The Relativity of Simultaneity

Neddy Bate, can you tell me in which direction light is measured to be 299,792,458 m/s in the box in the example above?
 
Motor Daddy said:
According to the following, tell me which direction you measure the speed of light to be c, Neddy Bate.
Click to expand...


My current argument is that GPS proves the speed of light, relative to the earth, is constant in all directions. You cannot disprove the fact that GPS works with any equations for absolute speed. Unless you are arguing that GPS might be using those equations to factor our the absolute speed of the earth? If so, then they are keeping a really big secret from the physics community!
 
Neddy Bate said:
My current argument is that GPS proves the speed of light, relative to the earth, is constant in all directions. You cannot disprove the fact that GPS works with any equations for absolute speed. Unless you are arguing that GPS might be using those equations to factor our the absolute speed of the earth? If so, then they are keeping a really big secret from the physics community!
Click to expand...

If length contraction and time dilation are factored in, then you are not using the standard meter and the standard second for your calculations. Those are crutches which have nothing to do with the speed of light in a vacuum, which uses the standard definition of a second and actually defines the meter! Those are the standards!!!
 
Tell me exactly in which direction the speed of light is measured to be c in the box in the example I posted!

I have a partial equation that finds the velocity of x, and the time to the receiver at x, if the y time is known, and the y and z component velocities are zero, which goes like this:


v(x)=sqrt(t(y)^2-l(y)^2)/t(y)
t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))




Using the same cube with sides of length 1 light second, and a source at the center of the cube with receivers in the center of the x,y, and z walls, given a y and z time of .65 seconds, I know the x component velocity and the x component time to receiver.



x time= 1.384930 seconds
y time= .65 seconds
z time= .65 seconds

x component velocity = 0.638971 c
y component velocity = 0 c
z component velocity = 0 c

The location of the y receiver at .65 seconds is (0.41533, .5, 0)

x= .65(.63897c)=.41533
y= .5


(0.41533, 0.5, 0)
d = sqrt(0.41533^2 + 0.5^2 )
d = sqrt(0.1724990089 + 0.25)
d = sqrt(0.4224990089)
d = 0.65 light seconds



Does that look right for a zero y and z component velocity?

BTW...look what v=(ct-l)/t says the x component velocity is:

v(x)=(1.384930-.5)/1.384930

v(x)=.63897 c
Click to expand...
 
Motor Daddy said:
If length contraction and time dilation are factored in, then you are not using the standard meter and the standard second for your calculations. Those are crutches which have nothing to do with the speed of light in a vacuum, which uses the standard definition of a second and actually defines the meter! Those are the standards!!!
Click to expand...

The standard for the meter still holds true in any one reference frame, because the speed of light is measured to be c in that reference frame. Each reference frame will always say that their own meter sticks are correct, and the "other guy's" meter sticks are short.

Same thing with time dilation. The standard for the second still holds true in any one reference frame, because the speed of light is measured to be c in that reference frame. Each reference frame will always say that their own clocks run at the proper rate, and the "other guy's" clock runs slow.

Same thing with relativity of simultaneity. Each reference frame will always say that their own clocks are properly synchronized, and the "other guy's" clocks are not synched properly.

Put all of this together, and you can have the speed of light be the same in all frames. That is what relativity does.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Tell me exactly in which direction the speed of light is measured to be c in the box in the example I posted!
Click to expand...


First I think you should address the GPS issue. According to GPS, the speed of light is constant in all directions, relative to earth. Do you think this means that the earth is at absolute rest, or what?
 
Neddy Bate said:
The standard for the meter still holds true in any one reference frame, because the speed of light is measured to be c in that reference frame. Each reference frame will always say that their own meter sticks are correct, and the "other guy's" meter sticks are short.

Same thing with time dilation. The standard for the second still holds true in any one reference frame, because the speed of light is measured to be c in that reference frame. Each reference frame will always say that their own clocks run at the proper rate, and the "other guy's" clock runs slow.

Same thing with relativity of simultaneity. Each reference frame will always say that their own clocks are properly synchronized, and the "other guy's" clocks are not synched properly.

Put all of this together, and you can have the speed of light be the same in all frames. That is what relativity does.
Click to expand...

No, put it all together and what you end up with is every observer disagreeing with every observer, because they all used different standards.

Not one observer will agree with another observer. That is a true sign of using a pile of crap for a theory.

ALL observers agree with each other in my method. There are no disagreements, because they all use the same standards!!
 
Neddy Bate said:
First I think you should address the GPS issue. According to GPS, the speed of light is constant in all directions, relative to earth. Do you think this means that the earth is at absolute rest, or what?
Click to expand...

First of all there are so many variables in the measurements that you can;t make a statement like that. Heck, the light travels through air, correct? And you say the speed of light is measured to be c? That means you are wrong right off the bat, because light doesn't travel through air at c. Don't distort the issue with false statements.

Second, GPS has to be frequently updated for it to maintain any sort of accuracy, so don't pretend it maintains accuracy on its own!
 
Motor Daddy said:
No, put it all together and what you end up with is every observer disagreeing with every observer, because they all used different standards.

Not one observer will agree with another observer. That is a true sign of using a pile of crap for a theory.

ALL observers agree with each other in my method. There are no disagreements, because they all use the same standards!!
Click to expand...


With your theory, they all disagree on the measured speed of light in different directions. GPS says the speed of light is the same in all directions relative to earth. So what do you want to do now? You can either claim the earth is at absolute rest, or you can accept that your theory did not hold up to real world experiments.
 
Motor Daddy said:
No, put it all together and what you end up with is every observer disagreeing with every observer, because they all used different standards.
Click to expand...

But that's equally a problem with the Motor Daddy system. In that system, all observers disagree about the speed of light in when they make measurements in their own reference frames. To "correct" their measurements, they must somehow use additional, inaccessible information, about the imaginary "absolute rest" frame.

This is no worse that what is required to translate measurements from one frame to another in Einstein's relativity.

Also, it's wrong to say that Einsteinian observers use "different standards". They all use the same definition of the speed of light. They all use the same definition of time. They all use the same definition of the metre.

Not one observer will agree with another observer. That is a true sign of using a pile of crap for a theory.
Click to expand...

Then the Motor Daddy theory, which says that the measured speed of light is different for all observers and no two observers in different frames will get the same result, is crap, by your own admission.

So back to the box. Which direction do you measure the light to travel at c?
Click to expand...

All directions.
 
Neddy Bate said:
With your theory, they all disagree on the measured speed of light in different directions. GPS says the speed of light is the same in all directions relative to earth. So what do you want to do now? You can either claim the earth is at absolute rest, or you can accept that your theory did not hold up to real world experiments.
Click to expand...

Again, do you deny that the signals travel through air (to name just one reason why light isn't measured to be c in the GPS system)?
 
Motor Daddy said:
First of all there are so many variables in the measurements that you can;t make a statement like that. Heck, the light travels through air, correct? And you say the speed of light is measured to be c? That means you are wrong right off the bat, because light doesn't travel through air at c. Don't distort the issue with false statements.

Second, GPS has to be frequently updated for it to maintain any sort of accuracy, so don't pretend it maintains accuracy on its own!
Click to expand...

I said GPS finds the speed of the signals to be constant in all directions. That does not mean they travel at exactly c, it just means they all travel at the same speed. According to you, the signal speed should be radically different in different directions, because of the earth's "absolute speed". Or are you now going to claim that earth is probably very close to absolute rest? Why would it be? The sun circles the Milky Way at a speed of about 486,000 miles per hour, and the earth moves relative to the sun!
 
Neddy Bate said:
I said GPS finds the speed of the signals to be constant in all directions. That does not mean they travel at exactly c, it just means they all travel at the same speed. According to you, the signal speed should be radically different in different directions, because of the earth's "absolute speed". Or are you now going to claim that earth is probably very close to absolute rest? Why would it be? The sun circles the Milky Way at a speed of about 486,000 miles per hour, and the earth moves relative to the sun!
Click to expand...

It is not radically different.

How far away from the surface of the earth is a satellite?
 
Motor Daddy:

The speed of radio waves in air is very very close to what it is in vacuum. Also, the direction of travel in air doesn't alter the speed.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Then tell me in which direction and show your numbers, as I've already shown the exact distances and times and actual numbers, and the math is in agreement, and Neddy Bate agree too!
Click to expand...

What? You want me to walk you through the same problem for a third or fourth time?

Sorry. Too boring.
 
James R said:
Motor Daddy:

The speed of radio waves in air is very very close to what it is in vacuum. Also, the direction of travel in air doesn't alter the speed.
Click to expand...

Are you going to back up your statement that light can be measured to be c in all directions in the box in the example I posted? I am quite interested in seeing your numbers!
 
James R said:
What? You want me to walk you through the same problem for a third or fourth time?

Sorry. Too boring.
Click to expand...


Too boring? That's funny, James.

Tell me in which direction you can measure light to be c in this box?

I have a partial equation that finds the velocity of x, and the time to the receiver at x, if the y time is known, and the y and z component velocities are zero, which goes like this:


v(x)=sqrt(t(y)^2-l(y)^2)/t(y)
t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))




Using the same cube with sides of length 1 light second, and a source at the center of the cube with receivers in the center of the x,y, and z walls, given a y and z time of .65 seconds, I know the x component velocity and the x component time to receiver.



x time= 1.384930 seconds
y time= .65 seconds
z time= .65 seconds

x component velocity = 0.638971 c
y component velocity = 0 c
z component velocity = 0 c

The location of the y receiver at .65 seconds is (0.41533, .5, 0)

x= .65(.63897c)=.41533
y= .5


(0.41533, 0.5, 0)
d = sqrt(0.41533^2 + 0.5^2 )
d = sqrt(0.1724990089 + 0.25)
d = sqrt(0.4224990089)
d = 0.65 light seconds



Does that look right for a zero y and z component velocity?

BTW...look what v=(ct-l)/t says the x component velocity is:

v(x)=(1.384930-.5)/1.384930

v(x)=.63897 c
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top