The Relativity of Simultaneity

quantum_wave said:
So are you saying that doppler shifted light travels at other than c?
Click to expand...
Nope. It travels at c and it's governed by electromagnetism. It has to. Electromagnetism predicts that electromagnetic waves are emitted at c in a vacuum, even from a moving source. That's the whole point. If electromagnetism still applies in the moving frame, electromagnetic waves still have to be propagating at c in the moving frame. Anything else would contradict electromagnetism and mean it doesn't apply.

quantum_wave said:
Maybe so. Try to help me find the flaw in this:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm
Click to expand...
Done throughout [THREAD=93294]this thread[/THREAD] (especially from the third page or so). The person posting as 'tsmid' is the author of the website you just linked to. Naturally, he hasn't changed anything on his site despite having all his misconceptions and errors pointed out to him in excruciating detail.
 
przyk said:
Nope. It travels at c and it's governed by electromagnetism. It has to. Electromagnetism predicts that electromagnetic waves are emitted at c in a vacuum, even from a moving source. That's the whole point. If electromagnetism still applies in the moving frame, electromagnetic waves still have to be propagating at c in the moving frame. Anything else would contradict electromagnetism and mean it doesn't apply.


Done throughout [THREAD=93294]this thread[/THREAD] (especially from the third page or so). The person posting as 'tsmid' is the author of the website you just linked to. Naturally, he hasn't changed anything on his site despite having all his misconceptions and errors pointed out to him in excruciating detail.
Click to expand...
Uggg. I'll take a look :(.

I guess this is settled then.
 
quantum_wave said:
The math however is designed to reconcile the incompatible postulates.
Click to expand...
One of the uses of math in physics is essentially as systemised logic. If two postulates can be reconciled in a mathematical (read: logical) framework, then they're not incompatible.
 
przyk said:
One of the uses of math in physics is essentially as systemised logic. If two postulates can be reconciled in a mathematical (read: logical) framework, then they're not incompatible.
Click to expand...
I know, but I also know that numbers can be made to say anything; I am a retired account, lol.
 
quantum_wave said:
Origin, it seems as if you are backing off from admitting you’re a troll by claiming that there is no physics being discussed and so trolling might be allowed.
Click to expand...

I suppose that is correct. I am basically chucking turds on a dung heap.

I mentioned the following to you earlier and you waved it off either because you have your mind made up or because you didn’t understand it.

Einstein’s Special Theory uses mathematics to force two incompatible concepts to become compatible when you apply an adjusting factor.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is the core or your misunderstanding right here. You seem to think that a postulate was 'invented' and then math was used to make it seem that the invented postulate is viable. That is wrong. Not how it happened.

Light was found to always be measured at the same speed regardless of the interial frame. There were many physicist trying to figure out why this is. Einstein came up with the theory of SR to explain what is observed. The theory did a good job of explaining why the speed of light is always measured as the same speed. The theory has been experimentally tested many many times for the different aspects such as time dilation and length contraction. The measurements agree with the hypothesis so it is not mathimatical hokus pokus.

That is the way science works:
1. You make observations
2. Develope a hypothesis to explain the observations.
3. Test the hypothesis.
4. If tests confirm the hypothesis then a theory can be developed.
5. The theory will be able to make predictions on the outcome of future experiemnts and the theory must be able to be falsified.

MD fails out of the gate.

He disregards the observation that light is always measured at the same speed.
His hypothesis is developed to satisfy his 'gut' instinct.
He has not tested his hypotheisis and ignores data that shows his hypothesis is wrong.

The only thing going in his favor is an adoring side kick who is even more confused than he is....
 
origin said:
I suppose that is correct. I am basically chucking turds on a dung heap.

The only thing going in his favor is an adoring side kick who is even more confused than he is....
Click to expand...

This is a very apt description. Unfortunately, no scientific argument will convince these two.
 
przyk said:
Nope. It travels at c and it's governed by electromagnetism. It has to. Electromagnetism predicts that electromagnetic waves are emitted at c in a vacuum, even from a moving source.
Click to expand...

Which statement best describes your statement?

1. A light is emitted from a moving source at t=0. At t=1 the light will be 299,792,458 meters from the point in space the source emitted the light, and if the source was moving at .5 c during that 1 second, the source will be 149,896,229 meters away from the point of emission, and the light will be 149,896,229 meters in front of the source.

2. A light is emitted from a moving source at t=0. At t=1 the light will be 299,792,458 meters in front of the moving source, and if at t=1 the moving source is 149,896,229 meters away from the point in space the light was emitted, then the light will be 449,688,687 meters away from the point in space the light was emitted.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Which statement best describes your statement?

1. A light is emitted from a moving source at t=0. At t=1 the light will be 299,792,458 meters from the point in space the source emitted the light, and if the source was moving at .5 c during that 1 second, the source will be 149,896,229 meters away from the point of emission, and the light will be 149,896,229 meters in front of the source.
Click to expand...

This one is correct. This is because it talks about how TWO entities cover the SAME DISTANCE as viewed from the point of view of the observer left behind when the source started moving.
It does not disprove the fact that the light speed is STILL 299,792,458 m/s with respect to the source.


2. A light is emitted from a moving source at t=0. At t=1 the light will be 299,792,458 meters in front of the moving source,
Click to expand...

In the SOURCE frame. Not in the "observer left behind" frame. In the "observer left behind" frame, the light is only 149,896,229 m in front of the source. See point 1.

and if at t=1 the moving source is 149,896,229 meters away from the point in space the light was emitted, then the light will be 449,688,687 meters away
Click to expand...

It won't, you are having hallucinations.


from the point in space the light was emitted.
Click to expand...

Your recurring mistake is that you are liberally mixing the frame of the source with the frame of the observer left behind. Since 1200+ posts failed to make you understand that, I doubt that you ever will.
 
Last edited:
Tach said:
This one is correct.
Click to expand...

Correct, and that is my position.

Tach said:
In the SOURCE frame. Not in the "observer left behind" frame. In the "observer left behind" frame, the light is only 149,896,229 m in front of the source. See point 1.
Click to expand...

There is no different "frames" at t=1. The source is at a point in space at t=1, and the light is at a point in space at t=1. T=1 has no motion, it is a point in time. There is no relative motion at t=1. There is no motion at all at t=1, it is a POINT IN TIME! You can think of it as a freeze frame. The source and light are at specific points in space, and you are able to move around and measure the distances with your ruler. That is because the stop watch has stopped, the race is over, the results are in. There is no motion.
 
Motor Daddy said:
There is no different "frames" at t=1. The source is at a point in space at t=1, and the light is at a point in space at t=1. T=1 has no motion, it is a point in time. There is no relative motion at t=1. There is no motion at all at t=1, it is a POINT IN TIME! You can think of it as a freeze frame. The source and light are at specific points in space, and you are able to move around and measure the distances with your ruler. That is because the stop watch has stopped, the race is over, the results are in. There is no motion.
Click to expand...

I am doing the same thing origin said he was doing, I am basically chucking turds on a dung heap.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Prove your point that the light can be 449,688,687 meters away from the point in space the light was emitted at t=1??
Click to expand...

It isn't, are you hallucinating again? It is a fun game to throw turds on a dung heap once in a while but doing it 1200+ times gets boring.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Which statement best describes your statement?

1. A light is emitted from a moving source at t=0. At t=1 the light will be 299,792,458 meters from the point in space the source emitted the light, and if the source was moving at .5 c during that 1 second, the source will be 149,896,229 meters away from the point of emission, and the light will be 149,896,229 meters in front of the source.
Click to expand...
This one, of course. From the point of view of someone at rest in the "rest" frame you described, the light moves at c, the source moves at 0.5 c, and the separation between the source and the light increases at a rate of 0.5 c.

But that doesn't mean someone at rest relative to the source would measure the light moving at 0.5 c relative to them. It doesn't work that way. I haven't been following the thread in detail but I would expect this is the point Pete and James R have been trying to get across to you, which makes me rather pessimistic: if you didn't listen to them, you probably won't listen to me either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top