The Relativity of Simultaneity
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Motor Daddy:
So all measurements are done in the frame of the cube, are they? In that case, the cube never moves and only the "train frame" results I gave above apply.
I assumed that you were looking at the cube moving relative to something, such as your "space", which is what I referred to as the "embankment" in my previous post.
What puzzles me is that if you're not measuring the cube's velocity relative to your absolute "space", what are you measuring it relative to?
Which reference frame were the clocks that measured the 0.65 seconds in? Obviously not the cube frame, because in that frame the y detector is only 0.5 light seconds from the source at all times.
No. I meant 0.42 seconds.
You know about significant figures, don't you? It's meaningless to quote a result to a greater precision than the input data. You told me that the travel time for the light was 0.65 seconds. That's two significant figures. Therefore, the distance travelled is to two significant figures: 0.42 light seconds. The extra decimal places you have given in 0.41533 are meaningless, given that your initial input data is not quoted to the same accuracy.
Does the y receiver's clock move with the cube? If so, it is in the cube frame of reference, and it can only read 0.5 seconds, not 0.65. The y receiver in the cube frame is always 0.5 light seconds from the source.
Your diagram doesn't show the cube frame. It appears to show the cube in motion. I assumed that motion was relative to the Motor Daddy imaginary "space", but now you tell me that's not the case. So, what's the cube in motion relative to?
Is that in the cube frame or some other frame?
No. It's 0.42 light seconds, given the initial input of 0.65. If you have made the time 0.65000 seconds, then we'd be able to quote a more accurate result, because in that case the input data would be to 5 significant figures rather than two.
Your picture doesn't show and absolute frame. It just shows a cube moving in some frame which I call "the embankment" and you used to call "space" (though now it seems you've changed your mind).
I've posted my calculation. Please point out where I made an error, if there is one.
The number 0.638971 c is to too many significant figures again. It should be 0.64 c. But in that case, we still disagree. Probably it is because you rounded off wrongly in your calculations, but maybe there's some other problem.
Why don't you work through my calculation, which I posted, and tell me if I am wrong? If you find a mistake, post exactly what it is. Don't just claim that I'm wrong. Show me where I made a mistake.
The cube is in motion in the "embankment" or "space" frame. Do you disagree about that now?
In which frame?
According to Einstein, no. According to you, yes. It's due to the different speed of light postulates.
Isn't it the emission point of the light?
So now you're saying there's no "space", are you? That's a change of mind.
Relativity can use any of a million different frames. I was just using the one you want to use all the time - the "embankment" or "space" frame. Now you're telling me that's wrong. Ok, let's just use the cube frame then. Can you do that? The cube doesn't move in its own frame. Agreed? No object ever moves in its own rest frame. That's what is meant by "rest frame".
Correct, but it's the real world.
What's the cube in motion relative to? Your usual claim is to say it moves relative to "space", but now you're telling me that doesn't happen after all. So, what does your cube move relative to?
Sure, but in your universe the light has different speeds in both directions inside a moving cube in the cube frame. In the "embankment" or "space" frame the light has the same speed in both directions, so that was the frame I thought you were using.
If I am wrong, tell me which reference frame you are using.
Repeating empty claims doesn't advance your argument.
Yes, that's what I think, provided that I was testing the times using clocks attached to the cube (such as the y-receiver clock). If I used clocks in some frame which sees the box moving (such as clocks on Earth watching the box being towed away by the rocket) then the times would be different - more like the times for your imaginary "space" frame that you've suddenly decided you don't want to use any more.
The fact is that you can't do any experiment inside the box to determine its velocity, whether you use light or anything else you can think of. Motion at constant velocity is indistinguishable from being stationary, by any experiment.
This is not new. Galileo knew this back in the 17th century. It seems Motor Daddy still has a bit of catching up to do with ancient history.
So all measurements are done in the frame of the cube, are they? In that case, the cube never moves and only the "train frame" results I gave above apply.
I assumed that you were looking at the cube moving relative to something, such as your "space", which is what I referred to as the "embankment" in my previous post.
What puzzles me is that if you're not measuring the cube's velocity relative to your absolute "space", what are you measuring it relative to?
Which reference frame were the clocks that measured the 0.65 seconds in? Obviously not the cube frame, because in that frame the y detector is only 0.5 light seconds from the source at all times.
No. I meant 0.42 seconds.
You know about significant figures, don't you? It's meaningless to quote a result to a greater precision than the input data. You told me that the travel time for the light was 0.65 seconds. That's two significant figures. Therefore, the distance travelled is to two significant figures: 0.42 light seconds. The extra decimal places you have given in 0.41533 are meaningless, given that your initial input data is not quoted to the same accuracy.
Does the y receiver's clock move with the cube? If so, it is in the cube frame of reference, and it can only read 0.5 seconds, not 0.65. The y receiver in the cube frame is always 0.5 light seconds from the source.
Your diagram doesn't show the cube frame. It appears to show the cube in motion. I assumed that motion was relative to the Motor Daddy imaginary "space", but now you tell me that's not the case. So, what's the cube in motion relative to?
Is that in the cube frame or some other frame?
No. It's 0.42 light seconds, given the initial input of 0.65. If you have made the time 0.65000 seconds, then we'd be able to quote a more accurate result, because in that case the input data would be to 5 significant figures rather than two.
Your picture doesn't show and absolute frame. It just shows a cube moving in some frame which I call "the embankment" and you used to call "space" (though now it seems you've changed your mind).
I've posted my calculation. Please point out where I made an error, if there is one.
The number 0.638971 c is to too many significant figures again. It should be 0.64 c. But in that case, we still disagree. Probably it is because you rounded off wrongly in your calculations, but maybe there's some other problem.
Why don't you work through my calculation, which I posted, and tell me if I am wrong? If you find a mistake, post exactly what it is. Don't just claim that I'm wrong. Show me where I made a mistake.
The cube is in motion in the "embankment" or "space" frame. Do you disagree about that now?
In which frame?
According to Einstein, no. According to you, yes. It's due to the different speed of light postulates.
Isn't it the emission point of the light?
So now you're saying there's no "space", are you? That's a change of mind.
Relativity can use any of a million different frames. I was just using the one you want to use all the time - the "embankment" or "space" frame. Now you're telling me that's wrong. Ok, let's just use the cube frame then. Can you do that? The cube doesn't move in its own frame. Agreed? No object ever moves in its own rest frame. That's what is meant by "rest frame".
Correct, but it's the real world.
What's the cube in motion relative to? Your usual claim is to say it moves relative to "space", but now you're telling me that doesn't happen after all. So, what does your cube move relative to?
Sure, but in your universe the light has different speeds in both directions inside a moving cube in the cube frame. In the "embankment" or "space" frame the light has the same speed in both directions, so that was the frame I thought you were using.
If I am wrong, tell me which reference frame you are using.
Repeating empty claims doesn't advance your argument.
Yes, that's what I think, provided that I was testing the times using clocks attached to the cube (such as the y-receiver clock). If I used clocks in some frame which sees the box moving (such as clocks on Earth watching the box being towed away by the rocket) then the times would be different - more like the times for your imaginary "space" frame that you've suddenly decided you don't want to use any more.
The fact is that you can't do any experiment inside the box to determine its velocity, whether you use light or anything else you can think of. Motion at constant velocity is indistinguishable from being stationary, by any experiment.
This is not new. Galileo knew this back in the 17th century. It seems Motor Daddy still has a bit of catching up to do with ancient history.
Motor Daddy said:
So setting up a three dimensional cube is impossible, because you can't tell if it is a cube?
Using your method to determine any distances is impossible because the speed of light changes depending on your velocity?
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Well, your scenario stipulates that the bag is placed after the first flash, according to the train frame.
Yes. In the embankment frame, the two flashes are simultaneous. Therefore, the bag would have to be positioned over the lamp some time before the first flash occurred, according to the embankment frame.
Lorentz transforms.
Let's replace the event of placing the bag over the lamppost with somebody emmitting a flash of light such as from a flashlight or lamp. If we now decide not to have the second lamppost flash, we now have two flashes of light, one from each end of the train and they are in reverse order in from the embankment frame. This shows the theory to be inconsistent and false.
Zeno:
You can't undo something that happens, whether by covering your lamppost or by any other means. A thing that happens (an event) in one frame of reference must happen in every frame of reference.
If the light is blocked in one frame, it is blocked in all frames. All observers everywhere agree on what happens. They can disagree on the ordering of events and on time intervals, but not on what happens.
Importantly, you cannot arrange a situation where if A causes B in one frame, A does not cause B in some other frame.
You can't undo something that happens, whether by covering your lamppost or by any other means. A thing that happens (an event) in one frame of reference must happen in every frame of reference.
If the light is blocked in one frame, it is blocked in all frames. All observers everywhere agree on what happens. They can disagree on the ordering of events and on time intervals, but not on what happens.
Importantly, you cannot arrange a situation where if A causes B in one frame, A does not cause B in some other frame.
Just to recap for my benefit, and then I'll get out of the way, lol:
From Wiki on the postulates of Special Relativity:
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
MD introduced the concept of a moving light box to clarify his objection to the second postulate.
He assumes he is in an inertial frame of reference in which a flash of light is propagated at a point and time in absolute space without knowledge of the motion of that frame relative to the point in space and time where the propagation took place.
He assumes that the point of propagation of light occurs at a fixed point in space at a fixed time regardless of the frame of reference.
Is there actually a point in space where that light is propagated that would be agreed upon by observers in other frames? MD’s answer is yes, if the frames coincided at the instant the light was propagated, then someone moving relative to the rest frame that hosted the point of propagation would see the light propagated at the same point in space and time.
According to the SR postulate that light propagates at c in all frames, we would all agree that the speed of the light observed from all frames as it is emitted propagates at c in all frames. I used “in all frames” three times in the sentence on purpose. The first “in all frames” is part of the postulate. The second “in all frames” is that the light was physically observed to be emitted as an event in all frames that coincided at the point and time of propagation in space. The third “in all frames” was that the light propagated at c in each inertial frame regardless of the relative motion of that frame to the point of emission.
The problem quickly comes to light. If the observers are correct, i.e. that the light was propagated at the same point in space and time in all frames, and if the SR postulate is correct, i.e. that light travels at c in all inertial frames that are moving relative to each other, then in order for the postulate to be true the speed of light would have to be independent of the point of emission unless the point of emission would be considered moving with the motion of the frame of the observer.
In other words there can be no absolute point in space and time according to the postulates of SR. Any point in space that coincides with multiple moving frames at the instant of an event is assumed to be moving with the frames and not fixed at a point in absolute space and time. All frames moving relative to the point in space and time of the event will effectively take their space and time with them as they move away from the coincident point in space.
MD’s Box lays out an alternative postulate. Light propagates at c from the absolute point in space where it is propagated.
His position is that if the light ray (see below *) that is emitted from that absolute point in space is observed from a frame of reference in motion relative to the fixed point of emission in space and time, the speed of the light would be measured at c + or – the difference in the rate of motion between the observing frame and the absolute point in space and time where the emission occurred.
(* or light sphere which is an in-phase composite of rays across a spherical light wave front expanding in space at c in all directions)
This means that MD’s Box is not in line with the terminology of Special Relativity. There is no absolute space or time in SR and there is in MD’s Box scenario.
However, MD says or at least implies that the fixed point in space and time is not an inertial frame; it is a point in absolute space and in absolute time that coincided with an inertial frame at the point in space and time of the light flash.
I come forward to agree that a light ray or expanding sphere of light has a physical presence in space and expands at c from the fixed point of emission in absolute space and time. We have agreed that the light sphere always expands at c relative to the fixed point in space and time, and therefore that point in space and time does not move in empty space or along the time continuum regardless of the motion of the frames that coincided with that point in space at the time of the emission.
From Wiki on the postulates of Special Relativity:
1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
MD introduced the concept of a moving light box to clarify his objection to the second postulate.
He assumes he is in an inertial frame of reference in which a flash of light is propagated at a point and time in absolute space without knowledge of the motion of that frame relative to the point in space and time where the propagation took place.
He assumes that the point of propagation of light occurs at a fixed point in space at a fixed time regardless of the frame of reference.
Is there actually a point in space where that light is propagated that would be agreed upon by observers in other frames? MD’s answer is yes, if the frames coincided at the instant the light was propagated, then someone moving relative to the rest frame that hosted the point of propagation would see the light propagated at the same point in space and time.
According to the SR postulate that light propagates at c in all frames, we would all agree that the speed of the light observed from all frames as it is emitted propagates at c in all frames. I used “in all frames” three times in the sentence on purpose. The first “in all frames” is part of the postulate. The second “in all frames” is that the light was physically observed to be emitted as an event in all frames that coincided at the point and time of propagation in space. The third “in all frames” was that the light propagated at c in each inertial frame regardless of the relative motion of that frame to the point of emission.
The problem quickly comes to light. If the observers are correct, i.e. that the light was propagated at the same point in space and time in all frames, and if the SR postulate is correct, i.e. that light travels at c in all inertial frames that are moving relative to each other, then in order for the postulate to be true the speed of light would have to be independent of the point of emission unless the point of emission would be considered moving with the motion of the frame of the observer.
In other words there can be no absolute point in space and time according to the postulates of SR. Any point in space that coincides with multiple moving frames at the instant of an event is assumed to be moving with the frames and not fixed at a point in absolute space and time. All frames moving relative to the point in space and time of the event will effectively take their space and time with them as they move away from the coincident point in space.
MD’s Box lays out an alternative postulate. Light propagates at c from the absolute point in space where it is propagated.
His position is that if the light ray (see below *) that is emitted from that absolute point in space is observed from a frame of reference in motion relative to the fixed point of emission in space and time, the speed of the light would be measured at c + or – the difference in the rate of motion between the observing frame and the absolute point in space and time where the emission occurred.
(* or light sphere which is an in-phase composite of rays across a spherical light wave front expanding in space at c in all directions)
This means that MD’s Box is not in line with the terminology of Special Relativity. There is no absolute space or time in SR and there is in MD’s Box scenario.
However, MD says or at least implies that the fixed point in space and time is not an inertial frame; it is a point in absolute space and in absolute time that coincided with an inertial frame at the point in space and time of the light flash.
I come forward to agree that a light ray or expanding sphere of light has a physical presence in space and expands at c from the fixed point of emission in absolute space and time. We have agreed that the light sphere always expands at c relative to the fixed point in space and time, and therefore that point in space and time does not move in empty space or along the time continuum regardless of the motion of the frames that coincided with that point in space at the time of the emission.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Very well stated, quantum_wave, and I agree 100%.
In fact, it is impossible to refute given that light always travels at a constant speed in a vacuum. Simply irrefutable!
I'm going to work up a diagram using the speed of light, and show the numbers accounting for the acceleration, velocity, and distance and time traveled of an accelerated object from a point of emission.
It will knock your socks off!
That should be interesting and I'll follow along. FYI, I'm going to incorporate my last post into my current Pseudoscience thread and discuss the compatibilities.
Just thought I would pop in to point out, as has been done so many times before:
Motor Daddy is wrong.
What is my proof, the unaware might ask?
Well, Motor Daddy postulates that the relative speed of light is different depending on the speed of the observer.
This is quite simply wrong.
The speed of light can be measured to a great accuracy, so accurate in fact that it is used to define the length of a meter (as motor daddy has pointed out). The speed is always measured at the same value in a vacuum (c). It does not matter in the slightest what the speed of the observer is or what the speed of the source is.
Motor Daddy's postulate is wrong ergo his conclusions are wrong.
It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
Motor Daddy is wrong.
What is my proof, the unaware might ask?
Well, Motor Daddy postulates that the relative speed of light is different depending on the speed of the observer.
This is quite simply wrong.
The speed of light can be measured to a great accuracy, so accurate in fact that it is used to define the length of a meter (as motor daddy has pointed out). The speed is always measured at the same value in a vacuum (c). It does not matter in the slightest what the speed of the observer is or what the speed of the source is.
Motor Daddy's postulate is wrong ergo his conclusions are wrong.
It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I just want to point out that origin is of the belief that if it takes light .75 seconds to travel the length of a stick in one direction, and .32 seconds in the opposite direction, that the length of the stick is 1.07/2 light seconds in length. Furthermore, origin believes that it always takes light the same amount of time to reach you from a lamp post, regardless of your speed away or towards the lamp post when the light is emitted. As crazy as it sounds, that is what he believes.
Actual measure of the speed of light can be shown to Motor Daddy.
Motor Daddy's response: Nuh uh.
Motor Daddy believes if he can't understand it, then it must not be true.
Thank God, that ain't true!!
I takes the same amount of time because the speed is invariant. But the frequency, or energy, of light does change. That's the Doppler effect.
The observed frequency of light changes depending on your velocity towards or away from a source.
Furthermore, we tend to believe we live in a Galilean frame of reference. This would be true if the speed of light was infinite, in which case dividing by c or c[sup]2[/sup] would make any velocity vanishingly small. And in the Lorentz formula if you set c to infinity, you get the Galilean formula.
The observed frequency of light changes depending on your velocity towards or away from a source.
Furthermore, we tend to believe we live in a Galilean frame of reference. This would be true if the speed of light was infinite, in which case dividing by c or c[sup]2[/sup] would make any velocity vanishingly small. And in the Lorentz formula if you set c to infinity, you get the Galilean formula.
No, MD postulates that, “Light propagates at c from the absolute point in space where it is propagated.”
Einstein says that, “As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
Let’s examine the precise difference. Einstein uses inertial reference frames for all observers and acknowledges that an event that occurs in one frame will occur in all coincident frames. Since there is no absolute space and time, the point of emission will move with the frame of the observer. Otherwise, the speed of light as measured in that frame could not be c.
MD uses absolute space and time for the point of the light emission event and acknowledges that for an observer at rest, the light emission event will propagate at c. Since there is an absolute space and time, the point of emission will not move relative to the observer and so the speed of light propagated through space from that absolute point in space and time will always be measured at c relative to the fixed point.
First you misquoted MD. If you had quoted him correctly, as I have above, then the substance of your argument is immaterial.
You are doing fine to this point.
This is simply a restatement of Einstein’s second postulate.
Wait. You are saying that MD is wrong because he doesn’t agree with Einstein’s second SR postulate. Are you saying that your proof consists of the fact the MD’s postulate is different from Einstein’s second postulate and therefore MD is automatically wrong.
That’s not proof, that is a difference of opinion, lol.
No, MD postulates that, “Light propagates at c from the absolute point in space where it is propagated.” Anytime light is measured at c it is being measured from a point of emission.origin said:
Motor Daddy believes that he does understand that light travels at c from the point of emission.
Ain’t ain’t a word. No, just kidding and being facetious.
There is a Doppler effect that applies to light just like it does to sound. As you move toward the light or sound, the frequency increases. I don’t recall anyone saying that the speed of sound through air is relative to the frame of the observer. Have I just missed out on that discussion? I’ll look it up if no one corrects me about that point.arfa brane said:
I think you are saying that the motion in and around our normal living environment is so tiny relative to the speed of light that we can effectively disregard the Doppler effect as it applies to light? I agree, but that falsifies your argument that the change in frequency of light has anything to do with the difference between MD’s postulate and Einstein’s second SR postulate.
But let me acknowledge that your post is the first to enter into the realm of an explanation for time dilation and length contraction though that is probably only because I believe we should be discussing that along with MD’s postulate, lol.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Experimental evidence supports Einstein’s second postulate, much in the same way that experimental evidence supports the idea that the earth is a spheroid. MD is free to disagree with the second postulate all he wants, just as members of the "Flat Earth Society" are free to disagree that the earth is a spheroid. Naturally, most people will say MD (and the flat-earthers) must be wrong, because their theories are not able to explain the experimental evidence that contradicts their claims.
It is true that the speed of light has been measured to be c time and time again. That alone does not refute MD’s postulate or confirm Einstein’s, of course. Further, it is not true to say that experimental evidence supports Einstein’s second postulate just as conclusively as the experimental evidence supports that the earth is round. I’m almost certain that MD is not in the Flat Earth cult.
You have offered the GPS system to refute MD’s postulate and I am assuming that is your evidence. I’m of the impression that GPS works by something akin to triangulation and that the software that does the positioning is able to compensate for the relative motion of the satellites that independently receive the transmission from the GPS device on the ground. The software then advises the ground device of it position relative to the three (or more) satellites that are in play for that particular measurement. I know that the algorithm used by GPS is complicated and I know that the more satellites involved, the more accurate the positioning.
I suggest that the triangulation method gives a much more precise location than could be achieved by say only two satellites. The error using two vs. three satellites would probably be quite significant. I am speculating that positioning could use four satellites which would improve the accuracy. Do you know if I am right?
MD is not disputing the accuracy of the GPS system and I don’t see the fact that GPS works as an adequate falsification of MD’s postulate.
Of course, I’m in the cult so nothing I say should be taken as gospel
.
Motor Daddy:
Compare:
So, the first thing to say about your diagram is that it is clearly drawn in the "embankment" or "space" frame, which is the only one in the Motor Daddy universe in which light is observed to spread out in a sphere around a source.
In an absolute universe, your diagram would be correct, but we don't live in that kind of universe.
So, the main thing that is wrong with your diagram is that you've drawn a square box. But in the embankment frame in the Einsteinian universe, the moving box is no longer square. Rather, it is length-contracted in the direction of motion, as I have shown in my diagrams for that frame (on the left-hand side above).
You have not drawn any diagram for the train frame. In fact, I doubt you know how that frame would look in the Motor Daddy universe. In Einstein's universe (i.e. the real one), things look like what I have drawn on the right-hand side of my diagrams above.
Do you have any comments on this, or just more empty assertions about "reality" and more LOLs in an attempt to dismiss the Einstein universe, knowing that you can't disprove it in any way?
My art work may not be to scale.
The red dots represent location (0,0,0) where the light sphere was originated at t=0.
The first frame is t=0
The second frame is t=.65 seconds when the light sphere contacts the y and z receivers in my example.
The third frame is t=1.384930 seconds when the light sphere contacts the x receiver.
As you can clearly see, the light can not contact the y and z receivers in .5 seconds if the box has an absolute velocity which it clearly does in this pic.
Compare:
Motor Daddy:
Here is a picture of what happens in reality (i.e. the world described by Einstein) for your source in a square box:
The three diagrams on the left-hand side show successive snapshots in a reference frame in which the box moves to the right with some speed. The three diagrams on the right show the same snapshots in a reference frame in which the box is stationary.
Or, to put it another way, the left-hand diagrams show the situation in the frame of the "embankment", where the box is on a moving train. The left-hand diagrams show the same situation in the frame of the "train".
The first thing to notice is that the box is square on the right and rectangular on the left. This is due to length contraction. In the train's frame, the box is at rest so it is square/cubical. In the embankment frame, the box is moving and so relativity tells us that it contracts in the direction of motion.
Also note that in the left-hand diagrams the box moves to the right, because the embankment sees the train moving to the right. In the right-hand diagrams, the box does not move, because a person on the train does not see the box move.
The next thing to notice is the round dot marked on each diagram. That is the location at which light was emitted, which doesn't change in each frame.
Next thing: the three diagrams show the light wave spreading out. The wavefront is circular/spherical in BOTH frames, due to Einstein's speed-of-light postulate. Note in particular that in the Motor-Daddy universe the wavefront would NOT be circular in the train frame, since the speed of light travels at different speeds in different directions in the Motor Daddy universe.
The top two diagrams shows the wavefront a short time after emission.
The middle diagram on the left shows the wave hitting the "back" wall of the box in the embankment frame.
The two bottom diagrams shows the situation when the wave hits the "front" wall of the box. Notice that in the train frame the wave also hits the back wall at this time.
The middle diagram on the right shows a time in the train frame where the light wave has not yet reached either wall of the box.
Next thing to note: in the train frame, the light wave hit both the front and back of the train simultaneously (as shown in the bottom-right diagram). In the embankment frame, the walls were hit at two different times - first the back wall (middle-left diagram), then the front wall (bottom-left diagram).
It is important to remember that two different clocks are being used on the right and on the left. The diagrams on the left use the embankment clocks; the diagrams on the right use clocks on the train.
So, the first thing to say about your diagram is that it is clearly drawn in the "embankment" or "space" frame, which is the only one in the Motor Daddy universe in which light is observed to spread out in a sphere around a source.
In an absolute universe, your diagram would be correct, but we don't live in that kind of universe.
So, the main thing that is wrong with your diagram is that you've drawn a square box. But in the embankment frame in the Einsteinian universe, the moving box is no longer square. Rather, it is length-contracted in the direction of motion, as I have shown in my diagrams for that frame (on the left-hand side above).
You have not drawn any diagram for the train frame. In fact, I doubt you know how that frame would look in the Motor Daddy universe. In Einstein's universe (i.e. the real one), things look like what I have drawn on the right-hand side of my diagrams above.
Do you have any comments on this, or just more empty assertions about "reality" and more LOLs in an attempt to dismiss the Einstein universe, knowing that you can't disprove it in any way?
Which in you gibberish way is exactly what I said. He thinks that light will be measured as c from a fixed point whatever that is, and it will have a different relative velocity if you are moving relative to that fixed point.
Nope. Unless you are saying that he no longer thinks that 2 observers moving at different speeds will measure a different value for the relative speed of light. Is that what you are saying?
No no no. I don't care what Einstein said at this point I am simply stating the fact that the speed of light (relative to the observer if you like) is always measure at c in a vacuum. MD says it should not always be measured the same, because we are moving in different directions as the year passes - well the speed of light doesn't vary, so he loses, reality wins.
No knucklehead, I am saying that it is different from what is actually measured. This has been pointed out to you guys about 20 time and it still cannot seem to penetrate your skulls!
Measurement. Actual measurements. Do you know what a measurement is? It is not an opinion.
Yes and measurements show that it is independent of the motion of the observer.
James R, I must be the only one that can't see your diagram. Am I just missing it or did you forget to add the link?
Oh really? According to MD's postulate there is only one way that we can measure the relative speed of light as c, and that is if we are at absolute rest. That is why he dodges the question about the speed of light. You didn't understand that so you acknowledged the obvious, which is that the speed of light is measured at c. MD won't admit that, he can't, he knows that will blowup his concept.
Clearly we are on a spining planet, orbiting the sun, circling the galaxy and moving towards the vega supercluster. If we are at absolute rest then we are the only place in the universe at rest and are very special. Check with MD he will let you know that you must dodge the question about the measured speed of light.