Existence

Hi Mod, Yes you did you said in Message 454:

quote:

---

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?

---

That is in agreement that my math is correct.You also said:

quote:

---

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.

---

Just because I am traveling 90 mph relative to you does not mean I am traveling 90 mph as I am only doing 60 mph, because you have chosen to be sitting still. Problem with that is that you are moving towards me at 30 mph.Same thing goes for the beam of light. It can be traveling c relative to me but that does not mean it is gaining on me at c if I am traveling at .5c. It is only gaining the distance traveled at .5c.Lets put that into miles.My cycle can take of and be doing .5c instantly. So I am in the starting gate and the light beam source is right side of me. A signal is given I start and the light beam starts at the same instant.I am traveling at 93,000 mps.The light beam is traveling at 186,000 mps.In 1 second the light beam will be 93,000 miles ahead of me.The distance the light beam can travel in 1 second is 186,000 mps it does not make any difference whether it is coming at me or chasing me it can only travel 186,000 mps.Unless the speed of light varys.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."

And that's where you are wrong, the light will in fact catch up to you at 1c from your point of view. This property has time dilatation as a consequence which is used to calculate gps position as I've noted in message 395 and Panda has noted in message 373.

What theory says this? What's a backbody? Certainly SR doesn't claim that light travels faster that c in any reference frame.

Hi Son, It will be doing c when it catches up to me yes.Questions:Using 186,000 mps as the speed of light for easy math.
Can light travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 1 light year? Yes/No
Will this take 365.2425 days? Yes/NoTraveling at .5 c, can I travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 2 light years? Yes/No
Will this take 730.485 days? Yes/NoIf I leave my wife traveling at .5c and travel for one light year before a light beam leaves my wifes location, on what day of my 2 light year journey will the light beam catch up to me?Anyone can answer.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 NoNukes, The one you guys have been trying to cram down my throat for the past couple of weeks. You could call it anything in the universe except me in my frame. Are you saying the top speed of light is c and it can travel no faster than c period?If so then could you explain the math in message 469 for me?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."

You will reach the same destination at the same time.
but what does that prove?Unless you mean after one year you are returning to your wife’s location. Hold on I'll do that math too.By my calculations you should see the light on day 639.
The light will have been traveling 273 days to meet you there.
I confess I rushed the math so I'll take correction if I did miss something.Muse:
If the wife wanted to see you back: the return path of the light would take an additional 273 days, and you would appear to be in your location at day 639 even though you would have traveled an additional 273 days.Holy Shit?Light takes the fastest path but, but not always a straight line.
In the case of glaciers flying in the sky, the light followed the circumference of the earth to be visible in the sky (straight line) from the observers.That’s why Space-time appears curved. The light is curved. It’s an apparent straight line when it's not.It’s taking the fastest path, and that is different when it is around matter.The time dilation is apparent because of the area that is not being calculated on the lights return path.It's curved return path, not straight.I feel this is relevant but I'm not sure why.Edited by tesla, : No reason given.Edited by tesla, : calculations:Edited by tesla, : MuseEdited by tesla, : Holy shit moment?

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

First, you made a confusion about years and light years I think(1 light year = 5,869,593,072,000 miles, it's not a duration). As you said it: would mean: "can I travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 11,739,186,144,000 miles?"
Your two first questions don't make much sense together whether you replace light year by the distance or time. It's either:
"Can light travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 365.2425 days? Yes/No
Will this take 365.2425 days? Yes/No"
or
"Can light travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 5,869,593,072,000 miles? Yes/No
Will this take 365.2425 days? Yes/No"Until you tell me what you mean, it's hard to answer.

Hi tesla, It proves a couple of things.1. It proves the speed of light is c.
2. It proves the light beam can not be traveling at c in relation to my frame unless unless the speed of my frame is involved in the equation.
3. It proves I am not sitting still.
4. It proves that the light beam can not travel at c regardless of which direction I am traveling as has been claimed in this thread.Oh and it also proves there can be no time dilation even though the clocks would go crazy and not measure the distance I traveled correctly.I think you could say that invalidates the theory. The math could use some work.I will see the light 730.485 days after I have left my wife.
The light will have traveled 365.2425 days since leaving my wife.The 730.485 days is halfway through my turn around and this image will not reach my wife until day 1095.7275 of my journey at which time I will be half way back home. From that moment my wife will view the last 730.485 days of my journey in 365.2425 days. The reason for that is for the 365.2425 days of my journey from the point I reach my halfway point until I reach the 1095.7275 day point of my journey her screen will be blank. So she can only view 3 years of my 4 year journey.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."

lol Looks right. That means you did not exist before the moment the light was visible to the object. (From the perspective of the object)

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Son, I ran the following by a sixth grader and the answers are included in brackets.

quote:

---

Using 186,000 mps as the speed of light for easy math.
Can light travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 1 light year? Yes/No
(Yes)
Will this take 365.2425 days? Yes/No (Yes)

​

Traveling at .5 c, can I travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 2 light years? Yes/No (Yes, as 2 light years at .5c equals 5,869,593,072,000 miles)
Will this take 730.485 days? Yes/No (Yes, because it takes 2 light years to travel the distance of one light year at .5c)

​

If I leave my wife traveling at .5c and travel for one light year before a light beam leaves my wifes location, on what day of my 2 light year journey will the light beam catch up to me? (day 370)

---

Missed that last one as she did not take into consideration of the fractional part of a year.So I don't see what problem you are having unless it is a language problem.Nevertheless I will clarify. 1. Traveling at .5c can I travel 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 2 years which equals 730.485 days, in which light traveling at c would travel 11,739,186,144,000 miles? Yes/No2. If I leave my wife traveling at .5c and travel for 365.2425 days before a light beam leaves my wifes location, on what day of my 2 year 5,869,593,072,000 mile journey will the light beam catch up to me?Hopefully this will clarify what I am asking. If it does not point out where the problem is and I will see if I can fix it.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."

You are doing 60mph relative to the ground, which is the standard reference point, I agree. But you also agree that this would be 90mph relative to me. That's all that matters. When someone says the speed of light is constant they are suggesting that the same thing does not go for the beam of light. This is consistent with our observations. Your version is not. I'll leave it for you to decide how to deal with that.As long as you understand that the constancy of the speed of light is not about its transmission through various media such as interstellar matter, but rather it is meant in the sense that it is not like the car example. Remember that speed is just an expression of distance traveled over some time. One possibility is that the speed of light varies like that speed of cars varies depending on what reference point you are measuring distance and time from. Another possibility is that the speed of light is constant but time or distances vary. The one where the speed of light is constant while the other components of that speed vary has evidential support, and even makes specific quantitative predictions which have been observed to be accurate within the measuring capacities of our equipment.I won't even attempt to persuade you which version you should pick.

Hi Rahvin,I thought you was not talking to me. Great so the math is correct. That is not an assumption. That is a fact.If you disagree then prove the math wrong.Opps you already said the math is correct. I will conceed that the speed of light in a vaccum is c.In other words it will travel at the speed of c in a vaccum regardless of anything else.Where I disagree is if I am covering distance in the same direction that the light is traveling the light will be closing the distance between us at c minus the time it will take for the light beam to cover the distance I am covering while it is catching me.I also disagree that the distance between a light beam and me is closing at c if I am traveling at .5c towards the light beam. The distance is closing at 1.5c. Yet the light beam is only traveling at c, because I am traveling at .5c. No it is based on math I studied in sixth grade, just plain old addition, substraction and multiplication.A light beam can only travel so fast which is called c.
An object that is moving away from the light beam, is covering distance while the light beam is catching up to that object.An object that is moving toward a light beam coming toward it is covering distance that the light beam does not have to cover to reach the object.In both of this instances there is distance the light beam has to cover or not cover which is determined by the direction of the object in relation to the light beam.Are you saying that it does not matter how much or how little the object moves in either direction the distance closes at the speed of c?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."

The problem with your previous message is that you didn't tell whether you meant light year as a distance or a duration. I don't see how you can make sense of this? As for your two questions on this message:
1) yes if you are in the frame of reference of the wife from which both the light and you departed(if I understood relativity well). The light would have traveled further than 11,739,186,144,000 miles in your frame of reference though since the light would have traveled away from you at C while you are yourself traveled at 0.5c.2) Since you are at 0.5 light year from your wife when the beam is sent, it will catch up to you in half a year (in your frame of referece).That's what it means to have light at the same speed in every frame of reference. I know you disagree with it but as I've noted in message 395 and Panda has noted in message 373, that's a propriety that GPS uses.Math alone can't prove a thing, you need the math to match reality, not the other way around otherwise, it just means your model is false.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Hi Mod, You traveling 30 mph>X........60.........Z....30....Y

90 miles apart

It will take 1 hour for us to meet.  Where will we meet?

Will we meet at Y?  Or will we meet at Z?  

But this is the one I have been talking about since this part of the subject came up.If a beam of light is coming towards me it take it less time to cover the distance between us as I am traversing distance the light will not have to cover.But if I am moving away from the light source the light beam will have to travel distance that I have traveled in order to catch up with me.

Using 186,000 mps rounded for ease of math.

X at .5c............= 2,934,796,536,000 miles in 365.2425 days.

L at c..............= 5,869,593,072,000 miles in 365.2425 days.

X travels 365.2425 days and L leaves the same location at that time.

They are both traveling in the same direction.  When will L catch up to X? 

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."

So THAT's the problem. You're trying to understand physics/relativity with a sixth grade education.

---

"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square