Existence

There's something I want to add to your message: thought experiments are used to see what are the consequences of some hypothesis (like the constancy of the speed of light) or whether a theory is internally consistent. It's a bit like saying :"if this and that are true, what will happen in this situation?" which basically means that you are looking at the predictions made by theories/hypothesis. But what determine if a theory or an hypothese is true is real life experiment, not the thought experiment even though the thought experiment does help.In this particuliar case, we're looking at the consequences of the constancy of the speed of light, we deduce some predictions with thought experiments and then those predictions are verified by reality.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Hi ICANT, So what? We're discussion a thought experiment. We can add any instrumentation needed as we desire.Son has done an excellent job of fleshing out the purpose of a though experiment. And high school students will tell you that it is perfectly legitimate to work the problem using the walker's frame of reference as the stationary frame. It's not an optical illusion ICANT.If we replace the mirror by photographic film, we will have a permanent record of the place where the beam struck the top of the frame. It won't be an illusion that the beam struck the film to the rear of the point at which the beam was emitted. We can make measurements while the training is moving or after the train has stopped, and we can determine the direction the beam traveled through the railroad car in the reference frame of the car.And again, why doesn't the motion of the earth through space cause the same effect? Why don't we always see optical illusions of this type?

Hi crash, Its not my light clock. NoNukes installed it on my cycle. Well the light clock on the flatcar on the train I thought up pulses a beam every meter as the laser pen installed flush with the bottom mirror in the center. Sends a pulse of light at a 90 angle to the motion of the train when the pen passes over sensors placed 1 meter apart on the track. The mirror is 18" long so there is only 9" of mirror for the light pulse to strike.So I don't think there would be a problem with having enough pulses to strike the mirror on top.The problem is if postulate #2 is valid the pulse can not strike the top mirror.If it does strike the top mirror postulate #2 is invalidated. I can imagine that.Problem is if the clock is open the light pulse will not strike the top mirror, if postulate #2 is valid.

quote:

---

Second postulate (invariance of c)

​

As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

SourceThat statement says that as measured in any stationary frame (you know the one Einstein said was not moving) that light always has a velocity at c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.The emitting source is moving at .5 cThe pulse of light must leave the source and travel in a straight line independent of the motion of the emitting body.If it does not postulate #2 is invalidated.In order for the light pulse to strike the top mirror in the middle it would have to take on the speed of the source. If it does that postulate #2 is invalidated.If you enclose the clock the light pulse will strike the back enclosure and then the top mirror at the left end if the truck is going to my right. The next pulse will do the same thing. Then you have declared postulate #2 invalidated. So the speed of light is c in any frame, which is 1/2 of postulate #2. Einstein qualifies that statement with "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body".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, After further thought you are correct.After changing the experiment to where I can see the light pulse leave the source and make it's journey.I will see the light pulse go straight up from the point it is emitted by the source. It just will not hit the top mirror as it has moved 1/2 meter to the right (almost 20") and the mirror is only 9" long.If I observe the light pulse striking the top mirror postulate #2 is invalidated. But the light pulse can not hit the top mirror or the photographic film on the top of the frame as it is only 9" from the center untill there is no mirror or film.

quote:

---

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

SourceDoes that say in any inertial fram in empty space light has a definite velocity of c?Does it also say light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body?Does the last part of that say that the light has to go in the direction pointed at the velocity of c regardless of what the motion of the source of the light is?Either the light pulse on the train would go at a 90 angle to the motion of the train which the source is attached to, and miss the top mirror.OrThe light pulse would take on the motion of the source and strike the top mirror in the middle.Which one is 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."

Hi Son, Could you explain to me how you verify whether the light pulse in my train thought experiment with strike or miss the mirror?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."

Einstein's 2nd postulate states the measured velocity will be c regardless of the motion of the source. It says nothing about the trajectory of the light beam.

Hi Paul, Then can I assume the light travels in circles?Or that it travels like the waves on the ocean?Or that it goes all kinds of angles?BTW how do you bend light if it does not go straight?I just tried my laser pen light and I can't get it to go any direction except the one I point the pen in.God Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

"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 missed this: As already pointed out to you, there's no frame that is "not moving"and I don't see where it is said that an inertial frame is "not moving". The problem with you, ICANT is that as long as you don't even understand high school physics, no matter how many times you quote definitions, it's obvious you don't understand them. That's why I gave up discussing seriously with you.You previously cited the definition of an inertial frame but you don't understand what it means, and more importantly, you don't know how scientists use it when they talk about it.This: is proof that all discussions beyond high school level with you is useless. the light clock's speed in the cycle's inertial frame is 0 BY DEFINITION. We don't need experiments to verify it because that's HOW the inertial frame is defined.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

-The translations that say anything other than I AM (for the Tetragrammaton); they were the translations left to the religions, scribes and pharisees.Because,The ancient form of the Word: I AM, was and is, the ancient form of the Tetragrammaton, and not the substitutions.Because the words I AM that I AM, were pronounced meaning I AM the One LIVING Word [I AM] written with living white Light before Me'osheh.-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : re-editEdited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

Funny, but again - it's just a hypothetical. It works because it's been designed to work. Nobody is going to respond to this nonsense other than to remind you, again, not to get too hung up on the actual physicality of the light clock. The only thing that matters is that you, traveling along with the moving clock, see a light pulse oscillate directly up and down between two mirrors, but the people you pass by see a light pulse that adopts a characteristic sawtooth path. That would be true if instead of a light clock it was a yo-yo, or a weighted spring, or any other mechanism that goes up and down. The difference, of course, is that while the speed of a yo-yo relative to you depends on your own velocity, the speed of light relative to you does not - the speed of light is the same for all observers. No, it doesn't say anything about a stationary frame. Did you notice that what you just wrote is self-contradictory? If the frame is stationary, then how can it be in a state of motion?The speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity - stationary frame not required. That's different from how the relative speed of a bullet depends on your velocity, or how the relative speed of a car or train depends on your velocity, and so on. Light is different than bullets or trains or cars; that's the point of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. ICANT, the Earth is in a constant state of motion - many hundreds of thousands of miles per hour. How do you explain the straight-line path of a laser pointer beam when I use it during a Power Point presentation? If I'm standing here in Wisconsin at noon and facing north, then the Earth's motion around the sun is directly perpendicular to the laser beam as it streams out of my pointer. Why don't I see the beam curve off to the left or right?By inspection we can see that your conclusions about light clocks are utterly wrong. Right. You can't add to the speed of light by emitting it from a moving emitter. The light from a high-velocity laser pointer fired from a cannon isn't any faster than the light from a stationary laser pointer.

Try a mirror, lens, or prism.

-The statement spoken before Me'osheh (Mosheh), I AM THAT I AM,
is about Who IS the One that speaks to him,
And the One that speaks to him, speaks about Who Jhvh(Yhwh) IS, as identification Name, and the matter is not about to exist or not exist.-Existence is Permanence (of light of knowledge),when there is no permanence of living white light - electric currents into the density of the brain - that gives knowledge,then lack of knowledge is a termination of existence (permanence)-Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update

[quote=Crashfrog]No, it doesn't say anything about a stationary frame. Did you notice that what you just wrote is self-contradictory? If the frame is stationary, then how can it be in a state of motion?[/qs] Actually, when they are refering to the state of motion, they're talking about the emiting body, what describes the frame is "inertial frame". They're just saying that c depends on neither of those two things. Meaning that both could be moving, it wouldn't change c.

Hi Son,You say: OK so all inertial frames are moving some just faster than others. I get that.Then you say: OK so the clock is sitting still anchored in the cycle's inertial frame and is not moving from one end of the cycle to the other. I get that.If the frame the cycle is in is moving at 0.5 c and the clock is attached to the handlebars of the cycle and someone is approaching an intersection with the cycle at a 90 angle and the cycle goes by will that someone see the clock pass in front of them at 0.5 c?This is assuming we have evolved to the point we would be able to see these things as if they were slowed down to our everyday speed.IOW Son a vehicle has a clock imbeded in the door of the vehicle and that vehicle passes through an intersection at 35 mph where I am stopped for the red light, will I see the clock go by at 35 mph or will I see it go by at 0 mph?Now if you were diriving the vehicle you could say the clock was doing 0 mph in relation to your movement.But you can't say it is doing 0 mph in relation to my stationary position. (Which is really not stationary as the earth is rotating and revolving around the sun which is revolving around the Milky way.)So back to the original discussion.If the clock is attached to the handlebars of the cycle and the cycle is traveling at 0.5 c then the clock attached to that cycle is traveling at 0.5 c.If the light pulse is released from the source at c and is independent of the forward motion of the source and the top mirror is 9" from center to back edge the light pulse will miss the top mirror by 3", as the top mirror has moved from being centered over the point the pulse was emitted from the source.Without your usual smoke and mirrors explain why the math that proves the above statement is wrong. You can find the math in one of NoNukes posts as well as two or three of my posts.But I will restate for you.Using my thought experiment of the train in a tunnel with the clock mounted on the flatcar with a laser pen mounted flush with the bottom mirror with a switch exposed to the tracks below where trip sensors are placed 1 meter apart to cause the pen to emitt a light pulse when the pen's switch passes over the trip sensor.The pulse of light travels at 299,792,458 meters per second.
The clock is traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second.
1 Second = 1,000,000,000 Nanoseconds.
Light travels 1 meter in 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds.
The clock is traveling 1 meter in 6.671281903963041 nanoseconds.
There are 39.3700" in a meter.
The mirrors of the clock will travel 1" in 0.1694508992624598The laser pen is mounted flush with the bottom mirror in the center.The mirrors are 18" long so it is 9" from center to either edge of the mirror.The two mirrors are 1 meter apart, which will take the light pulse 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds to reach the top mirror.It will take the mirrors 1.525058093362138 nanoseconds to travel the 9" to the edge of the top mirror.Therefore the light pulse can not strike the top mirror, providing the light pulse can not take on the motion of the light pulse source.Show me where the math is wrong.NoNukes in Message 672 agrees that the math is correct.Then explains to me that SR is simply over my head as I don't understand that the light pulse will go up and down in the mirrors frame of reference because the mirrors are at rest. Them being attached to a flatcar being pulled by a train that is traveling at 0.5 c does not give the mirrors velocity in reference to the sensors that are on the track that causes the pulse of light to be emitted at a 90 angle to that motion.Maybe you can explain in more detail why the mirrors are not moving in relation to the sensors placed every meter apart on the track to cause the light pulse to be emitted.I got a feeling if the bottom mirror is not moving over the sensors that cause the light pulse to be emitted then there would be no light pulse emitted. I could be wrong but I don't think so.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 Diamond, Could you give me the Hebrew word you are refering too?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."