Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1031 of 1229 (629214)
08-16-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1029 by ICANT
08-16-2011 11:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1029 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 11:14 AM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1032 of 1229 (629215)
08-16-2011 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1030 by ICANT
08-16-2011 11:25 AM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1030 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 11:25 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1036 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 12:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1038 of 1229 (629230)
08-16-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by ICANT
08-16-2011 12:28 PM


Re: Moving
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 12:28 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1039 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2011 10:48 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1042 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2011 12:39 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1047 of 1229 (629430)
08-17-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1042 by ICANT
08-17-2011 12:39 PM


Re: Moving
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:
Newton's first law of motion is often stated as
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1042 by ICANT, posted 08-17-2011 12:39 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1052 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2011 10:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1048 of 1229 (629431)
08-17-2011 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1039 by NoNukes
08-16-2011 10:48 PM


Re: Moving
ICANT has a hypothesis regarding existence and theology that apparently requires that time dilation not exist.
Do you know why his theology requires that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1039 by NoNukes, posted 08-16-2011 10:48 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1050 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2011 6:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1055 of 1229 (629531)
08-18-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1052 by NoNukes
08-17-2011 10:11 PM


Re: Moving
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1052 by NoNukes, posted 08-17-2011 10:11 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by ICANT, posted 08-18-2011 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1065 by NoNukes, posted 08-18-2011 11:21 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1062 of 1229 (629570)
08-18-2011 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by ICANT
08-18-2011 4:02 PM


Re: Moving
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by ICANT, posted 08-18-2011 4:02 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1069 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2011 12:04 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1081 of 1229 (629694)
08-19-2011 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1079 by ICANT
08-19-2011 10:22 AM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
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:
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
As measured in any inertial frame of reference.
An "inertial observer" would be the one doing the measuring in that inertial frame of reference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1079 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2011 10:22 AM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1084 by NoNukes, posted 08-19-2011 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1086 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2011 6:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1090 of 1229 (629947)
08-21-2011 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1086 by ICANT
08-19-2011 6:28 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1086 by ICANT, posted 08-19-2011 6:28 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1113 of 1229 (630924)
08-29-2011 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1112 by NoNukes
08-28-2011 10:29 AM


Big Bounce
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1112 by NoNukes, posted 08-28-2011 10:29 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1227 of 1229 (633257)
09-13-2011 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1224 by ICANT
09-13-2011 12:46 AM


Re: Summary
Yeah, sorry, I didn't see the call for summaries.
Edited by AdminModulous, : content hidden,
Summaries only please
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1224 by ICANT, posted 09-13-2011 12:46 AM ICANT 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