|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
I know I am moving at .5 c and the light beam is traveling at 186,000 mps in relation to its frame. We have assumed at the beginning that this trip is in a vaccum. Light has been experimentally shown to be c in relative to the earth. You understate what has been shown experimentally. Light has been shown experimentally to travel at velocity c relative to objects that are moving relative to the earth's surface as well as to objects on earth that are stationary relative to earth's surface. The is experimental evidence that the same thing holds true for celestial sources. The link below cites experiments showing an isotropic speed of light relative to earth. It also shows that the speed of light as emitted from moving sources both on earth and in space are c even for light traveling paths not directed at earth. 3.1 Round-Trip Tests of Light-Speed IsotropyExperimental Basis of Special Relativity 3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving SourcesExperimental Basis of Special Relativity In other words, neither motion of the source or the receiver causes the speed of light to be perceived any differently in any inertial frame. Is it your opinion that if the light beam were transmitted from the cycle to earth from the same point in the cycles journey, that the time for a photon to reach earth would be a whopping 182.62 days? Added by edit.
If it did your math would disagree with my math. Our math does disagree. My math shows that the speed of light as measured by hubby is 1 c. You say that it is 1.5c. Edited by NoNukes, : Address disagreement
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Relative to what? Relative to themselves. That is - whatever reference frame you're in, at whatever velocity you might have relative to anything else, whenever you peer out and measure the speed of any photon in a vacuum, you will see that it will be C: 299,792,458 meters per second. We call it "C" because it's the same for everybody, it's constant, thus its convenient to represent it with a letter.
Show me where the math is wrong. The math is wrong where you do not assume that the velocity of light approaching you from the rear is C for you and C for your stationary wife on Earth. Because of this paradox, events cannot be said to be simultaneous and you will both record different times for when the photon catches up with you. She'll record it happening at a later time than you will, because your time has slowed down as a result of your velocity (and thus events seem to happen faster for you.) Because your time is slower, you will record less time elapsed between the time when you depart Earth and the time that the photon catches up with you than your wife will. Ergo it will happen sooner for you than it will for her.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
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. Yes, the math is wrong because you do not assume that C is the same for all observers - you assume that stationary observers seeing a photon catch up to you at C would be travelling at C + your speed. But this is incorrect - stationary observers would view the photon travelling at C past them on its way towards you, and you would view the photon traveling at C catching up with you. And the result of this paradox is that you and your stationary observers would not be able to agree about when the photon actually caught you, and that's why time dilation occurs - simultaneity is not consistent across different inertial reference frames. You experience time at a different rate than your stationary observers so that the speed of light appears to be the same to you both.
There are those here that keeps telling me my math is correct but I am wrong. No, your math is 100% wrong where you do not assume that the speed of light is the same for all observers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
I'll continue my education. I can't help but feel I may have gotten close to a missing truth.
On a side note, Dark matter still might turn out to be missing the mass of the electromagnetic spectrum. Unless you can verify that has been ruled out? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
Matter/energy distorts space-time (despite ICANTs protests) changing the 'shape' of the geodesic in the surrounding space. For the SR problems involving space cycles, these effects have been neglected and the problems have been worked under the assumption that space-time is flat. I think the assumption is appropriate for these problems.
Space time is curved... Now what? If the space-time is not flat, these calculations might only be appropriate for relatively short distances (close to matter) and we have no ability to test for extreme long distances with absolute certainty. A missed equation can be off: 0.00000000000000001 And the evidence wouldn’t be clear until you follow a much longer path in testing. Not saying the math isn't accurate with what they do. It may be inaccurate for things we are trying to do though. Like calculate the mass of a body a billion light years away. What if light flew around for a while in some swirl. Examine: it would circle an area five times without interference, and then land in your eye. The light recorded an object that you "saw", a billion years ago. And the light is that old...but the actual object is a shorter distance to you than the path the light took. So you guess the object to be a billion light years away, because it took the light one billion years to get to you. But the object would actually be a distance of 1/5 of that distance to you. (Fractals?) This is why appearances are so deceiving with light. If light is photons and electrons, they still hold particle behavior, and the photon may well be the basic building block of mass. And it's energy the basic unit for all energy capabilities in mass. Is the assumption suspect, given the behavior we cannot explain? Edited by tesla, : space time Edited by tesla, : million/billion correlation incorrect; corrected. 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: 1.7 |
Hi Son,
Son writes: How do you then explain the accuracy of the GPS (that is not earthbound) if the speed of light is not constant in a vacuum? Why don't I let Mr Hatch explain it as he does a much better job.
Here is a paper by the man who has the patent for the Hatch filter that makes that possible. I will put a few quotes here and you can read the paper for yourself.
Ronald R Hatch writes: There are three fundamental effects, generally described as relativistic phenomena, which affect GPS. These are: (1) the effect of source velocity (GPS satellite) and receivervelocity upon the satellite and receiver clocks; (2) the effect of the gravitational potential upon satellite and receiver clocks; and (3) the effect of receiver motion upon the signal reception time (Sagnac effect) . There are a number of papers which have been written to explain these valid effects in the context of Einstein's relativity theories. However, quite often the explanations of these effects are patently incorrect. As an example of incorrect explanation, Ashby [2] in a GPS World article, "Relativity and GPS," gives an improper explanation for each of the three phenomena listed above. The three effects are discussed separately and contrasted with Ashby's explanations. But the Sagnac effect is shown to be in conflict with the special theory. A proposed resolution of the conflict is offered. The Sagnac effect is also in conflict with the general theory, if the common interpretation of the general theory is accepted. The launch of GPS Block II satellites capable of intersatellite communication and tracking will provide a new means for a giant Sagnac test of this general theory interpretation. Other general theory problems are reviewed and a proposed alternative to the general theory is also offered. Velocity Effects upon the Clock Rates. The fundamental question of velocity is always: "Velocity with respect to what?" Ashby, in the opening paragraph of his abstract, states: Important relativistic effects arise from relative motions of GPS satellites and users, ... And Ashby also states, at the start of a section on time dilation: First, clocks in relative motion suffer (relativistic) time dilation,... But these statements are patently untrue of GPS. It may appear to be a subtle difference, but it is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the chosen frame of referencein this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial frame. He then gives a possible experiment using spaceships flying in opposite directions at satellite speeds and heights. After which he says:
Ronald R Hatch writes: Jorgenson makes the following statement:In considering alternative coordinate frames, the differences in special relativity exactlycounterbalance those in classical Doppler. Einstein's special relativity is the great equalizer ofcoordinate systems. We are given the option of choosing the one most convenient to our needs, and in the case of GPS, this is an earth-centered inertial frame. But Jorgensen confuses the special theory claims with the claims of the Lorentz ether theory. Indeed, many people claim that they are equivalent. However, as we shall see later, there is direct experimental evidence which supports the Lorentz ether theory over the special theory. Whenever a frame is chosen which does not coincide with the receiver or observer, experiment demands that the speed of light be treated as non-isotropic as far as the receiver or observer is concerned. But this is anathema to the special theory, since it is a direct contradiction of the special-theory teaching that the speed of light is always isotropic relative to the observer (Einstein's "convention" that the round-trip time of a light pulse is composed of two equal time intervals for the outgoing and incoming pulse). And it is this aversion to non-isotropic light speed, as we will see later, which is responsible for the myriad attempts to explain the Sagnac effect without admitting that it simply arises from the choice of an isotropic frame in which the receiver is moving. Ashby is guilty of claiming that clocks run at a rate determined by their relative velocity. In fact, the rate at which clocks run must be computed using the clock velocity with respect to the chosen isotropic light-speed frame. This is consistent with the Lorentz ether theory but not with the special theory. He then discuses the effect of gravitational potential on the clocks.He gives three experiments that confirm that the clocks run slower the lower they are in a gravitational potential. He then discuses the Sagnac effect in which he says.
Ronald R Hatch writes: Ashby states:In the rotating frame of reference, light will not appear to go in all directions in straight lines with speed c. The frame is not an inertial frame, so the principle of the constancy of the speed of light does not strictly apply. Instead, electromagnetic signals traversing a closed path will take a different amount of time to complete the circuit. In point of fact, rotation is only incidentally involved with the Sagnac effect. 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. Since relativists do not like to admit that non-isotropic light speed exists, they attempt to explain the effect by other mechanisms. Is he right or is he wrong? All I know is that the program and filter he designed for John Deer is used by contractors all over the US to operate buldozers and motorgraders to cut a grade within .25 hundredths of an inch. Using GPS and computers to control the blades that do the cuting. If he don't know what he is doing or talking about he is the luckiest man that has ever lived. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: Now I see what was the problem, you don't actually know what a reference frame is. How can any object be moving in it's own frame of reference? Either me and my frame is moving at 93,000 mps toward my wifes frame or the photon is traveling 279,000 mps. So if that is my problem please explain why the math says what you are saying is nothing more that bull chips. Here is the quandry I am in if you are right so explain it. In other words show me where my math is wrong.
quote: Reality says you are wrong, as this math shows you are wrong. Or do you have an explanation? I notice you didn't touch it as if it was a rattlesnake. 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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
So if that is my problem please explain why the math says what you are saying is nothing more that bull chips. Because your math doesn't assume that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. If you continue to falsely assume that the speed of a photon is the same kind of thing as the speed of a bullet, only faster, then you will continue to make the same mistake and do the same wrong math. You're right that it seems paradoxical that the speed of light would be the same for all observers, that the math somehow doesn't work out if that's the case. The way that the math works out is that we assume that time and distance are not the same for observers in different inertial reference frames. It can't both be the case that time and distance are the same regardless of your inertial reference frame, and that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers. Your math abundantly proves that. So we must turn to observation to find out which of those two mutually inconsistent things is the true one, and it turns out that Michaelson and Morley were able to prove, in 1887 (decades before Einstein), that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity. Further experiments proved that time and distance dilation occur.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.7 |
Hi NoNuke,
NoNuke writes: It also shows that the speed of light as emitted from moving sources both on earth and in space are c even for light traveling paths not directed at earth. I found this in your source.
quote: I don't find where it cover the observer's frame when it is moving 93,000 mps, towards the light. If I was sitting still the light beam would be traveling at c coming towards me. But since I am moving at 93,000 mps relative to the light beam and the light beam is moving 186,000 mps relative to me the distance between us is shrinking by 279,000 mps..
NoNukes writes: My math shows that the speed of light as measured by hubby is 1 c. You say that it is 1.5c. No I say the light beam is moving in my direction at 186,000 mps.And I also say that I am traveling 93,000 mps towards the light beam. You say the light beam is traveling towards me at 186,000 mps and I must sit still in my frame for that to happen while I am moving at 93,000 mps. That in itself should tell you that your theory is in disagreement with reality. A couple of questions. Is the light beam traveling at 186,000 mps relative to its source frame or the earth frame? Is my cycle traveling at 93,000 mps relative to the frame at the center of my turn around? If I had my handy radar gun that could measure the the speed of light and I was traveling toward the light beam at 93,000 mps the gun would read the light 186,000 mps. Although the light beam would reach me at the same time the gun gave me the reading. BTW if you had two light sources 11,739,186,144,000 miles apart aimed at each other and they both emitted at the same time, how many days would expire before they meet? 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
|
Hi ICANT,
Looks like it is time to deal with Hatch.
ICANT writes: Is he right or is he wrong? We know he's wrong. We have already discussed experimental results that don't match the predictions Hatch made based on his view of relativity. Your response was to deny that the experimental results were relevant. From Hatch's paper GPS and Relativity, page 24. http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf
quote: Focusing on prediction (3)
quote: Well guess what, while the jury is still out on predictions (1) and (2), prediction (3) was completely off base. The results match the predictions made by General Relativity. Hatch was wrong after all. Look like "Galilean Electrodynamics" was the right place to publish his paper.
ICANT writes: All I know is that the program and filter he designed for John Deer is used by contractors all over the US to operate bulldozers and motorgraders to cut a grade within .25 hundredths of an inch. Using GPS and computers to control the blades that do the cuting. If he don't know what he is doing or talking about he is the luckiest man that has ever lived. Either that, or his program and filter don't require Hatch to be right about relativity to do their functions. Let's apply this argument to Isaac Newton. Newton was very by any measure a genius in mathematics and physics, but does that means that his papers on the occult and his work in alchemy are worth the considering? I guess ICANT would suggest that they are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
Is the light beam traveling at 186,000 mps relative to its source frame or the earth frame? Both, because the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their inertial reference frame.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hello ICANT
ICANT writes: ?? writes:
Now I see what was the problem, you don't actually know what a reference frame is. How can any object be moving in it's own frame of reference? Actually Son wrote the above. I didn't notice your error until he pointed it out. He's right though. There is no single reference frame on earth as your post seemed to imply.
Either me and my frame is moving at 93,000 mps toward my wifes frame or the photon is traveling 279,000 mps. Of those choices, the correct one is that hubby and his frame are moving towards the wife at 93,000 miles per second. The photon does not travel at 279,000 mps in any inertial frame of reference. Your question seems to confirm that Son was right.
ICANT writes: So if that is my problem please explain why the math says what you are saying is nothing more that bull chips.'' I notice you didn't touch it as if it was a rattlesnake.
You flatter yourself. The only time so far I've avoided responding to you is when someone else beats me to it. I have already address your question. I didn't simply calculate the answer in the wife's inertial frame. I showed you the math that shows that the speed of the photon in the cycle's inertial frame is the same as the speed of light in a vacuum. You did not get that result so your answer is wrong. It is irrelevant that you added two numbers correctly to get that wrong answer. Consider the logic you are applying here. I used Special Relativity to calculate the answer in the wife's frame of reference. You agree with that answer. By your logic, I must therefore be correct, unless you can show me the answer in my math. So where is the error? Further, given that we are doing a thought problem, don't you think it's a bit silly to claim that my answer disagrees with reality based on your own answer? Did you forget that no one really went on a four year trip on a space cycle. Edited by NoNukes, : fix tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1623 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
If this behavior for the model is true, it is potential that black holes consist of the mass that cannot accept any more particles of the electromagnetic spectrum because of its structured density.
This would mean light avoids the mass, and does not interact with the mass to record and be received. It would hold the data of the last item it interacted with. Which also would explain the emissions of radiation from black holes, It is trying to loose energy but the electromagnetic field is clogged with too much light, and only high energy, lesser amounts of radiation can be expelled into the clogged currents. So it might be able to "see" a shape if only the high energy emissions are looked at, for a good duration of time, and then played in very fast forward. Y'know, Thats actually kind of scary. That means matter is collected like bubbles in a current. If the current slows or changes.... Supporting observation:Water is lighter than air. So air in water is a heavier substance. It collects to itself. (bubbles) If the electromagnetic structure is weight dependent on energy levels (collected photons let’s say) Electrons would be separated from photons until a photon is absorbed, raising the energy level, and the weight. Since matter is heavier than photons, the matter would collect like air does in water. The least massed areas would be photons, or whatever composes a photon, or rather, whatever the building block of all mass and energy is. Am I the only one that sees the connection? "Some of you have probably, while watching a bubble on its ascent, noticed the strange side to side oscillatory motion the bubble makes on it's journey upward." here: Untitled Document " Such a description of this spiraling motion {5}is beyond the scope of this site, but the reader might be interested to note that each time a bubble suddenly moves one way it has shed a vortice which moves in the opposing direction so that after many such motions the bubble leaves behind it a vortex street (see figure below). {image borrowed from: Nothing found for Morningshow Blindedarchive Taooftrout } NOTE: While not the result of a bubble, the interesting satellite picture above is a good example of a vortex street (this particular one results from wind blowing around an island somewhere off the coast of Greenland){6}. These bubbles that we are talking about can form not only by injection of a gas into a liquid but also spontaneously themselves out of a liquid. This occurs when the temperature of a liquid under constant pressure raises above that liquid's boiling point. These bubbles are familiar to all as those that form in boiling water (they can also form when the pressure surrounding a liquid at constant temperature is reduced). Under these circumstances the bubble is made up of vapor of the medium it is immersed within, this is because the vapor pressure of the fluid has surpassed that of the outer atmosphere (the pressure exerted upon the fluid) and so allows the fluid vapor to escape at much faster rates than are otherwise allowed (such as normal evaporation){7}." Can anyone hear me now? Edited by tesla, : Added last sentence. Edited by tesla, : added onto initial examination. Edited by tesla, : Scary thought? Edited by tesla, : supporting observation: Edited by tesla, : spelling etc. tired...nite ya'll. Edited by tesla, : more bubbles stuff. Edited by tesla, : final Bubble post. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 8.3 |
Let's apply this argument to Isaac Newton. Newton was very by any measure a genius in mathematics and physics, but does that means that his papers on the occult and his work in alchemy are worth the considering? I guess ICANT would suggest that they are. More applicable to this argument is the fact that Newtonian mechanics, while inherently wrong, will give an accurate answer when used at the appropriate scales. Hatch's GPS may use an incorrect framework and still arrive at the right answer, just as Newtonian mechanics will accurately predict the trajectory of a ballistic shell. Newton was wrong...but his models are still good enough for most everyday calculations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Hi ICANT,
ICANT writes: But since I am moving at 93,000 mps relative to the light beam and the light beam is moving 186,000 mps relative to me the distance between us is shrinking by 279,000 mps.
NoNukes writes:
My math shows the speed of light as measured by hubby is 1 c. You say that it is 1.5c. No I say the light beam is moving in my direction at 186,000 mps.And I also say that I am traveling 93,000 mps towards the light beam. You say the light beam is traveling towards me at 186,000 mps and I must sit still in my frame for that to happen while I am moving at 93,000 mps You don't get it. You don't know what it means to be in an inertial frame. I'll take a shot at explaining. Your cycle is not accelerating (i.e not changing speed or direction), and thus it can be considered an inertial frame. You sitting on the cycle are in the same frame. In that reference frame, you and the cycle have zero velocity. In that same frame of reference, your wife is moving towards you at 0.5c. Your claim that the distance between you and the photon is shrinking at 279,000 miles per second is equivalent to stating that the photon is moving at 279,000 miles per second in the cycle reference frame.
ICANT writes:
I don't find where it cover the observer's frame when it is moving 93,000 mps, towards the light. That's true, sorta. But I think that the one and two way isotropy experiments in combination with the moving source experiments don't leave any room for the possibility that you are reaching for. Do you truly believe the results are different when the observer's frame is moving towards the light than when the light source is moving towards in the observer's frame? How do you tell which frame is actually moving? In reality, aren't both frames always moving? I don't recall you taking the earth's speed through the galaxy into account during the thought experiment. Why is that?
Is the light beam traveling at 186,000 mps relative to its source frame or the earth frame? Surely you know my answer to that question. Both.
Is my cycle traveling at 93,000 mps relative to the frame at the center of my turn around? When your cycle is reversing direction it is not in an inertial reference frame. I've tried to avoid considering the details of what goes on in during the turn around. I assume that it happens instantaneously, and that you are capable of enduring infinite G forces. Sorry about the pain .
If I had my handy radar gun that could measure the the speed of light and I was traveling toward the light beam at 93,000 mps the gun would read the light 186,000 mps. Although the light beam would reach me at the same time the gun gave me the reading. Okay, so what's your question? I agree that light would measure the same speed in any reference frame.
BTW if you had two light sources 11,739,186,144,000 miles apart aimed at each other and they both emitted at the same time, how many days would expire before they meet? Is that a two light years separation? The light beams would meet halfway between. In some frame one year would expire. But you did not specify anything to be a frame. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024