Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You are such a hoot MD. Let's see it is a problem at low frequencies, hmmm. Would you say that light generally could be considered a low frequency wave?
Compared to what?
The Swing of a Pendulum
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Compared to what?
You cited the article didn't you? Why don't you check out the article that you cited and see if you can figure it out from the article if $$ >10^{14} hz$$ is a high frequency. It is going to be hard cause there could be some big words and maybe some numbers in the article - but what the hell - give it a shot!
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You cited the article didn't you? Why don't you check out the article that you cited and see if you can figure it out from the article if $$ >10^{14} hz$$ is a high frequency. It is going to be hard cause there could be some big words and maybe some numbers in the article - but what the hell - give it a shot!
Again, you can throw as many evenly spaced balls at me as fast as you can, but without a clock you have no way to determine frequency. When you find a clock, I hope it's ticking at the same rate as mine, otherwise your meaning of the term "frequency" is meaningless to me, as I can't relate my frequency to your frequency.
...and if we eventually figure out how to convert your instantaneous frequency to my instantaneous frequency you have no way of determining your own motion, or my motion, so you are still in the dark!
MD, you were kind enough to answer some of my questions yesterday, so I am encouraged to participate from my layman perspective by putting out a few more your way. I am hoping that during the lulls while your agenda is at rest
(James R and the other professionals will surely respond to your arguments soon), you will find time and patience to address these:Unless you would be kind enough to correct me to the contrary, I think contrary to claims of others, you bloody well know the axioms and particulars of SR, even to the extent that you know that by the rules of mathematics, the equations of SR are mathematically sound. It is just that you maintain that they don't correspond to reality, is that correct?
From what I can tell, the way you would put it is that you agree that the physics are the same at all points in space and time. It is just that the invariance of the speed of light in all inertial frames seems to defy logic and can be refuted by your calculations, which too are mathematically correct given your precise definitions. Is that correct?
Would you agree that science does have scientific and repeatable measurements that time dilation occurs, to which you would be saying that the fact that we measure time to dilate does not prove the invariance of the speed of light, it simply points to the need for a reliable way to measure it?
God, you are so clueless. Then I suggest using a clock.
Sorry, but if you are moving at a relative velocity to each other the clocks won't tick at the same rates. If there is a light on the moon and there at 2 space ships traveling at different velocities towards the moon then they will both in fact measure that the speed of light is c, but they will measure a different frequency of that light. No matter how much you wish this was not true, it will still remain a reality.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You don't move relative to another object, you move relative to points in space, ie, the start point where you start the elapsed time, and the stop point where you stop the elapsed time. The points in space at where you start and stop the stop watch have a distance between them that can't be changed. When light traverses that distance the distance is equal to the time it takes for light to travel that distance times 299,792,458 meters/s. IN REALITY light always takes the same amount of time to traverse that distance!!!!!!!!! There is NOT more than one time, there is one, and ONLY one!
Incorrect. You are not allowing for time dilation at relativistic velocities - as predicted by Einstein and found to be true by *hundreds* of experiments.
So you remain an ignorant dolt as always. <shrug>
It is just my particualar perspective, RO, but when in your manner of posting you say:
I think it is in line with the scientific method to say that it has not been falsified by hundreds of experiments.Read-Only said:
And if I am correct in taking that posture, then to call someone an ignorant dolt is more of a personal attack than a scientific analysis.
Well, no. Time dilation has found to be true via hundreds of experiments. It is a measurable phenomenon, not a theory. Indeed, it is an inherent part of the GPS satellite system; they confirm that phenomenon every day.
However, it would be accurate to say "all these measurements have not falsified the Theory of Relativity."
I agree completely that time dilation is an observable fact. I also agree that it has to be accounted for to make GPS work accurately. And I agree that using "not flasified" is better than "proven true". Seems on the surface that we have no bones of contention, lol.
Correct or not, the fact is that he *refuses* to learn. Therefore, he is a self-made ignorant dolt and shall remain so unless he finally decides to actually accept things that have not been falsified - after hundreds of attempts to do so. He's is his own worst enemy by his own choice. <shrug>
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Face it, you are calling me an ignorant dolt because I don't agree with you. Why would I go against the truth and believe you? I know the truth, you don't, and you're mad that you've been bamboozled.
I see your perspective. I wish I was sure you were right, but I'm not convinced that he doesn't know the science, and is just literally not invoking the generally accepted view, but instead invoking an alternative view that defines space and time from a single absolute frame and using the invariant speed of light as the clock. By definition, different inertial frames would not exist, but each would be new motion in the absolute frame, and each would start from a fresh t=0 in that frame. If so, he would be saying that no existing light sphere could be altered by being viewed from the new frame, or something like that :shrug:
How do you propose that we identify these points in space?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Exactly like that! Good job QW!
Basically every point in space is an observer with a stopwatch. When that stopwatch starts (t=0) the light is emitted from that point in every direction. That point of emission is the center point of the light sphere. It can't move in space because it is not an object and the light is traveling away from that point at the same speed in every direction. The outer sphere is expanding and the center remains at the same point in space. That point is a point in the absolute frame. That point is not moving in the absolute frame. Light travels in the absolute frame and defines distance, so we have a point of reference in the absolute frame all we need is an ending point in the absolute frame and we can measure the distance between the two points in the absolute frame using light in the absolute frame. Light never lies!
How do you explain the observations in the generally accepted cosmology and physics that time as measured by closely synchronized atomic clocks verifies that time passes slower in stronger gravitational fields?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
If two clocks are synchronized at the same point in space at t=0 and at t=10 they read exactly the same, then one clock travels and returns and the clocks are out of sync then the clock that traveled is inaccurate and the owner has no business talking about time!
Subject to what James R is referring to, there are no absolutes. Essential to this whole thread: there is no absolute position. There is no absolute direction.If there are no absolutes in spacetime then there are no absolutes in knowledge
Not sure what you mean by that. Obviously some questions of Natural Law are settled. For example, as sure as the sun will shine, you will not be hurled from the earth when you reach the end of this sentence. See? Some stuff really is a done deal. Just not sure what you mean here.
Before we go off in the weeds, we should establish the one simple principle that's being abused here: there is no absolute position in space.
Speaking of suspended, you're still not floating, are you. Certainty is like that. As sure as the sun will shine, there is no absolute position in space.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Did I mention I have the ability to know which clocks in space aren't in sync with the universal clock??
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Every point in space is an absolute position in space, as space doesn't move, because volume is not an object. Objects move from point to point.