Motor Daddy's absolute space and time

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy

Well, Duh! It is your Frame of Reference(your frame). And if you sit down with the proper equipment and a little learnin', you too could prove that in your frame of reference all the properties of the Universe(speed of time's passage, speed of light, length, breadth and width, etc)are exactly what science says they are after much evidence gatherin', testin' and figurin'.

For that to be determined you must observe other frames and determine their properties relative to those of your frame. The determination about whether you are moving in relationship to them, or vice versa, is an intellectual one. If you were in mostly empty space and saw an asteroid pass close by, you would probably think it's the meteor that was moving, but what if you were on the way to Jupiter and what really happened, in the frame of the Solar System as a whole, is you just zoomed by the asteroid at high speed. And if you were in orbit around the Earth your mind would interpret that as you doing the moving. It's all relative.

Sorry, that's all the coherent questions I could salvage from your post.

Grumpy

I am an object is space. I travel in space. My motion in space has nothing to do with any other object traveling in space. My motion is not determined by another object's motion. If there are no other objects in sight and I thrust my jetpack I change my velocity. Do you know what acceleration is? I can feel my velocity change. I have my own velocity in space and it is not relative to any other object. I don't feel an acceleration because another object goes slow or fast past me. I feel an acceleration because my velocity CHANGES. MY velocity changes!

 

[Emil]

Einstein was brilliant.
He said one thing that everyone thinks, even if we are two opposing camps.
"Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

 

[Motor Daddy]

origin

I'm stubborn, old, grumpy and persistent, though I'm not always right. If MD wants questions answered I will do my best, when he posts non-sense diagrams and woo I will ignore them but will not ignore the violations of the forum posting rules.

Eventually the thread will either clear up or be abandoned but I got nothin' better to do.

Grumpy

That is your problem, you are ignoring my diagrams and then claiming them non-sense. How do you know they are non-sense if you've ignored them? If you don't understand them then let's talk about them. If you reject them because they aren't according to your beliefs then you are closing your eyes to the facts. Are you trying to defend what's popular, or are you trying to find the truth? It appears as though you are defending something you don't even understand, and then rejecting the facts I pose to you. Are you really that ignorant?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Actually, as a thought, I think that this covers the box problem. If the box dilates this maths keeps the speed of light hitting the sides of the box at a constant rate.

Except that it doesn't. As you can clearly see in the box diagram in frame 2, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver, which was only .5 light seconds away from the source at t=0 in frame 1.

Einstein's method only length contracts in the direction of motion (the x direction in the diagram) but not in the y and z directions, and even then, that is only according to an external observer. These numbers are not from an external observer. They are raw data taken from the receivers in the box. So, back to square one, how does it take .65 second for the light sphere to contact the z receiver when Einstein says it takes .5 seconds. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the light sphere to contact the z receiver in .5 seconds if the box is in motion in the x direction, IMPOSSIBLE!

 

[river]

length can only contract because of perspective or comparision to another perspective

not that it actually happens

Motor daddy

 

[Motor Daddy]

length can only contract because of perspective or comparision to another perspective

not that it actually happens

Motor daddy

I didn't say it actually happens. Length contraction is not proven, nor is it real.

Do you think the distance between you and the center of the moon at 12:00 is based on which observer you ask?

Do you really believe that distance is up for debate and a matter of opinion??

 

[AlexG]

Motor Daddy does not accept the concept of relative velocities and insists there is a prefered frame and absolute motion.

He then draws little boxes and pretends they're reality.

 

[arfa brane]

It's Einstein who says the sphere of light travels with the source as the sphere expands. He has to be saying that if he thinks the light sphere always hits the x,y, and z receivers simultaneously in a box in space.

Can you find an actual reference where Einstein says a sphere of light "travels with" the source? Your, or Einstein's, example of a box in space means the source is not moving relative to the box, doesn't it?

We are not measuring the motion of objects in the box relative to the box, we are measuring the box relative to space.

But if the source is not moving relative to the box, it's at rest relative to the box. Can you measure the motion of a box, or anything material, relative to something non-material? How do you measure the distance between the box and a point in space containing--nothing?

Come on, how do you do it? I'm pretty sure I can't and nor can anyone else, what's your secret?

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

You ignored posts #39 and #40.

It's Einstein who says the sphere of light travels with the source as the sphere expands.

No, Einstein doesn't say that.

He has to be saying that if he thinks the light sphere always hits the x,y, and z receivers simultaneously in a box in space.

Only in the rest frame of the box. See posts #39 and #40.

You measure it once and it hits simultaneously. You accelerate the box to a different constant velocity and retest, and guess what? Einstein says you get the same exact results, the light sphere reaches all the receivers at the same exact time again!

Only in the frame of the box. In the embankment frame, the light does not hit simultaneously.

It's like magic!! No matter what velocity you accelerate the box to, Einstein says you get the same exact results.

No. Einstein says the results are frame dependent.

You can't even start by defining the term "at rest."

We've been through this before, haven't we? There's no absolute rest, only relative rest. Recall where I explained the basics of reference frames to you? It seems your memory has gone.

I know light spheres expand from the point of origin at the rate of c.

Yes. But Einstein says this is true in ANY frame. In your fantasy universe it is only true in the "absolute" frame you call "space".

Saying a box in space is "at rest" in it's own frame is like saying I am motionless compared to myself.

Right. Now you're getting it!

 

[Secret]

No. Einstein says that all light expands at light speed FROM THE POINT IN SPACETIME WHERE IT WAS EMITTED. After the light leaves the source, the source has no further influence on those photons and the source moves on(if it is moving)on it's own independent path through space time. If the source is travelling at relativistic speed it will move closer to one edge of the sphere of photons it emitted in the past. But every pulse of light expands uniformly from it's point of emmission. Light is not a physical structure you can tow behind you like in water or air, no wake is created in spacetime, the circle designates the position of the sphere of photons in spacetime, it is not a physical wave(as in a medium)and once released from a source the source has no further influence(except to change it's frequency due to gravitational lensing).

The bolded statement clears some confusion of me trying to understand at least SR

However there are something I am still confused
1. Why we cannot measure an object against the nothingness of space (ignore the virtual particle pairs atm, as they are something else)
2. (If my memory serves...) Why is the expansion of space (universe) itself is not constraint by the speed of light c?

Side question: In a Newtonian world, is "at rest" also relative?

 

[arfa brane]

1. Why we cannot measure an object against the nothingness of space (ignore the virtual particle pairs atm, as they are something else)

That's fairly easy to understand: you can't measure nothingness. As for virtual particles, these are easy to ignore because you can't detect them.

In order to measure a distance in space you need objects. The procedure is exactly the same as what you do when you measure distance between objects on the surface of the earth, except there is "somethingness" between the objects.

2. (If my memory serves...) Why is the expansion of space (universe) itself is not constraint by the speed of light c?

It is constrained by c, any motion is.

Side question: In a Newtonian world, is "at rest" also relative?

Newtonian relativity is Galilean.

 

[Motor Daddy]

That's fairly easy to understand: you can't measure nothingness.

Are you saying that if two people in space are separated by a distance, that you can't measure the distance between them?

Distance is not nothingness, distance is one dimensional volume (space), and you can certainly measure it.


Your concept of "nothingness" is a bad illusion. There is no such thing as "nothingness!

 

[arfa brane]

Motor Daddy: stop trolling.

Are you saying that this:

In order to measure a distance in space you need objects. The procedure is exactly the same as what you do when you measure distance between objects on the surface of the earth, except there is "somethingness" between the objects.

doesn't apply to two people? People aren't objects?

If there is no such thing as "nothingness", what is space made out of?

Besides, your question:

Are you saying that if two people in space are separated by a distance, that you can't measure the distance between them?

Is self-referencing. If two people can see each other and they don't occupy the same place (aren't the same person, or maybe the same two in some cases, but let's not go there), they know there is a distance between them. Measuring the distance could be done using some standard, like metres, but who says measurements "have" to be accurate? The thought police?