Existence

Hi NoNukes, Until the light actually reaches your eye you can not see it. Whether it be from the flashlight or the light beam that left my wife's side. Nor can you see it in your light clock you installed on my bike.Light is a local event and only a local event. Postulate 2.An observer could not see the light from any frame other than the local frame. You could have explained it this way.The LHC is constructed in a circular configeration with 4 straight line runs of 1788.0577427821522 feet in the clockwise and counter clockwise directions. They intersect at four points in the middle of the straights. Thus anything traveling around in the unit has acceleration from the beginning of journey to end of the journey except in these four 1788.0577427821522 feet straights. I am assuming it is in these straights where collisions take place.You can find this layout here.Would you agree that the only inertial frames in the LHC are in the four places the 1788.0577427821522 feet intersecting straights of the clockwise and counter clockwise tubes?In the SLAC which is a Linear accelerator with a straight of about 1.8 miles long.

quote:

---

In linear accelerators, particles travel in a vacuum down a long, copper tube. The electrons ride waves made by wave generators called klystrons. Electromagnets keep the particles confined in a narrow beam. When the particle beam strikes a target at the end of the tunnel, various detectors record the events

---

SourceSo the particles ride waves that are created by klystrons and are kept in a narrow beam (straight) by electromagnets.There is no time that force external to the particle is not applied. So do you advocate transforming all non-inertial frames into inertial frames?Or using fictitious forces? But when the train starts around the mountain the balls will roll toward the outside of the turn. As they would do in my space bike.And if I hit my thrusters they would roll towards the back of the bike.If the brakes were applied to the train the balls would roll towards the front of the train.So as long as no outside force is applied to the train or my bike the balls would stay in place as they would be in an inertial frame.But just as soon as outside force is applied to either the balls begin to roll around. By detectors. Since I would be half way through my u turn parallel to home and my speed would be reduced from .5 c and without the thrusters to force the bike to finish making the turn I would never return home. What difference does it make if LET is right or wrong as a theory it does produce the results required without the use of SR.Just because SR gets the numbers right does not make the theory true. If it does then LET is true according to that logic.The thing is the numbers could have been produced and was produced without SR. My bike trip was designed to leave my wife on earth and travel at .5 c for 2 light years which equals 11,739,186,144,000 miles.Explain to me how my journey can include a u turn around a planet and maintain .5 c for my entire journey without that u turn being a very large u turn which would consume a large portion of my journey? But it is also provided in a way that my .5 c speed is maintained throughtout the 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."

Hi fear, Are you telling me my reversal of direction will not alter my speed?Does that mean I can make my u turn without engaging my thrusters?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,Would've been nice to get a honest answer to my question. You have been told we are not counting the u-turn, for the sake of making the math easier, just like the acceleration would be instantaneous.BTW asking more irreverent questions is not an answer. You know all these things were excluded from the thought experiment.Why do you insist on mixing the real world into this thought experiment??Maybe I will set up a simpler one that has no planets or return trip, just a trip from a to b, let me try and put it in proper perspective and we shall try again, although I think you are avoiding answering questions directly on purpose, you know what the parameters of the thought experiment are and continue to ask non relevant questions that would only apply to the real world. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

---

"I hate to advocate the use of drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they always worked for me." - Hunter S. ThompsonAd astra per asperaNihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

Here's a few of the problems with your posts, based (I assume) on your lack of any formal education in basic physics:Velocity is directional; speed is not. It's possible to change direction without changing your speed, because speed is the magnitude of velocity. For instance, maybe the way your space bike changes direction from heading out to heading back in is that it has a high-speed inelastic collision with a giant space wall, and bounces off. That would be a change in velocity (because your direction changed) but speed would be the same. No thrusters would be required.Curved or circular travel is a form of acceleration. This is evident in the old child's game where you swing a bucket of water around in a circle and it stays at the bottom of the bucket. It's impossible for a rocket to travel in a curved path without experiencing acceleration.Objects in motion remain in motion unless acted on by an outside force. Rocket engines propel rockets by causing acceleration, not by causing velocity. That means that once a space vehicle has accelerated to .5 c no further engine use is required to maintain that velocity. This is contrary to how ships in space are usually presented in movies and TV shows, etc.

Hi My u turn maintaining .5 c has been in my thought experiment all the time.So what is irelevant in the questions I asked?crash at least tried to explain to me why I did not need thrust to maintain my v while I am making my turn.But since there is no wheels on the cycle biting into the dirt, nor a rudder or sail to change my direction, How am I supposed to make my change of direction?If I don't apply side thrust which will be at an angle to my turn to cause the cycle to change directions I will do as you are talking about doing one with no turn around. I would just keep heading into deep space never to return.Now if you got a better way I can reverse my direction and maintain my .5 c velocity throughout my journey please share.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 crash, The turn around has been designed to be a u turn in which the cycle continues the entire trip at .5 c. And what happens when you stop exerting the thrust on the bucket to swing it around?What about if you put it on a rope and after you went around a couple of time you let go of the rope. Would the bucket keep going in the circle? No it would take off in a straight line in the direction it was headed when you turned it loose. Since the rocket would be experiencing lateral acceleration what would cause the rocket to experience such lateral acceleration?Wouldn't I need to have thrusters on the sides at the front to cause the cycle to go left or right whichever the direction of my u turn was planed to go?So explain to me how I can make my u turn without firing thrusters to push the front end around.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. This is my first visit to your thread, so if what I'm about to say has been said, my apologies.I'm not sure what you are asking here, but as to having no beginning, Jehovah, the Biblical god has never had a beginning. The proper name Jehovah/YHWH is in both the Received Text manuscripts and the Alexandrian Text manuscripts over 6000 time. It means the existing one or self existing one. This is unique in that this is the only name of any god having that meaning, implying, of course, that Jehovah is the only existing true god of the Universe.Now, since, according to some texts Jehovah exists in the heavens with his angels and other celestial creatures, the Universe must needs be eternal, always to have existed.Since God's universe has always existed, the 1LoT applies, which says that no energy has ever been created, nor will it ever be decreased. Energy (including matter) has always existed in some form. Jehovah, being all-energetic/omnipotent has been managing his Universe forever, creating, changing, destroying and remaking things.2LoT is the law of equilibrium. Energy released from one source energizes into where it is released, such as in a pressure tank, The compressed air in it, when released looses pressure which adds the released energy outside of it.God, in creation, rested after enough energy was released from him to do the work of creating. Jesus felt energy released from him when the woman touched the hem of his garment for healing. This all makes more scientific sense than things like the Singularity predeceasing the alleged BB, having no space to have happened, no time in which to have happened and no outside of into which to expand. Nobody knows, I understand about where the energy came form or if there was any before.So in a sense, the answer to your question is that nothing was ever brought about to begin to exist. It all involves energy which only changes form. This satisfies the Biblical record.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.

You are, of course, wrong (as usual) because we all know the FSM is the ever existing one and the creator of all. My book right here says so. As does the Prophet Bobby Henderson, sauce be upon him.Heathens such as yourself should learn to watch their tongue.

---

"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

Hi Buz,Thanks for dropping by. No apologies necessary. Nobody wants to talk about eternal existence.Don't you know all these folks believe the universe began to exist from an absence of anything. So why would they address the topic.We have chased a bunch of rabbits as one is born every post or two.Us saying The Existing One caused everything to begin to exist from existing energy is considered magic as God does not exist in their minds.Their believing the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago from an absence of anything is scientific fact and they know it is because the universe exists today therefore it had to begin to exist as they have dreamed up in their minds.And to them their version of the beginning to exist is not magic but pure science.It's not a problem that they have no place for the universe to begin to exist in as there would be an absence of anything. So they had to come up with a particle of some kind that could exist in imaginary time and contained everything we see in the universe today. And that particle was about the size of a pin point. I bet it was kinda crowded in there.They cannot accept our version of the universe being eternaly existing in some form as that would be evidence for a higher power which is not acceptable. Because if they accepted the God version that would mean they would have to believe that there is a higher authority than themselves and that is out of the question as they are their own God and there is room for none else.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, It's not necessary for the wife to see the light clock. The events happen the same way whether or not the wife can see them. An observer cannot see a light beam emitted from a source at rest in his own frame until the light reaches his eye. Exactly the same thing happens for sources at rest in some other inertial reference frame. I see now that you have no point. Let me share some back of the napkin calculations. You haven't actually provided any numbers to work with, so let's pick a really big turning radius. Instead of assuming a turning radius on the order of a few tens planet diameters, let's assume that the turn covers a half circle having about the same "diameter" as Mars orbit around the sun. That's a pretty big turn right?At 0.5 c, it would take about 45 minutes to complete that huge turn. I don't think it's much of a stretch to suggest that 45 minutes out of a 4 year journey is a pretty small amount.However (neglecting relativistic effects) during the turn you'd experience roughly 12,000 g of acceleration. Of course you want us to pretend that ten thousand g body-smearing accelerations can be ignored if they are lateral. That's not the answer to the question I asked. Halfway through your return leg is well after the turn is complete. I didn't ask about the halfway point for the entire journey. You've previously suggested that the point in question is 0.5 light years from earth. What happens if you turn off your engines at that point? LET requires length contraction. I'm not aware of any viable theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR that don't require at least length contraction. So, yeah it matters. I advocate getting the right answer when working a physics problem; quite often classical mechanics is enough. In the sense that the word "fictitious" is being used here, gravity is also a fictitious force. Surely you aren't suggesting some integrity problem. Don't your statements acknowledge that the collisions occur when the particles are moving inertially. Plus SR can be applied even when the particles are accelerating.

Hi ICANT, This summary of yours is quite misleading, and only my status as a gentleman by act of Congress prevents my from using stronger words directed towards your intent. Perhaps you'll manage to push me to that point.In fact, this discussion started because of your insistence that there were only a couple possible choices for understanding beginnings, when at least one other choice was possible.Of course I didn't participate in that part of the discussion, nor did I offer any opinion on it. You don't know what I believe. I certainly believe in the existence of God.Maybe Buz can explain inertial frames in a way that you can grasp the concept. I know I cannot do it.

Hi NoNukes, .From a few lines in all your posts I do not believe you are one of those who believe the universe began to exist about 13.7 billion years ago out of an absence of anything. If you do that would fool me.But some of the posters here I have been argueing with for over 4 years and Buz much longer. We have discussed the origin of the universe on several occasions.You and I have never discussed the origins of the universe but if you feel you would like to share your view please do. Is inertial frames a concept?OR, is an inertial frame a reality?My understanding of an inertial frame is that it is a reference frame that has no external force exerted upon it. Realizing there is no such thing as a stationary frame as all frames are moving because of their location in existence.My understanding of a non-inertal frame is that it is a reference frame that has outside force that causes some type of motion other than that which is placed upon it by its location in existence.In other words my space ship must have thrusters to control the frame in which my cycle exists. Once the cycle reaches .5 c headed towards the planet that is planned to be circled, in the u turn of my journey, to vary that straight line must have force applied in some manner.At the point I must begin to make my u turn a force must be applied to the side of the front of the cycle to cause it to turn left as I planned my u turn to be a left turn.There is no tires moving over something solid that can be turned with handlebars or steering wheel. There is no rudder that can be turned to cause the cycle to begin to make a left turn. There is no sail that can be hoisted and used to cause the cycle to make a left turn.Therefore I must have thrusters on the sides of the cycle's nose to be able to exert force on the right side to make the cycle begin to turn left.Now to make a complete u turn I must apply this force until the exit point of the u turn when the cycle is aimed at the origin of my journey.During this complete u turn force has to be applied to maintain the .5 c velosity the frame is moving through the vaccum.If no force is ever applied to the side of the nose of the cycle to cause it to change directions I will never return to the origin of my journey.Now what is wrong with my understanding of an inertial frame?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, If light can not be seen until it enters the local frame, how do you know that it reacts the way you say it does.It has never been observed to happen except in a thought experiment. That is not evidence. I didn't think they would be propelling the cycle at this time. But if I don't have some way of applying a force to slow my velosity I am going to make huge dent in the earth when I hit it at .5 c providing I have lined up my return trip to return to the origin of my journey. LET is older than SR and would have made the same predictions if SR had never been proposed whether LET is correct or incorrect. Do you agree or disagree?Until we can actually build my space cycle to the point it will do 30 million miles per second will we be able to observe length contraction.A bullet traveling at 1200 feet per second can not be observed by an observer, so how are we going to be able to observe something traveling at 30 millions miles per second? Those were my observations from the layout I had presented in the message you are answering.But if you look at the layout found HereYou get a different picture.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, Uh, sure. This sentence makes no sense. Light does not "enter a reference frame". These are the kinds of statements that convince me that despite being able to recite a reasonable description of an inertial reference frame, you struggle with understanding the implications of a reference frame.In your thought problem, we have assumed that both earth and planet X are at rest in a single reference frame, while the space cycle (omitting conditions during the turn) is at rest first in one inertial reference frame, and then at rest in a second inertial reference frame for the return. Saying that an object is "in a reference frame" is only colloquial speech for being "at rest in a reference frame". You should probably avoid the expression.We know that the light continues to hit the upper and lower mirrors because hubby for whom the light clock is at rest sees the photon move directly up and down. Every observer who can see the light clock or detect its operation based on either directly hearing the beeps, or hearing a transmitted signal modulated by the beeps, will agree that the light pulse always strikes the mirrors.We also know that from a frame of reference in which the light clock is moving, the photon hits the mirrors, despite the fact that the mirrors are constantly moving. So we know that the light pulse travels in the saw tooth path as presented. If you think there is some other possibility, you are welcome to describe it. That's funny. When we were discussing the A vs. B diagrams, you indicated that you were not going to stop when you reached earth. I thought you were planning to zoom past. Who knows what would have happened?We've spent a lot of time discussing a "twin paradox" like thought experiment. LET makes exact the same predictions re: the twin paradox as does SR. If the twin paradox is a problem for you, then perhaps LET isn't all that helpful. We can of course indirectly observe a speeding bullet using photographic methods. We can also indirectly observe the effects of length contraction at speeds in excess of 0.99c. The mu-meson experiment is a prime example. So you, [shudder] erred? I don't get a different picture. But then I'm not learning about accelerators for the first time. The latter drawing does not show enough detail to tell where the detectors are and where the accelerating potentials are.In a circular accelerator, there are velocity boosting sections, magnetic steering sections, and collision producing sections. The particles are repeatedly steered though the speed boosting sections. A line diagram may not answer the question of whether one or more regions of the accelerator does not actually increase the energy of the particles.A link to a bit more detail is hereAlso, as has been suggested, SR can handle the math involved when the particles are accelerating just fine. You cannot come anywhere near explaining the operation of a accelerator using sixth grade math/science.

Not trying to involve myself in your on-going misunderstanding, but here's a lecture from Lawrence Krauss about A universe from nothing.In it he explains what is meant by "nothing" and/or "an absence of anything" in physics.- Oni