The Relativity of Simultaneity

Enmos said:
lol ok :p
But then what are you going to use it for?
Click to expand...

I am going to use it to measure with, just like I use the unit of measure of a meter to measure with.

But more importantly, I am going to use it to explain the concept that the speed of light is 2 htdltios/second, and I know that for a fact, without measuring!
 
Motor Daddy said:
I am going to use it to measure with, just like I use the unit of measure of a meter to measure with.

But more importantly, I am going to use it to explain the concept that the speed of light is 2 htdltios/second, and I know that for a fact, without measuring!
Click to expand...

Sigh... ok.
That's like saying that the speed of light is one lightyear/year.
 
Enmos said:
Only because it has been measured first.
Click to expand...

You missed the concept again. It is not measured first, the unit of measure of distance is defined by light travel time, and light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.

Did I measure the htdltios, or did I define it using the constant speed of light in a vacuum?
 
Motor Daddy said:
You missed the concept again. It is not measured first, the unit of measure of distance is defined by light travel time, and light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I get it. It is a given that light travels at a constant speed and from that you measure a distance and a time as light travels and establish a unit of measure.
 
Motor Daddy said:
You missed the concept again. It is not measured first, the unit of measure of distance is defined by light travel time, and light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum.
Click to expand...
I understand. Because it's constant. But that doesn't tell you the actual speed.

If giraffes always traveled at constant speed you would be able to define their speed (without knowing their actual speed) as 1 giraffe-second per second.
:shrug:

I'll wait and see where this is going.. lol
 
quantum_wave said:
I get it. It is a given that light travels at a constant speed and from that you measure a distance and a time as light travels and establish a unit of measure.
Click to expand...
Ok, I get it. But how do you know that it is constant if you don't measure it?
 
quantum_wave said:
I get it. It is a given that light travels at a constant speed and from that you measure a distance and a time as light travels and establish a unit of measure.
Click to expand...

There is no measurement involved. I defined a unit of measure of distance (htdltios) as a specific duration of light travel time.

From that the speed of light is defined automatically.

Since the htdltios is defined to be 1/2 second of light travel time, the speed of light is 2 htdltios/second. No measurement required. It is a definition, nothing more.
 
OK, I'll give you that if you give us a hint as to why you take that approach. What benefit does it bring you toward explaining away Einstein's reconciliation between the speed of light being invariant and the principle of relativity where, given certain relationships between motion in separate frames, he can associate all motion in separate frames with a constant speed of light across all frames.
 
quantum_wave said:
OK, I'll give you that if you give us a hint as to why you take that approach. What benefit does it bring you toward explaining away Einstein's reconciliation between the speed of light being invariant and the principle of relativity where, given certain relationships between motion in separate frames, he can associate all motion in separate frames with a constant speed of light across all frames.
Click to expand...

An absolute velocity has nothing to do with other objects. An absolute velocity is the velocity of one object in space, with no other object to relate to.

So, if you know how to find the absolute velocity of a box in space from within the box, then you know your own motion in space, without reference to any other object.

It has never been done before to know the absolute velocity of a box from inside the box. Never in the history of the world has anybody ever been able to calculate the absolute velocity of an object.
 
Motor Daddy said:
An absolute velocity has nothing to do with other objects. An absolute velocity is the velocity of one object in space, with no other object to relate to.

So, if you know how to find the absolute velocity of a box in space from within the box, then you know your own motion in space, without reference to any other object.

It has never been done before to know the absolute velocity of a box from inside the box. Never in the history of the world has anybody ever been able to calculate the absolute velocity of an object.
Click to expand...
Give me the box scenario and how it applies to your postulate.
 
quantum_wave said:
Give me the box scenario and how it applies to your postulate.
Click to expand...



Here is the example James is working on, which Neddy Bate has already agreed my numbers and locations are correct.


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 a cube with sides of length 1 light second, and a light source that remains 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



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

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

v(x)=.63897 c


This example shows that speed of light is not measured to be c in any direction inside the box.
Click to expand...
 
Motor Daddy said:
Since light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, I can use light travel time to define a unit of measure of distance.

So, I'm going to create a new unit of measure of distance which is called the htdltios. I define a htdltios as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/2 of a second.

Do you agree so far?
Click to expand...

I asked you a simple (I thought it was simple) question:

So how do you know what the speed of light is?

You refused to answer and instead asked a question. I answered your question, and reasked my question. Now you again are not answering my question and instead are asking me more questions. You are also appearing to try to set up some sort of test for measuring the speed of light. The question I had wasn't how to measure light.

You have stated what the speed of light is, I am only asking how you know what that speed is.

Before I agree to go on this merry-go-round; how many questions of yours do I have to answer before you answer my single question?
 
origin said:
I asked you a simple (I thought it was simple) question:

So how do you know what the speed of light is?

You refused to answer and instead asked a question. I answered your question, and reasked my question. Now you again are not answering my question and instead are asking me more questions. You are also appearing to try to set up some sort of test for measuring the speed of light. The question I had wasn't how to measure light.

You have stated what the speed of light is, I am only asking how you know what that speed is.

Before I agree to go on this merry-go-round; how many questions of yours do I have to answer before you answer my single question?
Click to expand...

Ok, You want the simple answer? The simple answer is, I know what the speed of light is because the unit of measure of distance is defined by the time of light travel in vacuum.
 
Motor Daddy:

This meter-defined-by-light-speed seems very odd to me, but as far as I can tell you are right that this is how it is presently defined. I know that you don't see any reason to meassure the light speed, but a lot of people do. Especially those of the relativistic persuation, who would like to have their theory proven. Since relativists dominates the scientific community, they probably had a hand in the adoption of this definition. Now, If you are right, they would unwittingly have made a definition that proves them wrong! But if you are wrong and they are right they still have made the meassuring of light speed a meaningless exercise, since there is no way the speed of light can be meassured to vary according to the definition, making any meassurement that backs up their theory worthless!
I'm probably missing something here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top