Are you able to give an answer yes or no?
Light at Light Speed
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Why do you lie?
You simply fail to grasp the essential point of relativity, in that there is no single answer to the question "How long" because it is a frame dependent notion. Length and time are not frame independent quantities. Different people in different frames measure different things. So demanding a single answer doesn't prove your point, it just demonstrates you don't understand the topic at hand, including the pictures Rpenner provided.
Who precisely do you think you're convincing anyway? You're given a ton of mathematics, experimental results and explanations and the majority of the time you just say "Nuh uh!" and give the distinct impression you don't understand them. Do you think you're providing a good justification for your position? Do you think you are convincing anyone?
Not one of the 130 "criticisms" is on-target, so the entire core concept is arguing like a lawyer, not like a scientist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik
"With another physics Nobel laureate, Johannes Stark, [Philip] Lenard began a core campaign to label Einstein's Relativity as Jewish Physics."
It's obviously a problem -- even the Muller press release spends time trying to distance him position from that of the Nazis.
Muller writes: "Moreover during the Nazi government in Germany scientists of the Nazi Party and the confessed relativists in the academic ranks (the overwhelming majority) met in Munich in November 1940 and agreed that Special relativity should be considered an accepted foundation of physics: this was the reality under Nazi government." -- Even if true, it shows the arrogance of the Nazi party trying to dictate science instead of following the evidence. It doesn't dismiss the Nazi purge of universities following Stark and Lenard in 1933-1937 which sent the pure physicists running to England and America.
And Lenard was explicit in his anti-semitism.
"Die Verquickung von nationalsozialistischer Ideologie und Polemik mit wissenschaftlichen Gedankengängen macht es uns schwer, Lenards Tragik zu sehen: ein Wegbereiter der modernen Physik, der keinen Zugang zu neuen Paradigmen fand." http://www.gnt-verlag.de/de/?id=35
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory#Chauvinism_and_antisemitism
"Some critics, including Weyland, reacted angrily and claimed that such accusations of antisemitism were only made to force the critics into silence. However, subsequently Weyland, Lenard, Stark and others clearly showed their antisemitic prejudices by beginning to combine their criticisms with racism."
And since any unscientific motivation renders the thought process biased towards anti-scientific error, the "130 criticisms" just serve to cater to racism and scientific error. Not one is an argument for a concrete replacement for relativity.
Emil, you have fallen into a bad crowd.
That is a lie.
So your opinion about: 95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003) "is just anti-Semitism"?
I was born and grew up in east Germany, I have been told many lies in my life, yes it just anti-semitic and as a German i am deeply ashamed by it.
so my question to you emil is that physics is so marvelous, weird and beautiful, why do you need to create a fantasy that doesn't match observation?
All those are "just anti-semitic"?
According to classical relativity I think the same about you.
I did give a simple yes or no answer. Do you mean can i give a simple yes or no without specifying the reference frame - of course not.
After 8 minutes have passed on earth the plane will be at the mid point between the sun and earth. After 8 minute have passed on the plane the plane will be more than half way to the sun as measure from earth. That's about as simple as it gets.
Reality is a bitch, man.
This answer satisfies me, but I want to hear the opinions of others involved in the discussion, so I can continue.
Answer the question and we'll see.
Occam's razor is the principle of parsimony in science where we favor the simplest theory that has the most predictive power.
The reason why (Newtonian Physics, Special Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, Standard Model, General Relativity) is superior to (Aristotelian physics, Assumption of a preferred state of motion, Assumption of a luminiferous aether, Bohmian mechanics, Universal gravitation) is that it describes the symmetries we observe as actual symmetries of the universe and does not constrain the universe to act in some non-symmetric way which then has an ad hoc symmetrizing phenomenological layer put on top of that non-symmetric basement. Thus the superior models have at least all the predictive successes of the jury-rigged combination of prejudices and phenomenology without the extra invisible moving parts.
Since a statement of a symmetry existing is far simpler than trying to explain why a symmetry exists in contradiction to preconceptions of what the hidden universe must really be like, the first is good physics and the second is potential fodder for a intellectual discussion of metaphysics which will have no bearing on what is measured. It's the difference of using your brain to work and using your brain to start fights based on your reputation and ego.
If, in the future, violations of that symmetry are found or evidence consistent with a single model of heretofore unseen moving parts are found, then science will move on leaving today's accepted theories as quaint historical notions held by people who didn't know better and useful tools for engineers who want to get work done in the limited domain where they are still known to give answers close enough to reality to not endanger reputations.
Bradley, Phil. Trans. 35, no 406 (1728).
Arago, Oevre completes, T.1. pg 107 (1853)
Fizeau, Ann. de chem et de physique, 3e ser., T.57 pg 385 (1859).
Hoek, Arch. Neerl. T.3, pg 180 (1868).
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), pg 267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297–1298 (1913).
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395–396 (1913).
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913)
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913)
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), pg 1.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071
Beckmann and Mandics, “Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965)
A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
Chen et al., “Experimental Test of the Isotropy of Two-way Light Speed”, A.S.N.U. Peking, 33, no. 5, pg 595 (1997).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/
http://cofrest.info/md20.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Effects_due_to_wind_shear
Now about that sudden introduction of a round-trip.
I think you are a control freak seeking to control the form of my answers as you proceed to introduce element after element (like the plane's continued journey to the sun and return to Earth) as you seek to trap me in a contradiction I make because I assumed you were an honest man interested in pursuit of the truth. That's why I insist on the correct value for c, and use both algebra and geometry to show the same points, and why I don't compromise in explaining why your questions are poorly worded. I see your value to humanity as only an example of what not to do. I assume you are deeply anti-science as a result of personal problems and psychological projection.
And as you set up the problem, if target and source are not in relative motion, and from the source two objects are sent to the target, with the faster being twice as fast as the slower, then as seen from the frame associated with the source, at the time the faster hits the target, the slower will have gone half-way. That's not relativity, it's a simple rate problem. Why would you solicit "opinions" on such a matter unless you were under the misapprehension that you had a clever rhetorical point up your sleeve?
The reason why (Newtonian Physics, Special Relativity, Quantum Electrodynamics, Standard Model, General Relativity) is superior to (Aristotelian physics, Assumption of a preferred state of motion, Assumption of a luminiferous aether, Bohmian mechanics, Universal gravitation) is that it describes the symmetries we observe as actual symmetries of the universe and does not constrain the universe to act in some non-symmetric way which then has an ad hoc symmetrizing phenomenological layer put on top of that non-symmetric basement. Thus the superior models have at least all the predictive successes of the jury-rigged combination of prejudices and phenomenology without the extra invisible moving parts.
Since a statement of a symmetry existing is far simpler than trying to explain why a symmetry exists in contradiction to preconceptions of what the hidden universe must really be like, the first is good physics and the second is potential fodder for a intellectual discussion of metaphysics which will have no bearing on what is measured. It's the difference of using your brain to work and using your brain to start fights based on your reputation and ego.
If, in the future, violations of that symmetry are found or evidence consistent with a single model of heretofore unseen moving parts are found, then science will move on leaving today's accepted theories as quaint historical notions held by people who didn't know better and useful tools for engineers who want to get work done in the limited domain where they are still known to give answers close enough to reality to not endanger reputations.
This is why all distance-speed-time problems which involve just a single uniform process and a single observer are "rate questions" and not "relativity questions" -- but the context of the thread is relativity, and so all questions are interpreted in that context.
And experimentally, f(u,v) = u-v doesn't come close to working for a good number of very accurate experiments or experiments with very fast values of u or v.
Bradley, Phil. Trans. 35, no 406 (1728).
Arago, Oevre completes, T.1. pg 107 (1853)
Fizeau, Ann. de chem et de physique, 3e ser., T.57 pg 385 (1859).
Hoek, Arch. Neerl. T.3, pg 180 (1868).
Comstock, Phys. Rev. 10 (1910), pg 267.
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 15, part 2, pg 1297–1298 (1913).
DeSitter, Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen, vol 16, part 1, pg 395–396 (1913).
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 429, (1913)
DeSitter, Physik. Zeitschr. 14, 1267, (1913)
Zurhellen, Astr. Nachr. 198 (1914), pg 1.
Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), pg 271
Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), pg B1071
Beckmann and Mandics, “Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation in High Vacuum”, Radio Science, 69D, no. 4, pg 623 (1965)
A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979).
Chen et al., “Experimental Test of the Isotropy of Two-way Light Speed”, A.S.N.U. Peking, 33, no. 5, pg 595 (1997).
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/
There are many differences between sound and light. But, for physics to be consistent, there should not be a fundamental difference in the measured speeds of light and sound when two different observers observe the same phenomenon.
In crystals, it is also a function of direction.
http://cofrest.info/md20.htm
And it is also a function of the relative speed of the medium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound#Effects_due_to_wind_shear
Actually, the speed of light in vacuum is 299792.458 km/s, and rather than get that wrong, I just write c. When I read "300,000 km/s" I assume you mean c, when you say "100,00 km/s" I assume you mean c/3, when you say "150,00 km/s" I assume you mean c/2, when you say "200,00 km/s" I assume you mean 2c/3. Because math does not work if you tell me the speed of light is faster than what I know the speed of light to be.
When you say that "In about eight minutes" light moves from the Earth to the Sun, I have taken you at your word, but in case people want to use the real time this takes, I have inserted the distance L for the distance from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the sun. Due to how geometry differs based on the finite size of the Earth and Sun and Earth's elliptical orbit, this takes between 8 minutes 8.3 seconds and 8 minutes 27.4 seconds. Using L throughout allows the reader to insert the details or substitute a different physical situation with the same geometry.
And when you say "At this moment" in a thread on relativity, it looks like you are incapable of putting yourself in the shoes of another and are assuming that "at this moment" has meaning throughout the universe.
See how long ago I answered this question.
And see how I returned the topic to relativity.
This appears to be your deliberate misunderstanding. After 8 minutes on Earth, the plane is at event B, not event D. Later I would add event S, which happens 8 minutes after (as judged by Earth) event A where the light hits the Sun.
Yay! I answered Emil's question.
A core concept in relativity.
This is more than double the time between O and D, because D (the plane's position at the time as seen by the plane when the light hits the sun) is closer to Earth than it is to the Sun.
Now about that sudden introduction of a round-trip.
Because the laws of physics distinguish between uniform (inertial) motion and non-uniform motion.
You asked a misguided question, ignored the answer, and then threw in additional questions about the plane continuing to the Sun and then making a round-trip.
I gave the answer (using Earth rulers) as L/2 a long time ago. I also pooh-poohed the question as elementary (the type of problem given to 10-year-olds) and as not addressing relativity properly.
L/2 -- the same answer origin thanked me for giving.
I answered it again in geometry. B is always halfway between A and C, but A, B, and C only happen "at the same moment" when seen from Earth. Why did you include a vehicle with the potential of carrying observers if you were never going to talk about their clocks and rulers?
And yes, I agree with origin agreeing with an answer I gave in my first reply to you.
You aren't interested in the facts and self-consistent mathematics I bring to the conversation, so why do you think you sound convincing when you say you want to hear my opinions?
I think you are a control freak seeking to control the form of my answers as you proceed to introduce element after element (like the plane's continued journey to the sun and return to Earth) as you seek to trap me in a contradiction I make because I assumed you were an honest man interested in pursuit of the truth. That's why I insist on the correct value for c, and use both algebra and geometry to show the same points, and why I don't compromise in explaining why your questions are poorly worded. I see your value to humanity as only an example of what not to do. I assume you are deeply anti-science as a result of personal problems and psychological projection.
And as you set up the problem, if target and source are not in relative motion, and from the source two objects are sent to the target, with the faster being twice as fast as the slower, then as seen from the frame associated with the source, at the time the faster hits the target, the slower will have gone half-way. That's not relativity, it's a simple rate problem. Why would you solicit "opinions" on such a matter unless you were under the misapprehension that you had a clever rhetorical point up your sleeve?
Last edited:
This is the time, the distance and the speed between plane and the short beam of light, according to the Earth.
It has been 10 days I guess no one is going to contest these approximations. Continue...?