Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,649 Year: 4,906/9,624 Month: 254/427 Week: 0/64 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Existence
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.5

Message 1216 of 1229 (632773)
09-10-2011 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1215 by ICANT
09-10-2011 2:05 AM

Re: Another Tidbit
So how do you propose to overcome the restriction's put on the photon by Newton's first law?
What makes you think the photon is governed by Newton's laws of motion?

It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds
soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1215 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 2:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009

Message 1217 of 1229 (632777)
09-10-2011 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1213 by ICANT
09-10-2011 12:24 AM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
So as I thought you didn't even notice the two diagrams showed the SAME path in two different inertial frames...
Those two diagrams are showing the SAME event but in two different inertial frames. If one is correct, so is the other and if one is wrong, both are wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1213 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 12:24 AM ICANT has not replied

Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Message 1218 of 1229 (632838)
09-10-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1214 by ICANT
09-10-2011 1:52 AM

Re: Another Tidbit
The photon must travel in the same direction the laser pen is pointed in when the photon is emitted, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
And the photon will travel at the same direction that the laser pen is pointed when the photon is emitted. When the photon strikes the road, the detector will be pointed at exactly the detector that the photon will hit.
Remember that even at time=0 in this setup, the emitter is in motion. You've defined its velocity as constant. If instead the car was at rest, emitted a photon, and then accelerated to .5c, the photon would hit the detector the emitter was pointed at when the car was at rest. It has to - no forces can act on the photon after it is emitted in this setup.
But the car is already moving when the photon is emitted; thus, the photon's velocity vector has the car's constant motion as a component. The most convenient way to deal with that component is to consider the photon's motion in the reference frame of the car where everything attached to the car has that velocity component and thus we can cancel it out. In the reference frame of the car, everything that wasn't attached to the car or emitted from the car has the reciprocal velocity, and that's just the track.
Thus, mathematically, the photon hits the second detector because, after the photon was released from the car, the detectors were all moving towards the rear of the car at .5c Since no "unbalanced force" acts on the photon, its path cannot deviate, and thus it cannot hit the first detector which is no longer where it was when the photon was emitted and pointed at it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1214 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 1:52 AM ICANT has not replied

Inactive Member

Message 1219 of 1229 (632840)
09-10-2011 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1215 by ICANT
09-10-2011 2:05 AM

Re: Another Tidbit
The first thing you need to do is present a reason for the photon to travel at an angle and hit the detetor after it has moved two feet relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen.
Actually, I don't need to present any such reasoning. Your own prediction requires that the photon move 2 feet in the direction along the tracks while also moving 4 feet in the direction towards the blackboard wall of the car, while presumably moving zero feet in the vertical direction. If the motion of the photon is to be along a straight line, there is only one possible path that meets all of those criteria.
If you believe there are other possible paths for the photon to take, then describe one of them. But it would be pointless for you to describe a path that is actually longer that 4.472 feet. That would simply increase the required time dilation effect.
Of course, your posting history suggests that you will balk at drawing any alternative path.
Whether or not some unbalanced force causes such motion is irrelevant to calculating the trajectory angle. And according to you even an unbalanced force does not cause the photon to move faster than c. So I don't even care if your prediction is correct or not.
But whatever the cause for the photon to act as you say it does, that cause is not some nonsense unbalanced force that appears because the enclosed car frame is a non-inertial frame. That's complete garbage? Have you let go of that explanation yet, or do you still maintain that enclosed frames moving at constant velocity are non-inertial frames?
The photon must travel in the same direction the laser pen is pointed in when the photon is emitted, unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
First, Newton's law does not say anything about a photon traveling in the direction the laser pen is pointed. ICANT says that.
Newton's first law requires that objects having inertia travel at constant speed in a constant direction unless acted on by an unbalanced force. Nobody is saying that the photon does anything except travel in a straight line at speed c from the time the photon is emitted until the time it strikes the blackboard.
Second, the direction the laser pen is pointed depends on the inertial reference frame. The laser pen is pointed at right angles to the direction of motion in the car reference frame. We know that because the laser pen operator sighted down the barrel of the laser pen before firing the pulse.
But if we take that line of sight and translate it to the track frame of reference (using the simple Galilean transform equations (x' = x - vt, y' = y, and z'=z), we will find that the laser pen aiming angle in the track frame of reference is not 90 degrees from the motion of the car, but deviates from that angle by 26.5 degrees. I'll be happy to show the rather simple math if you wish to see it, but you have said that you don't find such showings convincing, and all of the other participants seem able to do the math without my help.
In fact, there isn't any argument or demonstration I could make that you would find convincing.
At any rate, whether or not you can accept or understand any of the above, the above does constitute my position. Given the above, I don't need to explain how the photon path deviates from the angle at which the laser beam is pointed because I don't claim that the photon deviates from the direction it is pointed in any inertial frame of reference.
I also don't need to explain a deviation from Newton's real laws of motion, because my explanation does not involve the photon changing direction or speed after the photon is emitted. For the same reason, I don't need to manufacture or explain the source of any unbalanced force. In fact there is no unbalanced force acting on the photon regardless of whether the car is open or enclosed.
On the other hand, in order to explain how this unbalance force selectively operates on the photon depending on whether the car is enclosed, or open, you've got a lot of explaining to do.
ICANT writes:
So how do you propose to overcome the restriction's put on the photon by Newton's first law?
The photon path as I've described it above does not violate any of Newton's laws of motion. It doesn't even violate ICANT's made up law of pointing.
I am not going to answer questions of this type again.
Modified by Edit:
Are you going to cite some books or other references that support your belief that the paths of photons do not differ as measured in different reference frames? Or are we stuck with you being the sole authority on coordinate transforms? Surely you can understand why we might want to hear about this from someone other than you and L'il Architect?
Edited by NoNukes, : Edit questions for ICANT

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1215 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 2:05 AM ICANT has not replied

Inactive Administrator

Message 1220 of 1229 (632941)
09-11-2011 11:41 AM

Final Summations
The 300 post limitation is being reinstated. This thread has surpassed that limitation and is now closed to debate. Participants will have 48 hours to submit one summary of their final position concerning the topic.
Do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to summations.
This thread will be closed for 24 hours to allow viewing of this message and preparation of summations.
Thank you
Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.

Inactive Administrator

Message 1221 of 1229 (633067)
09-12-2011 9:48 AM

Ready For Final Summations
Remember, debate is closed.
Do not reply to previous posts or final summations.

Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4

Message 1222 of 1229 (633083)
09-12-2011 10:49 AM

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.

Member (Idle past 3916 days)
Posts: 346
From: France,Paris
Joined: 03-11-2009

Message 1223 of 1229 (633084)
09-12-2011 10:57 AM

At first we tried to debate the OP but it was clear ICANT didn't understand the answers. We then spent hundreds of posts trying to explain basic physics to ICANT but the more it went on, the more his ignorance was apparent making it impossible to have any sort of advanced discussion with him. In fact, discussion of basics in physics understood since Galileo was impossible due to ICANT's staggering ignorance and unwillingness to learn coupled with a large dose of arrogance.
Some choices quote are more than sufficient to showcase this ignorance:
ICANT writes:
But that does not stop the car's traveling at a constant 0.5 c speed, relative to all other inertial reference frames.
ICANT writes:
It is only electrons stored in batteries that is transformed into photons when the circuit is completed between the battery and the laser diode.
ICANT writes:
You are sitting on a bench waiting for a bus to come.
I come around the cornor and into your view and as I come down the street and stop at the red light in the intersection next to the bench you are sitting on.
I have entered a reference frame where you can observe me in my car.
The light changes and I head down the street, you can still observe me in my car as I get caught by the next red light one block away.
I make a right turn and head down the street at a right angle to where you are sitting. Just as soon as I get behind the building on the corner you can no longer see me in my car.
I have now left the frame of reference you are able to observe.
If I am not mistaken I have entered a reference frame where you could observe me in my car and left that reference frame.
I think those quotes are self-explanatory to anyone who went through high school and are more than enough to prove ICANT's complete ignorance of physics.
What I found more interesting about this thread was the unwillingness or unability of his fellow creationnists to correct him about such basic mistakes. Sure, some may have been busy or uninterested but I think it speaks volumes about either their lack of education or honesty.

Member (Idle past 113 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

Message 1224 of 1229 (633200)
09-13-2011 12:46 AM

Hi All,
I would have liked to get an answer to the questions of the OP.
Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?
If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?
But we wound up discussing everything else.
The most of the thread was spent discussing relativity, concerning some thought experiments.
The two that got the most attention was the car on the tracks on the Salt Lake Flats so I would like to point out a little of the discussion.
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.
A inertial frame of reference is:
All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating
Newton's first law from the Physics Classroom is:
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.
Einsteins two postulates:
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
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.
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.
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.
I presented several people that say SRT is false and I guess those that say the photon will hit the detector after the detector has moved 2 feet has joined their ranks.
The problem is all those I presented were called cranks or crackpots by some of those that say the speed of light is c +v.
Oh well I might as well present another one if anyone is interested in reading more information.
Special relativity theory (SRT) contains two postulates. The first postulate is a restatement of Galileo’s relativity principle which says that the laws of physics apply equally well for all inertial frames, whether at rest or in uniform rectilinear motion (no acceleration). The second postulate says that the velocity of light is independent of the speed of its source. This postulate by itself is not strange or unexpected. When a train whistle blows, the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the train, but not of the velocity of the wind carrying the sound to the observer. Here, the air molecules are the medium and they play the equivalent role of an aether-wind for electromagnetism. But with relativity theory, we have no aether.
Over time the second postulate has been reinterpreted to mean that all observers, regardless of their own velocity, see light propagating always at the same speed (in vacuum). Lengths shorten and time slows so that the computed velocity (i.e., length divided by time) is always constant. The paradoxes and problems created by this clever little trick are endless. Take the case of relativistic interstellar travel. If lengths really contract as viewed by the observer, then when you blast off from Earth, the closer you approach the speed of light, the closer the receding Earth gets to you.
Length contraction
A modern space-based test has been proposed by Renshaw,9 but to date, no direct experimental verification of relativistic length contraction has ever been measured.
Time dilation
All physical devices used for time keeping are subject to error when accelerated, decelerated, or constrained to move linearly through a variation in gravitational potential. The Hfele-Keating experiment is not a failure for relativity theory, but the question should be asked: Is time itself dilated, or are internal processes merely altered by moving through a gravitational field? Metaphysically speaking, we do not consider this to be a distinction without a difference.
We failed to get to another question I had and maybe someday we can discuss it.
If light is an electromagnetic phenomenon. It is propagated
relative to an electromagnetic reference frame.
That is a big difference from Einstein's inertial reference frame.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 1227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-13-2011 10:40 AM ICANT has not replied

Member (Idle past 1553 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

Message 1225 of 1229 (633251)
09-13-2011 10:30 AM

In summary I'll only remind participants that the experiment of the photon and the moving car has already been performed, it's called the "Michaelson-Morley experiment". It specifically tested the trajectories of photons in a moving reference frame - the Earth's motion through space - and while most people, including the experimenters, expected that the paths of the photons would deviate relative to the apparatus as a result of Earth's motion, in over a hundred trials they did not even once observe this. Note that the apparatus used interferometry so a deviation of even a small fraction of the wavelength of light - a distance of a handful of nanometers - would have been detected. No such deviation was ever detected.
This was in 1886. ICANT and his hand-picked cranks have yet to catch up to physics that is over a hundred years old. We do live in a universe where special relativity is true; the experiment that proved it has been repeated over and over again with the same result. Despite having been reminded of this perhaps two dozen times, ICANT did not at any time respond to this simple and elegant proof of SR which has withstood the test of time.

Inactive Member

Message 1226 of 1229 (633254)
09-13-2011 10:35 AM

I believe my last few posts constitute an adequate summary of my position on the physics behind relativity and on ICANTs OP. ICANT's own summary ought to remove all doubt about his inability to even comprehend the science many of us learned as teens.
A few things about some of the thread do bother me as I look back on it. There are a number posts where I and others avoided discussing the consequences of SR because we wanted to talk about the basics of relativity and reference frames. I regret any confusion that those kinds of shortcuts may have caused, and may cause in the future. I also regret letting my temper get the better of me on occasion. There is no question that ICANT did a better job than I did at being agreeable while disagreeing. ICANT also showed substantial patients in putting up with a major sideline from his OP.
It would also have been interesting to discuss some of those maser experiment's Taq mentioned in passing that are essentially equivalent to a microwave "light clock". Finally, I would also have liked to discuss the gravity probe B data in greater detail. I'm thinking about a possible science fraud thread, if ICANT is interested in pursuing it.
But the bottom line is that it is impossible to prove that SR is wrong by asserting postulates 1 and 2. Einstein derived the mathematics of special relativity from those postulates. After Einstein published his insights 1905 paper, any one could make an equivalent derivation using only simple algebra and geometry. And there is substantial experimental evidence supporting both the predictions of SR and general relativity.
Yet, without the slightest attempt to critique Einstein's math or his paper, and by his own admission, without even being able to fully understand what postulate #2 requires, ICANT claims he has done the impossible. In fact, what ICANT actually accomplished was demonstrating that he had no clue what Einstein was even talking about. In my opinion of course.
I did learn some things about myself during the discussion. Despite my denials that, I foolishly believed that I could come up with arguments so persuasive that even ICANT would be convinced. Well, at least I did until ICANT's physics works differently outdoors post.
I continually underestimated ICANT's ability to come up with ridiculous tactics to avoid facing the consequences of his own positions. (example excuses: I can't see it without a high speed camera and a space suit, reference frames end at the street corner, I don't care what the math says, etc.) ICANT actually bragged about being too old and stubborn to learn, andfor some reason I still held out hope that I could teach him some physics.
The truth is that I'll never be able to reach him and despite the fact that others know the subject better than I, they cannot reach him either. The best I can hope for is illustrating his mistakes for others.
That said, I do find ICANT's behavior fascinating. It's a kind of staring into the abyss. I'd like to believe that when I'm 70ish, that I'll be a lucid, learning, and lovable, but there's always the chance that my skull (or the craniums of any of us) will end up just as impervious as ICANT.
And I'll probably get sucked into his thread about light propagating through an electromagnetic reference frame if he ever gets a proposal promoted, but hopefully I'll have do a better job of knowing when to bail.

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

Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010

Message 1228 of 1229 (633386)
09-13-2011 8:37 PM

Readers Digest Version
ICANT in his OP essentially stated that he wanted to discuss existence. In particular his understanding that The Bible declares existence is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.(!)
This naturally led to some unproductive discussion about the meaning of existence, which caused ICANT to reframe the question in message 105:
1. Has the universe existed eternally?
2. Did the universe begin to exist?
3. If the universe began to exist, can you present a mechanism whereby that process would take place?
This led to some further debate about time and whether this could be used to measure existence, and, subsequently, the fact that time can pass at different rates in different reference frames. Which is how we ended up discussing the Twins Paradox, The MM experiment and ICANT’s thought experiment with his magical bending light beam.
Throughout the discussion we hit numerous brick walls including ICANT’s difficulties understanding basic terms used in physics including, but not limited to:
Time (versus duration)
Speed, velocity and acceleration
Stationary (versus at rest)
Reference frames
These communication difficulties essentially rendered all hope of progress futile, although it did provide some enjoyment, and in my case education, to the lurkers present.
I suggest that ICANT limit future forays in to the world of physics to the understanding of some of the simple terms mentioned above before moving on to some of the more complex subjects found in Classical Mechanics.
Edited by Boof, : Changed formatting to improve readability

Inactive Administrator

Message 1229 of 1229 (633560)
09-14-2011 5:54 PM

Thread Closed
The debate has been lively
And the summations read.
If your discussion's unfinished,
Create a new thread.
Here’s to fruitful debating.
Magic Wand

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024