Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 826 of 1229 (625107)
07-21-2011 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 822 by NoNukes
07-21-2011 1:05 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Consider the picture below. Since my nomenclature is confusing, I'm not going to supply any nomenclature and very little in the way of explanation . I suspect that you can figure it out yourself. Feel free to draw, or imagine in any additional light tube positions as you might find helpful.
I can agree that the red dots in the separate tubes would represent the location of the pulse at different times during it's journey to the bottom mirror from the top mirror.
The problem is you can't find the pulse going at the angle you have drawn between the tubes.
If you will get off your high horse and get you feet down on earth and look at reality instead of magic you might be able to understand what I am saying.
I do not disagree that if the tube was clear and somehow the pulse could not escape and you could take a video of the entire trip you could see the pulse at a point that would look like it travels at an angle.
If you could slow down the trip frames to a femtosecond of movement of the pulse you could probably see the the pulse go at an angle across the .5 meter from top mirror to bottom mirror.
But that will never happen.
Now if you will preform the water level experiment I proposed for you to do you can see the same thing in real time.
As the water rises in the left tube with the movement of the tube towards the 6 inch mark you would see the exact same thing that happens while the pulse rises in the vacuum tube. After the tube has moved 6 inches along the line the water will have traveled 1 foot in height at the same time it traveled 6 inches along the line.
Now if we draw a triangle of the movement of the tube we would have a line at a 90 angle where the tube reaches the 6 inch mark on the line that extended 1 foot verticle label that line 'a' the line from zero would be 6 inches long label that line 'b'. The straight line from zero to the top of line 'a' we will label 'c'.
a = 12 inches
b = 6 inches
c = 13.416407864998738 inches.
Did the water travel 12 inches to reach the top of the tube?
Or did the water travel 13.416407864998738 inches to reach the top of the tube?
In the travel of the pulse in the vacuum tube, did the pulse travel 1 meter to reach the top mirror from the bottom mirror?
Or did the pulse travel 1.118033988749895 meters in the vacuum tube to reach the top mirror from the bottom mirror?
If as you have insisted it travels 1.118033988749895 meters could you explain to me how it travels 1.118033988749895 meters when there is only 1 meter between the top and bottom mirror?
NoNukes writes:
Your double talk was a nice try though. Or did it actually seem to make sense to you when you typed it? Can you describe, while looking at the above drawing, how the photon gets from the initial position shown in the drawing, to the final position shown without traveling at least 1.1180 meters? Because such a trip appears to be impossible.
It is simple but you have already proved you are incapable of understanding the answer.
The pulse does not change tubes as you have it doing in your diagram.
All the red dots should be in one tube.
Then you drag the tube the .5 meter to the right while the pulse is traveling from the top mirror to the bottom mirror.
If you can't understand how the water in the water level only travels 12 inches to reach the top of the left tube while the tube is moved 6 inches along the line from zero to the 6 inch mark and then drops 12 inches to reach the bottom of the tube while moving another 6 inches as described in Message 819 you may never get it.
The vacuum tube the pulse travels in is 1 meter long.
You can't get the pulse to travel any further than 1 meter before striking the top or bottom mirror without it escaping from the tube.
NoNukes writes:
Imagine that you secretly had super speed
I am not going there.
We have my cycle you placed a open light clock on.
We have my train with the open light clock on a flatcar.
We have my train with a laser pen attached in the center of the bottom mirror of a light clock with top and bottom mirrors which are 18 inches long, 1 meter apart.
We have my train where the laser pens are on the track with a sensor at the center of the bottom mirror to cause the laser pen to flash a pulse of light towards the center of the top mirror.
Then we had Taq's car with the laser pen mounted flush in the top 1 inch from a pole extended at a 90 to the travel of the car with a detector 4 feet above the roof surface.
I have even introduced a water level to show in real time how the pulse travels from bottom mirror to the top mirror and only travels 1 meter in making that journey.
So lets stick with what we already got.
NoNukes writes:
And no I'm not going to consider that photons can be forced through a tube under hydrostatic pressure to exceed the speed of light.
I am not the one that is saying the pulse exceeds the speed of light. You are the one insisting on that.
Because you can't understand how the pulse can travel 1 meter from the bottom mirror to the top mirror without traveling 1.1180 meters.
I can understand how the vacuum tube can be moved .5 meter while the pulse travels the 1 meter from the bottom mirror to the top mirror.
You don't seem to be able to grasp that the vacuum tube can be moved without changing the angle the pulse has to travel in the tube.
NoNukes writes:
On the other hand, in the cycle frame of reference, the tube is at rest, and light does travel vertically up and down the tube. Of course, in that coordinate system, the tube, the photon, and the space cycle are all at fixed horizontal coordinates. Don't bother trying to understand all that.
If the vacuum tube is 1 meter long in the cycle frame of reference and the pulse travels from the bottom of the mirror to the top mirror, how far does the pulse travel to reach the top mirror from the bottom mirror?
If the vacuum tube is 1 meter long and it takes the pulse 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds to travel from the bottom mirror to the top mirror which equals 1 meter, why would it take longer than 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds to travel the 1 meter distance between the two mirrors whether the vacuum tube is stationary or moving at 0.5 c?
The pulse would travel at c in a vacuum tube independent of what the tube is doing.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 822 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2011 1:05 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 832 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2011 6:11 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 827 of 1229 (625126)
07-21-2011 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 825 by cavediver
07-21-2011 10:46 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi cavediver,
I forgot you never read posts before jumping in on something, forgive me.
cavediver writes:
I don't understand. The pusle is emitted from a laser in the car
No.
The laser pen is mounted through the roof of the car flush with the exterior at a 90 angle to the travel of the car.
It is mounted 1 inch from the pole that extends 4 feet above the car with a detector 4 foot above the top of the laser pen, that protrudes 9 inches in the direction of the laser pen.
This pole is mounted at a 90 angle to the travel of the car.
The car is traveling in a vacuum at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats.
Therefore when the pulse is emitted from the laser pen (a pulse is not a steady light emitted) it is in free fall in the vacuum, which means the pulse will travel in a straight line at 299,792,458 meters per second independent of the motion of the source of that pulse.
cavediver writes:
relative to the laser, the car is stationary.
The laser pen is attached to the car and whatever the car is doing the laser pen is doing. If the car is stationary the laser pen is stationary as well as the pole and detector.
If the car is moving at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats the laser pen and pole is moving 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats.
The pulse emitted from that laser pen is not affected by what the laser pen, car, or pole does. It goes it's merry way in a straight line in the vacuum in the direction the laser pen was pointed when emitted, at 299,792,458 meters per second independent of the motion of the laser pen, car, and pole.
cavediver writes:
I'm just a 1/2 mile away. And the car is not moving as far as I am concerned. When I first saw the car it was moving towards me quite quickly, but I just accelerated a bit to match speed.
If you were 1/2 mile away and Taq's car was moving towards you quite quickly you would hit head on before you could change your direction and avoid a collision.
Well you are not accelerating towards the car nor are you accelerating away from the car.
For the car to be stationary from your point of view you must be traveling parallel to the car at exactly 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats.
But what effect would that have on the pulse emitted from the laser pen into the vacuum?
You and Taq's car would be traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the emitted pulse and you both would move 2 feet before the pulse could reach a 4 foot height above where it was emitted from.
Therefore the pulse would miss the detector.
cavediver writes:
Well, if stating basic facts is all it takes to be God, I guess I've been missing a trick all these years...
That is provided the basic facts are facts in reality rather than doctrine.
You did not address where you sister was but for Taq's car to be going in the opposite direction I think I can present a case for that problem.
If your sister or you as far as that matters were to be traveling parallel to Taq's car at 224,844,343.5 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats you or your sister would observe Taq's car to be traveling at 74,948,114.5 meters per second away from you.
The problem is that does not change the fact Taq's car is still traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats.
Therefore Taq's car is traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the pulse emitted from the laser pen. Taq's car would still move 2 feet relative to the emitted pulse which is traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second in free fall in the vacuum independent of the motion of the laser pen, car and pole.
The pulse would still miss the detector.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 825 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 10:46 AM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 828 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 2:18 PM ICANT has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 828 of 1229 (625128)
07-21-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 827 by ICANT
07-21-2011 1:59 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
I forgot you never read posts before jumping in on something, forgive me.
You didn't forget this, as it is not true
It would help if you understood this, so that as you read what I say, you are aware that I know exactly what has been said. My omissions are as, if not more, important than the things I am actually saying
The car is traveling in a vacuum at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats.
I see. But surely the salt lake flats are themselves travelling at high speed as they fly around with the Earth's rotation? And of course they are zooming around the Sun as the Earth oribits the Sun. And further, they are carried in orbit around the centre of the Galaxy. For purposes of our thought experiment, let's speed them up a bit so all these motions are appreciable fractions of c. Does any of this chnage your 2 feet calculation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 827 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 1:59 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 830 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 2:55 PM cavediver has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 829 of 1229 (625131)
07-21-2011 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 821 by crashfrog
07-21-2011 12:31 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi crash,
crashfrog writes:
No, because where the pulse was released has moved 2 feet as well, relative to a stationary observer.
The head of the laser pen that emitted the light has moved with the car and pole 2 feet from the time the pulse was emitted.
If the pulse in free fall in a vacuum travels in a straight line at 299,792,458 meters per second it will miss the detector.
Now if SR is false and light does not propragate at 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum independent of the motion of the source, you might be able to come up with a way the pulse will strike the detector.
crashfrog writes:
Absolutely wrong. It'll hit the detector because relative to the pulse's point of origin, the detector hasn't moved at all.
Are you saying from the time the pulse was 1 angstrom above the laser pen, the laser pen, car, and pole did not move 2 feet relative to that pulse as the car is traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats?
If that pulse is influenced by the motion of the laser pen, car, and pole SR is invalidated. I don't think you want to go there.
So maybe you should rethink your position.
crashfrog writes:
When you specify that something has moved or that something is stationary, you need to specify in relation to what that thing has moved or remained stationary. When you get into that habit you'll see that there's absolutely no problem with a moving light clock.
But I did say relative to the pulse the laser pen, car, and pole have moved 2 feet.
If you can't find it in a couple of dozen posts you can find it here.
The car with the laser pen mounted with the top of the pen flush with the exterior of the car with the pole mounted to the car, with the detedtor 4 feet above the car that is traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats will move 2 feet relative to the pulse that has been emitted from the laser pen.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 821 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2011 12:31 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 833 by crashfrog, posted 07-21-2011 8:39 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 830 of 1229 (625136)
07-21-2011 2:55 PM
Reply to: Message 828 by cavediver
07-21-2011 2:18 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
I see. But surely the salt lake flats are themselves travelling at high speed as they fly around with the Earth's rotation? And of course they are zooming around the Sun as the Earth oribits the Sun. And further, they are carried in orbit around the centre of the Galaxy. For purposes of our thought experiment, let's speed them up a bit so all these motions are appreciable fractions of c. Does any of this chnage your 2 feet calculation?
I did cover the motion of the earth as it spins and makes its journey around the sun as well as the sun and earth making their journey around the MilkyWay in an earlier post. So much for one of your assertions.
How would you propose to speed up the earths rotation to c as well as it journey around the sun to c and their journey around the universe to c.
Have you stopped to figure out how short a day would be if it consisted of 1 light period and 1 dark period if the earth was spinning at c?
But since I don't know what would happen if the earth was spinning a c.
So I will answer I don't know.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 828 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 2:18 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 831 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 3:15 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 835 by Taq, posted 07-22-2011 12:08 PM ICANT has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 831 of 1229 (625142)
07-21-2011 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 830 by ICANT
07-21-2011 2:55 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
I did cover the motion of the earth as it spins and makes its journey around the sun as well as the sun and earth making their journey around the MilkyWay in an earlier post. So much for one of your assertions.
Yes, you're quite right - you did. But not with me, and it is an important bit of what we are talking about. And we shall see, it has already bore fruit.
How would you propose to speed up the earths rotation to c as well as it journey around the sun to c and their journey around the universe to c.
I don't really care. Such physical difficulties are immaterial to our discussion. And if we leave the relatve speeds as they are, they will still have an impact upon what you are claiming, albeit with much smaller effect.
So, the question remains. Is the 2 feet measured relative to your "fixed" salt flats, or are you also taking into account the motion of the salt flats as they orbit the Galaxy, but just failing to mention it for some reason?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 2:55 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 837 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2011 3:13 PM cavediver has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 832 of 1229 (625191)
07-21-2011 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 826 by ICANT
07-21-2011 12:32 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi ICANT,
I can agree that the red dots in the separate tubes would represent the location of the pulse at different times during it's journey to the bottom mirror from the top mirror.
The problem is you can't find the pulse going at the angle you have drawn between the tubes.
Then forget the angles. Explain how the red dot gets from start to finish in 3.3356 nanoseconds when the distance between the two points is 1.1180 meters. Show me the shortcut.
All the red dots should be in one tube.
Then you drag the tube the .5 meter to the right while the pulse is traveling from the top mirror to the bottom mirror.
Which is exactly what is shown in the picture. Only one tube is present, but the tube is shown in different places. Apparently, you need me to explain things in baby step.
The pulse does not change tubes as you have it doing in your diagram.
No ICANT. There is only one tube in the drawing. The tube is shown in a number of the locations it will occupy as the space cycle moves along in observer #1's coordinate system. And why do your other remarks in your post acknowledge that you were well aware of this fact? (For example your discussion of the clear tube)
Your water example is irrelevant. The physics of a water molecule traveling in a tube full of water is nothing like the physics of a photon traveling in a vacuum. I'm not going to bother sorting out whether you're even right about the water results.
I do not disagree that if the tube was clear and somehow the pulse could not escape and you could take a video of the entire trip you could see the pulse at a point that would look like it travels at an angle.
If you could slow down the trip frames to a femtosecond of movement of the pulse you could probably see the the pulse go at an angle across the .5 meter from top mirror to bottom mirror.
But that will never happen.
Sure ICANT. What you've just said is that I've accurately described reality, but because the tube is not transparent, you can deny that the events you admit happened actually occurred. Nice work my man.
And given the fact that the tube really does not do anything anyway, you've all but admitted that you are wrong.
But forget the obscured path of the photon and forget the angles. The bottom line is this. The photon starts at a first point and somehow ends up at a second point which you say is one meter below and 0.5 meters to the right of the first point. The distance between those points as measured in the observer's frame is inescapably 1.1180 meters and there is no route between start to finish that is smaller than that distance.
I challenge you to draw a path for the photon that starts at the first point shown in the drawing, ends at the last point shown in the drawing, but that is less than that 1.1180 meters. If yd.ou don't like my path, draw your own. Use as many or as few tubes as you like. Use whatever angles you want to use. Draw in a stair case or a zig-zag bath bouncing of the side of the tube, but somehow you need to get shrink the bath down to 1 meter or you've failed.
Or not. Your call.
Let me help you out of the silly dilemma that causes you to say such ridiculous things. Simply deny that postulate #2 is correct. It is your insistence that postulate #2 is correct that is the albatross around your neck. It should be increasingly clear to you that postulate #2 is completely consistent with SR. Holding unto it is completely inconsistent with denying SR, so just let the thing go. You were fine with doing just that 400 messages ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 826 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 12:32 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 836 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2011 8:51 PM NoNukes has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 833 of 1229 (625212)
07-21-2011 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 829 by ICANT
07-21-2011 2:35 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
The head of the laser pen that emitted the light has moved with the car and pole 2 feet from the time the pulse was emitted.
Right, relative to a stationary observer everything on the car has moved 2 feet; thus, relative to the origin of the light pulse the target hasn't moved at all, so it hits dead center.
If the pulse in free fall in a vacuum travels in a straight line at 299,792,458 meters per second it will miss the detector.
"Free fall" means that a body is accelerating at "g", the force exerted by the gravity of Earth, which is about 9.8 meters per second per second. A pulse of light has constant velocity C, so it's certainly not accelerating - not at g or any other rate - and therefore is most certainly not in "free fall."
Are you saying from the time the pulse was 1 angstrom above the laser pen, the laser pen, car, and pole did not move 2 feet relative to that pulse as the car is traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the salt lake flats?
The pulse is in motion relative to its origin - light is not stationary - so the light pulse certainly has moved in relation to the car, origin, emitter, and all the rest. In fact it's moving at C relative to the car, the origin, the emitter, and most importantly to the salt flats, to observers outside the car, and indeed to everyone and everything else in the universe.
That's always been the point, here: light travels at a speed of C relative to you, regardless of your own velocity, acceleration, position, mass, whatever. Michaelson and Morley proved that in 1886 beyond any possible doubt. It took Einstein to prove that for that to be true, time would have to be different between different reference frames, mass would have to be different, and dimension would have to be different.
But for whatever reason you think you know more than Einstein. Well, good fucking luck with that.
If that pulse is influenced by the motion of the laser pen, car, and pole SR is invalidated.
No, exactly the opposite is true. If light couldn't be influenced by the velocity of the reference frame from which it is emitted, then SR would be invalidated - you'd be able to build a kind of "absolute velocimeter", which would tell you your absolute velocity in any direction by measuring the deflection of beams of light. If you could tell your absolute velocity then you could determine your absolute position, velocity would no longer be relative, acceleration would no longer be indistinguishable from gravity (a necessary condition for SR and GR), and we couldn't possibly be living in a relativistic universe.
Again, the key here is the difference between velocity and speed - light always moves at the speed of C, but its velocity can be altered. A simple experiment with light and lenses can prove it to your satisfaction.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 829 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 2:35 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 834 of 1229 (625338)
07-22-2011 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 814 by ICANT
07-20-2011 12:53 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
It is just that when the pulse reaches the position the detector was when the pulse was released from the laser pen, the detector is not there as it has moved 2 feet.
No it hasn't, not within the car's frame of reference which is the frame of reference we are using.
The car, laser pen, and detector is moving at 0.5 c relative to the ground underneath the car.
We are not using the Earth's frame of reference. We are using the car's frame of reference. In this frame, the pen laser and detector have not moved one inch.
Just as soon as the light pulse is released at a 90 angle to the travel of the car, laser pen, and detector, which are traveling 0.5 c relative to the ground underneath the car, the light pulse is in free fall.
The car, laser pen, and detector are not moving at 0.5c with respect to one another. They have zero velocity with respect to each other.
Is the car parked on earth doing zero meters per second relative to the earth?
If the car is parked on earth the driver will not see the earth spinning no matter how fast you make it go.
In the scenario I am describing the car is set in neutral on a motionless earth (with respect to the car). If the Earth increases it's rotational velocity the Earth will appear to move past the car because the car is in neutral. I am assuming that there is no friction at all between the Earth and the car tires, and no friction in the transmission of the car. Think of it as putting the frictionaless car on a treadmill and turning the treadmill on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 814 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2011 12:53 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 835 of 1229 (625339)
07-22-2011 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 830 by ICANT
07-21-2011 2:55 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
I did cover the motion of the earth as it spins and makes its journey around the sun as well as the sun and earth making their journey around the MilkyWay in an earlier post. So much for one of your assertions.
Then surely you understand how the Michelson-Morely experiment from 130 years ago falsifies all of your claims? If what you claim is true then the results from that experiment should have been drastically different than what was actually observed. The light used in that experiment should have produced different intereference pattern as it related to all of the motions described in the quote above, but it didn't.
Have you stopped to figure out how short a day would be if it consisted of 1 light period and 1 dark period if the earth was spinning at c?
Nothing with mass can travel at c. It would require the object to have infinite mass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 830 by ICANT, posted 07-21-2011 2:55 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 836 of 1229 (625384)
07-22-2011 8:51 PM
Reply to: Message 832 by NoNukes
07-21-2011 6:11 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
And given the fact that the tube really does not do anything anyway, you've all but admitted that you are wrong.
The vacuum tube does serve one purpose. That is to show you that the pulse does not go at an angle as you claim having to cover 1.1180 meters instead of the actual distance the pulse has to cover of 1 meter as that is the distance between the top mirror and the bottom mirror.
But the vacuum tube does not move on it's own. It has to be moved by the motion of the cycle that the light clock is attached to the handlebars of.
If the cycle does not move the pulse will go up and down in the vacuum tube, until the tube is removed from between the mirrors.
If the cycle moves the pulse still goes up and down in the vacuum tube.
If the cycle moves at 149,896,229 meters per second the pulse will go straight up and down in the vacuum tube.
If the pulse hits the top mirror 149,896,229 times the light on top of the vacuum tube will flash.
Since the pulse has traveled up and down in this light clock striking the top mirror 149,896,229 times and the bottom mirror 149,896,229 times to flash the light at T since it left the first B. 1 second has passed when the light flashes. My fig 4.
Now according to you the pulse has to somehow travel the distance from the first B to the first T at a bunch of triangles as shown in your triangle in Message 804
You can not seem to grasp that the pulse goes up and down in the vacuum tube without getting out of the tube and going at an angle.
Could you clear that up for me? You did actually hint at that but I am an old man so coddle me and answer these questions.
Does the pulse go up and down in the vacuum tube that is 1 meter long attached to a mirror on the bottom and the top?
Does it take 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel from the bottom mirror to the top mirror and then 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds to return bottom mirror?
Will the cycle travel .5 meter causing the vacuum tube to move .5 meter in the time it takes for the pulse to go from the bottom mirror to the top mirror?
Does it take the pulse 1 second to strike the top mirror and cause the light to flash at the first T after flashing at the first B in fig. 4 of mine?
Will the cycle travel 149,896,229 meters traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second?
NoNukes writes:
If yd.ou don't like my path, draw your own.
I did you didn't like it.
I then gave you an example that you keep saying is irrelevant. You then explain that physics of water traveling in a tube and a pulse in a vacuum tube is different.
The physics may well be different in the make up of water and the pulse.
But they do the same identical thing in the tube. The difference is you can do the one with the water in your kitchen for less than 10 bucks.
If you will preform the experiment as I laid out you can then see how the pulse can travel 1 meter high from the bottom mirror to the top mirror while at the same time travel .5 meter in the direction the cycle is traveling that the light clock is attached too.
The pulse does not travel at an angle while traveling between the two mirrors.
There is only 1 meter between the mirrors not the 1.1180 meters you claim the pulse has to travel.
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 832 by NoNukes, posted 07-21-2011 6:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 844 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 3:40 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 837 of 1229 (625515)
07-23-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 831 by cavediver
07-21-2011 3:15 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi cavediver,
cavediver writes:
I don't really care. Such physical difficulties are immaterial to our discussion. And if we leave the relatve speeds as they are, they will still have an impact upon what you are claiming, albeit with much smaller effect.
Going with real numbers.
Earth rotates at equator = 465.36864 meters per second
Earth around Sun = 29,951.68 meters per second.
Earth and Sun travel around the Milky Way = 220,000 meters per second.
cavediver writes:
So, the question remains. Is the 2 feet measured relative to your "fixed" salt flats, or are you also taking into account the motion of the salt flats as they orbit the Galaxy, but just failing to mention it for some reason?
The 2 feet is measured relative to the Salt Lake Flats.
I did not mention the movement of the Earth, and Sun around the Galaxy as I do not find it mentioned in the though experiments I have read.
Never the less I present some facts.
It takes the pulse 4.066813452804019 nanoseconds to travel 4 feet.
It takes the car 4.066813452804019 nanoseconds to travel 2 feet.
During which time the Earth will travel -6.208162884189288 of an inch.
That is much less than the width of a human hair.
Maybe that is the reason nobody mentioned it with their thought experiments.
I really don't see that movement of the Earth by its rotation, its journey around the sun, and the Earth's and suns travel around the Galaxy would effect the outcome of the pulse missing the detector that is mounted 4 feet above the top of the laser pen that is mounted flush with the roof of the top of the car. At a 90 angle to the travel of the car which is traveling 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the ground on the Salt Lake Flats.
Now the real question is will the pulse once released from head of the laser pen in the open vacuum at a 90 angle to the travel of the car make its verticle journey at 299,792,458 meters per second without the motion of the car effecting that travel.
If the motion of the car can not effect the direction of the pulse's travel the pulse will miss the detector if it travels in a straight ling.
Questions:
Will the forward motion of the car effect the travel of the pulse?
Will the pulse go in a straight line at a 90 to the travel of the car after being released by the laser pen?
Will the pulse strike the detector when the detector has moved 2 feet relative to the pulse after it is released by the laser pen?
If you say the pulse will strike the detector as you have asserted in several posts, could you explain in detail how that will happen?
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 831 by cavediver, posted 07-21-2011 3:15 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 838 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 3:26 PM ICANT has replied
 Message 839 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 3:59 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 852 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:11 PM ICANT has replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 838 of 1229 (625518)
07-23-2011 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by ICANT
07-23-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi ICANT, been a while since I have felt like asking you anything.
Please explain to me why you feel like light behaves differently than say...anything you drop in a moving vehicle? If you are moving down the road in a car and you drop a peanut it appears to you, sitting in the car, to fall straight down. we know this is only true for you in the car, to a stationary observer outside the car the nut would fall at an angle, correct?? The nut would have the forward movement of the car plus the pull of gravity, right? Why would light act any different? Details please.
Edited by fearandloathing, : spelling of angle from angel...lol
Edited by fearandloathing, : movement of gravity changed to pull of gravity
Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2011 3:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 843 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 12:52 AM fearandloathing has not replied

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4144 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 839 of 1229 (625520)
07-23-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by ICANT
07-23-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi again,
In other post you have said you can't see the beam of your laser, I will buy and send you a green laser if you will record your experiment on webcam ect... for us to review. With a green laser you can see the beam so maybe you can show us where we are wrong.

"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
Hunter S. Thompson
Ad astra per aspera
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 837 by ICANT, posted 07-23-2011 3:13 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 840 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 6:10 PM fearandloathing has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3775 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 840 of 1229 (625525)
07-23-2011 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 839 by fearandloathing
07-23-2011 3:59 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Iirc the reason you can see the beam in that particular picture is because of scattering from air particles. In a vacuum, there would be no scattering, so the "laser" light could not be seen when viewed from the side.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 839 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 3:59 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 841 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 8:19 PM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 842 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 12:19 AM DBlevins has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024