Existence

The same applies to the photon in the light clock. The difference here is that the apple can move at any speed up to a fraction below the speed of light. For a photon, it must always travel at the speed of light, no slower and no faster. Yes it is going at an angle compared to her frame of reference. If it wasn't it would shoot straight back to the back of the train car as soon as you let go of it. That doesn't happen, now does it?The difference between the apple and a photon in this example is the fact that photons can only travel at one speed for all observers. For the apple in the experiment above, your wife would observe an overall velocity that is different than what you observe. So if the velocity can not change for the photon, then what has to change? Time.

I don't find vector addition the least bit confusing.What I do find confusing is the concept that you can add only the direction part of a vector. I don't believe that makes sense, and I'm not sure it matches what relativity predicts.

Hi NoNukes, Yes I do believe that postulate #2 does not allow the motion of the light source to affect the speed and direction of the light beam.Take my laser pen and point it in any direction while I am sitting on my cycle and flash a laser beam and it will go in the direction the pen is pointed and the speed of the cycle will not affect the travel of the flashed beam regardless of the direction pointed.If you were to mount the pen at a 90 angle to the floor of a fast moving train moving at 0.5 c flash a beam from the pen and it will go verticle from the point of release. The train will move a very short distance before the beam would hit the ceiling. So the angle at the top would not be a 90 angle to the angle of the pen on the floor. I accept that the speed of light in a vaccum will be constant. Wouldn't this be due to the observers location rather than the action of the light beam? IOW the light beam would do the same thing regardless of where it was observed from. Where does postulate #2 say anything about being constant in all reference frames?As you quoted from the 1923 version.

quote:

---

...also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

That simply says in empty space light has a definite velocity of c.That velocity of c the light is traveling is independent of the motion of the emitting source.So if I am on my cycle and turn on my headlights the light from that source will travel at the speed of 299,792,458 meters per second.My cycle is traveling in the same direction of the light beam at 149,896,229 meters per second.Since my speed can have no effect on the speed of the light beam the light beam can have no effect on the speed of my cycle.Therefore the distance between the light beam and my cycle is increasing at 149,896,229 meters per second. I just can't find where postulate #2 requires an "inertial frame". It simply says the velocity of light in a vaccum is c period. Postulate #2 forbids the light beam taking on the motion of the ship.Postulate #2 requires that the light beam in a vaccum must be 299,792,458 meters per second.Postulate #2 does not require the ship to stop so light can travel at 299,792,458 meters per second either.But since the ship and the light are traveling in the same direction the distance is increasing between the front edge of the light beam and the ship at 149,896,229 meters per second. You haven't demonstrated that the distance between the front edge of the light beam and the ship is increasing at 299,792,458 meters per second either.Is the distance between the ship and the front edge of the light beam increasing at 299,792,458 meters per second, or is it increasing at 149,896,229 meters per second. So you assume Einstein says reference frame when he says in empty space the velocity of light is c. Are you saying the light medium, mentioned in the quote from Einstein is light beams?I was under the impression from his papers that he was talking about the aether that was supposed to have been around the earth which the Michelson-Morley experiment you keep refering to proved negative. There would be no smoke in a flatcar.I see you do not understand what a flatcar is.A flatcar is a railcar minus any sides ends or top it is open like a skateboard.The question concerning seeing the light beam at 12' was about a laser placed on the floor at a 90 angle to the ceiling.I assume you have your laser pen at home with you. Hold the pen 1' from your eye pointed at the ceiling. You will be able to see the red spot on the part of the pen pointed towards the ceiling. If you look up you can see the reflection off the ceiling.But you can not see a beam of light between the pen and the ceiling.If you use a high powered flashlight you will get the same results except the reflection will be larger but you will not be able to see the beam between the scattered light at the flashlight and at the ceiling.You can take your free hand and pass it through the light beam and it will reflect the light off the hand and you can see that reflection.And yes these question have consequences to what you have been trying to force feed me on. The clock is not inside the train.Did you even read my thought experiment or are you making up yours as you go? I don't think I have ever said I understand what Einstein said: I can't read German.I have presented information from experts that say the modern interpertation of what SR does say is wrong.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 Taq, No it doesn't because the apple takes on the motion of the train.The light beam is forbidden to do that by postulate #2. The difference in the apple and the photon is that the apple can take on the motion of the train and move the 76' the train moves while the apple is in the air.According to postulate #2 the photon when emitted can not take on the motion of the source regardless of the direction the photon is traveling.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 Taq, Michelson and Morely used an inferometer to prove the aether did not exist. Since gravity is active throughout the universe there is no such thing as a non-accelerating frame of reference.That is an outside force placed upon objects which is acceleration.So where can you find a not-accelerated frame of reference?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."

An Aether is exactly what you are arguing for.They moved the mirrors so that they were parallel and perpendicular to the movement of the Earth (both rotation and revolution). According to you, this should produce different interference patterns. It didn't. However, gravity can be so weak as to be inconsequential to the calculations.

Just as the photon in the light clock takes on the motion of the bike. So you are arguing for an aether?

Hi ICANT, Your gall knows no bounds. Have you not cited the following, (also provided in my previous post) in several messages including (e.g. Message 653, Message 667, Message 674, ) as postulate #2?

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.

---

Why don't you tell me what the speed of light being constant in any reference frame has to do with the second postulate? What did it to do with the second postulate when you were shoveling around the language quoted above? What have we been discussing in this most recent exchange?I don't really appreciate these kind of debating tactics. I doubt that you would appreciate them from me.[Exit testy mode.]As you are doubtless aware, because you quoted it in yourself in Message 700, Einstein's paper also says the following.

quote:

---

2.Any ray of light moves in the stationary system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence

---

Of course Einstein has said that the term "stationary" can be applied to any inertial system. Is there any question that Einstein paper does contain the principle we are debating? Can we put this question to rest now? Dream on dude.As I have demonstrated repeatedly, this is not how events appear in the space ship frame of reference.A space cycle moving at a constant velocity is a "stationary" system as described in Einstein's paper, as is any other inertial reference frame. According the speed of the light beam as measured in the space cycle frame is "c". The start acting like it!! This observation is of no consequence whatsoever. It's yet more ICANT didn't see it, so it's as if it didn't happen nonsense.If we know that the light beam starts at the laser pointer, and strikes the chalkboard at some point in space at some time, then we can plot the path of the light beam despite not having seen it. Can we see the spot on the ceiling/chalkboard, or whatever? Who cares? Does the physics work differently if we use an enclosed rail car? Do you think some kind of Shroedinger's cat effect is at work? If you think there are consequences to not actually seeing the beam, then perhaps now is the time to present your ideas for refutation. I'm currently doing requests. So you aren't going to be presenting more of Einstein's writings on postulate #2? I deal with those as you present them.But that's not what this particular part of the discussion is about. You presented ICANTs interpretation of postulate #2 which we discussed over a dozen or more posts. Then in the post I'm responding to, you dropped the whole thing after I called you on it and pretended to be merely talking about the speed of light in empty space. That's either inexcusably sloppy, or dishonest.It is not because Einstein's native language was German that you don't understand his work. You have translations of his 1905 paper and you don't understand them either. As an aside, Einstein spoke English well enough to lecture at Princeton. He was a US citizen. But as far as your understanding is concerned, he might as well have spoken and written in Hebrew.Edited by NoNukes, : grammar, change "Aramaic" to Hebrew

Hi NoNukes, First of all it must be in a vaccum.
Second it must be an inertial frame.
Third unless all frames are inertial and in a vaccum the speed of light is not necessarly c. You can say anything you want as well as Einstein.
You can apply a term anyway you desire to apply it.But could you present a frame in the universe that is not acted upon by gravity?If you can't there is no such thing as an inertial frame.Any frame that is acted upon by an outside force is not an inertial frame. You have made that assertion.You have presented what you believe to be the truth.But you have not presented facts to support any of those.The only support you have is you declare my frame a "stationary" frame.Now convince my cycle it is not moving at 149,896,229 meters per second when I turn on the headlights and the light beam leaves the source at 299,792,458 meters per second.Does my cycle stop in mid vaccum?How would that be accomplished?If I can't stop the light beam is not traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second in reference to me.Neither is the distance increasing by 299,792,458 meters per second to the observer that the light beam went by that is looking at the light beam gain distance between us. That observer would observe the light beam going twice as fast as I was on my cycle.Now if the light beam is not able to take on the speed of the cycle the distance between the light beam can not be occuring at 299,792,458 meters per second.If it is postulate #2 is invalid.Unless I have physically stopped in mid vaccum. But if you hold your pen verticle to the ceiling you can look at the top of the pen and see the read spot on top of the pen you can also see the red spot on the ceiling.If you hold the pen at a 90 angle to the ceiling and move your hand to the right you can see the light on the ceiling move to the right but you can't see it go at an angle to get to that spot. You only see the dot move to the right on the ceiling.The same thing would occur in the 1 meter between the two mirrors in the clock on my cycle.I am in the process of putting a post together with the angles the light would travel in the light clock as well as to an observer Z at a distance and I would like for you to choose the distance the observer is from the line the cycle is traveling in, putting the observer at 180 to the first B on the bottom mirror.I have modified the tube making it a black metal tube with a light top and bottom that is caused to flash by detectors. The difference is you changed the experiment from what was argued.In a railcar the light would miss the top mirror and hit the ceiling and scatter. On the flatcar it misses the top mirror and then the top of the tunnel and scatters as it is not a continous beam. If the beam was continous there would be a red line on the top of the tunnel.The only way for the light pulse to hit the top mirror is if the light pulse can take on the forward motion of the train.Postulate #2 says that does not happen. But if it was in Hebrew I would be able to read the original and not have to depend on somebody else's translation.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 Taq, How can the photon take on the motion of the bike if SR is valid?Postulate #2 plainly says:"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."That says independent of the motion of the source of light in the clock on the bike which is traveling at a 90 angle to the travel of the bike..How does the photon take on the motion of the bike?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 Taq, Thanks for clearing that up for me.I thought I was actually arguing that time dilation does not take place. Any outside force exerted on a frame causes that frame to be an accelerating frame. The amount of force is not mentioned.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, And all of those assumptions were met during the inbound leg of the space cycle in our thought experiment. It is not necessary to do so. We can certainly discuss frames where space is essentially flat. But general relativity allows us to understand gravitational frames. You have no shot at understanding the mathematics underlying general relativity.Whether you accept SR or not, the theory follows directly from the constancy of the speed of light in inertial frames. Despite being derived from that assumption, SR has no problems handling accelerated frames, and GR allows us to handle gravitational frames. Sure ICANT.You still wouldn't understand the physics. You demonstrate that every time you post. In fact you don't understand enough of the theory in order to make your opinion on whether SR reflects reality the least bit meaningful. You don't even understand the physics in the papers of those others who don't accept SR.You aren't going to suddenly start understanding 10-11th grade physics just because it is presented in Hebrew. Your imaginary cycle is as stupid as a rock. I'll take a pass on discussing things with your cycle. But your inability to understand what an inertial frame means is quite disappointing given that the concept is not unique to special relativity. I cannot convince you that SR is correct, but I can point out the gaping holes in your own arguments.We know that your cycle is moving at 0.5c relative to earth. Exactly what other motions your cycle has is something we cannot know. But the path of the beam between floor and ceiling would not be any different. That's really all we need to observe to understand the physics. If we know how that part of things works, we can accurately predict what would happen even in a situation where the beam is invisible.You've claimed that not being able to actually see the path of the light beam has consequences. It's put up time. What are the consequences? I don't need to do any declaring. Doesn't the postulate #2 you posted at least five times say that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant as measured in any inertial frame?

In that argument against time dilation you are invoking an Aether, a medium through which light must propogate. Aether theory was falsified many years ago, so I wonder why you are using it to argue against time dilation. I didn't claim otherwise. What I did say is that this force can be so small as to be inconsequential in the calculations. You might as well argue that we must count the number of skin cells that are shed by a person during the time they are on a bathroom scale. Yes, the shed skin cells will change their weight, but it is inconsequential to the measurement being made.

How does the photon take on the movement of the Earth in the Michelson-Morely experiment? We have real life experiments which falsify your claims.

Hi ICANT,I'm sorry to have not answered your request befor. I'm very much interested in this demonstration. Given a choice of observer location, I'd prefer to have two observers, each positioned at 100 meters (or 100 feet since you don't like metric units) from the line of travel of the space cycle, and each positioned directly across from the point where the light hits a mirror at different point B (it need not be the next immediate point B). Please pick a point in space substantially away from the earth and planet X. Also, the observers should have a velocity of zero in the earth/planet X inertial frame.Since you did not offer the second observer, you need not bother to do any calculations for him/her. I'll handle the second observer. In fact, I could handle the entire thing if you aren't up to it. But just a quick warning. Regardless of who does the calculating, I'm going to apply corrections for signal travel time after you are done. After all, SR predicts what happens after these corrections are applied. The theory is not about mere optical appearances. My second observer will have a clock synchronized with the first observer.I don't know what you mean by "putting the observer at 180 to the first B" on the bottom mirror. Go ahead and do it.If you think that second observer is going to change the physics somehow, I'd like an explanation for why that might be.Quite frankly, your observer at a distance concept is pure malarkey in my opinion. But let's see how it works out using speeds that are a significant fraction of the speed of light.Edited by NoNukes, : add clarification to point B.Edited by NoNukes, : Minor correction "distances" to "speeds"