The Swing of a Pendulum

[Russ_Watters]

That's not my experiment. You want to know my experiment?

Yes: Please explain, CLEARLY, how your experiment differs in either setup, intent/goal, and prediction.

Let me show you what "clearly" means. Here's what I think the answer is to my query:


1. Setup. Your apparatus uses multiple emitters and detectors (both with local clocks) arranged in a sphere, to measure the local speed of light. The MM experiment has only two paths for the light and thus can only measure a discrepancy between two axes at once. It therefore needed to be (and was) rotated and run multiple times to measure speed through the ether in multiple directions/along multiple axes.

The MM experiment also is simpler and more accurate than yours in that it does not use clocks, but rather splits beams of light to generate out-of-phase waves when re-combined. It therefore doesn't measure individual transit times, only the difference in transit times of the beams. Very slightly different method for producing the same result.


2. Intent. The intent of the MM experiment was to measure the speed of the apparatus through the ether. The intent of your experiment has two steps, with the first being identical to the MM experiment and the second being to fire rockets on the apparatus in space to move into a stationary position with respect to the ether frame, uncovered in the first step.

3. Prediction. Both the MM experiment and your experiment predict a certain velocity through the ether will be detected, from which the absoulte/universal reference frame can be located/established.

 

[quantum_wave]

According to my method, space is infinite volume which is incapable of motion.

I've noticed that you invoke potentially infinite space, and you refer to the speed of light in a vacuum as = to c. In your method, or model, is the vacuum of space empty or does you model feature the permittivity and permeability of space that govern the speed of light so it is = to c?

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!

It seems that the duration of events can be compared to each other if the speed of light is always constant, but are you saying that the speed of light is always constant or are you saying that it depends on the medium through which light is traveling? What I mean is, are there any natural conditions that would cause the speed of light to not be constant between one experiment using t=0, and another experiment at a different t=0 in a different location of space?

 

[origin]

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.

Unfortunately you do not understand the implications of that. If there are 2 observers and one of them were to travel at 0.866c and he were to turn on a light at point A in the direction of travel and after 1 one second the light reached point B he would say that the light had traveled 299,792,458 m in that second giving a speed of 299,792,458 m/s just like you said, however the observer at rest (relative to the moving observer) would see that same light take 2 second to go from point A to point B and the distance the light traveled would have been 599,584,916 m, for a speed of 299,792,458 m/s again just like you said.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I've noticed that you invoke potentially infinite space, and you refer to the speed of light in a vacuum as = to c. In your method, or model, is the vacuum of space empty or does you model feature the permittivity and permeability of space that govern the speed of light so it is = to c?

Volume is 3 dimensional distance. Distance doesn't interact with matter. For instance, the earth has a volume, which is merely a measure of 3 dimensional distance. The volume of the earth is not affected by if the earth is made of air or metal, the volume is the space which that matter occupies.

For instance, the engine in your car probably has cylinders. Those cylinders have pistons which have reciprocating motion in the cylinder. If the piston is at top dead center and there is no space above it in the cylinder and the piston moves down the cylinder 1", and the cylinder is 4" in diameter, then the volume above the piston is equal to 12.5664 Cubic Inches. That volume is irrespective of what is contained in that volume. If the atmospheric pressure caused some air/fuel mixture to flow past the intake valve and into the cylinder when the intake valve opened then there will be some air/fuel mass in the volume. If there was a blower attached to the intake, when the intake valve opened the pressure was higher than atmospheric pressure, so more air/fuel mixture entered the low pressure area in the cylinder. Same volume in both situations, but one cylinder has more air/fuel mass than the other and it should produce more power when it burns.

 

[origin]

Volume is 3 dimensional distance. Distance doesn't interact with matter. For instance, the earth has a volume, which is merely a measure of 3 dimensional distance. The volume of the earth is not affected by if the earth is made of air or metal, the volume is the space which that matter occupies.

Have you been drinking or taking drugs?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Have you been drinking or taking drugs?

Everything in the universe is magical to a kid that doesn't understand it. You seem quite mystified?

 

[origin]

Everything in the universe is magical to a kid that doesn't understand it. You seem quite mystified?

That is known as projecting. So what did you think of my reply, #363, to your assertion?

 

[Russ_Watters]

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

That's a tough way to be. At some point, we have to believe what our eyes tell us is real, otherwise you could end up rocking back and forth on your bedroom floor, naked, reciting Matrix quotes to yourself over and over again.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Unfortunately you do not understand the implications of that. If there are 2 observers and one of them were to travel at 0.866c and he were to turn on a light at point A in the direction of travel and after 1 one second the light reached point B he would say that the light had traveled 299,792,458 m in that second giving a speed of 299,792,458 m/s just like you said, however the observer at rest (relative to the moving observer) would see that same light take 2 second to go from point A to point B and the distance the light traveled would have been 599,584,916 m, for a speed of 299,792,458 m/s again just like you said.

So let's calculate some stuff here.

2 rockets.

You say one of them is traveling .866c. So you are saying that that rocket has an absolute velocity of .866c?

Let's see.

t=0 Rocket starts traveling and light sphere is emitted.
t=1 Light sphere has a 299,792,458 meter radius. Rocket has traveled 259,620,268 meters, so the light is 40,172,190 meters ahead of the rocket. Rocket turns on light.
t=2 Light reaches point b, so the light is 259,620,268 meters away from start point at t=1 and the light traveled an additional second and 299,792,458 meters, so the light the rocket emitted is 559,412,726 meters away from the other observer at the starting point when it reaches point b, so the distance between point a and b is 559,412,726 meters. Original light sphere emitted at t=0 has a radius of 599,584,916 meters, which is 40,172,190 meters ahead of the light the rocket emitted at t=1 when it reached point b at t=2, and the original light sphere is 40,172,190 meters past point b at t=2. So nothing of interest there, the expected 40,172,190 meter difference in the light spheres radius's after 2 seconds of duration is on target, exactly.

Do you have different numbers?

 

[origin]

You say one of them is traveling .866c. So you are saying that that rocket has an absolute velocity of .866c?

of course not, that would be retarded thing to say.

t=0 Rocket starts traveling and light sphere is emitted.
t=1 Light sphere has a 299,792,458 meter radius. Rocket has traveled 259,620,268 meters, so the light is 40,172,190 meters ahead of the rocket. Rocket turns on light.
t=2 Light reaches point b, so the light is 259,620,268 meters away from start point at t=1 and the light traveled an additional second and 299,792,458 meters, so the light the rocket emitted is 559,412,726 meters away from the other observer at the starting point when it reaches point b, so the distance between point a and b is 559,412,726 meters. Original light sphere emitted at t=0 has a radius of 599,584,916 meters, which is 40,172,190 meters ahead of the light the rocket emitted at t=1. So nothing of interest there, the expected 40,172,190 meter difference in the light spheres radius's after 2 seconds of duration is on target, exactly.

Do you have different numbers?

We will designate t* as being the time as measured by the stationary observer.

You have only attempted to descrbed the situation from the observer that is stationary relative to the moving rocket. The observer in the rocket will experience the intial light sphere edge at 299,792,458 m ahead of the ship at t*= 2 and the light emitted at t*= 1 will be 149,896,229 meters ahead of the ship at t* = 2.

 

[Motor Daddy]

of course not, that would be retarded thing to say.

You gave the velocity of the ship in a percentage of the speed of light. Light travels at 299,792,458 m/s in the absolute frame, and the ship travels at 259,620,268 m/s. Both of the start points are at the point where the other observer remains. So 1 second later the light is 299,792,458 meters away from the observer and the rocket is 259,620,268 meters away from the observer. That is an absolute velocity, unless you mean to imply that .866c is relative to the other observer and not the point the observer is at at t=0. Which is it, are your measurements based on the other observer or the point you were at at t=0? You do realize the other observer has the capability to move during a duration of time, correct?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

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?

Nice attempt to change the subject. I asked you direct questions and you refuse to answer them. You're dishonest.

 

[origin]

Of course the .866c speed is relative to the frame I am calling the stationary observer. It could not be an absolute velocity because that is meaningless!

All you need to know is that there are 2 frames. The frames are related by the fact that the relative velocity between the frames is 0.866c and there is an observer in each frame.

You like to try to make things confusing in hopes that we won't see your own desperate confusion but alas, it only makes it more obvious - and dishonest, I might add.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Of course the .866c speed is relative to the frame I am calling the stationary observer. It could not be an absolute velocity because that is meaningless!

All you need to know is that there are 2 frames. The frames are related by the fact that the relative velocity between the frames is 0.866c and there is an observer in each frame.

You like to try to make things confusing in hopes that we won't see your own desperate confusion but alas, it only makes it more obvious - and dishonest, I might add.

Not really sure what you mean there. 1c (or c) is twice the velocity of .5c, so the distance traveled is twice that of a .5 c object. c is an absolute velocity, so .5c is also an absolute velocity, measured in the absolute frame of light which travels at c.

 

[Russ_Watters]

That's not my experiment. You want to know my experiment?

Motor Daddy, you made a claim, followed by an offer. It is bad form for you to not make good on that offer and explain yourself.

Yes: Please explain, CLEARLY, how your experiment differs in either setup, intent/goal, and prediction.

Let me show you what "clearly" means. Here's what I think the answer is to my query:


1. Setup. Your apparatus uses multiple emitters and detectors (both with local clocks) arranged in a sphere, to measure the local speed of light. The MM experiment has only two paths for the light and thus can only measure a discrepancy between two axes at once. It therefore needed to be (and was) rotated and run multiple times to measure speed through the ether in multiple directions/along multiple axes.

The MM experiment also is simpler and more accurate than yours in that it does not use clocks, but rather splits beams of light to generate out-of-phase waves when re-combined. It therefore doesn't measure individual transit times, only the difference in transit times of the beams. Very slightly different method for producing the same result.


2. Intent. The intent of the MM experiment was to measure the speed of the apparatus through the ether. The intent of your experiment has two steps, with the first being identical to the MM experiment and the second being to fire rockets on the apparatus in space to move into a stationary position with respect to the ether frame, uncovered in the first step.

3. Prediction. Both the MM experiment and your experiment predict a certain velocity through the ether will be detected, from which the absoulte/universal reference frame can be located/established.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Nice attempt to change the subject. I asked you direct questions and you refuse to answer them. You're dishonest.

It seems like he is just playing a game here; seeing how long he can keep people following the thread. When someone gets close to laying a flaw bare, he ignores and restarts.

Also (to all): I think everyone understands the math Motor Daddy is doing here is based on the assumption of an absolute rest frame. So there is no point in continuing to show each other math as we already know the math will disagree and why (including Motor Daddy). The only way to address the assumption of an absolute frame is through experiments that are designed to detect it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

It seems like he is just playing a game here; seeing how long he can keep people following the thread. When someone gets close to laying a flaw bare, he ignores and restarts.

Also (to all): I think everyone understands the math Motor Daddy is doing here is based on the assumption of an absolute rest frame. So there is no point in continuing to show each other math as we already know the math will disagree and why (including Motor Daddy). The only way to address the assumption of an absolute frame is through experiments that are designed to detect it.

Sorry, we don't play by your rules, we play by defined standards! The standards are defined, the math is solid, and you are wrong!

 

[Motor Daddy]

Motor Daddy, you made a claim, followed by an offer. It is bad form for you to not make good on that offer and explain yourself.

That is my experiment. Did it go over your head?

 

[gmilam]

That is my experiment. Did it go over your head?

It's been done. You're wrong.

 

[Motor Daddy]

I mean, let's get real, I just delivered to you the hottest chick you can imagine...naked even, and you are rejecting her because I delivered her to you in a beat up Chevy pickup truck. Are you serious?