Existence

I've lost track of the modifications by now, hehe.It is funny that if ICAN'T pointed the pen laser downtrack (with the movement of the tracks) that he would expect the light pulse to move away at 1.5 c, and at 0.5 c if he pointed it into the direction that the tracks are moving. I guess there must be an aether attached to the tracks after all. Michelson and Morley must be turning in their grave. ICAN'T has at last found the missing luminiferous aether, and it was attached to the Earth all this time.

ICANT has pushed this idea for quite awhile. I think he gets it from that quack Gaasenbeek. I may get around to busting on it again if I can stop laughing at his new crooked light hypothesis.Edit:Of course in this case the argument does not make sense. The photon is traveling at or largely at right angles to the car. You would not simply subtract or add velocities to get 0.5c.End edit.It seemed that ICANT had accepted that the speed of light was always "c" in a vacuum when he started hammering away at us about postulate #2 and his ridiculous claim that it invalidated SR. As if.But apparently he is now running away from his original postings on postulate #2. I cannot blame him. Asserting postulate #2 was making him look fairly foolish. In fact I actually suggested to ICANT that he give up on asserting the postulate.Apparent he's also forgotten that list of experiments I provided for him that slams the door shut on his idea of 1.5c values for the speed of light.You might find the Wikipedia article on the Michelson Morley experiment interesting. Although the famous experiment is subject to some legitimate criticisms, none of those criticisms survive the extensive re-running and other experiments that confirm that principle that there is no anisotropic light speed effect.In particular, it does not seem that Einstein knew about the experiment at the time he wrote his 1905 paper on relativity.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I have seen those recent experiments. I can't find the reference now, but one of them actually used a photon clock like the one described for our mythical space cycle (masers?). The sensitivity of these experiments are multiple orders of magnitudes below what would be needed to observe the effects that ICAN'T is proposing. They also ran these experiments for a year or more looking for ICAN'T's (that's an annoying possessive) aether drag.Perhaps we can start a thread on the new theory that fire is caused by oxidation and see if ICAN'T will try to rebut it with phlogiston.

Yes, Masers indeed! How do you keep up with all this stuff?Perhaps this paper is the reference you are thinking of:http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.2803.pdf"Testing local Lorentz and position invariance and variation of fundamental constants by searching the derivative of the comparison frequency between a cryogenic sapphire oscillator and hydrogen maser"Or one of the other references listed in the Wikipedia article on the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.

Actually just to correct some things, an inertial frame is one that is not accelerating and an object's inertial frame of reference is a frame where the object's speed is 0. An object can't be moving in it's own inertial frame because that's how the inertial frame is defined. That's why the Salt Lakes and the car's frame of reference are two different frame even though neither are accelerating.

Hi ICANT, Exactly so. There is no force available. And it turns out that no force is needed.You've just demonstrated that the goofy black tube you added to the light clock thought experiment was completely unnecessary.When a photon (or any object) moves vertically at finite speed as measured in one inertial frame of reference, we can always find some other inertial reference frame in which that same motion is neither vertical nor horizontal. Always.And again, when we observe motion from different frames of reference, we are not actually changing the "motion" of any object. But the direction of travel of an object is not consistent under either a Newtonian/Galilean transform or a Lorentz-Fitzgerald transform. In fact, the speed of light is constant only under the latter transform.If it makes you feel any better, the angle of the light pen is also not consistent under a coordinate transform. In every inertial frame, the light beam does actually travel along the same direction that the light pen points, but that parameter is also different in different inertial reference frames.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Just to be clear, despite being massless, photons do have momentum and changing a photons momentum does require force. But changing coordinate systems is not the kind of changing of the direction of a particle that requires a force.What is going on here is that ICANT is still struggling to understand the coordinate systems associated with reference frames. Within a given reference frame, the photon does not change direction.

How can something without mass have momentum?Heh, just add some mentum to it and there you go... Mo'-mentum.But seriously... I'm sorry you believe that. I don't think that's what's going on at all. Relish the fact that the lurkers are benefiting so that when you realize that ICANT is playing a game here and has no intention of learning then you won't be so let down. Yeah, he seems to think that if you fire a laser out of your car window, then its going to curve off towards behind you. But that's just because he's caught himself up. He's not honest so I doubt he really thinks much of this stuff. I've debated him in the past... he's really old and stubborn and dishonest.

Hi NoNukes, No force needed to do what?In the following diagram for the pulse emitted from the pen above the second y when trigered by the signal from the first S to hit the second S the direction of the travel of the pulse has to be altered.

y = pen
x = sensor
| = direction pen pointed when pulse emitted.
> = direction of car traveling at 0.5 c.
     |          |          |         |          |
     y          y          y         y          y
                |                      \
                |                        \
                |                        >>\>>>
                |                            \
     x          x          x          x        \ x
     S          D          S          D          S

                           N
                        NoNukes 

You are standing on the Salt Lake Flats 100 feet from the track the car is traveling on.Will you see the pulse travel as depicted from the second y to the first D?This pulse travels at a 180 angle relative to the position of the laser pen when the pulse is emitted.Or will you see the pulse travel as depicted from the fourth y to the third S?This pulse travels at a 26.57 angle relative to the position of the laser pen when the pulse is emitted. I would agree that you could put a dot in the center of a piece of paper and draw a six inch line through the dot with 3 inches on each side of the dot and have the direction a photon or any other object could move in a straight line.You could then draw a line at any degree around a 360 degree circle intersecting the dot and still have a straight line for the photon to travel.So when you say a photon moves vertically at finite speed, what is the photon traveling vertical relative too?In the experiment we have been talking about it is specified that the pulse is emitted traveling at a 90 angle relative to the travel motion of the car on the tracks on the Salt Lake Flats.So it would not make any difference where the earth was in it's rotation cycle the pulse would be emitted traveling at a 90 angle relative to the travel motion of the car on the tracks on the Salt Lake Flats.Now where could you place an observer where said observer could see the pulse emitted that said observer would not see the pulse emitted at a 90 angle relative to the travel motion of the car on the tracks on the Salt Lake Flats. Where have I discussed a light beam in these experiments?A pulse of laser light from my laser pen occurs when I press and release the button on the side of the pen.I can not change the trajectory of this pulse of light.A beam of laser light from my laser pen occurs when I press and hold the button on the side of the pen.I can change the trajectory of the beam of light simply by changing the direction the laser pen is pointed or the position of the laser pen.Are you sure you are not getting the two confused? So where would you place an inertial reference frame that the pulse could be observed from by an observer when emitted from the laser pen that the pulse would not leave the laser pen at a 90 angle relative to the travel motion of the car on the tracks on the Salt Lake Flats?Playing around with my Chief Architect professional 3D architectural program I can find no place in a 3D picture I can place a 90 angle and turn and twist it that it ceases to be a 90 angle.God Bless,

Why does it have to be altered? The pen laser is directly above the second S when the light pulse strikes it.What you are failing to understand is that the point of emission is different in each coordinate system as defined by the inertial frames. In NoNuke's frame standing by the tracks the pen laser is moving. In the driver's frame of reference the pen laser is not moving. Therefore, in the driver's frame of reference the position of the pen laser and the point of emission are one in the same when the light pulse hits the second S. This is not so for NoNuke's frame of reference standing by the tracks. What the two frames of reference will agree on is the speed of light and that the light strikes the second S.If you can, please draw a diagram for the driver's frame of reference. Hopefully this will allow you to understand the differences between the frames of reference. That's just it, you have to define what vertical is and in relation to what, or else it doesn't make sense.Think of two guys throwing a ball back and forth to one another. Have them run sideways at the same speed and keep the same distance between them. IOW, have them run parallel paths. From the perspective of the guys throwing the ball they are throwing at a 90 degree angle with respect to the motion of the ground below them. From the perspective of someone in a hot air balloon above them the ball is being thrown at a less than 90 degree angle with respect to the guys motion with respect to the ground. This is exactly what is going on in our light experiments.

Hi Taq, You did not use enough of the quote to ask a question.This is what brought about my comment you quoted.In Message 970 I said:

quote:

---

Taq writes:

​

If the pulse is travelling in a straight line from the pen laser in the car's frame of reference then the light pulse will strike the second S.

​

The pulse does not travel in a straight line from the laser pen.

​

So no the pulse will not strike the second S.

​

The pulse is not traveling verticle relative to the position of the pen.

​

The pulse is traveling verticle relative to the position the pulse was emitted at Y.

---

You were saying the pulse had traveled at an angle to reach the second S when the pulse was emitted 2 feet to the left of that point.So you saying it was a straight line it was not correct as it would have to be at a 26.57 angle relative to the position of the laser pen when the pulse is emitted to strike the second S. The light pulse does travel straight down from the point the pulse is emitted.It does not travel straight down from the point the laser pen is above the second S. That would require instant travel. In any reference frame that the pulse can be observed when emitted from the laser pen the car will be moving at 0.5 c relative to the Salt Lake Flats. No aether is required.At the moment the pulse is created and emitted from the laser pen it is observed in the frame the tracks, sensors and detectors are motionless in and the car is traveling at 0.5 c relative too.The pulse is traveling at c relative to the point it was emitted toward the detector the laser pen was pointed at when the pulse was emitted.The point the pulse was emitted at and the detector are motionless in their frame. OK remove the vacuum tube from between the mirrors and the pulse will miss the top mirror.God Bless,

Hi Taq, Because the point the pulse is emitted is 2 feet to the left of where you say the pulse hits the second S.You would have to draw a straight line from the point emitted to the second S which would be at a 26.57 angle relative to the position of the laser pen when the pulse is emitted. OK.But when the pulse is created and emitted from the laser pen pointed at the detector the detector and the point the pulse was emitted is at rest in their frame.Therefore the pulse will travel in a straight line and hit the detector causing the light to flash.What you are failing to get is that the pulse when emitted is no longer in the laser pen and therefore no longer in the drivers frame of reference. From a seated position in the car there is no way the driver could observe the pulse being emitted from the laser pen which is mounted on the rear of the car pointed downard at a 90 angle to the motion of the car relative to the Salt Lake Flats.So no I can't draw a diagram for the driver's observations. But I have stated constantly that the pulse travels verticle at a 90 angle relative to the travel of the car relative to the Salt Lake Flats.So there should be no question of what I am talking about the pulse traveling relative too.

B1----------B2
     B1----------B2
     B1----------B2
     B1----------B2   

The boys are parallel and we will ignore the drop the ball will make between them.The ground is under both of their feet so the ball is travelling parallel to the ground as it travels back and forth between the boys.There is no place the ball is traveling at a 90 angle with respect to the motion of the ground below them.Now if one of them were to start dribbling the ball the ball would be traveling at or near a 90 angle to the motion of the ground below them. From a hot air balloon the observer would have a hard time telling whether the boys were rolling the ball on the ground or tossing it between themselves.That observer would not see anything other than the ball traveling parallel to the motion of the earth. Guess again.A 90 angle looks like this:
|
|
|
|
|_______
90 angle

In the driver's inertial frame, the pen laser is not moving. How many times have I mentioned this? Why do you keep making this mistake? It doesn't matter what the angle is, it is still a straight line. You do understand that, don't you? You know, a straight line that connects the point of emission and the point of detection.Also, you need to specify which frame of reference that you are measuring the angle in. For this exercise, please tell me the angle measurement for the driver's frame of reference if the light strikes the second S. That is false. In the driver's frame of reference the car and pen laser are not moving, but the salt lake flats are moving at 0.5 c. Then why are you invoking an aether that is attached to the salt lake flats? It is also observed in the driver's frame of reference where the car and pen laser are motionless and the tracks, sensors, and detectors are moving at 0.5 c.If you can, please draw a diagram where the car and pen laser are motionless and the tracks, sensors, and detectors are moving. Is that because the vacuum tube was blocking the aether wind?

The pen laser is not moving in the driver's frame of reference. How many times have I told you this now? No, the detector is not at rest in the driver's frame of reference. It is moving. The pen laser is stationary. It would only hit the detector if the speed of light was instantaneous. It isn't. It travels at 3E8 m/s. By the time the light transits the space between the tip of the pen laser to the tracks the second S is right below the pen laser. The second S moves into position to be hit by the stationary pen laser. The light is in every possible frame of reference the entire time, including the driver's frame of reference. Frames of reference have no boundaries. They extend to infinity. Pedantic much? Let's place the driver directly above the pen laser. Please draw a diagram for this observer. The car is not moving in the driver's frame of reference. How many times have I mentioned this? Yes, there is a place where the ball is travelling at 90 degrees. In the boys' reference frame. All they need to do is throw the ball directly at each other and they will catch it. The ball will be directly between them for the entire flight of the ball. It is no different than throwing the ball to each other if they were stationary to the ground. The observer in the hot air balloon would observe the same sawtooth pattern that we have described for the light clock, would he not?

When will you decide to learn what a reference frame is ICANT? It doesn't matter if you quote it when you don't understand it. For example, the salt flat lakes has 0 speed in the Earth's reference frame but has a speed of around 66000 mph when taken in the Solar's reference frame. That's how you use reference frames. Do you now see why what I quoted from you is completely silly?