Understanding through Discussion

QuickSearch

 EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
 3 online now: Newest Member: Neptune7 Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum Side Orders Free For All

# Existence

Author Topic:   Existence
ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 1201 of 1229 (632588) 09-08-2011 6:08 PM Reply to: Message 1193 by NoNukes09-08-2011 3:25 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
Yes, and we can identify any inertial reference frame as the stationary frame.
What do you mean by the stationary frame?
NoNukes writes:
Normally we pick a single reference frame based solely on convenience and consider objects at rest in that frame to be stationary.
So the frame is not stationary just the objects in that frame is considered at rest to be stationary relative to that frame.
NoNukes writes:
I don't understand why that creates some problem for you.
Just chalk it up to my age, slow learning, and my questioning of everything.
But I really don't have a problem with the laser pen, detector, seats or anything else that is attached to the car being at rest in the car's reference frame.
I do have a problem with the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen being at rest in the cars frame of reference.
I also have a problem with the inertial reference frame the photon is traveling at a constant velocity of c being affected by the reference frame of the car.
NoNukes writes:
There is no preferred rest frame.
I understand that.
But because we declare a frame of reference at rest does not change the fact that, the chosen frame is in motion at a constant speed relative to all other reference frames.
NoNukes writes:
You seem to be looking for a way to be right about the word "stationary" having no meaning. I don't think that is a worthwhile endeavor.
To me my understanding of stationary is something that is not moving, nor is it capable of being moved or changed.
The word stationary can not be applied to an inertial reference frame.
By definition an inertial reference frame is a reference frame in motion at a constant speed relative to all other inertial reference frames.
NoNukes writes:
In the car reference frame, emitting end of the laser pen never moves spatially. It remains exactly where it was (spatial coordinates 0,0,0 in the car frame of reference) when the photon was emitted.
Is the car's inertial reference frame moving at a constant 0.5 c speed relative to all other inertial reference frames?
Does the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen move at a constant 0.5 c speed with the car in it's reference frame relative to all other reference frames?
If the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen moves with the car in its inertial reference frame at 0.5 c what is the mechanism that causes the coordinate point to move from it's original position?
NoNukes writes:
In fact, in our thought experiment, the only object within the car that moves in the car frame of reference is the photon.
Agreed.
The coordinate point in space the photon is emitted does not move.
You did agree with that statement in Message 1175.
The photon is moving at a constant speed of c in a horozontal direction relative to the motion of the car's inertial reference frames speed of 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
NoNukes writes:
So (using the car inertial reference frame) every point on the car is always the same spacial distance from the emission point of the photon.
How can it always be the same spacial distance from the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen if the car in its inertial reference frame maintaines it's constant speed of 0.5c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
The only way that can happen is if the coordinate point in space moves at 0.5 c along with the inertinal reference frame of the car.
NoNukes writes:
And stating the obvious the car does not move in the car frame of reference.
But the car inertial reference frame does move at a constant 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
Therefore it moves at a constant 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen. The photon travels in a straight line in the direction it was emitted traveling in from the moment it left the laser pen.
NoNukes writes:
So in the track frame of reference the car does indeed move away from the emission point at 0.5c.
Well that is half way there.
In the car's inertial reference frame that is in motion at a constant 0.5 c, the car moves away from the photon's inertial reference frame in which the photon is in motion at a constant speed of c.
quote:
All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating
You have made fun of me stating the photon had it's own inertial reference frame several times. Now I would like for you to explain how that can not be true according to the definition of inertial frames above.
The car in its inertial reference frame is in motion at a constant 0.5 c.
The photon is in an inertial reference frame in motion at a constant speed of c.
Explain how they can be one reference frame.
They are overlaping reference frames.
NoNukes writes:
However it might be useful in some problems to acknowledge that the car is moving at 1000 mph due to the rotation of the earth. For example if I was launching a missile at the car from the north pole, I'd need to take into account that the 1000mph relative motion between me and the equator.
Does that mean you would want to figure out how much the car would move in the amount of time it would take the missile to reach the car and make adjustments to where you aim by incorporating that information and thus you would aim where the car is going to be when the missile reaches the location of the car.
Why would you not do the same thing with the laser pen in the car to hit the detector after it had moved 2 feet relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen?
NoNukes writes:
But there is no point of absolute rest anywhere in the universe.
Does that mean there is no such thing as a stationary object?
If so why do you use stationary when refering to an inertial reference frame at rest?
NoNukes writes:
Again most of this is basic stuff that has been understood since the time of Galileo.
So why can I find all kinds of different views expressed in so many different books written by so many different authors?
You say present them. I did and everyone I presented was immediatly labled a crank. So if you want to find other opinions than the ones you have been brainwashed with all you have to do is uncheck you mind at the school you attended and put it to use.
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."

 This message is a reply to: Message 1193 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2011 3:25 PM NoNukes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1203 by DrJones*, posted 09-08-2011 6:40 PM ICANT has not replied Message 1207 by Taq, posted 09-08-2011 7:08 PM ICANT has not replied Message 1210 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2011 11:30 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 1202 of 1229 (632591) 09-08-2011 6:34 PM Reply to: Message 1198 by NoNukes09-08-2011 4:26 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
I don't know what "As measured in any reference frame" means,
Where did I make this statement, you quoted?
NoNukes writes:
So the path of the light can change as long as the velocity is still "c" regardless of the motion of the source.
What can change the direction of the photon in an inertial reference frame?
By definition of rectilinear motion the photon must go in a straight line. A straight line looks like this:
_______________________________________________________
To change that something must be done other than assert light can change its path as long as the velocity is still "c".
NoNukes writes:
I suspect that the I can now answer all of your questions using only references to my own prior messages.
Then please refresh my memory as to where you answered the following.
quote:
The question is:
Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?
If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.
The Bible declares existence is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.
I agree.
What say you?
If existence is not responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, then what is?
There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.
Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?
You can find these questions in Message 1
I can't seem to find your answers.
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."

 This message is a reply to: Message 1198 by NoNukes, posted 09-08-2011 4:26 PM NoNukes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1208 by Taq, posted 09-08-2011 7:13 PM ICANT has replied Message 1209 by Stile, posted 09-09-2011 9:14 AM ICANT has replied Message 1211 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2011 12:03 PM ICANT has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9

 Message 1203 of 1229 (632592) 09-08-2011 6:40 PM Reply to: Message 1201 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:08 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
Is the car's inertial reference frame moving at a constant 0.5 c speed relative to all other inertial reference frames?
All other reference frames? No. Some reference frames? Yes.
But the car inertial reference frame does move at a constant 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
As above: false
Does that mean there is no such thing as a stationary object?
It depends on what reference frame you use.
So why can I find all kinds of different views expressed in so many different books written by so many different authors?
We're no longer arguing relativity, we're still trying to get you to understand stuff that was figured out hundreds of year ago.

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 1201 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:08 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 Message 1204 of 1229 (632593) 09-08-2011 6:42 PM Reply to: Message 1197 by ICANT09-08-2011 4:24 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
I actually thought all inertial reference frames were in motion at a constant velocity relative to all other inertial reference frames.
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.
Do you disagree with the above statement?
Sure. For any object you can find another object that is moving relative to it. There is no golden frame of reference.
I said the car is moving at a constant 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point the laser pen was at when the photon was emitted from the laser pen.
No, it is not. The pen laser does not move one iota in the car's frame of reference, and neither does the blackboard.
The inertial frame the laser pen is in attached to the car is moving at a constant 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
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.
But that does not stop the car's traveling at a constant 0.5 c speed, relative to all other inertial reference frames.
How fast is the car moving relative to the pen laser and the blackboard?

 This message is a reply to: Message 1197 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 4:24 PM ICANT has not replied

Boof
Member (Idle past 328 days)
Posts: 99
From: Australia
Joined: 08-02-2010

 Message 1205 of 1229 (632597) 09-08-2011 6:58 PM Reply to: Message 1163 by ICANT09-08-2011 4:43 AM

Inertial Reference Frames
Hello ICANT, thank you for the welcome.
ICANT writes:
The car is not stationary. You can say it is at rest but you can't say it is stationary.
In your post you have not shown why I cannot use the word stationary, in fact my position is supported by NuNukes here: Message 1166.
ICANT writes:
The car is traveling at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the tracks.
Let us be a little more specific as per my previous post:
In the inertial reference frame of the tracks, the tracks are stationary and the car is moving at 0.5c.
Which in no way contradicts the statement:
In the inertial reference frame of the car, the car is stationary and the tracks are moving at 0.5c.
Can you see that?
ICANT writes:
So neither one is stationary.
Incorrect as I have shown above.
ICANT writes:
Everything is moving relative to something.
Every non-accelerating object is stationary within its own inertial reference frame. By definition.
So, to reiterate:
In the inertial reference frame of the car, the car (and the laser pointer, and the blackboard etc) is stationary and the photon travels at an angle of 90 relative to the motion of the tracks which are moving at 0.5c.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1163 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 4:43 AM ICANT has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1549 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003

 Message 1206 of 1229 (632598) 09-08-2011 7:00 PM Reply to: Message 1185 by ICANT09-08-2011 1:30 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
The photon has to travel independent of the state of the motion of the laser pen which is attached to the car as is the blackboard.
Well, no. That's not what Postulate #2 says. Otherwise it would be impossible to control the direction of light, use mirrors to reflect it or lenses to bend it, etc.
Postulate 2 merely states what we've been telling you throughout - your own velocity is irrelevant when you attempt to measure the speed of light. Regardless of your direction of travel or speed, when you measure the speed of light in a vacuum, it will be C. That's why the postulate is called "the invariance of C." That's a statement about the magnitude of the velocity vector of light, not its direction.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1185 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 1:30 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 Message 1207 of 1229 (632601) 09-08-2011 7:08 PM Reply to: Message 1201 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:08 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
What do you mean by the stationary frame?
The frame in which the velocity of all other objects is measured.
But I really don't have a problem with the laser pen, detector, seats or anything else that is attached to the car being at rest in the car's reference frame.
I do have a problem with the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen being at rest in the cars frame of reference.
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.
How can it always be the same spacial distance from the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen if the car in its inertial reference frame maintaines it's constant speed of 0.5c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
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?
To me my understanding of stationary is something that is not moving, nor is it capable of being moved or changed.
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.
Is the car's inertial reference frame moving at a constant 0.5 c speed relative to all other inertial reference frames?
Absolutely not.
Does the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen move at a constant 0.5 c speed with the car in it's reference frame relative to all other reference frames?
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.
How can it always be the same spacial distance from the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen if the car in its inertial reference frame maintaines it's constant speed of 0.5c relative to all other inertial reference frames.
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?
Does that mean there is no such thing as a stationary object?
It means that any object moving at a constant velocity can be the basis for an inertial frame within which that object is stationary.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1201 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:08 PM ICANT has not replied

Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7

 Message 1208 of 1229 (632602) 09-08-2011 7:13 PM Reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:34 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
By definition of rectilinear motion the photon must go in a straight line. A straight line looks like this:
Which one of these light paths is not a straight line?
Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:34 PM ICANT has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1213 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 12:24 AM Taq has not replied

Stile
Member (Idle past 125 days)
Posts: 4295
Joined: 12-02-2004

 Message 1209 of 1229 (632657) 09-09-2011 9:14 AM Reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:34 PM

Another Tidbit
One other thing to point out is that even if we do accept your error about the photon missing the target... you still have to accept time dilation... which is the very thing you were attempting to avoid.
Original Situation:
Car in space is travelling at 0.5c with photon apparatus on top. A photon is fired and hits the target dead centre.
While in space, Photons always travel at c.
Observer on car sees: Photon goes straight up and down.
Observer on Salt Lake Flats sees: By the time the photon gets to the target, the car has travelled 2 feet. So this observer sees the photon actually travel on an angle (the beginning of the saw-tooth pattern)... time must change in order for this situation to make sense.
That is time dilation.
ICANTs Situation:
Car in space is travelling at 0.5c with photon apparatus on top. A photon is fired and misses the target by 2 feet.
While in space, Photons always travel at c.
Observer on car sees: By the time the photon gets to the level of the target, the car has travelled 2 feet. The photon is now behind the emitter by two feet. I believe the angle was calculated by ICANT to be 26 degrees, or something?
Observer on Salt Lake Flats sees: Photon goes straight up and down... time must change in order for this situation to make sense.
That is time dilation... again.
As we can see, your attempt to correct what you don't want to accept doesn't really correct anything at all. All it does is change which observer sees the photon travel on an angle and which sees it go straight up and down.
Therefore... we have the exact same situation.
One observer sees the photon travel at a 90 degree angle, straight up and down.
One observer sees the photon travel at 26 degrees off where the final "up" is two-feet behind where it started... the beginning of the sawtooth pattern and this travelled angular distance is obviously larger than the straight up and down distance.
However, the photon is always travelling at c.
Therefore, either way, time must change in order for this situation to make sense.
That is time dilation... either way.
Of course, one way matches reality (the original situation) and one is incorrect (ICANTs situation)... but both display time dilation anyway!!
Wasn't the entire point of you claiming the photon misses the target to get around time dilation? All you've done is switch which observer sees the straight up-and-down and which sees the angle. The time dilation issue still exists, only reversed.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:34 PM ICANT has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1212 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2011 4:44 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied Message 1214 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 1:52 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 1210 of 1229 (632678) 09-09-2011 11:30 AM Reply to: Message 1201 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:08 PM

Silly reference frame tricks.
ICANT writes:
NoNukes writes:
Yes, and we can identify any inertial reference frame as the stationary frame.
What do you mean by the stationary frame?
Stationary frame is that particular inertial reference frame that we used to identify stationary objects. The choice of which inertial reference frame to use is arbitrary. We can pick the inertial reference frame that makes it easiest to solve a particular physics problem.
I'm sure I've answered this before.
ICANT writes:
So the frame is not stationary just the objects in that frame is considered at rest to be stationary relative to that frame..
The word stationary can not be applied to an inertial reference frame
Or to anything else. Using your understanding, nothing is stationary.
By definition, the stationary frame is reference frame that we so identify. In that sense, the stationary frame is stationary, by definition. However the choice of stationary frame is arbitrary.
If we used your definition, we could never call anything stationary. I don't believe that would be conventional English. But yes it is true that there are always inertial reference frames in which an object is moving.
ICANT writes:
I do have a problem with the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen being at rest in the cars frame of reference.
Perhaps, but you also have a general problem with understanding frames of reference. Until you clear that up, nothing you get wrong will be all that surprising to me.
ICANT writes:
I also have a problem with the inertial reference frame the photon is traveling at a constant velocity of c being affected by the reference frame of the car.
I am not sure what the above sentence is saying. There seems to be a preposition or two missing. There is no photon reference frame, because the photon travels at speed c, and reference frames traveling at speed c don't work.
I think you mean that you are having a problem accepting that the source frame can affect the path of the photon even if the speed of the photon is still c.
I see that you do have such a problem, but your problem extends even further than you've spoken here. Even if the photon is launched from a source in the salt flat's frame at trajectory angle perpendicular to the tracks, the trajectory angle of the photon beam in the car frame of reference would still not be 90 degrees.
Clearly in that situation, nobody is saying that the photon is affected by the motion of the source, because the source is stationary in the track frame. Yet an analysis of this situation will still generate Einstein's predictions.
So your problem has nothing at all to do with a moving source affecting the trajectory angle of a photon. Instead your problem is two fold
1. Not understanding how motion is transformed between coordinate systems.
2. Not accepting that any reference frame that is designated as stationary, truly acts as a stationary reference frame. You want to believe that there is some absolute frame in which physics as we know it really works, and then all other frames in which physics works differently.
ICANT writes:
The coordinate point in space the photon is emitted does not move.
You did agree with that statement in Message 1175.
Here is exactly what I said in message 1175. I stand by that statement in its entirety and in the context in which it was made.
NoNukes writes:
I agree that the point at which the photon is emitted does not move. The point representing the emission of the photon is an event in space time having fixed space and time coordinates. The emission event has fixed coordinates in both the car and the track frame of reference.
I insist on the complete context.
ICANT writes:
Does the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen move at a constant 0.5 c speed with the car in it's reference frame relative to all other reference frames?
Nope.
I've already said that the coordinate point does not move in the car frame of reference. And of course the car does not move at 0.5c in all other reference frames. The car can move at speeds ranging from 0 mph to just below the speed of light as measured in different inertial reference frames.
ICANT writes:
In the car's inertial reference frame that is in motion at a constant 0.5 c, the car moves away from the photon's inertial reference frame in which the photon is in motion at a constant speed of c.
Wrong. In the car's reference frame, the light pen is stationary. You agree with this. Accordingly, the end of the light pen stays at exactly the same point (in the car's coordinate system) for the entire length of the though experiment.
The photon is obviously emitted from the end of the light pen. Thus the coordinates of the point of emission, said coordinates including both time and space components, do not change in the car's frame of reference.
ICAN writes:
You have made fun of me stating the photon had it's own inertial reference frame several times. Now I would like for you to explain how that can not be true according to the definition of inertial frames above.
Perhaps I did make fun of you. But you've asked a good question. I'll explain... again.
First, what does it mean for an object to have an reference frame? Given that a reference frame has coordinate axes that extend indefinitely, having its own reference frame cannot mean that the object is within some boundary related to the object. In fact all objects have coordinates in every reference frame. It really does not even make sense to say that an object is in a reference frame.
By convention, we name a reference frame using an object that is at rest in the inertial reference frame. So when we speak of the track reference frame, we mean an inertial reference frame in which the tracks are at rest. When we speak of a car reference frame, we refer to a reference frame in which the car is at rest (or stationary just to pick at an open wound).
However, there is no frame of reference in which a photon propagating in a vacuum is at rest. According to postulate #2, the speed of a photon in empty space is "c" as measured in any inertial reference frame. So defining a photon reference frame creates the insolvable conundrum that the photon must move at speed "c" as measured in the frame, and yet be at rest according to our convention.
So we don't have photon reference frames using the convention naming scheme.
Further, such frames serve no legitimate purpose. Your use of the "photon" frame was to avoid discussing what happens to the photon in some other frame, which is, of course, something I ought to make fun of. There is also the problem that it is impossible to discuss any physics in a frame moving at speed c.
Explain how they can be one reference frame.
This question is just stupid. I never claimed any such thing. There is no photon reference frame for the reasons I've given above. But even if there were, that would not prevent us from discussing the photon using any other inertial frame. And that's what I choose to do.
ICANT writes:
NoNukes writes:
This is basic stuff that has been understood since the time of Galileo.
So why can I find all kinds of different views expressed in so many different books written by so many different authors?
No ICANT. You cannot find any books with different views on Galilean relativity.
You can find people who deny special relativity, but as another poster has pointed out, we are not even discussing special relativity at present. We cannot do that until we get you to understand how physics would work without taking special relativity into account.
You say present them. I did and everyone I presented was immediatly labled a crank.
Wrong.
First you did not present them. You presented instead people who denied special relativity. You have not presented anyone who denies Galilean-Newtonian relativity as you do.
Essentially all relativity deniers deny that postulate #2 is correct. That's certainly true of the ones you've cited. On the other hand, you are making the attempt to refute special relativity by invoking Einstein's postulates. If you believe other authors do agree with you, then cite one and we'll discuss it. I've challenged you to do that before and I repeat the challenge here.
Second, I did not merely call your sources cranks. We discussed the problems with their work, and we discussed experiments that demonstrated that the cranks were wrong.
Third, they were cranks. Most of them were well known crackpots.
Why would you not do the same thing with the laser pen in the car to hit the detector after it had moved 2 feet relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen?
You should have been able to answer this question yourself.
In the missile example, the launcher and the parked car have different velocities. The launcher is stationary (cause I've picked my reference frame appropriately), while the car is moving at 1000mph (using that same frame of reference). I must take into account the relative motion between the launcher and the parked car.
If I was within a few hundred feet of the parked car, both of the launcher and the car would be moving east at the same 1000mph (or both of us would be at rest using an appropriate reference frame) and there would be no need to take into account the rotation of the earth.
That is also the reason why a person inside the car can point his laser at the blackboard and hit the blackboard regardless of whether the blackboard is moving at 0.5c relative to a straight set of tracks or whether the car is at rest with respect to the tracks. It does not even matter whether the car is open or enclosed.
Edited by NoNukes, : Fix apostrophe error and tweak lingo a bit.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1201 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:08 PM ICANT has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 1211 of 1229 (632683) 09-09-2011 12:03 PM Reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT09-08-2011 6:34 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
ICANT writes:
NoNukes writes:
I don't know what "As measured in any reference frame" means,
Where did I make this statement, you quoted?
I didn't quote you. None of my paraphrases were marked as quotes. The only quotes I used are the ones surrounding the portion of the postulate #2 that you don't understand.
But here is a quote of what you actually said. Notice that I apply some context when I do quote you.
ICANT writes:
NoNukes writes:
Quoting this statement makes you look silly because you never apply the "As measured in any reference frame" portion of the quotation.
Oh I always consider that portion of the quotation.
I just have never found what it is that the light is traveling c relative too.
As if.
As if I'm responsible for explaining to you the postulate that you purport to use to prove your point.
Your statements above constitute an admission that you don't understand the meaning of "As measured in any inertial reference frame"? Is it not true that you continue to cite postulate #2, often without those quoted words, in an attempt to advance your arguments?
Oops, I slipped into lawyer mode...
I stand by my paraphrase. It was completely accurate.
ICANT writes:
Then please refresh my memory as to where you answered the following.
quote:
The question is:
Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?
Yes you are right. I haven't answered those questions. But I don't believe answers to your questions can be supported using your space-time line of argument because your space-time understanding is completely off-base.
My own impression, and I do believe that God created the universe, is that your questions assume things about time, space, and God that just are not discussed in the Bible. Your attempts to parse them by nitpicking grammar smack of numerology.
I reviewed your past discussion with arachnophilia, and I could not help but see the same kind of stubborn refusal to understand that you display here. I could not tell which of you was correct, but I do know that some of the stuff you refuse to accept here isn't even remotely disputable. So your behavior is apparently the same regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
You may or may not be right, but you won't convince any science literate person with the arguments you use here.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1202 by ICANT, posted 09-08-2011 6:34 PM ICANT has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member

 Message 1212 of 1229 (632726) 09-09-2011 4:44 PM Reply to: Message 1209 by Stile09-09-2011 9:14 AM

Re: Another Tidbit
The photon is now behind the emitter by two feet. I believe the angle was calculated by ICANT to be 26 degrees, or something?
We've been tossing around that number. But we should remember that the 26 degree number is not consistent with postulate #2. The 2 feet of horizontal travel assume that the photon can reach the blackboard in 4.067 nanoseconds (by traveling 4 feet), but the hypotenuse of that triangle with legs of 2 feet and 4 feet is actually 4.472 feet. But light cannot traverse that distance in only 4.067 seconds.
In other words, in the track frame of reference, the blackboard travels somewhat more than 2 feet horizontally before the photon reaches the board. When postulate #2 is properly applied, the angle in question turns out to be 30 degrees.

 This message is a reply to: Message 1209 by Stile, posted 09-09-2011 9:14 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1215 by ICANT, posted 09-10-2011 2:05 AM NoNukes has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 1213 of 1229 (632766) 09-10-2011 12:24 AM Reply to: Message 1208 by Taq09-08-2011 7:13 PM

Re: Inertial reference frames ... again
Hi Taq,
Taq writes:
"As measured in any reference frame"
Everyone of them look like the straight line I drew for you.
But in diagram b the laser pen would have to be mounted at a 26.57 angle for the photon to go in the direction the laser pen is pointed to hit the mirror.
But the laser pen is pointed in the direction the straight line is in diagram a.
So when the photon leaves the laser pen pointed in the direction the line in diagram a goes it will not look like the first straight line in diagram b.
The only way you can get the photon to travel in the direction of the straight line in b is to either angle the laser pen or apply an unbalanced force to the photon's direction of travel.
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."

 This message is a reply to: Message 1208 by Taq, posted 09-08-2011 7:13 PM Taq has not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1217 by Son, posted 09-10-2011 3:53 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 1214 of 1229 (632770) 09-10-2011 1:52 AM Reply to: Message 1209 by Stile09-09-2011 9:14 AM

Re: Another Tidbit
Hi Stile,
Stile writes:
Observer on car sees: By the time the photon gets to the level of the target, the car has travelled 2 feet. The photon is now behind the emitter by two feet. I believe the angle was calculated by ICANT to be 26 degrees, or something?
Observer on Salt Lake Flats sees: Photon goes straight up and down... time must change in order for this situation to make sense.
That is time dilation... again.
No photon goes up and down.
It would help you to be able to explain what my situation would be if you went back and read the experiment we have been discussing the last hundred or so posts.
The car is mounted on a set of tracks which are mounted on the Salt Lake Flats
The car has a frame on the rear with a laser pen mounted at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car pointed at the center of the tracks.
There is a sensor and decetor on the tracks. The sensor sends a signal that causes the laser pen to emitt a photon at the moment the laser pen is directly over the detector.
The car is traveling at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the tracks.
The tracks are traveling at a little under 1000 mph relative to the car due to the rotation of the earth.
We are assuming the car is traveling in a vacuum.
So lets examine my situation.
The car crosses the sensor which sends a signal to the laser pen and a photon is emitted when the laser pen is pointed directly at the detector.
I say the car will move 2 feet by the time the photon can reach the detector.
Everybody here tells me the photon will travel at a 26.57 angle and hit the next sensor rather than the detector.
If the following is true the photon must hit the detector the laser pen was pointed directly at when the photon was emitted from the laser pen.
quote:
All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating
Source
If you click on the source and then click on rectilinear you find and explanation which states:
quote:
1.In a straight line.
Thus in an inertial reference frame of reference the object will travel in a straight line.
Newton's first law.
quote:
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.
Source
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.
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.
The state of motion of the emitting body does not affect the photon.
The same is true if we use the car NoNukes proposed and mount a laser pen at a 90 angle relative to the travel of the car, on one side of the car pointed at a blackboard or detector on the oposite side of the car.
Stile writes:
One observer sees the photon travel at 26 degrees off where the final "up" is two-feet behind where it started...
In my situation no observer will observe the photon travel at a 26.57 angle relative to the motion of the car.
Any observer that can observe the photon leave the laser pen will see the photon travel in a straight line at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car.
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."

 This message is a reply to: Message 1209 by Stile, posted 09-09-2011 9:14 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1218 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2011 4:58 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 109 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007

 Message 1215 of 1229 (632772) 09-10-2011 2:05 AM Reply to: Message 1212 by NoNukes09-09-2011 4:44 PM

Re: Another Tidbit
Hi NoNukes,
NoNukes writes:
We've been tossing around that number. But we should remember that the 26 degree number is not consistent with postulate #2. The 2 feet of horizontal travel assume that the photon can reach the blackboard in 4.067 nanoseconds (by traveling 4 feet), but the hypotenuse of that triangle with legs of 2 feet and 4 feet is actually 4.472 feet. But light cannot traverse that distance in only 4.067 seconds.
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.
How do you propose to change the direction of the photon after it is emitted pointed directly at the detector?
According to Newton you must apply an unbalanced force.
According to crashfrog you can use a mirror to deflect the photon. But then the mirror would be an unbalanced force.
Newton's first law.
quote:
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.
Source
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.
So how do you propose to overcome the restriction's put on the photon by Newton's first law?
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."

 This message is a reply to: Message 1212 by NoNukes, posted 09-09-2011 4:44 PM NoNukes has replied

 Replies to this message: Message 1216 by DrJones*, posted 09-10-2011 2:06 AM ICANT has not replied Message 1219 by NoNukes, posted 09-10-2011 5:19 PM ICANT has not replied

 Date format: mm-dd-yyyy Timezone: ET (US)
Newer Topic | Older Topic