The Swing of a Pendulum

[Motor Daddy]

MD - in another post you summed up your OP nicely, thus ..

Do you know what relative motion is? If so, then I am talking about the zero relative motion between two cars, and at the same time showing an acceleration in the absolute frame. Since the relative velocity between the cars doesn't change when the acceleration is occurring then the acceleration is not of the relative velocity.

I still have issues with this. There is no relative motion between the two vehicles because you have, in your thought experiment, PRESCRIBED that there be none.

You can't say that the two vehicles must move as one, and then say, 'hey look, those two vehicles move as one, therefore .."

That's why on a couple of occasions I have said that they may as well be one .. or two .. or 57, or 2,000 ..

If you make it a condition precedent that they move as one, then of course there is no relative motion between them, just as there is no relative motion between the cars front and rear bumper bar, or the rockets nose and tail.

So you have a 'phenomenon' that moves as one, with a pendulum (or two or 57 or 2,000) inside it/them. That pendulum accelerates in different directions and degrees, depending on the differing acceleration and direction of the vehicle, as others have explained here. Surely you accept that the pendulum's movement will vary in accordance with the acceleration / direction of the vehicle ?

There is in fact, probably the most wonderful example you can think of of this - the balance mechanism in the human ear. It relies on no light, no sound, is in a perfectly enclosed space .. and relies on acceleration / inertia only. And it's been keeping you upright quite admirably all your life (presumably).

I still can’t see what your point is. You seem to be quite good at reducing an issue to simple, clear points so what is yours here ?

BTW, thank you for persisting with this most interesting and informative thread.

Lakon, Keeping the rockets separate objects allows one to play with different distances at different times. Say for instance that from t=0-t=3 the distance remained the same, but at t=4 the distance changed 1 meter and at t=5 the distance changed 10 more meters.

Sure, when the relative velocity is zero you could claim them to be one because they move as one, but that is only for a duration of time. The two rockets are two objects in space. They each have their own velocity and they have a relative velocity. Their own velocity is an absolute velocity which is measured in the absolute frame.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Their own velocity is an absolute velocity which is measured in the absolute frame.

You complain when supposedly others have 'a big pile of evidence which belongs in a dumpster' but then you go and assert things for which you have no evidence.

This has been pointed out many times to you so you are not unaware of it, you're just dishonest. You've had it explained to you how to measure acceleration without need to consider velocity, using real world devices. You cannot engage in an honest discussion, unable to do even the most rudimentary mathematics, so our discussion doesn't need to go any further. I'll just say thanks for laying out your ignorance in a clear and repeated manner. Your inability to do stuff taught to 15 year olds makes it particularly easy to highlight your ignorance.

Same time next year?

 

[billvon]

You have no business talking about reality

Reality = what really happens as proven by experiment. It does not vary just because you can't understand it.

You have a relative velocity but you have no idea which direction the rockets are traveling along that axis.

Exactly - because you have not defined that axis. And until you do the question has no meaning. Once you define an axis (and hence a coordinate frame) the answer is simple.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Reality = what really happens as proven by experiment.

Which Motor Daddy has failed to provide, his definition of 'evidence' is 'repeat assertions'. Funny how he complains about a supposed lack of evidence from others but he's happy to just say he knows how reality works. I wonder, does he actually think that's honest and that no one notices? Is he that deluded? Or is he less deluded and just more dishonest? Decisions, decisions...

 

[billvon]

Is he that deluded? Or is he less deluded and just more dishonest? Decisions, decisions...

I don't think he's deluded, just a bit stubborn. Much smarter people than him have had a hard time figuring this out; the "luminiferous aether" (i.e. Motor Daddy's one true reference frame) was considered a valid concept for almost 60 years in 'modern' (post-Maxwell) physics.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Yes, much clever people had a lot of work to do to figure this stuff up. It took Newton to formalise kinematics and then 250 years for people to realise it was flawed and then another 50 years for people to construct an alternative. They were smart, well educated, had experience in physics, discussed things with one another, learnt from their mistakes when they made them and presented evidence for their new ideas. Motor Daddy has none of those, he just knows.

When mainstream people put forth an idea of aether they worked out a quantitative model and then proposed experiments which would distinguish their ideas from the mainstream ideas, clearly stating what the measurements would be to validate their claims. Then people did experiments to check and this helped refine the ideas. Motor Daddy doesn't do this. He doesn't even know how scientists do their experiments, like measuring acceleration.

When mainstream people proposed alternatives to the mainstream model of the day they were well versed in the mainstream model, so they could correctly examine it and highlight its problems, differences from their own ideas and possible deviations from experiments. Motor Daddy has none of those. Even the suggestion he first show he understands mainstream models he called 'absolute nonsense'.

I'd say that is beyond 'a bit stubborn'. It is either deliberate and deep dishonesty or its delusion.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

I notice you got stuck in a previous thread where we were discussing (surprise surprise) exactly the same issues that you're repeating here. Here's the link to where we got up to:

Relativity of Simultaneity

That was way back in March, last year. Before that, you got stuck for six to nine months at a different point in that same thread.

It seems to me that you give up whenever the going gets too tough for your silly ideas. When the reality hits, that's when Motor Daddy runs away. You hope that I won't remember that you gave up and got stuck, but I always do.

In the last post of that thread, as you can see, I predicted that it would take you at least 9 months to start up your bullshit again. And here we are, in January 2013. What do you know?

You've done no thinking at all in the last 9 months, have you? Nothing has advanced. Nothing has changed.

You've probably forgotten everything I taught you in that thread. You still have no idea what a reference frame is, and so you can't even begin to talk about relativity. And yet, here you are again, floundering around. Same old, same old.

No surprises there. It is what I have come to expect from you.

PS Notice when that thread started. It was back in May 2010. So, we're coming up to the three year anniversary of your knowing nothing about reference frames.

Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that you've made no effort at all to learn anything in 3 years?

You flunked out.

 

[Motor Daddy]

James, I've learned enough about relativity to know that it makes fundamental fatal mistakes which makes the theory a pile of trash. Complete and utter nonsense caused by a lack of understanding of how absolute velocity works. The entire theory of relativity was concocted under the premise that light is always measured to travel the same speed in all frames. That is simply impossible as I've shown over and over again. BY DEFINITION you are wrong and I am right. What part of "a meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second" do you not understand??????

 

[origin]

James, I've learned enough about relativity to know that it makes fundamental fatal mistakes which makes the theory a pile of trash. Complete and utter nonsense caused by a lack of understanding of how absolute velocity works. The entire theory of relativity was concocted under the premise that light is always measured to travel the same speed in all frames.

The speed of light has been shown experiementally to be same in all inertial frames.

That is simply impossible as I've shown over and over again.

Actual measurements say it is true, so your little pictures are wrong.

BY DEFINITION you are wrong and I am right. What part of "a meter is defined by the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second" do you not understand??????

Are you really that dense that you don't understand that the speed of light is a good measure of a meter precisely because the speed is frame independent? Really??

 

[Motor Daddy]

The speed of light has been shown experiementally to be same in all inertial frames.

If you are actually measuring the speed of light then how could it be anything different? You are not actually measuring the speed of light, you are measuring the closing speed of light and you! That is not measuring the speed of light, it is measuring the closing speed (relative velocity), so when is it that you are actually gonna measure the speed of light?

Then there's the issue of the way you measure distance in a frame using round trip light travel time and divide by 2. Don't you see that is total BS and that only makes the length correct when the source and the mirror are at a zero relative velocity along the same axis, and at the same time each at an absolute zero velocity. If the absolute velocity would be greater than zero the length will be incorrect!

 

[billvon]

Then there's the issue of the way you measure distance in a frame using round trip light travel time and divide by 2. Don't you see that is total BS and that only makes the length correct when the source and the mirror are at a zero relative velocity along the same axis, and at the same time each at an absolute zero velocity. If the absolute velocity would be greater than zero the length will be incorrect!

Would seem so, wouldn't it? And yet every single experiment has proven that when the source and mirror are at any speed whatsoever, the speed of light is measured to be the same, and the round trip time takes exactly the same amount of time.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Would seem so, wouldn't it? And yet every single experiment has proven that when the source and mirror are at any speed whatsoever, the speed of light is measured to be the same, and the round trip time takes exactly the same amount of time.

That's because you're taking the round trip light travel time and dividing by two and claiming that result multiplied by c will give you the length, but that is not the correct length unless you are at an absolute zero velocity, which you have no way of measuring or knowing!!!

 

[billvon]

That's because you're taking the round trip light travel time and dividing by two and claiming that result multiplied by c will give you the length, but that is not the correct length unless you are at an absolute zero velocity, which you have no way of measuring or knowing!

You think it's not correct. Decades of experiments with real-world systems show it to be correct, no matter what the speed. Again, reality trumps MotorDaddy math.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You think it's not correct. Decades of experiments with real-world systems show it to be correct, no matter what the speed. Again, reality trumps MotorDaddy math.

Again, the reality is that each object has an absolute velocity, and you wouldn't know that because you've never measured the speed of light, you've only measured the relative speed of light compared to you!

 

[billvon]

. . . .you've only measured the relative speed of light compared to you!

Exactly. And it's always the speed of light, no matter how or where you measure it. You will never see "slow light" which is what your example requires.

An animation is attached to indicate what you are trying to "prove." The detector on the left is stationary; the detector on the right is moving. It seems like the detector on the right would see light move "slower" since otherwise it would have to "go faster than light" to keep up with the non-moving detector. This is the premise that was discredited over a century ago.

View attachment 6052

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Again, the reality is that each object has an absolute velocity

A claim for which you have no evidence. You have no working model for kinematics, which you can compare to experimental data. You have no experimental data to hand either. You also have no experience with experiments or real world systems. You demand proof from others but provide none of your own.

You're knowingly dishonest. A deplorable trait in anyone.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Exactly. And it's always the speed of light, no matter how or where you measure it. You will never see "slow light" which is what your example requires.

You mean the closing speed between you and the light is always 299,792,458 m/s. That closing speed between you and light is based on a combination of your position in space at every time t and the position of the photon in space at every time t. In other words, you claim the measured speed of light is always the same regardless of your motion, so what you are saying is that since your measured speed of light is always the same and you know your motion is capable of being different, then you are saying that the speed of light must change speeds in order to maintain the same 299,792,458 m/s measured light speed in your different motion frames. You can;t have your cake and eat it too. Which is it, does light travel at a constant rate in a vacuum and you too have capability of motion during that same duration of time, making the distance between you and light after one second change depending on your motion, resulting in a change in measured relative velocity between you and light, or... is it that you always measure the relative velocity of light to be the same regardless of your motion, which means light knows how fast you are traveling, and it adjust its motion in order to maintain your measured relative velocity between you and it???

An animation is attached to indicate what you are trying to "prove." The detector on the left is stationary; the detector on the right is moving. It seems like the detector on the right would see light move "slower" since otherwise it would have to "go faster than light" to keep up with the non-moving detector. This is the premise that was discredited over a century ago.

View attachment 6052

The animation on the left is of the frame at an absolute zero velocity.

The animation on the right shows that the red and blue dots hit the walls at different times, even though the distance to the walls is the same as each other. That means that the measured speed of the balls in the frame is different, as they take different amounts of times to travel the same length in the frame.

 

[billvon]

You mean the closing speed between you and the light is always 299,792,458 m/s.

Nope. It also means the opening speed is ~3x10^8 m/s. In every case you can observe it is ~3x10^8 m/s - no exceptions.

so what you are saying is that since your measured speed of light is always the same and you know your motion is capable of being different, then you are saying that the speed of light must change speeds in order to maintain the same 299,792,458 m/s measured light speed in your different motion frames.

Seems counterintuitive, doesn't it? Again, much smarter people than you have been confused by that, so don't feel bad. It took decades of testing to prove that the speed of light is really invariant.

Which is it, does light travel at a constant rate in a vacuum . . .

Yes.

is it that you always measure the relative velocity of light to be the same regardless of your motion . . .

Yes.

which means light knows how fast you are traveling, and it adjust its motion in order to maintain your measured relative velocity between you and it?

No, it never "adjusts its speed."

The animation on the right shows that the red and blue dots hit the walls at different times, even though the distance to the walls is the same as each other. That means that the measured speed of the balls in the frame is different, as they take different amounts of times to travel the same length in the frame.

You got it! And that assumption (with light taking the place of the dots) is exactly what has been disproven. No matter what you do to the frame, it always acts like the animation on the left.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You got it! And that assumption (with light taking the place of the dots) is exactly what has been disproven. No matter what you do to the frame, it always acts like the animation on the left.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. If the red and blue dots are emitted at t=0, how could the animation on the right be an assumption, since I just told you that the dots are traveling at different speeds? You claim light always hits the walls at the same time no matter what in every frame if released from the center at the same time. The animation on the right does not depict what you are saying, nor can you prove the left, since that is at an absolute zero velocity and you have no way of knowing that!

 

[billvon]

You claim light always hits the walls at the same time no matter what in every frame if released from the center at the same time.

Correct.

The animation on the right does not depict what you are saying

Correct. The animation on the right depicts your (erroneous) assumption. It is what has been proven to be wrong by decades of experimentation.