Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
32 online now:
jar, PaulK, RAZD, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (4 members, 28 visitors)
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Upcoming Birthdays: ONESOlivia, perfect
Post Volume: Total: 865,376 Year: 20,412/19,786 Month: 809/2,023 Week: 317/392 Day: 7/41 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 2458 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 841 of 1229 (625531)
07-23-2011 8:19 PM
Reply to: Message 840 by DBlevins
07-23-2011 6:10 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
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.

Yes I understand this. but ICANT has stated he cant see the beam in his home experiments, nothing to do with our thought experiment, just more of his version of the gish gallop.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 6:10 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 842 of 1229 (625559)
07-24-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by DBlevins
07-23-2011 6:10 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi Blevins,

DBlevins writes:

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.

I can see my red laser pen if I shine it across a high gloss surface and cause the beam to scatter.

But what fearandloathing failed to mention is that in my experiment I was shining my pen at the ceiling.

In part of it I was shining it through a cardboard tube from a roll of paper towels.

I can even shine the white light through the same tube at the ceiling and if I hold the tube a little above eye level I can't even see the white light that is scattered at the top of the tube, much less between there to the ceiling.

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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by DBlevins, posted 07-23-2011 6:10 PM DBlevins has not yet responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 843 of 1229 (625564)
07-24-2011 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by fearandloathing
07-23-2011 3:26 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi fearandloathing,

fearandloathing writes:

Please explain to me why you feel like light behaves differently than say...anything you drop in a moving vehicle?

The pulse released from the pen on my cycle is in an open clock, the same as the one from the car.

The pulse is released in a vacuum. It is not released inside of anything, other than a vacuum.

The only one that is in a vacuum tube is the one NoNukes and I are discussing.

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 838 by fearandloathing, posted 07-23-2011 3:26 PM fearandloathing has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 844 of 1229 (625571)
07-24-2011 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by ICANT
07-22-2011 8:51 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
ICANT writes:

NoNukes writes:


If you don't like my path, draw your own.


I did you didn't like it.

No ICANT, you did not draw the path of a photon between the top and the bottom mirrors. You said that you could not draw such a path.

Instead you drew that large triangle with the 150 million meter base. But we know that hypotenuse of that triangle cannot be the path of a photon because if it were, the photon would only be traveling 1/2 of the speed of light as measured observer #1's frame.

We also know that the large triangle does not show the path of the photon because it does not show the photon returning to the top and bottom mirrors just short of 150 million times for each mirror. Yet you've insisted that this number of round trips is exactly what occurs during a one second time interval. Those up and down excursions that you fail to show are what makes the actual distance traveled by the photon consistent with a speed "c".

So far, you have yet to draw or describe any path for a photon that is both consistent with postulate #2, and that allows the photon to return to a moving top and bottom mirror 150 million times. I don't expect you to the path for 150 million round trips, but surely asking you to draw one or two of them (or even a single trip from top to bottom mirror) is not unreasonable.

We should be able to take whatever horizontal advance you show to occur in a single round trip path, and multiply it by the number of round trips you admit occurs and the result should match the distance you show in your large triangle diagram. So far, you refuse to admit that a single trip up and down covers any horizontal extent at all. That produces an inconsistency with your claim that 149+ million meters horizontal meters were traversed. How can the bottom mirror flash be 149+ million meters away form the top mirror flash if none of the up down movements covers any horizontal distance.

You seem to be incapable of understanding how coordinates and events happen in different inertial frames. Now that your unneeded tube is in place, you've "locked in" at least partially on events as they appear in the space cycle/tube inertial frame of reference. Yes, in that frame of reference the photon does move strictly vertically, and no horizontal distance is covered. But in that frame of reference, the space cycle also does not move, and the clock flashes do tick off 1 second intervals. But why are you showing a 149+ million meter horizontal excursion for the photon. That measurement is not consistent with a space cycle/tube frame of reference.

If the cycle moves the pulse still goes up and down in the vacuum tube.

Yes, ICANT, but as measured in observer #1s reference frame, the photon must simultaneously move horizontally with the tube and the cycle or it would be left behind.

The short answer: Simultaneous horizontal and vertical motions constitute diagonal motion. It is just that simple.

Simple question. Can you move forward one full meter without getting out of your car seat? Yes you can if the car moves that full meter. Well the photon "trapped" in the metal tube accomplishes the same thing in the same way.

Imagine bouncing vertically on a trampoline on a flat car moving at 60 mph. Keep yourself in a vertical tube if you like. Is it too hard to imagine that from a ground observer's frame of reference, you move horizontally, while also moving vertically. Well the trapped photon accomplishes the same thing.

The mistake you make here is to combine observations in the space cycle frame with observations in the observer's frame. In the space cycle frame, the light beam does travel perfectly vertically. But if the photon failed to move horizontally in observer 1s frame of reference, while the space cycle does move as measured in that frame, then the photon would be left behind. We know that does not happen.

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.

I understand that perfectly. But in observer #1s frame of reference the tube also moves. The photon moves along with the tube while moving up and down along the tube.

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.

I did not merely hint at the answer your question. I've expounded on it at length. I've just made yet another attempt to explain things up for you. The attempt will fail, of course. You will never admit to understanding.

I can make other attempts using different illustrative examples. Others have done so.

In the water experiment, no water molecule is observed to travel the length of a horizontally moving tube. If we did observe the water molecule from a frame in which the piping is moving horizontally, then the water molecules will also have to move horizontally or they cannot stay in the tube. However, the water molecules are not required to move at C as measured from an inertial frame In fact they cannot move at that velocity in any frame of reference.

I don't care how cheap the experiment is to perform. If it does not model the situation under discussion, then the experiment is not relevant.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by ICANT, posted 07-22-2011 8:51 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 845 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 8:00 AM NoNukes has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 845 of 1229 (625591)
07-24-2011 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 844 by NoNukes
07-24-2011 3:40 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

I can make other attempts using different illustrative examples.

I would rather have the answer to the following questions.

In my modified light clock experiment, 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?

In my modified light clock experiment,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?

In my modified light clock experiment, will the cycle travel .5 meter relative to the Earth and PlanetX causing the vacuum tube to move .5 meter in the 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds it takes for the pulse to go from the bottom mirror to the top mirror?

In my modified light clock experiment, does it take the pulse 1 second to strike the top mirror 149,896,229 times and cause the light to flash at the first T after flashing at the first B in fig. 4 of mine?

In my modified light clock experiment, will the cycle travel 149,896,229 meters traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Earth and PlanetX?

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 844 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 3:40 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 9:29 AM ICANT has responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 846 of 1229 (625594)
07-24-2011 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 845 by ICANT
07-24-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi ICANT,

In my modified light clock experiment, 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?

Already answered. The photon pulse moves up and down while also moving horizontally along with the tube. The combined motion is along a diagonal.

In my modified light clock experiment,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?

Yes, it does, but only as measured by observer's moving along with the space cycle. Other observers might determine a different duration and path for the pulse movement.

In my modified light clock experiment, does it take the pulse 1 second to strike the top mirror 149,896,229 times and cause the light to flash at the first T after flashing at the first B in fig. 4 of mine?

I'll allow you to give my answer to this question. I've played this game long enough given that you did not respond a single one of my questions. You have no response, because your position is untenable; it is not even self consistent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 8:00 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 847 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 2:38 PM NoNukes has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 847 of 1229 (625617)
07-24-2011 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 846 by NoNukes
07-24-2011 9:29 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

I've played this game long enough given that you did not respond a single one of my questions.

I didn't know we were playing a game. I thought we were trying to have a conversation where you was trying to debunk my thought experiment.

As far as me answering a question for you that would be an impossibility.

NoNukes writes:

Already answered. The photon pulse moves up and down while also moving horizontally along with the tube.

When you understand the statement you made there you will quit making the assertion you made below.

NoNukes writes:

The combined motion is along a diagonal.

What is going at a diagonal?

The modified light clock, the cycle, or the tube between the two mirrors.

The tube does not grow to 1.1180 meters the length required to reach from B on the bottom mirror to reach T on the top mirror going at an angle.

In fact the vacuum tube the pulse is in stays 1 meter in length thus the pulse can only move 1 meter not 1.1180 meters as you assert.

NoNukes writes:

Yes, it does, but only as measured by observer's moving along with the space cycle. Other observers might determine a different duration and path for the pulse movement.

The vacuum tube between the two mirrors is 1 meter in length. It takes 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel 1 meter.

Regardless of what any observer might observe it is impossible for it to take 1 nanosecond longer than 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel the 1 meter distance from the top mirror to the bottom mirror in the vacuum tube. If you disagree give your argumentation.

In Message 844 you said:

NoNukes writes:

So far, you have yet to draw or describe any path for a photon that is both consistent with postulate #2, and that allows the photon to return to a moving top and bottom mirror 150 million times. I don't expect you to the path for 150 million round trips, but surely asking you to draw one or two of them (or even a single trip from top to bottom mirror) is not unreasonable.


Top mirror
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom mirror

That is the only direction the pulse will travel in the vacuum tube.

The pulse is dragged sideways as it makes its journey between the mirrors. This dragging is caused by the forward motion of the cycle relative to the Earth and PlanetX.

You also asked me the following question and gave the answer for me.

NoNukes writes:

Simple question. Can you move forward one full meter without getting out of your car seat? Yes you can if the car moves that full meter. Well the photon "trapped" in the metal tube accomplishes the same thing in the same way.

So yes if my van moves one meter forward I will move 1 meter forward.

I can also move 4 inches toward the roof of the van while the van moves 1 meter forward. Does that mean the seat goes straight up or at an angle to the floorboard of the van?

You then say:

NoNukes writes:

But if the photon failed to move horizontally in observer 1s frame of reference, while the space cycle does move as measured in that frame, then the photon would be left behind.

How would the pulse be left behind?

It is enclosed in a vacuum tube with no way of escape. The pulse is going to go in the direction the cycle travels whether it wants to or not.

There is outside force applied to the pulse to force it to go in the direction of the motion of the cycle placing the pulse in a non-internal frame.

God Bless,


"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 846 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 9:29 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2011 3:09 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 850 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 8:47 PM ICANT has responded
 Message 858 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2011 10:40 AM ICANT has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 848 of 1229 (625618)
07-24-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by ICANT
07-24-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
In fact the vacuum tube the pulse is in stays 1 meter in length thus the pulse can only move 1 meter not 1.1180 meters as you assert.

This is third-grade geometry, ICANT. The hypotenuse of a right triangle must always be larger than either of the two legs.

Regardless of what any observer might observe it is impossible for it to take 1 nanosecond longer than 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel the 1 meter distance from the top mirror to the bottom mirror in the vacuum tube. If you disagree give your argumentation.

Well, we have been. The argumentation is that, because the speed of light is the same for all observers regardless of their relative velocity, time must be relative between different reference frames. Therefore what takes 3.336 nanoseconds in one reference frame may take more or less time when observed from another reference frame.

This is all a direct consequence of the speed of light being the same for all observers regardless of their velocity, which has been known to be a proven fact since 1886. The rest of us are waiting for you to grapple with these facts.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 2:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 7:47 PM crashfrog has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 849 of 1229 (625648)
07-24-2011 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 848 by crashfrog
07-24-2011 3:09 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi crash,

crashfrog writes:

The rest of us are waiting for you to grapple with these facts.

I have a hard enough time trying to grapple with statements like these.

crashfrog writes:

Therefore what takes 3.336 nanoseconds in one reference frame may take more or less time when observed from another reference frame.

So the speed of light is not the same in all reference frames.

Then why say:

crashfrog writes:

This is all a direct consequence of the speed of light being the same for all observers regardless of their velocity, which has been known to be a proven fact since 1886.

The speed of light is the same for all observers.

Which 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2011 3:09 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by crashfrog, posted 07-24-2011 8:56 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 850 of 1229 (625654)
07-24-2011 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 847 by ICANT
07-24-2011 2:38 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
The pulse is dragged sideways as it makes its journey between the mirrors. This dragging is caused by the forward motion of the cycle relative to the Earth and PlanetX.

It should be abundantly clear by now that you are being asked to draw the path of the photon including the 'dragging' you mention above. Since you've acknowledged that photons cannot be accelerated such that the speed of the photon is increased above c, you are also being asked to show that the resultant speed of the 'dragged' photon does not exceed "c".

Is that clear, or do you need yet more coddling?

Regardless of what any observer might observe it is impossible for it to take 1 nanosecond longer than 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel the 1 meter distance from the top mirror to the bottom mirror in the vacuum tube. If you disagree give your argumentation.

No ICANT, things are not independent of what is observed in a given reference frame. In fact there no preferred frames. Your choice of the space cycle frame of reference is completely arbitrary.

The argumentation has already been given to you at least a dozen times. Speaking of events as measured in the inertial frame in which observer 1 is at rest, the photon must move horizontally while moving up and down the tube. Postulate 2 requires that this net motion be exactly 'c' given a vacuum in the tube. Yet, the net distance traveled by the photon is clearly greater than 1 meter.

Why is the interior of the tube black? Are you ever going to explain that ridiculous choice.

I didn't know we were playing a game. I thought we were trying to have a conversation where you was trying to debunk my thought experiment.

That's what we are supposed to be doing. But you ducking questions as you 'prefer' not to answer is not conducive to having a conversation. Your own version of events requires the speed of light as measured/observed/calculated in observer #1s frame of reference to greater than c, meaning that you are not accurately describing said events.

NoNukes writes:


The combined motion is along a diagonal.

ICANT writes:

What is going at a diagonal?

The modified light clock, the cycle, or the tube between the two mirrors.

I mean whichever object under discussion that is moving vertically while also moving horizontally such that it even makes sense to talk about a combined motion. The obvious 'dragged' object of interest that you deliberately avoided mentioning in your short list. Why don't you take a shot at answering your own question?

This kind of silly behavior is of course what I refer to when I denounce playing stupid games.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 847 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 2:38 PM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2011 9:25 AM NoNukes has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 851 of 1229 (625656)
07-24-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 849 by ICANT
07-24-2011 7:47 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
I have a hard enough time trying to grapple with statements like these.

My advice would be to grapple with them by reading them, not by imagining them to say something completely different than they do. For instance:

So the speed of light is not the same in all reference frames.

No, the speed of light is the same in all reference frames, as I've repeatedly told you. Because of this, time may not be the same between two reference frames. The light clock gedankenexperiment is an attempt to demonstrate this, but it's not the proof of it. (How could it be? Light clocks don't exist.) The light pulse travels on two different paths relative to the observations of two different observers; the observer traveling along with the clock sees the light pulse travel along a shorter path than the stationary observer. He has to, trigonometry proves it.

If the pulse were not light, say it were a tennis ball instead, then the disparity would be resolved by the fact that the stationary observer would see the ball traveling at a greater speed to keep up with its longer path - the tennis ball would have its own speed relative to the vehicle (up and down) plus it would have the vehicle's speed as well. Therefore two observers making observations of a tennis ball clock would find their observations synchronized.

But unlike the speed of tennis balls, the speed of light - being a wave that propagates in spacetime according to Lorentz mathematics - is the same for all observers regardless of their velocity. So the stationary observer continues to see the light pulse traveling along a longer path than the ride-along observer - trigonometry proves it - but he sees the light travel that longer path at the same speed, so it takes longer. So he's seeing the clock tick at longer intervals than the ride-along observer.

The resolution of this paradox is the recognition that time actually slows down in the ride-along observer's moving reference frame. Things actually are happening slower. If the ride-along observer accidentally drops a tea cup as the vehicle shoots by at a great rate of travel, the stationary observer sees the cup break in slow motion. Everything is happening slower in that reference frame because time has slowed. The people in the vehicle observe events happening outside the vehicle like a VCR on fast-forward, because from their perspective time outside their reference frame has increased.

As we've been trying to explain, it has nothing to do with the nature of clocks, not even of light clocks. Time dilation isn't something that happens to clocks, it's something that happens to time. And it's a necessary consequence of the fact that the speed of light has been proven to be the same for all observers regardless of their velocity, a fact that has been known about the universe since 1886.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by ICANT, posted 07-24-2011 7:47 PM ICANT has acknowledged this reply

Taq
Member
Posts: 8159
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 852 of 1229 (625659)
07-24-2011 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 837 by ICANT
07-23-2011 3:13 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
The 2 feet is measured relative to the Salt Lake Flats.

What is it within the reference frame of the car?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 853 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2011 7:47 AM Taq has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 853 of 1229 (625703)
07-25-2011 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 852 by Taq
07-24-2011 10:11 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi Taq,

Taq writes:

What is it within the reference frame of the car?

What is what in reference within the reference frame of the car?

Since you are replying to a message to cavediver you need to clarify what you he was talking about, that the statement you quoted was a reply too.

From Message 831

ICANT writes:

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.

From Message 828

cavediver writes:

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?

So the 2 feet you are asking about in this post is the 2 feet the car moves in a vacuum at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Salt Lake flats from the time the pulse is emitted from the laser pen until the pulse has traveled 4 feet at a 90° angle relative to the direction of the travel of the car.

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 852 by Taq, posted 07-24-2011 10:11 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by Son, posted 07-25-2011 8:37 AM ICANT has responded
 Message 861 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 11:44 AM ICANT has responded

Son
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009


Message 854 of 1229 (625706)
07-25-2011 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 853 by ICANT
07-25-2011 7:47 AM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
What Taq actually asked was how much the car moved in the reference frame of the car. Does the car still move two feets away in this frame reference?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 853 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2011 7:47 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 856 by ICANT, posted 07-25-2011 9:32 AM Son has responded

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6269
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 855 of 1229 (625710)
07-25-2011 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 850 by NoNukes
07-24-2011 8:47 PM


Re: Modified Cycle clock
Hi NoNukes,

NoNukes writes:

Is that clear, or do you need yet more coddling?

I need more coddling.

NoNukes writes:

It should be abundantly clear by now that you are being asked to draw the path of the photon including the 'dragging' you mention above. Since you've acknowledged that photons cannot be accelerated such that the speed of the photon is increased above c, you are also being asked to show that the resultant speed of the 'dragged' photon does not exceed "c".

No place have I said light can be forced to exceed "c".

If I am in my van on a oval race course and set my cruise control at 100 mph I will be traveling at 100 miles per hour and yet I will be accelerating due to the force exerted upon the car and my body will want to go toward the passenger side of the car.

The pulse will be going up and down in the vacuum tube and yet the motion of the cycle the light clock is attached too will exert force on the tube which in return exerts force upon the pulse. Thus we are not talking about an inertial frame of reference.

The pulse will travel at "c" in the vacuum tube regardless of what the cycle with the light clock attached to it is doing.

NoNuked writes:

No ICANT, things are not independent of what is observed in a given reference frame.

There is something called reality.

There is something called fantasy.

Reality is the vacuum tube is 1 meter long between two mirrors once the pulse is started it will travel back and forth between the mirrors striking the top mirror 149,896,229 times the light on top of the vacuum tube will flash.

The only thing any observer will see is the light on top of the vacuum tube flash.

The reason the only thing any observer will see is the light flash on top of the vacuum is that is the way the light clock has been modified to operate.

The vacuum tube is black to the observer and the inside was modified so the pulse could hit the top mirror 149,896,229 times and cause the light on top to flash. The pulse would then strike the bottom mirror 149,896,229 times and cause the light on the bottom to flash. This alternating of the light flashing would continue until the vacuum tube is removed from between the mirrors.

Each trip the pulse makes between the two mirrors will take 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds.

Therefore 1 second will pass between the light flashes that would be observed by any observer.

I know you don't like my water level experiment and refuse to even think about it must less preform it. What are you afraid of?

If you try the experiment as I laid out you will see that the water goes 12 inches up in the tube while the tube is being moved 6 inches and then goes down 12 inches in the tube while moving another 6 inches. The water does not travel at a diagonal.

The same thing happens in the vacuum tube. The pulse rises 1 meter to the top mirror while the vacuum tube is being moved 1/2 meter and then returns 1 meter to the bottom mirror while the vacuum tube is being moved another 1/2 meter.

It takes exactly 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel the 1 meter from the bottom mirror to the top mirror. It then takes exactly 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds for the pulse to travel the 1 meter from the top mirror to the bottom mirror.

Only in your fantasy can you make the tube grow to 1.1180 meters and swing back and forth to create this motion.

In Message 425 you presented this image.

For the pulse to travel the way you have it drawn the vacuum tube in the modified light clock would have to be 1.1180 meters long and swing back and forth from strike point to strike point.

In reality the tube would stop before it reached the point directly above where the pulse strikes the bottom mirror due to the fact the mirrors are only 1 meter apart and the tube would be 1.1180 meters long.

NoNukes writes:

Postulate 2 requires that this net motion be exactly 'c' given a vacuum in the tube.

And the pulse travels at 1 meter every 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds in the vacuum tube.

NoNukes writes:

Yet, the net distance traveled by the photon is clearly greater than 1 meter.

No, in your fantasy the pulse travels more than one meter.

But you have not explained how the distance increases between the two mirrors to the 1.1180 meters you claim the pulse travels.

It does not matter what the vacuum tube is doing the pulse is traveling back and forth in that vacuum at "c".

NoNukes writes:

Why is the interior of the tube black? Are you ever going to explain that ridiculous choice.

I don't ever remember saying the interior of the tube was black. I did say a black tube.

I also said the interior was designed in such a way the pulse could travel from the bottom mirror to the top mirror in 3.33564095198152 nanoseconds.

NoNukes writes:

I mean whichever object under discussion that is moving vertically while also moving horizontally such that it even makes sense to talk about a combined motion.

Well the pulse is moving vertically at "c".

The vacuum tube is moving horizontally at 1/2 c along with the cycle.

I don't see either of them going diagonal and neither would your observer #1. Observer #1 would observe the black vacuum tube moving horizontally in the same direction of the travel of the cycle.

NoNukes writes:

This kind of silly behavior is of course what I refer to when I denounce playing stupid games.

Your misunderstanding of reality is not a stupid game.

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 850 by NoNukes, posted 07-24-2011 8:47 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 857 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2011 9:33 AM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 863 by NoNukes, posted 07-25-2011 12:28 PM ICANT has not yet responded
 Message 864 by Taq, posted 07-25-2011 12:57 PM ICANT has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019