Existence

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.

Why do you have such a tough time with inertial frames. The blackboard is motionless in that frame of reference.However, the tracks are moving in the driver's frame of reference, and yet you think the light will hit the detector.Why so dense?

ICAN'T also rejects Galilean physics which states:"any two observers moving at constant speed and direction with respect to one another will obtain the same results for all mechanical experiments"So ICAN'T rejects a frames of reference as defined by Newton and invariance between reference frame as defined by Galileo. It seems that ICAN'T has not caught up to 300 year old physics.

The detector is not moving relative to the pen laser. It does not move during the entire transit of the photon. It doesn't matter how fast the Salt Flats are moving by in the window since we are not trying to hit anything on the Salt Flats. We are trying to hit a detector that is NOT MOVING relative to the pen laser.If the target is not moving relative to the pen laser then the photon will strike the detector IN ALL INERTIAL FRAMES. There is no golden inertial frame to which everything is compared. The Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrates this in spades. They ran this very experiment, and the photons strike exactly where we say they should strike, and not where you say they should strike. Real experiments have proven your wrong. What canges the direction of the photon so that it doesn't hit the detector, according to you? The pen laser is aimed right at the detector, and the detector is still right in front of the pen laser when the light transits the distance between them. So what pushes the photon off course? That would only happen if the photon travelled the distance between the car and the tracks instantaneously. Light does not travel instantaneously. When the photon travels the distance between the pen laser and the tracks it will hit the second sensor since that sensor is directly below the pen laser when the photon travels that distance.It is quite strange that in the first scenario you claim that the detector travels four feet when in fact the detector is not moving relative to the pen laser. In the second scenario the detector is moving relative the pen laser and yet you claim that it will hit the detector. Why so bass ackwards? There is no change. The photon is directly between the pen laser and the tracks (at a 90 degree angle) at all times as viewed by all observers. So what unbalanced force is pushing the photon backwards in your scenario? Why isn't the photon directly below the pen laser at all times which is the direction it was emitted?Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

With respect to the driver and pen laser, yes it is. The car is not moving relative to the driver and pen laser. The car is stationary in the driver's inertial frame. However, the tracks are not stationary in the driver's inertial frame.You have done nothing to show that my diagram in message 1092 is incorrect. Therefore, that diagram stands. The photon strikes the second sensor.

No, it won't.

It says that the VELOCITY of light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. The motion of the emitting body will affect the path of the light as measured by different observers. However, all observers will observe that light travels at c along that path. Of course it will go in a straight line, but different observers will observe different angles for the path of the photon as it travels in a straight line. However, all observers will see that the photon is travelling at 3E8 m/s.

Why would it need to? It is just as correct to say that the car is stationary and the tracks are moving.Why would the photon need to follow the motion of the tracks in a stationary car? What is it about the motion of the tracks that changes the trajectory of the photon? Where did anyone claim that the light would travel at a velocity different than c? It does go in a straight line, the straight line connecting the point of emission with the center of the target. In the car's frame of reference, the point of emission and the end of the pen laser are one in the same at all time points. The pen laser is directly pointed at the center of the target at all time points. So why shouldn't the photon hit the target? Why does the velocity of the track relative to the car matter?

You pick an observer that is not accelerating, and then determine what is or isn't stationary relative to that observer. That is how inertial frames work. Is there a golden point in the universe to which everything else has to be compared? No, there isn't. All inertial frames are equivalent. Therefore, you should observe the same path for the photon in the car's inertial frame no matter how fast it is moving relative to the tracks. That is what postulate #2 states. Sure you can. The pen laser never moves in that inertial frame. Therefore, the end of the pen laser and the point of emission are one in the same within that inertial frame. It doesn't matter how fast the car is moving relative to the tracks. This remains true within the car's inertial frame. The only way that they could not be the same is if the car is accelerating, or if the pen laser moves relative to the car during the transit of the photon. False. Coordinate points are determined by the observer's inertial frame. Therefore, if you are in the car's inertial frame the point of emission does not move. It is the tracks that are moving, not the point of emission.

An inertial frame is determined by the observer who can not be accelerating. What is or isn't moving is determined by comparing an object to the observer. Sure. For any object you can find another object that is moving relative to it. There is no golden frame of reference. No, it is not. The pen laser does not move one iota in the car's frame of reference, and neither does the blackboard. Since the car is moving at a constant velocity it can be used as the inertial frame. Therefore, you measure the velocity of the pen laser relative to the car. That velocity is zero. The pen laser is stationary in the car's inertial frame. How fast is the car moving relative to the pen laser and the blackboard?

The frame in which the velocity of all other objects is measured. We know you have a problem with this. However, this is not a problem with the theory of relativity. It is a problem with your understanding of relativity and physics in general.Like I mentioned before, this experiment has already been done, most famously by Michelson and Morley. This experiment has been repeated with very sensitive and precise equipment. The precision and sensitivity of this equipment is many orders of magnitude greater than the expected results if your messed up ideas of physics were true.How do they do these experiments? Well, the Earth is moving in the Sun's inertial frame. Therefore, it is just like the car in our experiments. They fire a photon between mirrors and look to see if the path of the photon is altered as it moves through the Sun's inertial frame. Guess what? It hits the target dead center every time, just as it will in the car going 0.5c.Not only are you arguing against the theory of relativity, but you are arguing against mounds of real world data that prove you wrong. To ALL other reference frames? You sure about that?What about the reference frame of ions in the solar winds? Those ions are hauling ass. Surely the car has a different velocity in the inertial frame of those ions in the solar winds. You also forgot about the inertial frame of distant galaxies. Our own galaxy is hauling ass relative to other galaxies, so surely the velocity of the car is different in those other galaxies. So does the photon miss the blackboard by different amounts depending on which frame of reference we use? Are different people in different frames of reference going to see the photon hit at different spots on the target blackboard? Then I dare you to name a single thing in the universe that is stationary. The Earth is moving about the Sun, so nothing on the Earth would qualify. Our solar system is moving about the center of our galaxy, so the Sun can't be stationary either. Our galaxy is moving relative to other galaxies, so I am afraid that nothing in this galaxy would qualify. So name one thing that isn't moving, I dare you. Absolutely not. In the Salt Lake Flats inertial frame, the pen laser does move away from the point where the photon was emitted. In the car's inertial frame, it does not. You are switching between reference frames willy nilly. The distance between any point in the car and the pen laser, as well as the point of emission, will not change within the car's frame of reference. In the car's frame of reference, the velocity of the car is zero. It is not 0.5c. It is zero. The velocity of the pen laser and blackboard is zero. Not 0.5c. Zero.Let's run the experiment in reverse. Let's have Superman spin the Earth at 0.5c. IOW, instead of accelerating the car let's accelerate the Earth. Now what happens? Will the photon still hit the target dead center? Or will the Earth speeding by at 0.5c grab the photon and pull it off it's path? It means that any object moving at a constant velocity can be the basis for an inertial frame within which that object is stationary.

Which one of these light paths is not a straight line? Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

ICAN'T has painted himself into a corner. He accepts postulate #2, that the speed of light is the same for all observers in all frames of reference. To get around time dilation, ICAN'T has denied the most basic physics, that of Galilean reference frames. ICAN'T's inability to accept Galilean reference frames does not refute them, nor does it refute time dilation. Just to show how screwed up this is, ICAN'T actually thinks that the laws of physics change as you go from indoors to outdoors.To sum this up, I will simply point to the Michelson-Morely Experiment. This experiment is identical to some of the experiments that have been described in this thread. Instead of a car on tracks the experiment uses an Earth based set of mirrors that is hurtling around the sun. As many of us have predicted, the photon hits the targets in the mirrors dead on just as it would in a car travelling 0.5c along tracks. We have experimental evidence which backs our arguments. All ICAN'T has is stubborness.Added by edit:We can also add ICAN'T's inability to differentiate between the path that a photon takes and its velocity. ICAN'T seems to think that velocity and direction are one in the same.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.