Relativistic Mass ?

quantum_wave said:
Origin, you make statements about what science is or knows or can be demonstrated but rarely accompany your posts with any science. For the benefit of us less educated and informed viewers, post a link to the science that shows Motor Daddy's belief to be demonstrably false, just so we are all on the same page.
Click to expand...

Motor Daddy believes that light propegates in a light sphere from a point at c independent of the inertial frame of the observer. The earth is circling the center of the milky way at 250 km/sec. This means that according to MD if we measure the speed of light in the direction the earth is traveling then c should be 300,042 km/hr and if the apparatuse to measure light is rotated 180 deg. then it should measure c to be 299,542 km/hr. That is not what we see - MDs belief is falsified.
 
origin said:
Sure explain away.
Click to expand...

T=0 is when the light sphere is emitted. No time has elapsed so there is no blue light sphere. If a very tiny time were to have elapsed you would have seen a very tiny radius light sphere according to the speed of light times the duration of time that had elapsed. If I showed a pic of t=.0000000000001, then the light sphere would have a radius of 0.0000299792458 meters. With me so far?
 
origin said:
Motor Daddy believes that light propegates in a light sphere from a point at c independent of the inertial frame of the observer. The earth is circling the center of the milky way at 250 km/sec. This means that according to MD if we measure the speed of light in the direction the earth is traveling then c should be 300,042 km/hr and if the apparatuse to measure light is rotated 180 deg. then it should measure c to be 299,542 km/hr. That is not what we see - MDs belief is falsified.
Click to expand...
OK, that is a good example. In order to analyze that it would help to know the origin of the light sphere we are measuring with the apparatus. What I mean is, does the apparatus emit a light beam which gets sent out from a point of origin in the apparatus, then reflected by mirrors, etc. If so, I don't think that is what Motor Daddy is referring to. He can correct me if I misunderstand him, but in the case of the light emitted from the apparatus, he is saying that it will travel at the speed of light spherically away from the point of origin. If that is what he is saying, then the test apparatus would confirm his position because all such tests would give the same invariant result, wouldn't they?
 
Practice question:

Two points in the absolute frame are separated by a distance of 299,792,458 meters. At t=0 a light sphere is emitted at both points. .25 seconds elapses. At t=.25 what is the radius of the light spheres?
 
Motor Daddy said:
T=0 is when the light sphere is emitted. No time has elapsed so there is no blue light sphere. If a very tiny time were to have elapsed you would have seen a very tiny radius light sphere according to the speed of light times the duration of time that had elapsed. If I showed a pic of t=.0000000000001, then the light sphere would have a radius of 0.0000299792458 meters. With me so far?
Click to expand...

Sure
 
origin said:
Sure
Click to expand...
Frame 2, T=.65 seconds, otherwise known as Einstein's time of death! The elapsed time since the light was emitted has been .65 seconds. The light sphere has a radius of 194,865,098 meters, which is dead on the speed of light for .65 seconds. But wait, if the light sphere is an absolute reality, and distance between the source and the z receiver in the cube frame is .5 light seconds, then why did it take light .65 seconds to travel to the z receiver?
 
There is one person on this site that I would like to give a shout out to and thank him for teaching me just what I needed to learn. Neddy Bate, you are the man! Thanks for discussing 3D coordinates with me. ;)
 
quantum_wave said:
OK, that is a good example. In order to analyze that it would help to know the origin of the light sphere we are measuring with the apparatus. What I mean is, does the apparatus emit a light beam which gets sent out from a point of origin in the apparatus, then reflected by mirrors, etc. If so, I don't think that is what Motor Daddy is referring to. He can correct me if I misunderstand him, but in the case of the light emitted from the apparatus, he is saying that it will travel at the speed of light spherically away from the point of origin. If that is what he is saying, then the test apparatus would confirm his position because all such tests would give the same invariant result, wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how the equipement is set up. His position is that the relative speed of light is not invariant. He believes that if you were to turn on a light then the only time that the light sphere will move out from with you staying in the center of the sphere is if you are at absolute rest (whatever that is suppose to mean). If follows that any other inetial frame that light is measured (in MD universe) will give you a different relative speed for light.

Try this one.
A laser and a detector 100m are are hooked up to a ultra precise timer. According to MD if we are meausre the time it takes to for the laser to hit the detector in the direction of the earths motion around the milkyway we will get a different time than when we have the laser and detector set up facing in the opposite direction. This does not happen obviously.
 
origin said:
It doesn't matter how the equipement is set up. His position is that the relative speed of light is not invariant. He believes that if you were to turn on a light then the only time that the light sphere will move out from with you staying in the center of the sphere is if you are at absolute rest (whatever that is suppose to mean). If follows that any other inetial frame that light is measured (in MD universe) will give you a different relative speed for light.

Try this one.
A laser and a detector 100m are are hooked up to a ultra precise timer. According to MD if we are meausre the time it takes to for the laser to hit the detector in the direction of the earths motion around the milkyway we will get a different time than when we have the laser and detector set up facing in the opposite direction. This does not happen obviously.
Click to expand...

Are you measuring the distance light traveled compared to the point it space it was emitted, or compared to the frame it was emitted in? In frame two of my pic, how would you know where the center of the light sphere is to measure that distance that light traveled since t=0?
 
Motor Daddy said:
Frame 2, T=.65 seconds, otherwise known as Einstein's time of death! The elapsed time since the light was emitted has been .65 seconds. The light sphere has a radius of 194,865,098 meters, which is dead on the speed of light for .65 seconds. But wait, if the light sphere is an absolute reality, and distance between the source and the z receiver in the cube frame is .5 light seconds, then why did it take light .65 seconds to travel to the z receiver?
Click to expand...

I am at work so I cannot see your picture, but I think I can recall the drawing well enough to say, the problem is that your pictured does not reflect the reality inside the cubes reference frames.
 
origin said:
I am at work so I cannot see your picture, but I think I can recall the drawing well enough to say, the problem is that your pictured does not reflect the reality inside the cubes reference frames.
Click to expand...

It most certainly does! How would you know what reality is, since you've never measured it?
 
Motor Daddy said:
Are you measuring the distance light traveled compared to the point it space it was emitted, or compared to the frame it was emitted in? In frame two of my pic, how would you know where the center of the light sphere is to measure that distance that light traveled since t=0?
Click to expand...

Obviously, from the frame it was emitted in since that is the inertial frame that the laser, detector and the measurer are in. In the real world the speed of light is constant in all frames so you always can determine where the center of the light sphere is.
 
Really? Well according to you if you are in the center of a box 2 light seconds long on each side and you were to turn on the light in the center of the box then you would know your absolute velocity and direction because the light sphere would hit the ‘back’ wall before it hit the ‘front’ wall.

Besides this not being true it violates your own definitions.

MD states by definition a meter is the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 second and all clocks tick at the same rate irrespective of the inertial frame.

You verify your box dimension at absolute rest by turning on the light and the sphere hits the all the walls in 1 second – so you are at rest and the box is 2 light seconds long on each side

If your box is then moving at an absolute velocity of ½ c or 149,896,229 m/s then the light sphere will hit the front wall in .5 seconds and it will hit the back wall in 1.5 seconds, so now you know your absolute velocity.

But that also means that the your position has somehow changed in the box or the box dimensions have changed. By definition a meter is the distance light travels in 1/299,792,458 second. So in the direction of travel the length of the box from the center to the front wall is 299,792,458 X 1.5 = 449,688,687 meters.

The length of the box from the center to the back wall is 299,792,458 X .5 = 149,896,229 meters.

So what happened?
Click to expand...

So like I said why in your drawings do the distances from the center of the box to the front and back of the box change, based on the definition of the meter?
 
origin said:
So like I said why in your drawings do the distances from the center of the box to the front and back of the box change, based on the definition of the meter?
Click to expand...

Because light travels independently of the box. Light did not take the path from source to z receiver in the cube frame as the cube traveled away from the center of the light sphere. The light that traveled to the z receiver was traveling the hypotenuse of the triangle that is the z receiver, source, and point of origin of the light sphere. You see that triangle? Well light traveled the hypotenuse of that triangle to get to the z receiver, and the hypotenuse is .65 light seconds in length in the absolute frame. That is a reality! And the reality is that you have never measured the length of that hypotenuse, so you don't know what reality is because you've never measured reality.
 
Origin post
origin said:
It doesn't matter how the equipement is set up. His position is that the relative speed of light is not invariant. He believes that if you were to turn on a light then the only time that the light sphere will move out from with you staying in the center of the sphere is if you are at absolute rest (whatever that is suppose to mean). If follows that any other inetial frame that light is measured (in MD universe) will give you a different relative speed for light.

Try this one.
A laser and a detector 100m are are hooked up to a ultra precise timer. According to MD if we are meausre the time it takes to for the laser to hit the detector in the direction of the earths motion around the milkyway we will get a different time than when we have the laser and detector set up facing in the opposite direction. This does not happen obviously.
Click to expand...
Actually, the laser scenario clears up the question of the point of origin of the light sphere. From the laser scenario it is clearer that you meant for the light that was measured by the apparatus in the previous example to be star light from a distant source.

Let's use the laser example. The speed of light was the same in both measurements, and your point is that falsifies MD's alternative theory. But does it?

I'm not sure that experiment does falsify MD. You have proven that when the specific light sphere from the laser reaches the mirror in your apparatus it is traveling at the speed of light, and you measure it to be traveling at the speed of light both times. Your conclusion that his idea is falsified is because you say he says that the speed will be different. Where do you get that? I think he says that if you would measure the speed of light to be the same in both measurements in your scenario. But given the fact that you are measuring from two different inertial frames, then according to your interpretation of MD's theory, you say the result should be different, and they aren't. Now in MD's alternative theory, the measurements you are making are measuring the same light sphere emitted by the fixed laser at the center of the light sphere, at different points in time and space. He maintains the from the fixed laser source, the light sphere is increasing at the invariant speed of light. You have measured that to be true. Your motion does not change the speed of light expanding in the light sphere, it measures it relative to the source. You can't use light from one source, measure it from an inertial frame relative to that source, and get a different speed of light, and MD, unless I'm mistaken, has not said you could.
 
quantum_wave said:
Origin post

Actually, the laser scenario clears up the question of the point of origin of the light sphere. From the laser scenario it is clearer that you meant for the light that was measured by the apparatus in the previous example to be star light from a distant source.

Let's use the laser example. The speed of light was the same in both measurements, and your point is that falsifies MD's alternative theory. But does it?
Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm not sure that experiment does falsify MD. You have proven that when the specific light sphere from the laser reaches the mirror in your apparatus it is traveling at the speed of light, and you measure it to be traveling at the speed of light both times. Your conclusion that his idea is falsified is because you say he says that the speed will be different. Where do you get that?
Click to expand...

From his words and diagrams.

I think he says that if you would measure the speed of light to be the same in both measurements in your scenario. But given the fact that you are measuring from two different inertial frames, then according to your interpretation of MD's theory, you say the result should be different, and they aren't.
Now in MD's alternative theory, the measurements you are making are measuring the same light sphere emitted by the fixed laser at the center of the light sphere, at different points in time and space. He maintains the from the fixed laser source, the light sphere is increasing at the invariant speed of light. You have measured that to be true. Your motion does not change the speed of light expanding in the light sphere, it measures it relative to the source. You can't use light from one source, measure it from an inertial frame relative to that source, and get a different speed of light, and MD, unless I'm mistaken, has not said you could,
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Look at his diagram. He thinks a light sphere always originates from a stationary point in absolute space - it is completely independent of the reference frame. For somone in the box the light sphere reaches the back wall before it reaches the front wall. It ain't that hard to realize that this means that the relative speed as measured by the observe in the box is that the time it takes the light to transit the same distance to the front of the box is greater than the time it takes to transit to the back of the box. I realize that you are desperately trying to agree with MD, but why not just agree with reality like us sane people do?
 
origin said:
Yes.



From his words and diagrams.



You are mistaken. Look at his diagram. He thinks a light sphere always originates from a stationary point in absolute space - it is completely independent of the reference frame. For somone in the box the light sphere reaches the back wall before it reaches the front wall. It ain't that hard to realize that this means that the relative speed as measured by the observe in the box is that the time it takes the light to transit the same distance to the front of the box is greater than the time it takes to transit to the back of the box. I realize that you are desperately trying to agree with MD, but why not just agree with reality like us sane people do?
Click to expand...
I'm putting you back on ignore, lol. No need to get personal, but you always seem to. And your interpretation of the box example does not recognize that the light sphere is expanding in space from the point of origin. But I will take another look at the diagram.

What do you say about this, MD?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top