Existence

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 Isotropy
Experimental Basis of Special Relativity3.3 Tests of Light Speed from Moving Sources
Experimental Basis of Special RelativityIn 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. 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

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. 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.

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. No, your math is 100% wrong where you do not assume that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

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

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: 0.00000000000000001And 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 timeEdited 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

Hi Son, 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. He then gives a possible experiment using spaceships flying in opposite directions at satellite speeds and heights.After which he says: 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. 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."

Hi NoNukes, 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:

---

If I was stationary as you claim it would take the light beam:

​

Distance = 2,934,796,536,000
Speed = 186,000 mps.
Days to cover distance = 182.62125.

​

The light beam would reach my location at day 1095.7275 of my journey.

​

But that can't be right because 182.62125 days would have passed making it 1278.34875 days into my journey.

​

That can't be right either, because I am still 2,934,796,536,000 miles
from my destination which will take 365.2425 days to travel.

​

But that is really getting confusing as I am traveling at .5 c which will take me 1460.97 to travel the 11,739,186,144,000 miles of my trip. But now with you having me stopped it will take 1460.97 days plus the 182.62125 days for the light beam to get to me while I was stopped which = 1643.59125 days for my trip.

​

But that can't be right as I would not have traveled my entire trip at 93,000 mps.

---

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."

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.

Hi NoNuke, I found this in your source.

quote:

---

If the light emitted from a source moving with velocity v toward the observer has a speed c+kv in the observer's frame, then these experiments place a limit on k. Many but not all of these experiments are subject to criticism due to Optical Extinction.

---

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.. 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."

Hi ICANT,Looks like it is time to deal with Hatch. 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:

---

Finally, several predictions have been made in the course of the development. Specifically, it is predicted: (1) that gravitational radiation will never be detected; (2) unambiguous evidence for a black hole will never be found; and, (3) the amount of geodetic precession measured on the Gravity Probe B experiment will be one-third greater than that predicted by the general theory.

---

Focusing on prediction (3)

quote:

---

Incidentally, I have already predicted [23] that Gravity Probe B will detect a different amount of geodetic precession than that predicted by the general theory. I used a rather long argument to conclude that the predicted spin-orbit component (2.3 arc seconds per year) was only half the size it should be. The rest of the geodetic precession was due to space curvature and contributed 4.6 arc seconds per year. A simple method of arriving at my new prediction is to note that, if one measures time with a clock external to the gravitational field (local clock rate is immaterial), the "space curvature" (gradient of ether density) is twice what the general theory predicts. This leads directly to my prediction that the total geodetic precession measured by GPB will be 9.2 arc seconds per year rather than the general theory prediction of 6.9 arc seconds per year.

---

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. 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.

Both, because the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers regardless of their inertial reference frame.

Hello ICANT 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. 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. 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

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 youhave probably, while watching a bubble on its ascent, noticed the strange side to side oscillatorymotion the bubble makes on it's journey upward."here: Untitled Document" Such a description of this spiraling motion {5}is beyond thescope of this site, but the reader might be interested to note that each time a bubble suddenly movesone way it has shed a vortice which moves in the opposing direction so that after many such motionsthe 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 vortexstreet (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 alsospontaneously themselves out of a liquid. This occurs when the temperature of a liquid underconstant pressure raises above that liquid's boiling point. These bubbles are familiar to all as thosethat form in boiling water (they can also form when the pressure surrounding a liquid at constanttemperature is reduced). Under these circumstances the bubble is made up of vapor of the medium itis immersed within, this is because the vapor pressure of the fluid has surpassed that of the outeratmosphere (the pressure exerted upon the fluid) and so allows the fluid vapor to escape at muchfaster 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

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.

Hi ICANT, 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. 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? Surely you know my answer to that question. Both. 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 . Okay, so what's your question? I agree that light would measure the same speed in any reference frame. 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.