The Swing of a Pendulum

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

I realise I didn't respond to a few direct questions you put to me in an earlier post.

The concept of a relative velocity doesn't require two velocities, the concept of relative velocity is one velocity! That one velocity is a measure of change in distance between two objects.

No. The definition of velocity is rate of change of distance. You can only get such a thing by assuming a reference frame prior to the calculation. A relative velocity, on the other hand, is a comparison between two velocities, as I explained earlier.

If there are two moving objects, A and B, then the relative velocity of B as measured by A will be equal to the velocity of B as measured in A's rest frame, but only because in A's rest frame the velocity of A is always zero.

I hope this clears up your confusion on this technical point. I suspect, however, that since you don't understand the basics of reference frames that everything I just wrote went wooshing right over your head.

Go figure.

You claim all frames have the same laws, do you not?

In all inertial frames the laws of physics are the same.

You have no point of reference to measure those -15 and 5 velocities. Explain to me how you determined those -15 and 5 velocities? What measurements were those speeds obtained from?

To specify numbers for the velocities of A and B requires that we choose a reference frame, like I said. I just went to an arbitrary frame where the relative velocity was 20 m/s, as required. Anybody in that frame would be able to measure the relevant velocities using the usual Motor Daddy-approved measurement procedures.

The light can not possibly hit the walls simultaneously if the walls move, that would mean the light traveled faster than the speed of light in one direction, and that can't happen, as the light travel time is exactly the same for all points on the expanding light sphere, and light travel time defines the meter, so it is LOCKED. There is no possible way to differentiate from that!!!

This is true in any frame that sees the walls move. In a frame where the walls don't move (e.g. in the moving box), the light will hit all walls simultaneously, of course.

So why does the pendulum only swing when the absolute velocity changes? I know, do you??

We can't hope to discuss your pendulum until we sort out your misunderstandings of reference frames. See you in nine months?

 

[quantum_wave]

This question requires a preface scenario which is: The universe will be assumed to be causally connected to the Big Bang which marked the beginning of our universe as a tiny dense hot ball of energy in an infinitesimal volume of space. Given its present size and content, we can say that it is now filled with objects (many kinds) that are in motion. We are going to simplify that picture by saying that all of the current objects materialized out of the big bang, their motion started when they materialized, and they have been in motion relative to each other and relative to the big bang event for ~13.7 billion years. We now put every object into reverse so that they exactly back track each path, reversing all motion for those ~13.7 billion years. The assumed result is that all of the objects would merge back into the initial hot dense ball of energy at t=10[sup]-43[/sup]. That is the scenario that is given.

The questions to Motor Daddy, if you decide to respond are:

Given my scenario, did the Big bang event occur at a point in space, if you know what I mean?
If there was a start point in space where the big bang event occurred, is that the absolute point of beginning from which all motion has occurred?
Do all objects in space today have that same point of origin?
Is all motion of all objects relative to that absolute point in space?

 

[Motor Daddy]

An unjustified assertion on your part, as in all practical implementations of such experiments the measured speed of light has always been the same, in contradiction to your assertion.

In order for the physics to be the same for each the bullet and the light the same playing field and clock must be used to do a direct comparison. According to the light, the light traveled 299,792,458 meters according to the playing field in one second. According to the bullet the bullet traveled 1,000 meters of that playing field in one second.

Do you disagree with those statements?

 

[Motor Daddy]

James, you are making the same mistakes that I keep replying to and telling why you are making the mistake. You fail to understand your problems and then you come back and repeat the same conceptual mistake again and again, which causes me to have to repeat my self over and over. You're wrong, by definition.

Let's start from scratch of what we know and determine motion, shall we?

There is two rockets in space. There is no change in distance between the rockets.

Do you agree so far?

 

[Motor Daddy]

This question requires a preface scenario which is: The universe will be assumed to be causally connected to the Big Bang which marked the beginning of our universe as a tiny dense hot ball of energy in an infinitesimal volume of space. Given its present size and content, we can say that it is now filled with objects (many kinds) that are in motion. We are going to simplify that picture by saying that all of the current objects materialized out of the big bang, their motion started when they materialized, and they have been in motion relative to each other and relative to the big bang event for ~13.7 billion years. We now put every object into reverse so that they exactly back track each path, reversing all motion for those ~13.7 billion years. The assumed result is that all of the objects would merge back into the initial hot dense ball of energy at t=10[sup]-43[/sup]. That is the scenario that is given.

The questions to Motor Daddy, if you decide to respond are:

Given my scenario, did the Big bang event occur at a point in space, if you know what I mean?

In your scenario all the mass of the universe was located at a location in space at one point in time.

If there was a start point in space where the big bang event occurred, is that the absolute point of beginning from which all motion has occurred?

If at t=0 the location of the mass was at a specific location, then yes, all your measures of distances traveled over a duration of time are from that location in space.

Do all objects in space today have that same point of origin?

In your scenario all the mass was contained at a single location at t=0. All the mass that the objects are made of today had the same point of origin. That point is the point in space that the center point of the mass was contained at t=0. If the diameter of the sphere increased and the center point stayed at the same location, then there would be distance from the center point. The radius of the universe would have been expanding for 13.7 billion years, according to your scenario. That is the mass expanding in volume for 13.7 billion years.

Is all motion of all objects relative to that absolute point in space?

All the objects have a path in space that they traveled for their lifetime since t=0 when they were at that point. They may have traveled away from that point for 10 years then turned around and traveled back toward it for 10 years. They traveled for 20 years a great distance, and they are at the starting point 20 years later. Do you follow me? You have to define a time period to look at when you are looking at the historical record of past universal motion. Time is cumulative and distance traveled is cumulative, regardless of the direction traveled, speed traveled, or starting or ending points.

 

[quantum_wave]

In your scenario all the mass of the universe was located at a location in space at one point in time.

If at t=0 the location of the mass was at a specific location, then yes, all your measures of distances traveled over a duration of time are from that location in space.

In your scenario all the mass was contained at a single location at t=0. All the mass that the objects are made of today had the same point of origin. That point is the point in space that the center point of the mass was contained at t=0. If the diameter of the sphere increased and the center point stayed at the same location, then there would be distance from the center point. The radius of the universe would have been expanding for 13.7 billion years, according to your scenario. That is the mass expanding in volume for 13.7 billion years.

All the objects have a path in space that they traveled for their lifetime since t=0 when they were at that point. They may have traveled away from that point for 10 years then turned around and traveled back toward it for 10 years. They traveled for 20 years a great distance, and they are at the starting point 20 years later. Do you follow me?

yes.

You have to define a time period to look at when you are looking at the historical record of past universal motion. Time is cumulative and distance traveled is cumulative, regardless of the direction traveled, speed traveled, or starting or ending points.

In other words, you point out that we need some kind of clock to use to measure the duration of events, but each event we measure or describe using that clock and the motion of the event will be occuring in the space that is all connected to that absolute start point in space and time?

 

[Motor Daddy]

yes.In other words, you point out that we need some kind of clock to use to measure the duration of events, but each event we measure or describe using that clock and the motion of the event will be occuring in the space that is all connected to that absolute start point in space and time?

Exactly.

It's like a grade school Olympics day. Many foot races that day. Many distance traveled. Many different elapsed times. Many different start points and end points. Many different objects that are racing in all different directions at different speeds and directions. Many different t=0 starts of the stop watch. Many different stops of the stop watch!

 

[quantum_wave]

Exactly.

It's like a grade school Olympics day. Many foot races that day. Many distance traveled. Many different elapsed times. Many different start points and end points. Many different objects that are racing in all different directions at different speeds and directions. Many different t=0 starts of the stop watch. Many different stops of the stop watch!

All of those school day Olympics though are taking place a the school, in a city, on the planet, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the expanding big bang universe. Therefore, using our clock and measuring distances of each little event at the school, really leaves us in the dark as to relative motion in the absolute space, unless we acknowledge all of the little to and from measurements that would have occurred from the absolute start point in space and time?

 

[Motor Daddy]

All of those school day Olympics though are taking place a the school, in a city, on the planet, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the expanding big bang universe. Therefore, using our clock and measuring distances of each little event at the school, really leaves us in the dark as to relative motion in the absolute space, unless we acknowledge all of the little to and from measurements that would have occurred from the absolute start point in space and time?

Yup!

 

[quantum_wave]

Yup!

And can you please tell me that it wouldn't make things any worse if we were in one of many big bang universes, as long as there was a beginning that established the absolute point in space and time?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy: your task is to find at least one example of a published physics paper that shows an experimental setup and results that use the "round trip and divide by 2 method" that you say is wrong. Then, we can all analyse that specific paper and agree on whether or not the method is flawed, based on what was actually done and reported, and not on some third-hand imaginings of Motor Daddy.

My prediction is that Motor Daddy will never produce any such paper.

Wrong again, James, as many moons ago on this site in one of my threads a link was posted to a paper. I think I was discussing this issue with either Neddy Bate, RJBeery, or you, and one of you posted a link to a paper that I read and refuted his claims, as the paper directly gave the math and method, and the end result was the method used was round trip time of light travel to travel a meter stick and back. I'm gonna find that link and when I do I will post it here.

 

[Motor Daddy]

And can you please tell me that it wouldn't make things any worse if we were in one of many big bang universes, as long as there was a beginning that established the absolute point in space and time?

According to my method, space is infinite volume which is incapable of motion. Times are measured durations in that space. Every measure of motion starts at t=0. Every object has a location in space at t=0. You can have as many big bang events as you like. You can have many different universes which all started at different points in time, all with different motions, and I can tell you every one of those motions according to space and time!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Frankly, it looks to me like you want to start over from scratch because you don't want to deal with the reality that your experiment has been done and doesn't produce the result you expect. Makes me wonder if thia argument is even real.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Frankly, it looks to me like you want to start over from scratch because you don't want to deal with the reality that your experiment has been done and doesn't produce the result you expect. Makes me wonder if thia argument is even real.

Together we mark a playing field like a football field is marked, and we each agree that is the standard measure of distance. We have one stop watch that we will use to determine time. We will record the race so as to show each of our positions on the field and the clock in the pic. We race. We play back the recording and pause the playback at t=3 seconds. I am at the 50 yard line. You are at the 75 yard line. The radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 m/s for 3 seconds...899,377,374 meters. There is no wiggle room for your theory in there so all your rantings about how you have experimental results is BS!

 

[quantum_wave]

According to my method, space is infinite volume which is incapable of motion. Times are measured durations in that space. Every measure of motion starts at t=0. Every object has a location in space at t=0. You can have as many big bang events as you like. You can have many different universes which all started at different points in time, all with different motions, and I can tell you every one of those motions accord to space and time!

Oh, good.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That's just another attempt to distract, Motor Daddy. Another attempt to avoid dealing with the fact that *your* experiment has been done and doesn't show what you say. See, it really isn't relativity that is on trial here: you have made a claim that is easily enough evaluated on its own.


Please answer clearly:
Do you recognize that the goal and setup of the MM experiment is basically the same as yours?

Do you recognize that the local speed of light is always measured to be C in that experiment?

How do you explain the fact that your own experiment does not produce the results you predict?

 

[billvon]

How do you explain the fact that your own experiment does not produce the results you predict?

He's explained that. Einstein? Michelson? Morley? Hawking? Morons! Only Motor Daddy knows why they are all wrong.

 

[Russ_Watters]

He's explained that. Einstein? Michelson? Morley? Hawking? Morons! Only Motor Daddy knows why they are all wrong.

That's why I'm trying to get away from existing theory. We need only to judge his theory and experiment against itself.

Ironic historical tidbit: The MM experiment was designed to find the ether frame, which everyone at the time assumed must exist. Upon its failure, one concluded it didn't exist and the other kept looking. I wonder if Motor Daddy would believe his own experiment?

 

[Motor Daddy]

That's just another attempt to distract, Motor Daddy. Another attempt to avoid dealing with the fact that *your* experiment has been done and doesn't show what you say. See, it really isn't relativity that is on trial here: you have made a claim that is easily enough evaluated on its own.

That's not my experiment. You want to know my experiment? I can always tell you how far light traveled in a vacuum for any duration of time you ask me. No kidding!! I am like a fortune teller type of dude. You tell me the time and I know the distance. Try it out. Ask me any time. You know what's so magical and mystical about me? I don't have to measure how far light travels in space, I just KNOW how far it travels over the course of any amount of time you specify. I have never been wrong and my record is 100% on this matter.

 

[billvon]

Ironic historical tidbit: The MM experiment was designed to find the ether frame, which everyone at the time assumed must exist. Upon its failure, one concluded it didn't exist and the other kept looking. I wonder if Motor Daddy would believe his own experiment?

He's stated that he will go with his math over experimental data, so that's unlikely.