The Swing of a Pendulum

Motor Daddy said:
I don't know what my absolute velocity is, I don't have the precise equipment to measure it. How far away are you from me now?
Click to expand...

If you tell me your location it would be pretty simple to calculate. OK thats it gotta go.
 
Motor Daddy said:
I would need a sphere with a light source fixed to the center of the sphere. Then I would need almost exactly precise timers, all in sync at every point on the inside of the sphere. Then I would send a light signal from the center to all the timers which started simultaneously when the light signal was sent. Presumably the light would not hit all the timers simultaneously so I would transport the sphere to deep space and accelerate the sphere as required until all timers are struck by the light simultaneously, at which point I would have an absolute zero velocity sphere in space.
Click to expand...

You have just described the The Michelson–Morley experiment, which has been replicated hundreds of times - and in all cases the light hits the detectors at the same time.

Why do you think that your experiment would produce a different result?
 
billvon said:
You have just described the The Michelson–Morley experiment, which has been replicated hundreds of times - and in all cases the light hits the detectors at the same time.

Why do you think that your experiment would produce a different result?
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. This is not an issue of "my test result shows that you are wrong." This is an issue of "The geometry of distance and time defined by light travel time is indisputable!" We have defined the speed of light, and now I'm measuring strictly by that definition. There is no wiggle room. Anything that doesn't agree with me doesn't agree with the speed of light, and if you don't agree with the speed of light then you are the one wrong, not the speed of light!
 
Motor Daddy said:
Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough. This is not an issue of "my test result shows that you are wrong." This is an issue of "The geometry of distance and time defined by light travel time is indisputable!"
Click to expand...

Well, clearly it is disputable, since the test you have described always shows the same speed of light no matter how fast it's going. In other words, your device would always show zero speed.

However, if you re-run the test and show that the speed of light varies with reference frame (known as ether dragging) you are guaranteed a Nobel prize, so go for it if you think your opinion has merit.
 
This is not an issue of "my test result shows that you are wrong."
Click to expand...

The test results do show that you are wrong. So theory says you're wrong, observation shows you're wrong and experimental results show that you're wrong, but you insist that you're right, even though the universe does not behave the way you claim it does.

You're living in a little delusional universe all your own. Just like most cranks.
 
AlexG said:
The test results do show that you are wrong. So theory says you're wrong, observation shows you're wrong and experimental results show that you're wrong, but you insist that you're right, even though the universe does not behave the way you claim it does.

You're living in a little delusional universe all your own. Just like most cranks.
Click to expand...

1. You create a unit of measure of distance using the speed of light.
2. I claim I can use that definition to define an absolute frame of reference and use that to measure absolute velocity while also knowing the relative velocity of any two objects.
3. You claim the results are incorrect and don't agree with your experimental results.
4. I claim my results are 100% in line with defined terms.
5. If you claim I am wrong, and I am in line with terms, then what you have on your hands is a bunch of BS useless experimental evidence that agrees with a BS theory. BS theory should have BS results, and that is what you have!
 
I claim my results are 100% in line with defined terms.
Click to expand...

Defined terms. So you make up your definition and say the results match the words you play with.

If you claim I am wrong, and I am in line with terms, then what you have on your hands is a bunch of BS useless experimental evidence that agrees with a BS theory. BS theory should have BS results, and that is what you have!
Click to expand...

Test results show that you are wrong, theory says you're wrong, observation shows you're wrong and experimental results show that you're wrong, but you insist that you're right, even though the universe does not behave the way you claim it does.

So Science is BS because it doesn't agree with what you think?

Perhaps the problem is your thinking is wrong. It's either that, or the rest of the universe is wrong. I know which one you'd prefer, but the universe doesn't care.
 
AlexG said:
Defined terms. So you make up your definition and say the results match the words you play with.



Test results show that you are wrong, theory says you're wrong, observation shows you're wrong and experimental results show that you're wrong, but you insist that you're right, even though the universe does not behave the way you claim it does.

So Science is BS because it doesn't agree with what you think?

Perhaps the problem is your thinking is wrong. It's either that, or the rest of the universe is wrong. I know which one you'd prefer, but the universe doesn't care.
Click to expand...

According to your science, the velocity should be changing due to the swinging pendulum, but the distance remains the same, so your science is BS!


Edit:

Oh wait! I forgot about the other car. Each of the cars has no answer for the pendulum swinging and the distance remaining the same, so yeah, you're right, because according to your science all frames of reference have the same laws of physics, which you do. Neither of the cars knows what the hell is going on so to me that means the same!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaaa
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
According to your science, the velocity should be changing due to the swinging pendulum, but the distance remains the same, so your science is BS!


Edit:

Oh wait! I forgot about the other car. Each of the cars has no answer for the pendulum swinging and the distance remaining the same, so yeah, you're right, because according to your science all frames of reference have the same laws of physics, which you do. Neither of the cars knows what the hell is going on so to me that means the same!!!

Bwahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaaa
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about?
 
Yeah, this discussion has come to it's usual conclusion.

Motor Daddy pays no attention to how reality actually works, insisting on his own version. Eventually, he's reduced to saying 'science is wrong' and insisting 'I'm right'. When he takes that postion, which appears to be his default position, any further argument is really usless. You can't argue with a crank.
 
AlexG said:
Yeah, this discussion has come to it's usual conclusion.

Motor Daddy pays no attention to how reality actually works, insisting on his own version. Eventually, he's reduced to saying 'science is wrong' and insisting 'I'm right'. When he takes that postion, which appears to be his default position, any further argument is really usless. You can't argue with a crank.
Click to expand...

Just one question: How do you explain the inertial velocity and the swinging pendulum at the same time? You're clueless!
 
How do you explain the inertial velocity and the swinging pendulum at the same time?
Click to expand...

If acceleration is being applied, it's not an inertial velocity. If it's an inertial velocity, the pendulum isn't swinging.

Doesn't it work that way in your universe?
 
AlexG said:
If acceleration is being applied, it's not an inertial velocity. If it's an inertial velocity, the pendulum isn't swinging.

Doesn't it work that way in your universe?
Click to expand...

You don't "apply acceleration." Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity! Regardless of the force involved, if the velocity stays the same for 1 second then for that second there was no acceleration. If the velocity increases by 20 m/s in one second then the acceleration is 20 m/s^2. The pendulum indicates changes in velocity in the absolute frame. You have a swinging pendulum indicating a change in velocity but the relative velocity is not changing. You have a conflict.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Regardless of the force involved, if the velocity stays the same for 1 second then for that second there was no acceleration.
Click to expand...

Correct.

If the velocity increases by 20 m/s in one second then the acceleration is 20 m/s^2.
Click to expand...

Correct.

The pendulum indicates changes in velocity in the absolute frame.
Click to expand...

Incorrect, your reference frame is accelerating.

You have a swinging pendulum indicating a change in velocity but the relative velocity is not changing.
Click to expand...

Relative to what? If you mean relative to your reference frame, the of course not. If you mean relative to a different reference frame then there will be a relative velocity difference.

You have a conflict.
Click to expand...

I see no conflict...
 
Motor Daddy said:
You are saying the rocket is accelerating? Prove it! You have zero change in velocity!
Click to expand...

If the rocket accelerates you will not have a zero change in velocity. You seem more confused than normal! Just because there is no way to determine an absolute velocity does not mean there is no velocity change. If you are in a car and you don't know the velocity and it accelerates can you detect the acceleration? There are any number of ways to measure the acceleration of the rocket and you can use that data to even determine the increase in veleocity - sorry to say you still do not know the absolute veleocity though.


I do! When was the last time you had your eyes checked? You start to lose it as you get older. You know, as more time elapses.
Click to expand...

The conflict you see is due to your confusion.

I had my eyes checked this summer. I use to have slightly better than 20/20 vision but alas I must now wear glasses, at least most of the rest of me is working well....
 
origin said:
If the rocket accelerates you will not have a zero change in velocity. You seem more confused than normal! Just because there is no way to determine an absolute velocity does not mean there is no velocity change. If you are in a car and you don't know the velocity and it accelerates can you detect the acceleration? There are any number of ways to measure the acceleration of the rocket and you can use that data to even determine the increase in veleocity - sorry to say you still do not know the absolute veleocity though.
Click to expand...

All your measurements of velocity are relative to the other ship. You don't have an absolute velocity, you only have a relative velocity. If you had an absolute velocity you would acknowledge that each object has its own velocity and that each object has an absolute velocity and a relative velocity compared to another object in space. You deny absolute velocity so it is not available to you.
 
Motor Daddy said:
All your measurements of velocity are relative to the other ship. You don't have an absolute velocity, you only have a relative velocity. If you had an absolute velocity you would acknowledge that each object has its own velocity and that each object has an absolute velocity and a relative velocity compared to another object in space. You deny absolute velocity so it is not available to you.
Click to expand...
Error Code: ID10T.
 
Motor Daddy said:
All your measurements of velocity are relative to the other ship.
Click to expand...

Fine

You don't have an absolute velocity, you only have a relative velocity.
Click to expand...

No kidding, that is always true in every case.

If you had an absolute velocity you would acknowledge that each object has its own velocity and that each object has an absolute velocity and a relative velocity compared to another object in space.
Click to expand...

True but there is no way to measure the absolute velocity so you only know your relative velocity - have I mentioned that before?

You deny absolute velocity so it is not available to you.
Click to expand...

The proper way to phrase the statement is like this:

You have no way to know the absolute velocity so it is not available to you. Which is true. I can live with that quite easily...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top