Existence

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 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:

---

In response to your first comment about experimental evidence being the only real way to decide that relativity is flawed, I explained the difficulty of such experiments in Section 15 at the end of the velocity composition paper. See, Section 15. The Difficulty of Obtaining Experimental Proof, at, Velocity Composition . I don’t know if it’s even possible at our current level of technological development. Essentially you need the ability to have an observation laboratory moving at a significant speed relative to the Earth laboratory where, for example particle acceleration is taking place at a speed near c, upon which the moving laboratory can simultaneously detect the conditions of the accelerating particles relative to that same moving observation laboratory. Such experimental evidence is far off in the future.

---

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:

---

In response to your next question, although you got the math a little messed up, your example as intended is valid. Yes, if u1 = .866c and u2 = .866c then v = 1.299c. I don’t try to tell Nature how it should work. I simply follow the evidence and go where it leads me. The short answer is, yes, I do believe that the velocity of light can be exceeded. This does not mean that it is easy to do, nor does it mean that it can be done directly. That is, I agree with the evidence that from any inertial frame it would take an infinite amount of energy to exceed the speed of light relative to that frame using energy residing in that frame. This does not mean, however, that an object accelerated in one inertial frame using the resources available in that frame cannot exceed the speed of light relative to another inertial frame.

---

Rybczyk is seemingly unbothered by the fact that his predictions are contradicted in essentially every high speed accelerator experiment ever done. 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

Hi crash, Relative to what?Now here is a quote from the message you were replying too.

quote:

---

I divided up a light year into 24 periods for brevity of space.

​

When I am 6/24's (1/4) of the first light year of my journey on my spacebike your photon leaves my wife at the speed of c.

​

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.

​

At that rate the photon would catch and pass me and travel a light year in 2/3 thirds of a light year, if the speed of light = 186,000 mps and is constant as we are told.

​

Which is impossible.

​

Here is the math.
1/24 of the first light year of my journey = 122,283,189,000
2/24 of the first light year of my journey = 244,566,378,000
3/24 of the first light year of my journey = 366,849,567,000
4/24 of the first light year of my journey = 489,132,756,000
5/24 of the first light year of my journey = 611,415,945,000
6/24 of the first light year of my journey = 733,699,134,000
7/24 of the first light year of my journey = 855,982,323,000 the photon has traveled 366,849,567,000
8/24 of the first light year of my journey = 978,265,512,000 the photon has traveled 733,699,134,000
9/24 of the first light year of my journey = 1,100,548,701,000 the photon has traveled 1,100,548,701,000
10/24 of the first light year of my journey = 1,222,831,890,000 the photon has traveled 1,467,398,268,000

​

The photon has caught me and passed me as it was coming towards me at c.

---

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 733,699,134,000The photon leaves my wife traveling at 186,000 mps.At 7/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled. 855,982,323,000The photon has traveled 244,566,378,000 miles.8/24 of the first light year of my journey I have traveled 978,265,512,000The 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."

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.

Yes. 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. Relative to the ground, but not relative to me. Relative to me you are approaching at 90mph. It seems to be a fact about light, I don't know why. 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. Then we have directly observed magic. 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?

Hi NoNukes, 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:

---

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."

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

Hi Mod, To prove this statement false or magic. If that statement is correct I am sitting still.ORThe light is traveling at 299 792 158 m/s.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,

---

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

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.

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

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 the way the observers are moving in ICANT's hypo. 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. Seems to me that you do understand the video.

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? 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.

What's his hypothesis?the speed of light exactly 299792.458 km/s
Year 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*10^13Light 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/secEdited 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

His existence begat existence dogma that is the actual subject of this thread. 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.

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

Hi NoNukes, 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.ORThe theory is invalid.Show me where the math is wrong.In Message 438 I said:

quote:

---

#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.

---

In Message 440 you said:

quote:

---

I do not claim #2 to be true. Only #1 is true.

---

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."