Existence

He's saying that because it's just a thought experiemnt we don't have to worry about irrelevant details such as, how the driver survives travelling at 0.5c in a vaccum. How do the vital signs of the driver affect the physics under discussion?

Hi NoNukes, Anything traveling from side to side in the car would have an unbalanced force exerted upon it creating a non-inertial frame.That is the only way the photon can hit the point the laser pen is aimed at, just like in the classroom.God Bless,

It seems that it is impossible to teach you high school physics through the internet. Whether is it because you're too ignorant or unwilling to learn, I don't know, but as a result, this discussion is getting nowhere. It seems you are under the impression we are discussing physics whereas what is actually happening is that we are trying to teach you high school physics and you are failing to understand.I think you really need to see an high school physic teacher so he can at least teach you the basics eye to eye. What we're saying is not even up for debate (when this site should be for debates), it's about basic definitions any high schooler should be able to understand. The great majority is able to learn those so I don't see why you can't.

No, I am saying that if I said "Imagine you lived in a mansion." it would be stupid of you to say "I can't afford to live in a mansion." No - not silly. Stupid.
And you are definitely not trying to understand anything. So, all astronauts that have been in space have died - or did they use spacecraft and spacesuits to survive in the vacuum of space? Correct - they use spacecraft and spacesuits to survive in a vacuum.
It seems you actually knew the answer.
Then why you would have written something as fucking stupid as "Astronauts do not survive in a vacuum"? - I guess the clue is in the question.So - are your next questions going to be equally stupid and irrelevant?
ICANT: "How does the driver survive without food?"
ICANT: "How does the driver survive without water?"
ICANT: "What is the driver's name?"
ICANT: "What is the driver's favourite colour?"Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

If you want to maintain that the photon hits where it is aimed, just as in a classroom, you need to come up with another explanation. There are no unbalanced forces acting on the photon, the car, or any other object inside the car.We know there are no unbalanced forces because neither the photon or any other objects in the car changes direction or speed at any point.The photon is emitted and travels in a straight line to the final destination. The car moves at a constant speed "c" in the track frame, the track frame being an inertial reference frame for the purposes of this thought experiment. No object with mass inside the car moves any significant distance in the car reference frame. The driver's coffee mug stays in the cup holder.Just what do you think is producing this unbalanced force, and why does this alleged force producer not act when the car is open rather than enclosed? How does it act on photons but no other objects in the car. You are familiar with the law of inertial right? You do understand that no unbalanced forces are required to allow an object to move at constant velocity?Perhaps you want to retract your prediction. Your prediction is correct, but there is no evidence of any unbalanced forces at work.Edited by NoNukes, : Make distinction between photon and other objects.

Hi Dr, What are the physics under discussion?The car is traveling in a vacuum at 0.5 c relative to the tracks that are attached to the Salt Lake Flats.On the back of the car is mounted a frame with a laser pen mounted at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car 4 feet above sensors and detectors on the track.The sensors and detectors are exactly 2 feet apart.There is a sensor on the bottom of the frame that when it passes over the sensor that causes a signal to be sent to the laser pen and causes it to emitt a photon when the laser pen is directly over the detector which has a light attached that will light when hit by the photon.The car moves exactly 2 feet in the time it takes for the photon to travel the 4 feet to the detector."IF" the photon travels in a straight line at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car, from the point emitted from the laser pen at it will hit the detector every time."IF" the photon does not travel in a straight line at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car, it will not hit the detector.So the only physics we are discussing is, does the photon travel in a straight line from the point emitted by the laser pen?Either it does or does not there is no inbetween.NoNukes and Taq have been trying to convince me that the photon will travel at a 26.57 angle relative to the motion of the car and hit the sensor rather than the detector. Even though the laser pen is mounted at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car.Einstein's postulate # 2 says:

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.

---

SourceAccording to postulate # 2 the light is propagated in a vacuum at c independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body."IF" that is true the photon will hit the detector and cause the light to flash.An inertial reference frame which is under discussion says:

quote:

---

An inertial frame of reference is one in which the motion of a particle not subject to forces is in a straight line at constant speed.

---

SourceI am arguing these two are true, but am being told they are false as the photon will travel at at a 26.57 angle relative to the motion of the car, which is not in a straight line relative to the laser pen which is mounted at a 90 angle to the motion of the car.Would you care to explain to me how postulate #2 can be true and the photon miss the detector?God Bless,

We could explain it to you but you wouldn't understand it. Actually, we already explained it to you. The problem is that as long as you don't understand high school physics, you won't understand the answer.What you seem unable to see is that even if what you said was true and the photon hits the detector, then it's trajectory will make a 26.57 angle relative to the motion of the car in the car's frame of reference.What we are claiming is that the photon travel at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car in the car's frame of reference (which would make it a 26.57 angle in the Salt flat lakes' frame of reference). Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

So why woud you bring in the question of how does the driver survive in the vaccum? I think we should get you understanding grade school physics before we move onto more advanced topics.

Hi ICANT,You continue to limit reference frames to what one observer can see despite the fact that you know that is not right. You did not need to describe NoNuke's surroundings. You put me outside the car near the tracks. It was only later that you started ranting about vacuums above the car. Unless you are postulating a vacuum that extends above the car but not on the sides of the car, NoNukes was in the same vacuum that exists above the car. So yeah, I'll take that space suit, if you please.First, the vacuum above the car is irrelevant. We are not discussing photons above the car, and we don't need an observer outside the car in order to discuss coordinates in the driver's reference frame. Do you yet appreciate how stupid a suggestion that is?Second, if we don't need to discuss the space suits, then pointing out that the driver is not wearing one is stupid. Just put the driver in a space suit if is necessary to answer the question. Space suits won't change the physics in anyway.Or don't use space suits. We only need the observers for a few nanoseconds. Humans can survive about 30 seconds or more in the vacuum of space. Or conduct the experiments in air. The results are the same for all practical purposes.Do you understand now why I consider the vacuum stuff to be a rabbit hole intended for avoiding the truth? A truth that you've already admitted as I pointed out in Message 1088. In fact this argument is really pretty close to being over. All that's left is debunking that unbalanced force you made up and then applying postulate #2. What the driver can see is irrelevant. We can plot the location of photons and objects in the driver's reference frame, and examine the physics of those objects even if the driver cannot see them. Is that clear yet? This concept been explained to you dozens of times. There are an infinite number of straight lines that pass through the emission point. Perhaps you can rephrase your question based on that information. We also want to make sure we are discussing an inertial frame of reference when answer the question. It is the case that Newton's laws hold in an inertial reference frame. I'm not sure that I would define an inertial reference frame in that way, but it's true nonetheless.But I'm not sure you know what a straight line is. I don't recall anyone in this thread postulating a path for a photon in an inertial reference frame that was not a straight line. Other posters just identify different straight lines than the ones you insist on.ABE:Upon further review, I noticed that the wording in your questions is very confused, and in fact the answer to your questions is no.You can do anything you want to a particle in an inertial reference frame including apply unbalanced forces to the particle. How could we do physics using a reference frame if we cannot apply forces to any particles?It is the motion of the frame that must be constant in speed and direction in order to have a inertial frame and not the motion of the particles we elect to examine.Here is a more correct statement.In an inertial frame, if there are no unbalanced forces on a particle, the particle will not accelerate. The particle will either remain at rest or continue moving in a straight line at constant speed. In a non-inertial frame, a particle with no unbalanced forces acting on it may or may not accelerate. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Correct ICANT regarding inertial frames.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Hi NoNukes, But the blackboard moves 2 feet from the point the photon is emitted, therefore an unbalanced force is required for the photon to hit the blackboard.If there is no unbalanced force on the pulse to cause it to travel in the direction of the motion of the car for 2 feet from the time emitted the photon will miss the blackboard.Or the laser pen would have to be aimed at the spot the blackboard was going to be when the photon had traveled the 4+ feet between the laser pen and the blackboard while the car traveled the 2 feet. The forward motion of the car exerts an unbalanced force on the photon that is traveling at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car. Just like in a classroom with the blackboard on the north or south wall, an unbalanced force is exerted on the photon, just not as much as in the car. In the open the car which is traveling in a straight line at a constant speed we have an inertial reference frame in which the photon has to travel in a straight line from the point emitted from the laser pen. So when the car moves the 2 feet in the time required for the photon to travel 4 feet the photon will miss the blackboard.I don't understand why this is so hard to grasp.If you wanted to hit an airplane with an anti-aircraft gun where would you aim to hit it?Would you aim at the airplane? If you do you will miss it.To hit the plane you have to aim where the plane is going to be when the flack reaches the height the airplane is flying at.Once the bullet leaves the end of the gun barrel you can not change the direction of that bullet, unless it is bounced off an object that exerts an unbalanced force on the bullet.Once the photon leaves the end of the laser pen you can not change the direction of that photon without adding an unbalanced force. If there is no unbalanced force applied to the photon by the motion of the car, what causes the photon to hit the blackboard after the blackboard has moved 2 feet from the time the photon was emitted?This is the same thing we were discussing when I enclosed the photon in the tube on the light clock on the cycle. You get the same results.God Bless,

Nope. The above is physics that you've made up.Since the photon is at all times, moving in a straight line at constant speed, no unbalanced force is required to explain its path. That's Newton's law of inertia, and not made up ICANT nonsense.What's the source of this unbalanced force ICANT? Surely it cannot be the motion of the car? Remember that the speed of the light in a vacuum is independent of the motion of the source, as measured in any inertial reference frame.I know you don't like the answer ICANT, but you cannot just make up forces that aren't there. And yes your tube was just as ridiculous. It is not necessary. For one thing, there was already a vacuum chamber around the light path of the light clock. Why wasn't that enough?Edited by NoNukes, : Address the tube

If you wanted to hit an airplane painted on the wall of your open vehicle moving at constant speed, how would you aim your gun? Would you change your answer if the car were completely enclosed.If you want to say that photons are different from bullets, then why did you even bring up the anti-aircraft gun?ICANT, I completely understand what you are saying. It is simplicity itself. But what you are saying is just wrong. In addition, your vacuum antics dishonor you. You are better than that. The coordinate system in which the car is at rest is the same regardless of whether the car is open or enclosed. Further the reference frame extends infinitely beyond the confines of the car, while the extent of the car interior does not. And given that we are discussing light traveling in a vacuum, we don't even need to worry about air rushing past. If this is the best you can do, I'm completely happy with ending the discussion with you looking not unlike a moron.Edited by NoNukes, : Replace 'are' with 'or'

The car is not moving. The tracks are. Do I need to draw the diagram again? Yep, just as I showed in message 1092. When it travels in a straight line it strikes the second sensor. In my diagram in message 1092 the photon is travelling at c, and the emitting body is not moving. The tracks are. Look at message 1092. The photon travels at a 90 degree angle in the driver's inertial frame, and it strikes the second sensor. How so? You have the light travelling instantaneously. The photon I used in message 1092 is travelling at c. The only way that photon strikes the detector is if it travels instantaneously. Both the 26.57 and 90 degree angles would be straight lines. You do know how geometry works, don' t you?

Thanks for not understanding why it is wrong. Look at the diagram in message 1092. What is the angle between the path of the photon and the second sensor? It is 90 degrees. Perhaps you should think about that. Everything. What difference does it make if it is 4 feet or one light year? Are you saying tha that the laws of physics are different for longer distances? You claim that the photon will hit the detector because that is where the pen laser is aimed when the photon is released. Wouldn't the same apply to a ship 1 light year away? If that ship starting moving during the transit of the light, would the light chase it through the universe because that is pen laser was aimed at the ship when the light was emitted? That is exactly what I show in message 1092, and yet you reject that diagram. Why is that?

An observer is anything that interacts with light. An observer can be a human or a particle of dust.