|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
The Hebrew Word for 'I AM' is the Tetragrammaton as it is been viewed at Wikipedia, except that the transliteration of Jhvh/Yhvh is Je = IHaveh = Am The name is JAH = Jeh Jeh Jehavh (I AM THAT I AM) - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
By this one knows that both translation and transliteration were changed, so that the name remained secret [sacred = untouchable; not usable by the trades of religions], because of the evidences of the presence of the Jewd sound in the first and Ancient Hebrew language. A Youd sound pertains to Modern Hebrew only. - Edited by CrazyDiamond7, : update
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
goldenlightArchangel Member (Idle past 1182 days) Posts: 583 From: Roraima Peak Joined: |
-
If one ascertains that the sounds from the major languages did originate from one Language, and that one Language ended up being mixed up, then it is safe to say that the J sound was already in that first Language. -
quote: - -
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Taq writes: If it doesn't work on your bike then it shouldn't work on the Earth either since the Earth is hurtling through space at more than 1,500 km/h. Excellent point. I've asked ICANT this question several times. Son and C. Frog have done so as well. ICANT has yet to even acknowledge those questions. The way I'd get a high school student to understand this point is to point out that even the non-relativistic (Galilean) coordinate transforms show that light paths change based on the relative motion of observers. I'm not sure that ICANT can do the math. He constantly refers to math as learned in the sixth and third grade. I'm pondering what to try next. Maybe a simple coordinate transform example using low speeds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
OK so all inertial frames are moving some just faster than others. I get that. That's only part of what you need to get. There are two more things mentioned in Einstein's paper. First, any frame can be the stationary frame, and the physics must work the same in all inertial frame. So if a light clock can work in one frame, it can also work in another in another frame. Your entire thought experiment completely ignores the fact that the frame in which the light cycle is moving at 0 m/s is a valid stationary frame. Statements like the following one
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.) ...are of no importance whatsoever. With respect to mechanics, there is nothing special about physics on earth or the earth as a reference frame even without applying SR. From the translation of Einstein's 1905 paper.
quote: quote: NoNukes in Message 672 agrees that the math is correct. Not exactly. That cited post seems to be the message where I demonstrated that the path of a light beam would be different in different coordinate systems. Your math regarding how a light clock would work in a coordinate system at rest is correct. Where you go wrong is failing to accept the space cycle as such a system. Your math showing the amount by which the mirror moves (in the earth/planetX frame) before the photon reaches the height of one meter is flat out wrong. Your answer is off by about 15% because you don't take into account the fact that for observers in that frame, the light travels at an angle.
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. I don't think such an explanation would involve very much physics. The concept that you admit to not understanding is at the core of both Newtonian and SR physics. Maybe you can understand this: Nobody has ever conducted a physics experiment in a non-moving inertial frame. What Einstein demonstrated is that we do not need to conduct such experiments. Experiment conducted in one inertial reference frame are enough to show how physics works in any other inertial reference frame. While the earth is not strictly an inertial frame, for many experiments the earth is approximately so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi Taq,
Taq writes: If it doesn't work on your bike then it shouldn't work on the Earth either since the Earth is hurtling through space at more than 1,500 km/h. Since the earth is traveling at1500 Kilometers per Hour = 0.4166666666666667Meters per second If I was sitting facing east the beam would be coming towards me and would not clear the mirror before the second pulse was released so I would notice no difference. If I was facing West the beam would be going away from me and would not clear the mirror before the second pulse was released so I would notice no difference. Now if I was facing North or South it would be off the mirrors almost immediately as we did not specify how wide the mirrors were. But if they were the same width as they mirrors are long I would see the light beam moving to my left or my right depending of which direction I am facing. Why don't you build such a clock and check it out? But you also forgot the earth is moving 107,000 km/hr around the sun, and they both are moving about 70,000 km/hr around the Milky Way.
Taq writes: We could also use a simpler example. Lets say that you are sitting in a window seat on a train travelling at a constant 60 mph. To pass the time you are tossing an apple up into the air. You happen to pass your wife who is standing at the side of the tracks. What do the two of you observe where it concerns the apple? You observe that the apple is travelling straight up and down. Your wife observes that the apple is travelling in a sawtooth pattern. The same applies to the light clock. Yes the same applies to the light clock as I have explained in Message 699 and Message 703. But I see NoNukes don't like the latter explanation The saw tooth pattern is caused due to the distance the light travels in the direction of the cycle from nanosecond to nanosecond. Me tossing apples produces the same results. If my wife sees the apple as it leaves my hand the apple takes on the motion of the train and moves in the direction the train is going and falls back to my hand. The apple has traveled the distance into the air I tossed it while traveling the distance the train has traveled while the apple was in the air. So yes my wife would observe a sawtooth pattern but it is not because of the apple going at an angle. It is due to the apple taking on the motion of the train. The apple is moveing away from her as it goes into the air which causes the picture data of the apple longer to reach the eye and be processed. 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 |
So yes my wife would observe a sawtooth pattern but it is not because of the apple going at an angle. It is due to the apple taking on the motion of the train. The apple is moveing away from her as it goes into the air which causes the picture data of the apple longer to reach the eye and be processed. It's easy to show that your "picture data" explanation is complete rubbish. The difference in signal travel time for situations involving trains moving at a few tens of miles per hour is completely undetectable to human senses. If we observe the train and apple moving for about 50 meters, the difference in light signal travel time from start to finish is only a few nanoseconds. That kind of difference could not possibly create any detectable difference in what observers would see. But more to the point, we can calculate exactly what path observers ought to see for the apple using simple coordinate transformation equations and those equations match what is observed even without taking the negligible light travel time into account. If you could uncover the real explanation, perhaps you'd be ready to discuss relativity in some meaningful way.
ICANT writes: Since the earth is traveling at 1500 Kilometers per Hour = 0.4166666666666667Meters per second Recheck your math. You have underestimated the distance traveled each second by a factor of 1000. 1500 kilometers per hour is about 5/12 of a kilometers per second. Surely that would produce an effect large enough to notice. And as you point out, the earth is subject to even larger motions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes: ICANT writes: Since the earth is traveling at 1500 Kilometers per Hour = 0.4166666666666667Meters per second Recheck your math. You have underestimated the distance traveled each second by a factor of 1000. 1500 kilometers per hour is about 5/12 of a kilometers per second. Surely that would produce an effect large enough to notice. And as you point out, the earth is subject to even larger motions. You are correct as Meters should be Kilometers as I never changed Kilometers into meters. 1 kilometer = 1000 meters therefore I should have said: 416.6666666666667 Meters per second. And at that rate it would be possible for the light pulse to posibbility miss the top mirror. Maybe somebody will do the experiment and see.
NoNukes writes: The difference in signal travel time for situations involving trains moving at a few tens of miles per hour is completely undetectable to human senses. If we observe the train and apple moving for about 50 meters, the difference in light signal travel time from start to finish is only a few nanoseconds. That kind of difference could not possibly create any detectable difference in what observers would see. Lets see the train is moving at 60 mph or 316,800 feet per hr, or 88 feet per minute or 1.466666666666667 feet per second. I am tossing the apple 3 feet into the air. The average is 1 second for the apple to make the trip from my hand up 3' and back to my hand the best my wife could time it as we did not have a stop watch. So while I toss the apple in the air the train moves 0.7333333333333333 feet since the apple takes on the motion of the train it has moved 0.7333333333333333 feet forward which takes longer for that image to reach the eye of my wife than when the apple left my hand. Then while the apple is returning to my hand the train moves 0.7333333333333333 feet forward which takes longer for that image to reach the eye of my wife. So my wife sees the apple going up while the train is transporting it 0.7333333333333333 feet and down while the train is transporting it 0.7333333333333333 feet. There is no mystery my wife sees the apple go up due to the force I exert up it and forward due to the motion of the train puts on it and down due to gravity and forward due to the motion of the train. The problem is light can not go up and forward at the same time in a vaccum as it is independent of the motion of the source. 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,
ICANT writes: So while I toss the apple in the air the train moves 0.7333333333333333 feet since the apple takes on the motion of the train it has moved 0.7333333333333333 feet forward which takes longer for that image to reach the eye of my wife than when the apple left my hand. ICANT writes: Then while the apple is returning to my hand the train moves 0.7333333333333333 feet forward which takes longer for that image to reach the eye of my wife. How much longer ICANT? My point is that the extra signal time delay effect is so tiny that it cannot possibly cause any difference in perception and that therefore the time required for the image to reach your eye has no effect on the angle a ground observer will see the apple traveling. How long does it take light to travel 0.7333 feet? I'll do the math for you. time = distance/speed (0.7333 feet * 1 mile/5280 feet) /(186,282 miles/sec) = 0.745 nanoseconds. That's right. The extra signal delay is than 1 nanosecond. In fact the total signal delay is only a few 10s of nanoseconds. I cannot say how many nanoseconds because we haven't said how far away the ground observer is, but it is certain that neither the entire light travel time delay nor the extra time delay from the train motion is perceptible to the unaided eye. For the purposes of making a visual evaluation of events on a slow moving train, the speed of light might as well be infinite. So please stop using this signal delay explanation. It is not a correct explanation of things even when the speeds involved are a significant fraction of the speed of light, but for trains moving at 200 mph or less, the explanation is ridiculous on its face. There is no optical illusion involved here.
There is no mystery my wife sees the apple go up due to the force I exert up it and forward due to the motion of the train puts on it and down due to gravity and forward due to the motion of the train. Much better. It is certainly consistent with the explanation the ground observer would provide.
ICANT writes: The problem is light can not go up and forward at the same time in a vaccum as it is independent of the motion of the source. I'll deal with this issue in a subsequent post. You are wrong, but I'm going to provide some new arguments on that point. But that picture data explanation is the purest garbage. I simply cannot let that nonsense stand for even a brief time. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
In the interest of accuracy,
ICANT writes: Lets see the train is moving at 60 mph or 316,800 feet per hr, or 88 feet per minute or 1.466666666666667 feet per second. 60 mph is actually 88 feet per second. For some reason this conversion factor has stuck with me from high school. Further, an apple takes about 0.433 seconds to complete a 3 foot fall, so the complete toss will take about 0.866 seconds (from toss to return). At sixty mph, the train will move about 76 feet in that time. Light travels 76 feet in 77 nanoseconds, said duration still being undetectable to human eye. Still no optical illusion. Edited by NoNukes, : fix tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ICANT Member Posts: 6769 From: SSC Joined: Member Rating: 1.6 |
Hi NoNuke,
NoNukes writes: Further, an apple takes about 0.433 seconds to complete a 3 foot fall, so the complete toss will take about 0.866 seconds (from toss to return). At sixty mph, the train will move about 76 feet in that time. . Glad you caught the error. But I wanted a short time to minimize the distance traveled while the apple was in the air. I won't argue over how long the apple takes to rise and fall 3'. But according to your numbers the distance the apple travels down the track on it's rise is 38' and on the fall it travels another 38' down the track. Does the apple go straight up in the air and straight down into my hand? Was it because the apple took on the forward motion of the train's speed of 60 mph that I was 86' further down the track when I caught it than I was when I pitched it into the air? If it was not because the apple took on the forward motion of the trains speed of 60 mph, why didn't it hit me in the face? BTW did it take longer for the picture of the catch to reach my wife's eye that the pitch? Question: If I pulled out my laser pen and put it in a holder on the floor at an perfect 90 angle to the floor of the train when the laser was turned on would the light beam hit the ceiling at a perfect 90 to the 90 angle on the floor?
NoNukes writes: 77 nanoseconds, said duration still being undetectable to human eye. If the human eye can not detect and process the 77 nanosecond difference in the pitch and the catch of the apple, how can the catch been seen by the human eye? 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,
But according to your numbers the distance the apple travels down the track on it's rise is 38' and on the fall it travels another 38' down the track. Yep. I did say something like that.
ICANT writes: Does the apple go straight up in the air and straight down into my hand? You should be able to answer this question based on your own experience on moving vehicles. Passengers on the train will observe the apple to move in a vertical path. From an inertial frame in which the passengers are at rest, the path of the apple is vertical. The path does not simply appear vertical. There is no optical illusion. In that frames coordinate system the path of the apple is vertical.
ICANT writes: Was it because the apple took on the forward motion of the train's speed of 60 mph that I was 86' further down the track when I caught it than I was when I pitched it into the air? Already answered, though I'm not sure how 76 feet became 86 feet.
If I pulled out my laser pen and put it in a holder on the floor at an perfect 90 angle to the floor of the train when the laser was turned on would the light beam hit the ceiling at a perfect 90 to the 90 angle on the floor? I'll answer now, but I'll defend my answer later. The laser beam would travel exactly vertically in the train at a speed of "c". Ground observers would not be able to detect any deviation from vertical since their frame of reference moves at only 60 mph relative to the train.
If the human eye can not detect and process the 77 nanosecond difference in the pitch and the catch of the apple, how can the catch been seen by the human eye? Yikes! The 77 nseconds is not the delay between toss and catch. Seventy-seven nsec is the additionally delay between when the catch happens and when the eye sees the catch. The total delay depends on the vantage point of the viewer at the start of the toss but that too is imperceptible. This simply means that the eye sees the catch in essentially real time. Why would you think a small delay made the catch invisible? I cannot imagine the though sequence you would go through to find that question the least bit reasonable. The flight itself takes a little under 1 second from toss to catch. Events of that duration are easily visible to the human eye. Consider that the people on the train have no problem seeing the catch, but the light delay for people in the same car is only a couple of nanoseconds.
ICANT writes: But I wanted a short time to minimize the distance traveled while the apple was in the air. But your argument is more easily disposed of as the distance traveled becomes shorter. Feel free to slow the train to 1 mph, and to toss the apple 4 feet (the apple toss will take 1 second) if you really think that will help. But I did go through the calculations using your original numbers. Further, none of this time delay stuff is important to the argument you are trying to make. Edited by NoNukes, : Add some clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Hi ICANT,
As promised I'm going to deal with your position on postulate 2. On several occasions you've asked questions along the line of the one below.
ICANT writes: Do you believe the pulse of light can add the forward motion of the train as the basketball does of the player bouncing the ball? No, I don't. As I understand it, you believe that postulate #2, as expressed by Einstein, does not allow the motion of the light source to affect the speed and direction of a light beam. Accordingly to you, if we mount a laser pointer vertically on the floor of a high speed moving vehicle, the beam will not be vertical. Further you've suggested that earth's motion through space might result in the light clock failing to function on earth. You definitely do not agree that a light clock can function in a vehicle moving at a constant velocity of 0.5c. You ignore experimental results contrary to this postion as if they were not even pointed out. I agree that light beam's do not take on the motion of the source, but the consequences of re not what you suggest. Let's take peak at postulate 2 from the translation of Einstein's 1905 paper, and then your interpretation of it. Quoted from your post in Message 653 quote: Quoted from a 1923 translation of Einstein's paper
quote: You interpret the second postulate to require that both the speed and direction of a light beam must be constant in all reference frames. As a consequence, you indicate that if the were different in a moving vehicle, that the light must be taking on the motion of the source. This you say is incompatible with the postulate On the other hand, I insist that the postulate requires that the speed alone be constant, and that the same light beam will have different directions in different inertial frames exactly as might a slow moving apple. Let's consider a situation in which we seemingly must agree. We can examine a case in which we remove direction as an issue. If a space ship traveling at 0.5c emits a light along the same direction as its motion, postulate #2 clearly requires that the speed of light be a constant in all reference frames. Direction is of course not at issue here, so constant velocity requires only constant speed. But the speed of light of the transmitted light must be exactly "c" in the inertial reference frame in which the ship's velocity is zero to postulate #2. (I'll call that reference frame the ship frame). That's what "any inertial frame" as stated in postulate #2 must require. But how does this work? Does it mean that the light beam is "taking on the motion of the ship". Well, apparently not, because postulate #2 also requires that the velocity of light also be exactly "c" in an inertial reference frame in which the ship is moving at 0.5c. (Let's arbitrarily call this second frame the "stationary" frame.) Of course the combined results are highly non-intuitive. We cannot resolve the issue by saying that light "takes on the velocity of the source". That position would seem to explain the results as observed from the ship frame, but it would be completely contrary to the result observed in the stationary frame. It should be quite apparent that it is the attempt rationalize the result, using the "taking on the motion of the source" rationale, is folly. What seems intuitive is clearly not correct. This is the basis for the error you make in forming your interpretation of postulate #2. While postulate #2 does require that the light source not take on the motion of the source, the coordinate systems for the respective observers must take on the motion of the observers. And those motions, along with the requirement that the speed of light be constant in any reference frame produce the different observations of angles, duration, and distance in different inertial frames. Of course I haven't yet demonstrated that latter proposition. So what of situations where light is not along the direction of motion, and what of Einstein's use of the word "velocity" rather than speed. I'm present here several arguments all suggesting that Einstein's postulate does not require that the direction of a light beam be the same in all inertial frames. The first argument I've used before. Einstein says that the velocity of light in empty space is "c", but c is clearly a non-directional quantity, namely 299,872,458 meters/second. The only reasonable interpretation is that Einstein means that it is the speed of light that is constant as measured in any reference frame. Secondly, Einstein says the following in his paper:
quote: In other words, Einstein says it is impossible to determine earth's motion through space by looking at the paths of light beams. If your explanation were correct however, we could tell whether a space ship were "actually" moving relative to an absolute ether by making careful measurements of the angle of a light beam. Whether your interpretation is right or wrong, it is clearly not consistent with Einstein's postulates. Finally, Einstein developed relativity from the postulates 1 and 2, and showed that SR was a direct consequence of only those two postulates. We can show using the coordinate equations derived from those postulates that the path of a light beam is not constant in direction for all inertial observers. (Ask for a demo if you need one). Accordingly, we know that this prediction must be consistent with postulate two. Putting all this together, let's look at an example. Let's reconsider your mirror/train thought experiment (train moving at 0.25c). You seem to agree that a vertical light beam directed from the ground would not reach the top of the frame at a a point directly above the point it reached the bottom of the frame due to the trains motion. You instead ask me some silly diverting questions about whether I can see the light beam from 10' away. Maybe I could see the path of the beam if the train cabin were full of cigar smoke, but isn't enough that I can deduce what the path might be by detecting the point where the light beam hits the top frame? Seriously, do these types of questions have any point at all? But let's consider things from the coordinate system of an observer inside the train. In that frame of reference, the coordinates of rear and front walls of the train have fixed values, yet the light beam reaches the upper frame of the train at a distance further from the front wall than the point at which the light beam reaches the bottom frame. In the train observers coordinate system, the light beam travels at a diagonal, yet the same beam also travels exactly vertically from the ground frame of reference. I suppose there is yet another argument to consider. It's one thing to disagree with experts about whether SR is correct. It's quite another thing to suggest that those physicists never actually understood SR at all, but that you, who still struggle to understand the coordinate systems of inertial frames, really do understand Einstein's 1905 paper. ICANT, who thought Einstein's labeling frames as "K frames" meant that those frames worked differently that k and k' frames, despite Einstein's own words to the contrary. I find the prospect that you are a singular expert on SR to be not worth serious consideration and so should you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I'm not sure that "adding velocity" makes much sense either. Vector addition is still pretty fresh for me so I don't find it all that confusing, I guess. Intuitively I think everybody's played something like Asteroids, or something, where you have direct experience of what it's like to have one body in constant velocity, to which you apply a force.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
And at that rate it would be possible for the light pulse to posibbility miss the top mirror. Maybe somebody will do the experiment and see.
The experiment has already been done. Michelson and Morely used an inferometer to do just that, and it doesn't miss the mirror. In a non-accelerating frame of reference the photon should bounce perfectly between two parallel mirrors. There is no other path that it can take.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024