Existence

How fast is it going past you?Let me restate the question since you seemed to miss part of it.Imagine that light is moving parallel to a set of infinitely long railroad tracks. You get on a train and start accelerating at high speed in the direction of the light beam. Let's say that you are somehow able to see the light as it passes the train. When the train is travelling at 0.5c how fast do you see the light passing you? When the train is travelling at 0.99c how fast is the light going as it passes you by?This is a thought experiment, so please pay important attention to the bolded part.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So how can it be that a person standing beside the tracks can measure the speed of light at 3E8 m/s while someone on a train traveling 1.5E8 m/s in the direction of the light will also measure the speed at 3E8 m/s?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Most likely, from the energy given off by an electron falling from a higher orbital to a lower orbital. Nope. The light was always travelling at 3E8 m/s. It was never going a different speed, therefore no acceleration. Sure you are. You are saying that the light will follow a curved path in the inertial frame of the car. The changes in the orbital speed of the Earth are pretty small, and the speed of Earth's rotation is nearly constant. They are small enough to ignore for the calculations. For orbital speed, the change is due to the fact that the orbit is not perfectly circular, so there is very slight deceleration and acceleration, but it is very slight. For the rotation, this is deceleration only, and it is very, very small. The Earth is travelling in the same vacuum. The difference in velocity between the pen light and the sensor at the top of the pole is zero. There is no need for it to bend forward. It just has to go straight up. Nope. I am trying to convince you that it will travel a straight line to hit the center of the motionless sensor, exactly where the the laser pen is pointed when the light pulse is produced. You are the one claiming that it will take a curved path behind the sensor.

Nope. For entire existence of that photon it is travelling at c. It hasn't moved 2 feet in the inertial frame of the car. The pole keeps it directly above the pen laser the entire time. That's the point. Since all non-accelerating inertial frames can be considered the same, the same rules apply to all non-accelerating inertial frames. Stating that the car is moving relative to another inertial frame does not change the laws of physics in the car's inertial frame. This doesn't change the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment falsifies your claims. You tried to explain it away by invoking some magical vacuum. Now you are backtracking on that as well. You forgot to move S along with D. Why do you need to park the car in order to have a non-accelerating inertial frame?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Right here:

quote:

---

I can be going towards the light and it will be traveling 299,792,458 meters per second, as long as it is in a vaccum.

​

I can be going in the same direction as the light and the light will be traveling 299,792,458 meters per second, as long as it is in a vaccum.

​

I can be waiting at the train station standing on the platform and the light will be traveling at 299,792,458 meters per second, as long as it is in a vaccum.

​

I can be dead and buried and the light will still be traveling 299,792,458 meters per second, as long as it is in a vaccum.

---

So if you are sitting on a train with a velocity of 0.5 c that is moving in the same direction as the light beam you will observe the light passing you by at c, correct?At that very spot along the tracks is someone who is standing stationary to the tracks. This person will also see the light passing them by at c, correct?So how can both observers, you on the train travelling at 0.5 c and someone standing stationary with respect to tracks, measure the same velocity for that light?

We can use salt flats, that is fine with me.So we have many different frames of reference that we can choose from. We can choose the driver's frame of reference, the person standing on the salt flats, or someone standing on the surface of the sun. Let's see what each person observes.The driver observes that the pen laser, car, and detector are not moving or accelerating. An accelerometer does not measure any acceleration (other than the gravity of the Earth) in any direction. The person standing on the salt flat would observe that the Earth is at rest, with no acceleration in any direction. The person standing on the Sun would observe that both the driver (and the rest of the stuff on the car) are moving as is the person standing on the salt flat.For now, we are talking about the driver. In his frame of reference, neither the pen laser, detector, or car are moving relative to each other. If nothing is moving in this frame of reference, why should the light miss the detector? How is it possible for the pen laser to miss when the pen laser and detector are not moving relative to each other? The car is not moving relative to the pen laser and detector. There is no motion to add to begin with.ABE:Here is another way to look at the problem. Let's pretend that the Earth is not revolving. We put the car on the salt flat with the driver and the equipment described above and put it in neutral. Next, we start spinning the Earth so that it achieves 0.5c relative to it's previous motion. Since the car is in neutral, the driver will see the Earth spinning by at 0.5c.ICAN'T, in this scenario, will the laser light hit the detector?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

No it hasn't, not within the car's frame of reference which is the frame of reference we are using. 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. 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. 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.

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. Nothing with mass can travel at c. It would require the object to have infinite mass.

What is it within the reference frame of the car?

We are not using the lake's frame of reference. We are using the car's frame of reference. In the car's frame of reference there is no relative motion between the pen laser, detector, and car. None.

Relative to the car, how far do the pen laser and detector move during the transit of the light pulse? The answer is zero. They don't move at all, correct? As I stated above, we are not using the lake's frame of reference. We are using the car's frame of reference.

The cycle is going at a constant velocity, therefore there is no force being exerted on the tube. If you were to sever all physical contact between the tube and the cycle it will happily float along with the cycle. Just think of the shuttle putting a satellite into orbit. When the astronauts sever contact between satellite and the shuttle does the satellite suddenly loose all of the velocity of the shuttle compared to the launching pad? Does the satellite shoot away from the shuttle at 25,000 mph as soon as all physical contact is lost?Why do you need a tube to begin with? To block out the Aether wind?

It is not attached to the lake, either. So your are saying that the light pulse takes on the velocity of the salt lake flats in violation of your supposed postulate #2?

Relative to the pen laser and detector. I am measuring the light pulse within the reference frame of the car. Since neither the car, pen laser, or detector are moving relative to each other the light pulse should hit the detector dead on. No, I am not, which makes me wonder why you keep referencing it. All frames are equally valid. Since the other car would have zero velocity relative to the car's frame of reference the driver of the other car would also see the light pulse travel upwards at a perfect 90 degrees and strike the detector.

The one sending the light pulse to the detector. We are using the car's reference frame, not the reference frame of the Salt Lake flats. Again, we are not using the reference frame of the Salt Lake Flats. We are using the car's reference frame. In this reference frame, the pen laser and detector have zero velocity. They are not travelling anywhere. Completely false. The only frame that matters is the one that the observer is in. Since we are using the driver in the car as the observer the frame that matters is the car's frame of reference. Then why do you keep insisting that it will miss the detector?ABE:The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion relative to one another (principle of relativity),
Theory of relativity - WikipediaThe car is in uniform motion. The observations made in the car should be the same as in any car going at any constant velocity, even if that velocity is zero relative to the Salt Lake Flats.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.