|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Existence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whatever, man. You're not interested in learning anything nor replying to the posts that are explanatory and instead want to focus on insignicant things that obfuscate your misunderstandings.
That's not a game I'm interested in playing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought an inertial reference frame had x, y, and z coordinates to be an inertial reference frame. When you're looking at a coordinate system on a computer screen, unless otherwise noted, the z coordinate extrends perpindicular outwards from the screen.
The laser pen nor the detector exist in what you have drawn. Y was the laser and D was the detector. But again, you're focusing on the irrelevant stuff instead of addressing the explanations that expose your misunderstandings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Catholic Scientist writes: And so are the laser and the detector. They are all motionless within the cars reference frame. The detector is mounted to the track Yes, when I posted that I hadn't realized that you had moved to a different example. You should know that if you're reading this thread.
The laser pen is attached to a frame on the rear of the car and is therefore doing whatever the car is doing which is traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Salt Lake Flats. The tracks are traveling at zero meters per second relative to the Salt Lake Flats, as they are attached to the Salt Lake Flats. Since the driver is in the car traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Salt Lake Flats so the driver is traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Salt Lake Flats. That means the driver as well as the laser pen is traveling at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the detectors and sensors, which are attached to the track. What are you trying to achieve here? What is the question?
Catholic Scientist writes: Within a reference frame... that's the part you're not getting. And the laser and detector are not moving within the cars reference frame. The laser pen is attached to the car and does whatever the car does. The detector is mounted on the tracks the car is traveling over at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the Salt Lake Flats. If you want to say the car is not moving and the tracks with the detector is moving at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the car you can. You get the same results as the distance increases between the detector and the car by 149,896,229 meters per second. The point in the vacuum the pulse is emitted is also moving at 149,896,229 meters per second relative to the car. You get the same results as the distance increases between the point the pulse is emitted and the car by 149,896,229 meters per second. If you had read the thread, you would have realized that I was talking about the previous example and not just wasted all that time typing this stuff.
Newton's first law says the pulse will travel in a straight line at c unless an unbalanced force is exerted upon the pulse. Newton's first law is about massive objects, not pulses of light. It doesn't apply here.
As long as the pulse is not emitted from the laser pen you would be correct. The problem is the pulse is emitted into a vacuum at c directly above the detector traveling in a straight line the laser pen was pointed when the pulse was emitted. If the car is not moving the pulse will hit the detector. If the car is moving the pulse will still be emitted into a vacuum at c directly above the detector traveling in a straight line the laser pen was pointed when the pulse was emitted. The pulse will still hit the detector. You're way over-complicating this, if you're just trying to understand time-dilation and how we know of it. Again, what is your goal in posting these messages? Are you trying to understand something specifically? You've got way to much fluff and not enough content. Cut to the chase.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The question is according to the following diagram where does the pulse travel too when it is emitted from a specific point into the vacuum. Why are you asking?
Catholic Scientist writes: Newton's first law is about massive objects, not pulses of light. It doesn't apply here. quote: This quote is from the physics classroom found Here. That says an object. It does not say anything about a massive object. It mearly states object. An object is something that can be seen with the eye. You're wrong. By "massive", I didn't mean "really big"... I meant "contains mass". Photons are not "objects" in classical physics. Too, you can't "see a photon with your eye"... you're eyes use photons to see objects.
I am not concerned with time-dilation at present. Do you accept that it occurs? What is it about your worldview that causes you to want to deny that time-dilation exists?
I am concerned and question how the pulse can travel at an angle other than a straight line when emitted from the laser pen in the direction the laser pen is pointed. Well that depends on the pen. If the laser isn't uni-directional, then the pulse could be traveling in all direction like one emited from a lightbulb. Too, its depends on your reference frame. If I'm standing on the gound as you fly by in the car shotting a laser beam, it'll look to me like the path of the pulse is different from the one you observe in your reference frame. That's part of the wierdness of light.
Everyone seems to be telling me that it does travel at an angle except NoNukes. He keeps telling me it will hit the D sometimes and the S other times depending on the observer reference frame. At least that is what I get from his posts. Maybe you're misunderstanding him? He seems to have a great grasp of the physics here.
Either the pulse will travel in a straight line in an inertial frame or an unbalanced force must be exerted upon the pulse to change the direction of the pulse. If you disagree then present your argumentation. No, that sounds correct.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
ICANT has a hypothesis regarding existence and theology that apparently requires that time dilation not exist. Do you know why his theology requires that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If I'm standing on the ground as you fly by in the car shooting a laser beam, it'll look to me like the path of the pulse is different from the one you observe in your reference frame. That's part of the wierdness of light.
Actually, light is like everything else in this regard. The path of any moving object is different as measured in different reference frames. I can accept that I'm technically incorrect there, but riddle me this, batman: A bowling ball would not take the same path as a photon, right? (from the reference frame on the ground as the emitter is flying by)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Let me take a crack at this and if I am wrong NoNukes can correct me. If we were to modify the car where you could be standing and you were to throw a 10 lb bowling ball from the car the bowling ball would go at an angle relative to the track and would land farther down the track relative to where the ball was released relative to the position of the car on the track. The reason for that is that the bowling ball would take on the forward motion of the car. The photon can not assume the forward motion of the car thus it has to travel in a straight line from the point emitted from the laser pen. So you're starting to get that photons don't behave like bowling balls... Where this gets interesting is that light always has the same speed no matter what reference frame you measuring it from. Be it in the car or on the salt flats. So when you observe a photon emmited towards the detector as the car is flying by you, from your refence it will travel a longer path than from the reference frame in the car (cause it'll look like its going at an angle rather than straight perpendicular, here's a diagram:
Still with me? If you do that with a bowling ball, then to you its going to look like the bowling ball is moving faster because its traveling a greater distance in the same amount of time. With a photon, the distance is still going to look greater, but the photon will look like its going the same speed (cause it can only go that one speed). So how can it go a greater distance at the same speed in the same amount of time? Something has to change, right? Velocity is distance over time:
So if v remains contant and D increases, then t must also increase. That is time-dilation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
NoNukes writes: They always travel at speed c relative to every inertial observer. Where do you find "relative to every inertial observer" in this:
quote: As measured in any inertial frame of reference. An "inertial observer" would be the one doing the measuring in that inertial frame of reference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
And what does an "inertial observer" have to do with light always being propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. The fact that it doesn't matter where the observer is, they will always measure light as having the speed c. Even if the observer is heading right towards it at 0.5c, the light will have a measured speed of c. If we're talking about bowling balls, then if you measure one's speed while your'e flying towards it, then its going to look like its going faster than it actually is, because you're moving too. That doesn't happen with light, its always going the same speed no matter what.
It says absolutely nothing about being propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the observing body. Do you deny that that is ture?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Even if you could cheat in such a way, the direction to that "place" would not be north of the north pole. North is only defined on the surface of the glob. If you had another globe with its south pole tangential to the north pole, you might be able to still go north... Like at point 'C' here:
This would be a cyclic model of the universe with the Big Bang being the result of the previous universe's Big Crunch... sometimes refered to as the Big Bounce.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Yeah, sorry, I didn't see the call for summaries.
My position was and still is that if Newtons first law is correct and the two postulates of Einstein are correct the photon discussed will miss the detector unless an unbalanced force is exerted on the photon. If those rules are correct there is no way the photon can be emitted by the laser pen that is mounted in the car at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car on the tracks, and hit the detector that the laser pen is pointed at when the photon is emitted. For the photon to hit the detector as Taq, crashfrog, Son, and NoNukes have tried to convince me that it does the speed of light would have to be c +v, as you would have to add the velocity of the car to the photon. Light does not have (rest) mass. A photon does not behave like a bowling ball. You need to understand this difference first.
The photon is traveling at c at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car and according to the inertial frame and postulate #2 the photon must go in the direction in a straight line that the laser pen is pointed when the photon is emitted. Diagonal lines are straight. Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden,Summaries only please Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024