The Swing of a Pendulum

[Motor Daddy]

Correct.

Impossible! By definition you are wrong! An expanding light sphere does not travel in space it expands its radius in space. The center point is incapable of motion. HOWEVER, the source that emitted the light is an object in space, capable of motion during the same duration of time the light is in motion. That means:
If the source was in motion while the light sphere radius was expanding then the source will no longer be at the center of the light sphere. No longer at the center means that the source is closer to one point of the light sphere than the other points. That means points of the expanding light sphere will be a different distances away from the source after a time has elapsed. So according to the source, the speed of light is measured to be different depending on which direction he measures the distance to the edge of the light sphere.

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

Don't try to attach your BS animation with my theory, the left animation depicts my absolute zero velocity situation. The animation on the right is NOT my method, because I don't measure the light travel distance traveled along the z axis as lengthx2 as indicated in the animation. That is not the path that light travels to reach the wall! Light travels up and to the right, which is a greater distance! I measure the distance light traveled between the point the light was emitted in space and the point in space the light reaches the wall. When the light reaches the wall that is the radius of the light sphere, and that means you know how much time has elapsed and the distance light traveled in space in that duration of time.

 

[billvon]

Impossible! By definition you are wrong!

Via your definitions I am wrong; however via both theory and actual experimentation I am right. That has been proven beyond question.

That is not the path that light travels to reach the wall! Light travels up and to the right, which is a greater distance! I measure the distance light traveled between the point the light was emitted in space and the point in space the light reaches the wall.

That is what the animation showed. The light seems like it has to travel a longer distance - so it must either go faster to cover the same distance in the same time, or it will go the same speed and arrive late! These concepts have been disproven hundreds of times. It always takes the same time and it always goes the same speed, despite what your intuition (and what Newtonian math) tells you.

Hopefully you now understand the error you made, and you have heard about the hundreds of experiments that prove that concept (a single invariant frame) wrong. You've seen the math posted that demonstrates why it is wrong, and you've seen explanations of how reality itself disagrees with your theories on light propagation. And again, don't feel too bad; a great many people, many smarter than you, have made the same mistake.

The important question is - what will you do with the new information you have gleaned?

 

[Motor Daddy]

 

[Motor Daddy]

You see the difference in path length between the blue line and the orange line? You are trying to say that light travels both of those distances in the same exact time. That's ridiculous!

 

[billvon]

You see the difference in path length between the blue line and the orange line? You are trying to say that light travels both of those distances in the same exact time. That's ridiculous!

Like I said, many smarter men than you thought the same thing before they figured it out. You're in good company.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Like I said, many smarter men than you thought the same thing before they figured it out. You're in good company.

There is no option, you are wrong, and if your test results support your wrong theory then those test results are consistent with your wrong theory. Did you expect the proper numbers to agree with an incorrect theory?

 

[billvon]

There is no option, you are wrong, and if your test results support your wrong theory then those test results are consistent with your wrong theory. Did you expect the proper numbers to agree with an incorrect theory?

OK, every scientist in the world except you is wrong. All the experiments that have been run are wrong. Einstein, Hawking, Hubble - none of them hold a candle to you. You're right and they are wrong. And GPS doesn't really work. It's a government conspiracy because you KNOW it is based on principles that don't work.

How's that? Will that let you sleep at night?

 

[Motor Daddy]

OK, every scientist in the world except you is wrong.

I accept your white flag! It's about time!!

All the experiments that have been run are wrong.

It's about time you realized that your methods are rubbish! Put that trash in the dumpster where it belongs before some child gets their hands on it and gets the wrong impression.

Einstein, Hawking, Hubble - none of them hold a candle to you.

They were but a step on the ladder for me to step on to get to the top!!

You're right and they are wrong.

Of course, that's what I've been telling you all along. It's about time you realized what a sham your science is. Admitting it is the first step. Congratulations!!!

And GPS doesn't really work. It's a government conspiracy because you KNOW it is based on principles that don't work.

If you give your GPS coordinates to a Martian and tell her to meet you there you will never see her because she won't be able to find you!

How's that? Will that let you sleep at night?

Is the check in the mail yet??

 

[Read-Only]

Once tremendous arrogance is coupled with tremendous ignorance there's no limit on what the stupidity can rise to.

I still say it's time to completely abandon this thread.

Even if Motor Daddy lived to be 200 he still wouldn't be as bright as the average schoolchild. Pity. <shrug>

 

[Motor Daddy]

Once tremendous arrogance is coupled with tremendous ignorance there's no limit on what the stupidity can rise to.

Once tremendous willpower is coupled with a bit of knowledge there is no limit to what the mind can understand!

 

[Lakon]

Like I said, many smarter men than you thought the same thing before they figured it out. You're in good company.

Appeals to authority .. appeals to strength in numbers .. appeals to tenure .. they can all fall in a heap overnight and have done so repeatedly in the past.

One must always hold a tiny room in the back of their mind, that contains the possibility that one apostate CAN be right and the mighty empire CAN be wrong.

I am merely observing this conversation with immense interest more for the fact that I am learning a lot from it. I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to who is right or wrong .. but MD sure puts up a good arguement .. as do others.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Read-Only]

Once tremendous willpower is coupled with a bit of knowledge there is no limit to what the mind can understand!

Correct. But you're making the fatal mistake of thinking that you actually have knowledge. I'ts been shown here over an over that you are no more than an egotistical mental dolt.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Correct. But you're making the fatal mistake of thinking that you actually have knowledge. I'ts been shown here over an over that you are no more than an egotistical mental dolt.

I've shown over and over that what you show belongs in a dumpster. When you learn how to measure distance using light then we can have an educated discussion on the matter. Why on earth would you show up to a battle of wit unarmed?

 

[origin]

Returning to the original question for a moment and for the fun of watching you in more massive denial...

At the risk of blowing your little mind, I must tell you that a pendulum is not a good device for use to measure acceleration on a space ship. The problem is that without gravity the pendulum will only tell you that acceleration is occurring until the pendulum arm is parallel to the direction of the acceleration then you will get no more info from the pedulum. I suppose this makes no sense to you so let’s just move on.

We can use a spring mounted to the ship with a mass on the end of the spring as an easier way to measure the acceleration. The setup will look something like this:

There is a very simple relationship for this called Hooke’s law.

$$F = -kx$$

Where
F = force exerted by the spring
x = displacement
k = spring constant

At a constant velocity or zero velocity the spring will be in the contracted rest condition.

If the ship accelerates to the left the mass will experience a force that will stretch the spring to the right and the spring will remained stretched as long as the acceleration continues. Once the acceleration stops the mass will no longer be experiencing a force and the mass will move back to the left as the spring returns to the contracted rest condition.

So to measure the acceleration do the following:

Get a spring with a k value of 10 N/m
Attach on end of the spring to the ship.
Attach a 1 kg mass to the free end of the spring.

Measure the displacement of the mass during acceleration. If the displacement is 1 meter then:

F = 10 N/m x 1 m = 10 N. This is the force that the mass is excerting on the spring to cause the displacement.
a = F/mass = 10N / 1 kg = 10 m/s^2

If the mass is displaced (the spring is stretched) for 10 seconds then the velocity change is:

V = a x t = 10 m / s^2 x 10 s = 100 m/s.

You still have no idea how fast you are going but you know your speed has increased by 100 m/s. The is no need for an absolute anything.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Returning to the original question for a moment and for the fun of watching you in more massive denial...

At the risk of blowing your little mind, I must tell you that a pendulum is not a good device for use to measure acceleration on a space ship. The problem is that without gravity the pendulum will only tell you that acceleration is occurring until the pendulum arm is parallel to the direction of the acceleration then you will get no more info from the pedulum. I suppose this makes no sense to you so let’s just move on.

We can use a spring mounted to the ship with a mass on the end of the spring as an easier way to measure the acceleration. The setup will look something like this:

There is a very simple relationship for this called Hooke’s law.

$$F = -kx$$

Where
F = force exerted by the spring
x = displacement
k = spring constant

At a constant velocity or zero velocity the spring will be in the contracted rest condition.

If the ship accelerates to the left the mass will experience a force that will stretch the spring to the right and the spring will remained stretched as long as the acceleration continues. Once the acceleration stops the mass will no longer be experiencing a force and the mass will move back to the left as the spring returns to the contracted rest condition.

So to measure the acceleration do the following:

Get a spring with a k value of 10 N/m
Attach on end of the spring to the ship.
Attach a 1 kg mass to the free end of the spring.

Measure the displacement of the mass during acceleration. If the displacement is 1 meter then:

F = 10 N/m x 1 m = 10 N. This is the force that the mass is excerting on the spring to cause the displacement.
a = F/mass = 10N / 1 kg = 10 m/s^2

If the mass is displaced (the spring is stretched) for 10 seconds then the velocity change is:

V = a x t = 10 m / s^2 x 10 s = 100 m/s.

You still have no idea how fast you are going but you know your speed has increased by 100 m/s. The is no need for an absolute anything.

How do you know your speed increased and not decreased?

 

[Motor Daddy]

I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like to me is what you are saying is that you don't know the speed of the rocket, you don't know if during acceleration you are increasing or decreasing speed, you don't know which direction the ship is traveling, the relative velocity between you and another object can remain the same while you are accelerating, and you measure two different path lengths and try to say light takes the same time to travel each of the different lengths. WTF!!!

 

[Russ_Watters]

I've said it several times: You do know the direction and magnitude of the acceleration. That does not imply you know an initial and/or final speed, only the change in speed.

Acceleration is absolute, speed is not.

Also again: experiments can't be garbage. They just provide data. It is the understanding of the implications of an experiment that determines what theories say. In this case, MD, you don't understand the implications of the experiments. You don't even recognize that your experiment is so similar to ones already done that we know how it would come out -- and it isn't how you think it would come out.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I've said it several times: You do know the direction and magnitude of the acceleration. That does not imply you know an initial and/or final speed, only the change in speed.

Acceleration is absolute, speed is not.

Are you trying to say that if you are enclosed in a steel sphere in space you can tell if the acceleration is an increase in velocity or a decrease in velocity?

 

[Russ_Watters]

"Increase" and "decrease" are not the only two choices! Velocity is a vector! But no, we can't say what the old and what the new speeds are, so we can't say if the speed is higher, lower, or the same.

 

[Russ_Watters]

This was an interesting complaint:

You are not actually measuring the speed of light, you are measuring the closing speed of light and you!

It seems like you are forgetting what you are arguing about. The "closing speed" is the local speed of light as measured by you, from your reference frame. It is what is being measured inside your sphere. It is what you have previously claimed is not invariant. You've accidentally switched sides in the argument! [briefly]