The speed of light may have been broken.

[AlphaNumeric]

I wouldn't do this normally, but ...

AN, are you still working on your reply to me as to why MD's box is incorrect? It sure is taking you a while.

Delicious irony

 

[Motor Daddy]

I wouldn't do this normally....

Of course you wouldn't, but under your current state of mind which is abnormal, you do things that just don't make sense.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

So are you're saying taunting people is something only an abnormal minded person would do? Or it doesn't make sense to taunt people for a lack of reply?

So why did you do it?

Are you going to try to retort what I said? You demanded I provide it, whining about how I usually bring on the mathematics and now I've done it you've gone very quiet. You're obviously reading the thread and it's been a few days. Are you struggling? Is there anything you'd like me to elaborate on? To explain to you? Do you understand the general algebraic approach or are you only comfortable when people put in specific numbers?

I'm willing to help you understand, if only you'd engage in some honest discussion.

 

[Motor Daddy]

So are you're saying taunting people is something only an abnormal minded person would do? Or it doesn't make sense to taunt people for a lack of reply?

So why did you do it?

Are you going to try to retort what I said? You demanded I provide it, whining about how I usually bring on the mathematics and now I've done it you've gone very quiet. You're obviously reading the thread and it's been a few days. Are you struggling? Is there anything you'd like me to elaborate on? To explain to you? Do you understand the general algebraic approach or are you only comfortable when people put in specific numbers?

I'm willing to help you understand, if only you'd engage in some honest discussion.

AN, I've been through all of this numerous times in the Relativity of Simultaneity thread. If you think you have retorted my example you are sadly mistaken.

1. The cube has sides of length 1 light second.
2. The source remains at the center of the cube at all times.
3. The receivers are centered on each wall.
4. The clocks are absolutely synced, and tick as one.
5. If the cube is in motion, it is IMPOSSIBLE for light to be emitted from the source and impact all the receivers in the same amount of time. See the provided pic, the light is impacting the z receiver in less time than the x receiver. That contradicts Einstein's second postulate that light will always be measured as c in a reference frame.

You are in the box. You emit light and check the receivers to see the time annotated. You find that z receiver says .65 seconds, but your measuring sticks say the distance is .5 light seconds from the source to the receiver. Explain the difference between .65 seconds that it actually took and the .5 seconds that it should have taken if Einstein's second postulate were true.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

1. The cube has sides of length 1 light second.

In one frame only. There's 2 frames at play here.

2. The source remains at the center of the cube at all times.

Only in one frame, in the second frame the box is moving away from the point of emission, as Neddy's pictures show.

3. The receivers are centered on each wall.

And?

4. The clocks are absolutely synced, and tick as one.

Even putting aside issues with synching clocks in SR, what issue does this make in my retort of your claims?

5. If the cube is in motion, it is IMPOSSIBLE for light to be emitted from the source and impact all the receivers in the same amount of time. See the provided pic, the light is impacting the z receiver in less time than the x receiver. That contradicts Einstein's second postulate that light will always be measured as c in a reference frame.

You are in the box. You emit light and check the receivers to see the time annotated. You find that z receiver says .65 seconds, but your measuring sticks say the distance is .5 light seconds from the source to the receiver. Explain the difference between .65 seconds that it actually took and the .5 seconds that it should have taken if Einstein's second postulate were true.

Rather than repeat your assertions please explain why my demonstration SR's description of the system is entirely consistent was mistake. You asked for the maths and you refuse to respond to it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

In one frame only. There's 2 frames at play here.

There is one frame, and that is the absolute frame.

At any given time t there is objects in the frame, at a position in the frame.

Example: There are two cars on the road, one doing 60 MPH and one doing 100 MPH. At 12:00 they have a location and at 1:00 they have a location. There is no relative motion, just positions at 12:00 and 1:00.

 

[Tach]

There is one frame, and that is the absolute frame.

So what happens in the frames attached to the objects moving wrt the "absolute frame", dimwit?

 

[Motor Daddy]

So what happens in the frames attached to the objects moving wrt the "absolute frame", dimwit?

Everything is in the absolute frame. There is no escaping the absolute frame. Your lack of intelligence switches your perspective from the absolute frame to an illusion that you perceive as another frame. Everything in the box is relative to the absolute frame. If you were in the box you would say you moved the chair ten feet from one point of the box to another point of the box. But that is your illusion. The chair moved in the absolute frame, and you had an illusion that it only moved 10 feet.

 

[billvon]

There is one frame, and that is the absolute frame.

True in Newtonian mechanics, not true in SR frames.

Example: There are two cars on the road, one doing 60 MPH and one doing 100 MPH. At 12:00 they have a location and at 1:00 they have a location. There is no relative motion, just positions at 12:00 and 1:00.

You are confusing velocity vectors and coordinate systems with relative frames. So -

Yes, both cars are in nearly the same frame because their speeds are so similar. Any differences due to SR would be too small to measure.

No, you are incorrect when you say there is no relative motion. There IS relative motion. If they are both going in the same direction they have a relative speed of 40mph.

Yes, they both have positions at 12:00 and 1:00. This is not the same as their instantaneous motion, although that information can be used to deduce their average relative motion.

 

[billvon]

5. If the cube is in motion, it is IMPOSSIBLE for light to be emitted from the source and impact all the receivers in the same amount of time.

Then how do you explain the fact that in experiments, the light DOES reach all the receivers at the same time?

 

[Tach]

Everything is in the absolute frame. There is no escaping the absolute frame.

So, the objects moving wrt the "absolute" frame cannot have frames attached to them. What a crock of sh^t.

Your lack of intelligence switches your perspective from the absolute frame to an illusion that you perceive as another frame.

Nah, it is your native imbecility.

 

[OnlyMe]

What Motor Daddy appears to be saying is, that there is only one frame of reference.., that of the observer's (his), and that all other frames of reference including yours and mine are illusions, from his frame of reference.

The only thing that exists is that which lies within his box.., his frame of reference.

This is a valid point of view consistent with some frames of consciousness I have read about involving aboriginal perspectives, mostly from isolated Amazonian tribes... You know some who have no concept of numbers.., they give you half of what they have and they still have "all" of what they have left.., or those with a time sense that includes only today and three days into the past or future and those who believe only that which is in the experience of a living person is real, this later includes the dreams of living persons...

I think I finally get MD's perspective.., only reality as he sees it is REAL. Everything else is illusion or delusion. From there, there is no way for him to see the illusion or delusion, of his own ideas.

Sorry, I kind of digressed from the discussion of physics to an evaluation of the apparent psychology or abnormal psychology involved. There may even be some research study out there interested in exploring his Box, but it is most likely to be found in psychology or neuroscience.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There is one frame, and that is the absolute frame.

I explained this to you several times. You're complaining that SR is inconsistent, so you have to consider what SR says. SR says there's 2 frames and the transformation between them is consistent. It is irrelevant to the internal consistency of SR what you think.

Do you understand this?

And I can't help but notice you skipped over the bit of my post where I asked if you planned to retort my maths. Are you unwilling to face up to it? You asked for it and I provided. If you're not going to address it at least be honest enough to admit it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Then how do you explain the fact that in experiments, the light DOES reach all the receivers at the same time?

For the 456,000,782 time, show me where the clocks were absolutely sync'd, and the one way light travel time was measured?

Funny how the neutrino measuring FTL was measured as one way travel time with almost perfect sync'd clocks and it measured FTL, huh?

 

[billvon]

What Motor Daddy appears to be saying is, that there is only one frame of reference.., that of the observer's (his), and that all other frames of reference including yours and mine are illusions, from his frame of reference.

The only thing that exists is that which lies within his box.., his frame of reference.

That doesn't work either. From his diagram if his OWN frame of reference is moving he still does not see light expand in a sphere, which we know from experiments is not the case. He's saying there is only one absolute, motionless frame (not necessarily his) where physics works correctly, which of course is untrue.

 

[billvon]

For the 456,000,782 time, show me where the clocks were absolutely sync'd, and the one way light travel time was measured?

Sure. In 1971 two scientists flew synchronized cesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, then compared their times against a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Since one clock was moving with the earth's spin it was going faster and experienced time dilation. The other clock was going against the earth's spin and thus experienced a slower passage of time relative to the stationary clock. Relative to the clock at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the eastward flying clock lost 59 nanoseconds and the westward flying clock gained 273 nanoseconds.

 

[Motor Daddy]

That doesn't work either. From his diagram if his OWN frame of reference is moving he still does not see light expand in a sphere, which we know from experiments is not the case. He's saying there is only one absolute, motionless frame (not necessarily his) where physics works correctly, which of course is untrue.

There is only the absolute frame in which light travels. When light is emitted it travels in the absolute frame. The origin of the light sphere remains at the center of the light sphere. Can you dispute that?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Sure. In 1971 two scientists flew synchronized cesium atomic clocks east and west around the Earth in commercial airliners, then compared their times against a clock that remained at the US Naval Observatory. Since one clock was moving with the earth's spin it was going faster and experienced time dilation. The other clock was going against the earth's spin and thus experienced a slower passage of time relative to the stationary clock. Relative to the clock at the U.S. Naval Observatory, the eastward flying clock lost 59 nanoseconds and the westward flying clock gained 273 nanoseconds.

In 2011 CERN reported that neutrinos traveled FTL, which if true makes SR obsolete due to SR having causality issues. Stop living in the past.

 

[OnlyMe]

That doesn't work either. From his diagram if his OWN frame of reference is moving he still does not see light expand in a sphere, which we know from experiments is not the case. He's saying there is only one absolute, motionless frame (not necessarily his) where physics works correctly, which of course is untrue.

If his frame of reference is the box, the he knows nothing of the experience to which you refer.

And from the above it seems clear you have no idea of the impact(s) abnormal psychology can have on perception, reason and logic. Things experienced by individuals with abnormal psychological perspectives don't have to be logical to others and can be at odds even with their descriptions of their environments.

Disclaimer: I have no real way of knowing what MD's motives or reasoning are or how he arrived at the conclusions he has. It very well might be that he is completely normal, in all but his enjoyment of contentious discussions. His contrary position may be by design to elicit just the kind of debate that is now occurring.

 

[Emil]

The speed ​​of light was broken by the muons.

Muon Velocity