The Relativity of Simultaneity

[przyk]

Do plan on contributing any good information, or are you just here to be a distraction? If it's just to be a distraction, I'm done replying to you.

I was done with you before we were even started. You were just too much of an attention whore to notice:

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.

 

[Neddy Bate]

I've drawn a diagram that shows the speed of light towards a mirror is nearly infinite, and the speed of the reflected light is nearly zero.

This diagam, and two numbers, supports the theory that you never see a reflection in a mirror unless you are traveling at infinite velocity towards it.
So since you do see a reflection in a mirror, you must have infinite velocity.

Now, who wants to prove my theory is wrong? Remember, I have a diagram.

Don't make me use it. It will rock your socks.

This is just as good a theory as MD's. :thumbsup:

 

[quantum_wave]

I've drawn a diagram that shows the speed of light towards a mirror is nearly infinite, and the speed of the reflected light is nearly zero.

This diagam, and two numbers, supports the theory that you never see a reflection in a mirror unless you are traveling at infinite velocity towards it.
So since you do see a reflection in a mirror, you must have infinite velocity.

Now, who wants to prove my theory is wrong? Remember, I have a diagram.

Don't make me use it. It will rock your socks.

This is just as good a theory as MD's. :thumbsup:

No, it isn't. It is a complete disregard of the purpose for which SciForums even exits. The forum is not inteneded to be a place where smart guys act if if they are endowed with the knowledge of Gods and have the licnese to troll around all the threads where legitimate posters are carrying on responsible discussions. To characterize everything said by someone seeking understanding or by some layman wanting clear evidence of things as stupid or below common intellect is flat out trolling. Arfa, why not take a vacation from the forums until you learn to act like a regular person even though you are supposedly the smartest and best educated professional, if we can go from how you display your vast ego here.

 

[arfa brane]

The forum is not inteneded to be a place where smart guys act if if they are endowed with the knowledge of Gods and have the licnese to troll around all the threads where legitimate posters are carrying on responsible discussions.

Ironic isn't it? You've given us a fair description of Motor Daddy's modus operandum.
He's claimed several times that he has godlike knowledge, namely of the definition of the speed of light. He appears to be convinced that once you define something it has some kind of special status.

I wonder if he's looked up the definition of "a moron"?

 

[quantum_wave]

Ironic isn't it? You've given us a fair description of Motor Daddy's modus operandum.
He's claimed several times that he has godlike knowledge, namely of the definition of the speed of light. He appears to be convinced that once you define something it has some kind of special status.

I wonder if he's looked up the definition of "a moron"?

I don’t follow MD around and support his views on other threads. If you are referring to something he said on this thread, show me which post exactly you are referencing of him claiming that he has godlike knowledge about the speed of light and set me straight. More likely he is acting as anyone would who was being trolled and belittled. I’ll admit I’m wrong when you back up that statement with specific posts because I consider it possible that if I examine the context I will find abuse on the part of his attackers and twisted versions of his responses. Just show me the best example you have so I can see for myself; otherwise maybe you should be the one looking up that definition.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Maybe you don't understand, James. The only way to know the times is to measure them on the train. There is an x and y receiver on the train centered on the front wall and the side wall respectively. A light source remains fixed at the midpoint of the train. The motion of the train is unknown. You send a light from the source at t=0. The light reaches the y receiver in .65 seconds, and the y receiver at 1.384930 seconds. The measurements were taken on the train. As far as the train observer can tell, there is no outside world or embankment.

Light cannot take 0.65 seconds to reach a detector that is 0.5 light seconds away from the point of emission of the light. And that's the distance as measured in the train frame. In the train frame, the light must take 0.5 seconds, as measured by clocks that move with the train.

You're using embankment clocks to do the timing instead of train clocks.

Light travels at c in space.

No. Light travels at c in all inertial reference frames. Einstein does not believe in your "space" and neither do I.

You say if I give you the times you can tell me the speed of the box relative to the embankment. No, James, you can't, because the times I give you will be as measured on the train.

Then the only possible time from source to any detector at the centre of a cube side is 0.5 seconds.

What you're really doing is using embankment clocks to measure the time, without even realising it. Recall that neither box, nor the source, nor the detectors ever move in the train frame.

You do agree that nothing moves in its own rest frame, do you not? That is, the velocity if any object in its own frame is always zero. If you disagree with that, then you're not using the term "reference frame" correctly.

If you don't understand that, I will make an example of a train with an absolute velocity greater than zero, and an embankment that has an absolute velocity greater than zero. Then I will give you the train's times. You claim you can tell me the relative velocity between the train and the embankment from just those times? Negatory good buddy! No, you can't, because for all you know, you can calculate the train's velocity as say 1,200 m/s in one direction, but without knowing the embankment's 1,500 m/s velocity in the opposite direction, you will NEVER give me the correct relative velocity between the train and the embankment. The ONLY time you would be correct is if the embankment had an absolute zero velocity in space!

I agree that this is true in the Motor Daddy universe. Absolute velocities don't exist in Einstein's universe (i.e. the real one), so we don't need to worry about that problem in real life. We can measure relative velocities directly.

The y detector is a length just as the x detector is a length. The y detector is a distance away from the source at any given point in time, just as the x detector is a distance away from the source at any point in time.

You misunderstand. The detectors are located at points in space. There are lengths (i.e. spatial intervals) between the source and the detectors.

You just don't seem to get the fact that if you're riding in the train that has a .9c velocity, you can take a .5 light second bar and place it perfectly in between the source and the front wall, and the source and the side wall.

Only in the Motor Daddy universe. Not in Einstein's. At least, not when the bar is measured using embankment frame rulers.

The .9c come from the fact that the source (which remains fixed at the center of the train) is traveling away from the point in space that it emitted light at t=0. The walls are traveling with the source, remaining the same distance away from the source in the train frame. The source alone can be said to posses the velocity, and since all the receivers are an equal distance away from the source at all times, they too posses the velocity in the same direction.

Yes, I agree with all that in the embankment frame. In the train frame, the source and detectors never move, of course.

Good, it does make it easier to have the embankment at an absolute zero velocity, because then you can't come back and say it was the embankment that had the velocity and the train can be considered at rest. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If the embankment is at an absolute zero velocity, then it is quite clear the train is in motion, as light always travels at c in space.

All true in the Motor Daddy universe. The real universe doesn't have absolute velocities.

Einstein doesn't even realize it himself, and neither do you, but the embankment in his scenario has an absolute zero velocity.

There are no absolute velocities in Einstein's universe. It is not a matter of not realising it. It is a matter of rejecting it.

Like I said before, I can construct a similar example, where the train AND embankment each have an absolute velocity greater than zero, and you just knowing the train's times would not allow you to calculate the relative velocity between the train and the embankment unless you knew the embankment's absolute velocity. That's a fact!

Yes. It's a fact in the Motor Daddy universe. But Einstein's rules apply in the real universe.

Can you tell the relative velocity between you and the car in front of you going down the highway if you only know your velocity? You think you can? You are going 60 MPH down the highway. At t=0 the car is 50 feet in front of you. How far is the car in front of you at t=1?

To measure a speed, you need two locations and a time interval. You have only given me one location of the other car, so there's no way to calculate its velocity from the given data. That applies equally to in Einstein's and the MD universes.

So the y clocks are dilated, but the length isn't contracted?

So the length from the source to the y receiver isn't contracted, but the clocks are all dilated equally in all directions in the train?

All clocks that move with the train are dilated with respect to clocks that are stationary on the embankment. All clocks in the train frame are sychronised with each other. That's assumed in the term "reference frame".

Correct, I do say that if the train has a .5c velocity in the x direction, and the distance between the source at the center of the train and the x receiver in the train frame is .5 light seconds, that the light will take 1 second to reach the receiver. That is because light traveled at c for 1 second (299,792,458 meters), and the train traveled 149,896,229 meters in the same 1 second. So the x receiver started .5 light seconds away from the source at t=0, and was 1 light second away from the point in space the source emitted light a second later.

Those calculations are all done in the embankment frame, and are correct in that frame.

In the train frame, the observer measures the light to travel .5 light seconds in 1 second, or, he measures the speed of light to be .5c, which is due to the .5c absolute velocity of the train that the measurements don't include.

True in the Motor Daddy universe. Not true in Einstein's universe.

You make it sound like it's ok to create a postulate, change everything according to that postulate to make it work, and then create a mathematical world, and if everything is internally consistent it's ok.

NO! It's not ok.

The difference being, one can create an illusion of correctness, but in the end, it's still an illusion. The illusion being, that you can always be considered to be at rest and the other guy is actually doing all the moving. While it is possible that could be true, the odds of that in reality are slim to none.

Again with the "reality".

You're in no position to talk about "reality", remember? You have done nothing to check "reality".

As a matter of fact, the Motor Daddy absolute universe is the illusion and Einstein's universe is the reality. You don't know that because you never bothered to check. You've constructed a nice fantasy for yourself.

Again I direct your attention to two cars traveling down the road, one in front of the other. The distance between them at t=0 is 20 feet. One car is traveling at a constant 60 MPH. What is the distance between the cars at t=1? You can't answer that anymore than a train observer can say he was at rest while the tracks were doing all the moving.[/quote[

And neither can you. So, your universe has no advantage over Einstein's for this problem.

SR determines the relative motion, which says NOTHING as to the motion of each object.

Of course it doesn't say anything about absolute motion. SR doesn't have absolute motion. Why would it say anything about a concept that isn't part of the theory?

Two vehicles approaching each other on a road. The distance is closing at the rate of 100 m/s. The cars will collide in 1 second if the motions are inertial. What is the velocity of each car?

The relative velocity of one car with respect to the other is 100 m/s. You told us that.

The relative velocity of one car to the road can't be determined from the information you've given here. Not in your universe, or in Einstein's.

ah, is it 50m/s each in opposite directions? Is it 60 m/s and 40 m/s? How about 10/90, or 5.5/94.5?

All possible in the absence of further information.

The only thing that SR can say is that the closing speed is 100 m/s, because it always assumes that one car is at rest and the other car is the one in motion, or vise versa. It never considers, nor is it capable of measuring that both cars are in motion with their own velocities.

It's the only thing Motor Daddy can say too, without more information.

Are you telling me the embankment observer can't determine that it's .5 light seconds from the source to the receiver on the train?

It isn't .5 light seconds from the emission point of the light to the y receiver in the embankment frame, because in that frame the y receiver moves in the x direction after the light is emitted.

The times are measured on the train. Where do you think the times come from? The times are measured on the train!

You gave me the times in your statement of the problem. But 0.65 seconds is inconsistent with a distance of 0.5 light seconds, so the 0.65 can't have been measured using train clocks. It must have been measured using embankment clocks, and the light must have travelled 0.65 light seconds in the embankment frame.

Not only do I refuse to work with Einstein's postulates, I say they are BS! I've shown plenty of inconsistency in his 2nd postulate. His numbers don't add up!

Everybody agrees that Einstein's calculations are inconsistent with the Motor Daddy universe. And the Motor Daddy calculations are inconsistent with the Einstein universe. We expect that, because the two universes have different postulates.

But within Einstein's universe there are no inconsistencies. None that you've shown, anyway. You haven't shown that you're even able to analyse the problem using Einstein's postulates. You only seem interested in using your universe, and you show no understanding of Einstein's. Which means you are not in a position to refute Einstein, even if he was wrong.

Yes it is the absolute velocity that causes the times to the y receiver to be greater than .5 seconds.

No. Just the choice of reference frame.

The source is stationary to what, the train? Of course the source is stationary to the train, it is bolted to the center of the train and remains in that position relative to the train. But the source travels away from the point it emits light in space if the train is in motion.

That's true in the embankment frame in both the MD and Einstein universes. It is also true in the train frame in the MD universe, but not in the Einstein universe.

You don't seem to understand that the train can travel in space, with the source remaining at the center of the train, traveling with the train.

I understand just fine how the Motor Daddy universe is supposed to work. I'm not convinced you understand how Einstein's universe works.

The times are measured on the train. Do you think the embankment observer measures the time to the y receiver?

It is important to note that in the Motor Daddy universe it actually doesn't matter whether the clocks being used are on the train or on the embankment, because in the Motor Daddy universe all clocks tick everywhere are synchronised.

Whether the clocks are on the embankment or the train matters in Einstein's universe because clocks on the embankment run at a different rate to clocks on the train.

The y receiver records the time. The time stays on the clock. If the train stops and the embankment observer jumps aboard, he can clearly see what the recorded time was. Once the time is recorded it is written in stone! There is no changing that time, regardless of what the train does after the clock stopped.

I agree that the time recorded by a particular clock is set in stone. But what we might want to do is to compare the times on the train clocks and embankment clocks to see if they are the same. If we do that, we actually find they are not.

Don't imagine for a moment that I can't calculate the absolute velocity of an object in space, with no other object to relate to, because I can, and have done so, and have shown you many times.

I actually agree with you that you could do this if the Motor Daddy postulates applied. Unfortunately, Einstein's postulates apply in the real world, so your methods won't work in the real world. The real world has no absolute reference frame.

So relativity predicts length contraction by using length contraction in the calculations?

No. It predicts length contraction by analysing the mathematical consequences of the 2 postulates of Einstein's theory. It's not a circular argument. You start with postulates, then you derive predictions (such as time dilation). Then, you go out into the real world and test the predictions (which has been done for Einstein over and over and over again). If the tests refute the predicitons, it's back to the drawing board. If the tests bear out the predicitons (over and over and over) then the postulates are justified.

 

[arfa brane]

If you are referring to something he said on this thread, show me which post exactly you are referencing of him claiming that he has godlike knowledge about the speed of light and set me straight.

Oh. man.

Look back through the thread and find the various locations where MD states unequivocally "the speed of light is defined". See if you can figure out what he's on about.

He announces this like it's indisputable, that actually measuring the speed would amount to some kind of heresy. Science, however, does let you measure it. So it isn't too much of a leap to think that MD doesn't understand what science really is. It isn't a bunch of facts you can write down and claim are indisputable and true for all time.

Facts change. Experiment and measurement are the only real arbiters in science. A scientific fact is one that can be tested, perhaps an infinite number of times. The speed of light can be measured.

In fact, if you use light to time intervals between events, that is one of the things that you necessarily measure, the speed of transmission is fundamental to timing an interval. So he's wrong, and that's all there is to it.

 

[quantum_wave]

Oh. man.

Look back through the thread and find the various locations where MD states unequivocally "the speed of light is defined". See if you can figure out what he's on about.

He announces this like it's indisputable, that actually measuring the speed would amount to some kind of heresy. Science, however, does let you measure it. So it isn't too much of a leap to think that MD doesn't understand what science really is. It isn't a bunch of facts you can write down and claim are indisputable and true for all time.

Facts change. Experiment and measurement are the only real arbiters in science. A scientific fact is one that can be tested, perhaps an infinite number of times. The speed of light can be measured.

In fact, if you use light to time intervals between events, that is one of the things that you necessarily measure, the speed of transmission is fundamental to timing an interval. So he's wrong, and that's all there is to it.

Really?????? You can measure the speed of light. :duh:. And what do you get? Isn't it always c in vacuum? I still want to see the godlike post you refer to because all you did otherwise is turn around my accusation toward you and cast it on him. And to be clear about it, he is saying that the speed of light reaching the receptors is c from its point of origin. Show me the post you are referring to and I'll apologize.

 

[arfa brane]

You can measure the speed of light. :duh:. And what do you get?

Ask Motor Daddy. I think you'll find he's going to tell you you don't have to measure it, but apparently you do have to define it or use an existing definition.

What you get is always the same value. But not according to MD; in his universe the speed of light is constant, but it changes depending on the speed of the receiver, which isn't acording to the scientific facts, and it also means the constant speed of light is not constant after all. Have you missed this?

There is no single post in which he claims this godlike knowledge, there are several. It must be godlike because it transcends reality, where real people make measurements.

 

[quantum_wave]

Ask Motor Daddy. I think you'll find he's going to tell you you don't have to measure it, but apparently you do have to define it or use an existing definition.

What you get is always the same value. But not according to MD; in his universe the speed of light is constant, but it changes depending on the speed of the receiver, which isn't acording to the scientific facts, and it also means the constant speed of light is not constant after all. Have you missed this?

There is no single post in which he claims this godlike knowledge, there are several. It must be godlike because it transcends reality, where real people make measurements.

No, I didn't miss that. The light in his graphic is always moving at c. He is pointing out that if that light wave is encountered by the receptors in his box it will be moving at c relative to its point of emission and a moving observer in his box has to assume a different point of emission in order to have it moving at c in the moving frame.

 

[arfa brane]

The light in his graphic is always moving at c.

I'll take a punt here, and assume you realise the difference between a graphic of light 'traveling at c' and the real thing?

He is pointing out that if that light wave is encountered by the receptors in his box it will be moving at c relative to its point of emission and a moving observer in his box has to assume a different point of emission in order to have it moving at c in the moving frame.

And in the real world "the point of emission" isn't drawn in a diagram.
When the diagram bumps into reality, it doesn't explain what 'really' happens, which is that lightspeed is always measured as c. This has been done so often it might as well have been an infinite number of times. So MD's diagram is not a diagram of reality, but rather of some transcendental realm where the speed of light is known and you don't measure it.

Like I said already, if you use light to determine an interval of time (or distance), you have to measure its speed. He doesn't appear to have realised how that little detail blows a big hole in his diagram.

 

[quantum_wave]

Motor Daddy:

…

You misunderstand. The detectors are located at points in space. There are lengths (i.e. spatial intervals) between the source and the detectors.

…

I actually agree with you that you could do this if the Motor Daddy postulates applied. Unfortunately, Einstein's postulates apply in the real world, so your methods won't work in the real world. The real world has no absolute reference frame.

No. It predicts length contraction by analysing the mathematical consequences of the 2 postulates of Einstein's theory. It's not a circular argument. You start with postulates, then you derive predictions (such as time dilation). Then, you go out into the real world and test the predictions (which has been done for Einstein over and over and over again). If the tests refute the predicitons, it's back to the drawing board. If the tests bear out the predicitons (over and over and over) then the postulates are justified.

I'll take a punt here, and assume you realise the difference between a graphic of light 'traveling at c' and the real thing?

And in the real world "the point of emission" isn't drawn in a diagram.
When the diagram bumps into reality, it doesn't explain what 'really' happens, which is that lightspeed is always measured as c. This has been done so often it might as well have been an infinite number of times. So MD's diagram is not a diagram of reality, but rather of some transcendental realm where the speed of light is known and you don't measure it.

Like I said already, if you use light to determine an interval of time (or distance), you have to measure its speed. He doesn't appear to have realised how that little detail blows a big hole in his diagram.

I appreciate the patient answers. I submit two statements I have made that I think are appropriate.

I asked for the experimental evidence supporting Einstein that refutes MD and not just your say so:

While MD is away, the mice will play.

I’m going to take a minute and expound on MD’s postulate and the moving box scenario. He can correct me when he returns but I think that there needs to be more specifics in order for the smart guys to falsify it. I feel like you, all of the eight or ten, who are following closely and are interested in falsifying MD. Some of your arguments are that he has been falsified by scientific experiment and he (and I am) is (are) too dumb to see the obvious.

Then be more obvious. Link us to an experiment that fits the rules specifically (not just essentially), discuss what would be a valid experiment, or just offer a thought experiment in accord to the postulate and rules that he has utilized to do his math.

Again all you are saying is that there is evidence time and time again that refutes MD under MD’s rules. I elaborated in that post #1300 here. To my knowledge though we agree, the speed of light is always measured at c in vacuum like you are saying; is that your evidence that MD is wrong or do you have an experiment following MD’s rules where the flash is emitted at a point in space and the same light wave is the only light being observed and received?

Also, I submitted the thought into the experiment based on James R’s diagram that at the instant the observers pass each other physically, if they have their noses pressed up to the opposite sides of the moving glass, would they both see the flash at the same time, i.e. could they be positioned in the train car and on the embankment so their noses were at the glass at the same time they saw the flash, or would they each testify that they saw the nose of the other observer pass at a different time from when they saw the flash?

 

[AlexG]

I asked for the experimental evidence supporting Einstein that refutes MD and not just your say so:

I linked you to a paper on arxiv giving the latest, most accurate experimental confirmation of Lorentz invariance. Experimental evidence supporting Einstein and refuting MD.

Did you bother to read it? Read the initial summary and the conclusions.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0506/0506168v1.pdf

 

[quantum_wave]

I linked you to a paper on arxiv giving the latest, most accurate experimental confirmation of Lorentz invariance. Experimental evidence supporting Einstein and refuting MD.

Did you bother to read it? Read the initial summary and the conclusions.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0506/0506168v1.pdf

Yes, and OK, you’re convinced by the current state of evidence. I’m satisfied that you are convinced. For me there is a bigger picture, and it is the whole universe at both the macro and micro level. The whole universe is not defined by Lorentz invariant theory.

What I call the macro universe, that universe at scales larger than the quantum world, fits nicely under the Lorentz invariance umbrella according to all of you and I’ll give you that. I don’t say it doesn’t. I say based on our best experiments so far, Lorentz invariance remains un-falsified.

Seemingly you are satisfied that Lorentz invariance corresponds to whatever you might call reality.

However, excuse me for saying this but the macro and micro realms are not compatible under that umbrella and the tests of that invariance are far from over at relativistic speeds. In fact the testing would seem to be getting more focused on the known inconsistencies between GR and QM if I'm not mistaken.

I’m just a pea brained layman and am not entirely familiar with all of the ramifications of the incompatibility like you are. The incompatibility is between Particle Physics on the one hand, and the standard relativistic cosmological model which I think of as Big Bang Theory (General Relativity and the Cosmological Principle) with Inflation and the "modernization" that occurs as science unfolds, i.e. some rumblings about preconditions, new background measurements, voids, dark flow, possibilities of gravity wave imprints in the background radiation, etc., etc. You professionals haven’t resolved the incompatibilities yet have you? I do follow the popular media for news that is peer reviewed and disseminated to the masses, lol.

I’m saying that you shouldn't be so convinced that the widely acknowledged inconsistencies between micro and macro will be resolved in a way that Lorentz invariance will survive the resolution. There is hidden energy and it might be hidden within the so called point particles that you call “fundamental”.

If that is the case, the incompatibility is a huge loop hole which you could drive a moving light box through.

Why don't you tell me that you understand what kind of evidence would falsify MD, and tell me if in post #1300 I spelled it out to your satisfaction. If I did not, please refer to what I spelled out and explain why your evidence does not fulfill what I spelled out (I don't think MD theory can be tested without something like a light box), and say what particulars the experiment should have. Don't always move the topic back to what you have said, repeat it, and ignore where I am trying to take the discussion. That will not prove anything.

And please do address the concerns I bring up about the incompatibility between GR and QM.

And to you specifically smart Alex, don't follow me around to other threads and troll, that is bad form.

 

[arfa brane]

I asked for the experimental evidence supporting Einstein that refutes MD and not just your say so:

And I said that the speed of light has been measured essentially an infinite number of times. Would the results count as 'experimental evidence', and can you figure out that the evidence refutes MD's claim that it changes? It refutes it, because the speed of light doesn't change; there is no evidence for MD's "theory" because it's just wrong.

I don't think MD theory can be tested without something like a light box

MD's theory has been tested, many many times. As I said.

What do you want me to tell you?

 

[quantum_wave]

And I said that the speed of light has been measured essentially an infinite number of times. Would the results count as 'experimental evidence', and can you figure out that the evidence refutes MD's claim that it changes? It refutes it, because the speed of light doesn't change; there is no evidence for MD's "theory" because it's just wrong.
MD's theory has been tested, many many times. As I said.

What do you want me to tell you?

You are reapeating yourself. Respond to my response, not your own previous posts where I responed to you and on the same topic to others:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2764294&postcount=1312

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2764370&postcount=1314

 

[arfa brane]

I have responded. You seem to be repeating the same questions I thought I already answered.

Now, I'm done with the respond. But you and MD keep playing with diagrams, you can have all the fun.

 

[quantum_wave]

I have responded. You seem to be repeating the same questions I thought I already answered.

Now, I'm done with the respond. But you and MD keep playing with diagrams, you can have all the fun.

Oh, don't go, lol. There are the questions I put to you that I don't think you can answer and I am lead to believe that is why you are going.

Did you look at post #1300 and do you have any comment about how MD can be tested where his rules are followed? If all you can say is that the speed of light is measured at c and that proves him wrong, it doesn't. The key to falsification is being able to measure the speed of a specific flash of light that is emitted according to specific circumstances and is measured by receptors; the same light flash that was emitted in the rest frame has to be measured at the receptors in the moving frame. You think your insistence that the speed of light is always measured at c meets those requirements? They don't unless you can identify the fixed source of the light. If star light can provide the answer, spell out the exact particulars and I will see if it meets MD's rules and try to see if I can agree?

Have you noticed the issue of the incompatibility between QM and GR and do you acknowledge that the Lorentz invariant theory is on the relativistic cosmological side and not the particle model side? Does that matter to this issue in your mind? I think it does.

If you leave a discussion like this where those question are not addressed then your contribution so far is noted and so long.

 

[quantum_wave]

A note to Motor Daddy. You are still not falsified as I'm sure you realize. I hope I have not misrepresented your postulate or rules while you were gone. I like the fact that you have an accelerating box graphic because that allows you to emit the flash from the theoretical rest position of SR and then race out and let the flash be received by your receptors in a moving frame.

I wanted to ask you if you have considered the question of the incompatibility between Quantum Mechanics / Particle Physics, and the Lorentz invariant theories that rule right now in the cosmological consensus? And do you think that taking the discussion in that direction has any merit?

 

[Neddy Bate]

If you don't duplicate MD's rules in the experiment he is going to respond with what might seem like a dumb and unresponsive response . But if you were to duplicate the rules...

MD's rules are much simpler than yours. You say MD's theory only applies to cubes in rectilinear motion, in outer space. But MD has been very clear that his claims apply everywhere. Here he is saying that his theory applies to a train on earth:

http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2763688&postcount=1262

Correct, I do say that if the train has a .5c velocity in the x direction, and the distance between the source at the center of the train and the x receiver in the train frame is .5 light seconds, that the light will take 1 second to reach the receiver.

I don't know how you missed that he claims the only way the speed of light can be measured to be c is if the observer is at absolute rest. This claim is proven wrong by every measurement of light speed on earth which finds the speed to be c. Unless of course you want to argue that the earth is always at absolute rest?