless, I already commented on the maths. What did you think it proves? Show me where the observations are wrong. Show me where the observations are wrong. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
ICANT is a relativity denier, apparently because time dilation conflicts with his existence hypothesis. What's his hypothesis? the speed of light exactly 299792.458 km/sYear to seconds:31104000* lightspeed =9.324744614 *10^12. km/s traveled in a year (From a single perspective) 93247446140000 Km *1/6= 1.554124102 *10^12= (93247446140000) - (1.554124102) = 9.1693322*10^13 Light will be located 91693322000000 Km from Its initial start after 1/6 of a year of time has passed. (Approximately) (Just did the math as a reference, I'll review his math.) 91693322000000 km = 56975588811341.8 mi. lightspeed = 186282.397 miles/sec* 300 seconds= 55884719.1 miles traveled in 300 seconds. His math appears correct.90,000 miles in 300 seconds more distance to cover. Edited by tesla, : Just recording a mathmatical reference. Edited by tesla, : Approximation Due to figureing seconds/year as 60 seconds/minute * 60 min/hr *24 hrs a day* 30 day's a month * 12 months = N Edited by tesla, : Adding additional reference math. Edited by tesla, : Miles/sec Edited by tesla, : No reason given. Edited by tesla, : No reason given. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
tesla writes: ICANT is a relativity denier, apparently because time dilation conflicts with his existence hypothesis. What's his hypothesis? His existence begat existence dogma that is the actual subject of this thread.
Light will be located 91693322000000 Km from Its initial start after 1/6 of a year of time has passed. (Approximately)
lightspeed = 186282.397 miles/sec * 300 seconds= 55884719.1 miles traveled in 300 seconds. His math appears correct.90,000 miles in 300 seconds more distance to cover. Well let's think about that math a little. If it were actually correct, and it is not, then why don't you take into account the distance traveled in those additional 300 seconds? Yeah, it is a trivial amount, but still.. The real problem is the implication that the relative speed between the light and the vehicle is not c if the vehicle is moving away from the light source. For problems where the vehicle is moving slowly, as it is in this case, the difference is trivial. But in the case where the vehicle is moving at 0.5c, ICANT's math suggests that the light beam is actually traveling at 1.25c relative to the destination vehicle. Surely that is not right. Edited by NoNukes, : Discuss both problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1622 days) Posts: 1199 Joined:
|
The real problem is the implication that the relative speed between the light and the vehicle is not c if the vehicle is moving away from the light source. For problems where the vehicle is moving slowly, as it is in this case, the difference is trivial. But in the case where the vehicle is moving at 0.5c, ICANT's math suggests that the light beam is actually traveling at 1.25c relative to the destination vehicle. Surely that is not right. No, the light will arrive right on time at the same speed it always does. At half the speed of light, your perspective is still that as one who stands still. Therefore the light will always appear to be traveling the speed of light. And it does by all accounts. Right? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: But in the case where the vehicle is moving at 0.5c, ICANT's math suggests that the light beam is actually traveling at 1.25c relative to the destination vehicle. Surely that is not right. No ICANT does not say the light beam is actually traveling at 1.25 c. He says the light beam is actually traveling at c. It is just while the light is catching him he travels a distance that the light beam has to cover, which means the theory is wrong. The theory says the light beam traveling relative to the backbody of the universe would be traveling at 1.25 c in order to be traveling c relative to ICANT. The math says ICANT is correct. Either the math is wrong. OR The theory is invalid. Show me where the math is wrong. In Message 438 I said:
quote: In Message 440 you said:
quote: There are those here that keeps telling me my math is correct but I am wrong. Either the math is wrong or I am right. 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."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024