Evidence...?Since all observers agree on the length of that path
Evidence...?Since all observers agree on the length of that path
That isn't true in relativistic motion, which requires application of the Lorentz transforms to account for where and when everybody is at any moment of observation.
However, under the low velocities described here, relativistic effects are small and can be neglected.
That leaves calculating where everybody is by a model, since all three are orbiting their own axes at various rates, at various lat/long coordinates on planets of various radii, and these planets are in some arbitrary phase of their elliptical orbits around the sun, traveling at various orbital velocities.
It turns it that the calculations involved basically use the same 3D rotation transforms as the Lorentz transformation for relativity. The programmer who gets to code this simulator will be grateful for that much.
It's kind of like relativity in a way - where you are with respect to me also depends on what time it is for you, since your planet will have rotated so many degrees about its axis and that amount changes your distance from me. On the other hand, the observer from the third planet is looking at you from a different angle. You may have moved away from me and towards him. So all of that has to be calculated correctly.
The way this is unlike relativity is that, due to everybody's low velocities, we can neglect relativistic effects and normally get away with it. That means we can all run the same calculation and get the same results at the same time which is why we'll be in agreement.
We'll just never be in exact agreement. There will be that miniscule relativistic error. There will be larger errors in our ability to pinpoint ourselves precisely in space, due to uncertainties we can't precisely measure (where the exact center of as of each planet is, for example).
But those are all differences as a practical matter, such as a simulation. Theoretically, yes, we have a way to always be in agreement. We'll just never be able to precisely implement it. This is why GPS is good - really good - but not exact.
The Earth doesn't occupy two different places in relativity. Everyone sees the Earth be at a single place and moving consistently. Their points of view are then linked by the transformation rules of relativity. Is this going to be another attempt by you to claim relativity says an object is at two places at once, like the light sphere thing? You completely failed to grasp relativity then, please don't let this be a repeat.
MotorDaddy,
Your discussion appears to deny relativity. Is that your intent?
As usual your complete lack of any working understanding of relativity means you just make vapid and false assertions.
For example, you've given the point in terms of coordinates, which are frame dependent, yet said multiple frames use it. Different frames can call the same point in space different coordinates. You've also failed to include the time component, which is of vital importance in relativity since space-time's splitting into spatial and temporal pieces is frame dependent.
As I expected, you just wanted to make more nonsense claims about relativity. Didn't you learn anything from the light spheres threads in the past? You trumpeted Andrew Banks' work about some supposed contradiction but all you showed was how bad you are at relativity.
If you're so sure you're right why are you posting your work here? Why haven't you sent your work to a journal? Why hasn't Andrew Banks been published in a reputable journal? Why can't either of you accomplish anything other than a parade of your ignorance? The contradictions exist in your mind, in that you make false conclusions based on insufficient understanding. Seriously, basic Lorentz transforms is taught to 1st year undergrads, it's not hard. And yet it is beyond you.
But that's wrong. Different observers don't agree on the position.chinglu said:We must all agree on the earth's position in some solar system grid.
So, if the earth is at position (x,y,z) all observers in the solar system will agree it is there.
MotorDaddy,
Your discussion appears to deny relativity. Is that your intent?
Looks to me like you're talking about a reality of the mind, one which can't wrap itself around relativity the way nature does.I am talking about reality.
If relativity were false, you wouldn't hear doppler in a siren, would you? It's not a perfect analogy, but it's a good place to start.What are you talking about?
MotorDaddy is a long time relativity denier. He lives in a different universe than the rest of us, whose only commonality with ours are science discussion forums.
Looks to me like you're talking about a reality of the mind, one which can't wrap itself around relativity the way nature does.
If relativity were false, you wouldn't hear doppler in a siren, would you?
Aye, there's the rub.Motor Daddy said:The only data that can be observed is that which has already happened.
Aye, there's the rub.
It doesn't apply to observers in motion relative to what "already happened". But I know you don't believe that, your mind can't handle it so you can only insist it's wrong.
Looks to me that you can't understand the simple concept of light taking more time to reach you if you run away from a lamp post when the light is emitted vs standing there until it hits you.
What, are you saying observers in motion can observe data before it happens? Has your cheese slid off your cracker?
But that's wrong. Different observers don't agree on the position.
Suppose there are observers watching a game of football. Different observers (say, in the stands) will see different positions for the ball, and different directions the ball moves in. Although an observer on one side of the field can see where the ball is and so can an observer on the other side, they will disagree about whether the ball is to the left or right of say, one set of goalposts. Obviously one observer sees one team playing from the left, the other from the right. The observer on the other side of the field sees the opposite.
Shift to the frame of the solar system, different observers will see the earth in observer-dependent positions and moving in observer-dependent directions. Your statement is just wrong, it doesn't even apply in Galilean frames. An observer "above" the sun and an observer "below" the sun will disagree on the direction the earth is moving around the sun.
You don't seem to understand relativity, so it's a bit precious that you're trying to argue Einstein was wrong. What you're really doing is showing that you're the one who is wrong.
You've just defined an observer-dependent frame of reference. In order for the observer to be "stationary" they must be moving with the system of coordinates. If by "barycenter" you mean the sun, then the observer is stationary wrt to sun, which is moving around the center of the galaxy.chinglu said:An observer stationary to the barycenter coordinate system where and when the earth emitted light at some location in that coordinate system will be at the same coordinate when the earth returns to that position 1 year later.
My understanding is consistent with science: my observation of light within its frame of reference is consistent with its actual spectrum. If I am moving away, I will observe redshift. (It's related to velocity, not distance.)Looks to me that you can't understand the simple concept of light taking more time to reach you if you run away from a lamp post when the light is emitted vs standing there until it hits you.
Do you understand that velocity affects the pitch change of a passing siren, not distance? Evidently not.Do you know the difference between frequency and distance? Evidently not.