# The direction of the big bang



## high|hgih (Sep 12, 2012)

Every time I see a representation of the big bang it looks like this. An explosion that started as a singularity. The picture shows the explosion shooting to the right, but that isnt possible without something shielding the left side in order to make it go right. The answer is actually that it exploded in every direction. The reason we use this diagram is because its easier to represent it that way since outside of the universe, or even before it, the space that took up everything wasn't a vacuum like the universe is today in outer space, it was actually made of nothing. Its baffling.. What would happen to a human in this 'nothing'? Is it possible for some extra-terrestrial civilizations that are millions of years further than us to travel outside of the known universe? It seems like even quantum physics is something that only happens inside of our universe. What about outside of it?

Maybe just like how galaxies are spread apart, how it is way out of our reach to go to a different galaxy.. Much less a different star.. Maybe it is even further out of an organisms reach to go to a different universe. Maybe the other universes are so immensely far away that its impossible to even know they exist. 

I tripped the other night on DXM and was thinking about all of this. It was blowing my mind that DNA can code for an organism to grow from an egg cell, divide, divide, divide, and then slowly become a copy of its two parents. DNA only consists of few elements. How are some organisms not exactly the same? On an atomic level, what happens as the organism is growing? Not a cellular level. But an atomic level. How do the atoms 'know' to form into organelles? How do atoms 'know' to form into mitochondrias in order to produce proteins for the cells? If genes and DNA code for all of this, how was it made? The whole trip made me think about god. Not in a traditional since. Just the fact that a 'God' has to exist. Something created this and its impossible to understand since we are the structures that it makes anyhow. 

In analogy, you could not make a robot, and have it know that it was created by you. You could make it call you master, or creator, however you could not have it actually think, and ''know' the reasons and be able to comprehend why or how you made it. The only way that you could possibly have it know, would be to make it out of living biomass. Which coincidentally, is what God made. If you were to tell this living robot that you made it, one day it would be smart enough to say 'No, God made me.'


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> View attachment 2331197 Every time I see a representation of the big bang it looks like this. An explosion that started as a singularity. The picture shows the explosion shooting to the right'


Uhh, no. The picture shows time increases to the right. It shows how things changed over TIME! It helps if you actually look at the labels.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 12, 2012)

> *Uhh, no. The picture shows time increases to the right. It shows how things changed over TIME! It helps if you actually look at the labels. *


Aha! Alright you got me there.. Oops 

Nevermind the whole first part talking about it shooting to the right, but the rest of the post is wayyy less retarded


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> View attachment 2331197 Every time I see a representation of the big bang it looks like this. An explosion that started as a singularity. The picture shows the explosion shooting to the right, but that isnt possible without something shielding the left side in order to make it go right. The answer is actually that it exploded in every direction. The reason we use this diagram is because its easier to represent it that way since outside of the universe, or even before it, the space that took up everything wasn't a vacuum like the universe is today in outer space, it was actually made of nothing. Its baffling.. What would happen to a human in this 'nothing'? Is it possible for some extra-terrestrial civilizations that are millions of years further than us to travel outside of the known universe? It seems like even quantum physics is something that only happens inside of our universe. What about outside of it?
> 
> Maybe just like how galaxies are spread apart, how it is way out of our reach to go to a different galaxy.. Much less a different star.. Maybe it is even further out of an organisms reach to go to a different universe. Maybe the other universes are so immensely far away that its impossible to even know they exist.
> 
> ...


Your musings derail in a few places, particularly the culmination of a creator, but I like to see people thinking along these lines rather than worrying about how they can get laid or get a bigger tv or what sports team to root for. I see in your words a reverence for the universe and the way things are, and I appreciate your contemplation on how they came to be.

Science is asking many of these questions and has at least a few answers. Have you watched the series called 'through the wormhole'? You may enjoy the questions it explores, particularly the episode "what makes us who we are", and "What are we really made of". The series speaks to the very curiosity you express here, and attempts to look at it from an informed perspective.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 12, 2012)

> *Your musings derail in a few places, particularly the culmination of a creator, but I like to see people thinking along these lines rather than worrying about how they can get laid or get a bigger tv or what sports team to root for. I see in your words a reverence for the universe and the way things are, and I appreciate your contemplation on how they came to be.
> 
> Science is asking many of these questions and has at least a few answers. Have you watched the series called 'through the wormhole'? You may enjoy the questions it explores, particularly the episode "what makes us who we are", and "What are we really made of". The series speaks to the very curiosity you express here, and attempts to look at it from an informed perspective. *


Ive watched a few episodes of through the wormhole, and how the universe works is a good one too. 

But please explain the holes, I like having a conversation about it even if I'm wrong just to get a better understanding. Sometimes I read something or watch something and feel smart enough to talk about it, then I find out there is more understanding by doing that than just merely reading and thinking.. 

Thanks though, I agree with you there. People spend too much time worrying about material things and its like Why? I understand you must to an extent. Theres a median. But most people just dont think of this stuff at all


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2012)

Well in your paragraph about DNA it appears you are essentially saying the universe is too complex to have not been created. Or, at least, that a creator offers a sufficient explanation. It sounds a bit like deism. The idea that God doesn't interact with us and may not even know about us, but some intelligence authored it all, or at least set things in motion.

Would that be a fair representation of your thoughts?

I am also awed by the complexity of things. The more I learn, the more impressed I am. The mystery doesn't dispel with exploration, but becomes deeper. However when faced with the idea of an author, I am held back by the hurtle of infinite regress. Without real world indication of a creator the question remains in the realm of philosophy, and philosophically speaking, infinite regress is a big hurtle.


----------



## Doer (Sep 12, 2012)

It's pretty simple, high/hgih. You have the typical confusion when you throw in God. It's because we are bound in the material and can only possibly think in 4D, most of us. We are material in the universe. It's possible that our consciousness is some quantum construct, and not completely electrical. But, even then, what has "god" got to do with it? We made God, in our own image, not the other way. It's much easier to explain it if one doesn't have to go back to "who or what" made it. Who cares, but for religious power?

If you look at the diagram, what is the first thing? Quantum fluctuations. This means causality is meaningless. No Before, no After. Time is something else, man made up. We measure durations and call it time. Before durations, in that quantum state, there is no time, no Cause, no Effect. No need for -God made it. It's totally irrelevant. It popped from void before existence. And cause/effect happens latter, by the very definition. Space has to exist before durations can be measured to be called Time.

Big Bang is not the only model, nor is it the best, IMO. It is, currently the standard model, however.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> It's pretty simple, high/hgih. You have the typical confusion when you throw in God. It's because we are bound in the material and can only possibly think in 4D, most of us. We are material in the universe. It's possible that our consciousness is some quantum construct, and not completely electrical. But, even then, what has "god" got to do with it? We made God, in our own image, not the other way. It's much easier to explain it if one doesn't have to go back to "who or what" made it. Who cares, but for religious power?
> 
> If you look at the diagram, what is the first thing? Quantum fluctuations. This means causality is meaningless. No Before, no After. Time is something else, man made up. We measure durations and call it time. Before durations, in that quantum state, there is no time, no Cause, no Effect. No need for -God made it. It's totally irrelevant. It popped from void before existence. And cause/effect happens latter, by the very definition. Space has to exist before durations can be measured to be called Time.
> 
> Big Bang is not the only model, nor is it the best, IMO. It is, currently the standard model, however.


The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that it's Bullshit.

Time did not start. While it may be true that the object we call the universe was "born" at a specific point in time (like you were) and we started counting from there (13.7 billion years and ticking since then), what is also true is that you can for certain say that if there was a 13.7 billion years ago, then there HAD TO HAVE BEEN a 13.8, 15.5, 100,000,000 billion years ago too. We are not talking about what space looked like that long ago, we are isolating the FACT that time did not start and time will not end.

Infinite Past <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Present--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Infinite Future

Let me be clear, I am not saying the object the universe has always been in existence, or that it always will be, I am saying there is infinite past and infinite future. Time did not start and time will not end, it's inevitable!


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> Big Bang is not the only model, nor is it the best, IMO. It is, currently the standard model, however.


Hey Doer. I like the way you think, so I'm curious; what is the best model in your opinion and why?


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 12, 2012)

I said that God, not in a traditional sense. By God I mean everything. Just the whole of all of this. Not a creator. I believe more along the lines of there not being an author, but everything is it, and its some kind of organism that is incomprehensible. More like magic? Some kind of magic makes it all work together, that magic I was just labeling as God. 

I think more behind the big bang theory is that in the beginning, time started, and then exponentially became faster and faster, and then slowed down as the universe expanded. Now they are saying there is evidence of the universe beginning to slow down, and contract. Which would mean our thought of 'time' is slowing down, and will eventually come to a halt. Outside of the universe there is no time, there never was. 

I second what Durden says, I only know of one other model that could possibly make any sense. Heres a link, but its kinda tricky..
http://www.space.com/17217-big-bang-phase-change-theory.html


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> I said that God, not in a traditional sense. By God I mean everything. Just the whole of all of this. Not a creator. I believe more along the lines of there not being an author, but everything is it, and its some kind of organism that is incomprehensible. More like magic? Some kind of magic makes it all work together, that magic I was just labeling as God.
> 
> I think more behind the big bang theory is that in the beginning, time started, and then exponentially became faster and faster, and then slowed down as the universe expanded. Now they are saying there is evidence of the universe beginning to slow down, and contract. Which would mean our thought of 'time' is slowing down, and will eventually come to a halt. Outside of the universe there is no time, there never was.
> 
> ...


Actually, we now know that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but is actually speeding up (heading more toward a big rip than a big crunch). It's not just that all matter in the universe is being pushed away from each other by dark energy, but that space itself is expanding between these bodies. In 10,000 years we won't be able to receive any light from outer space and the night sky will be completely black and barren. We're fortunate to live in this era where we can directly witness this cosmic wonder...


----------



## Nitegazer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that it's Bullshit.
> 
> Time did not start. While it may be true that the object we call the universe was "born" at a specific point in time (like you were) and we started counting from there (13.7 billion years and ticking since then), what is also true is that you can for certain say that if there was a 13.7 billion years ago, then there HAD TO HAVE BEEN a 13.8, 15.5, 100,000,000 billion years ago too. We are not talking about what space looked like that long ago, we are isolating the FACT that time did not start and time will not end.
> 
> ...


Be careful in your confidence, Seedling. You may be right in your conclusion of an infinite universe, but your conclusions are far from 'inevitable.' Here is a quote from a lecture by Stephen Hawking:

"The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down."

Here is a link to the lecture: http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Actually, we now know that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but is actually speeding up (heading more toward a big rip than a big crunch). It's not just that all matter in the universe is being pushed away from each other by dark energy, but that space itself is expanding between these bodies. In 10,000 years we won't be able to receive any light from outer space and the night sky will be completely black and barren. We're fortunate to live in this era where we can directly witness this cosmic wonder...


I feel a void from the lack of Chief so,

You only accept this because it makes you feel comfortable. You don't want there to be stars in the sky, because you are afraid to look up. If everything was black then you'd have no reason to look up and threaten your materialistic comfort. You only believe dark energy because of your narrow science view, but science can't tell you about things that can not be detected, like mind energy. Also, Tesla.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 12, 2012)

God my fuckin head hurts..

Durden, you have a link to anything about this? And did you read the link I put up?


----------



## eDude (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The biggest problem with the Big Bang theory is that it's Bullshit.
> 
> Time did not start. While it may be true that the object we call the universe was "born" at a specific point in time (like you were) and we started counting from there (13.7 billion years and ticking since then), what is also true is that you can for certain say that if there was a 13.7 billion years ago, then there HAD TO HAVE BEEN a 13.8, 15.5, 100,000,000 billion years ago too. We are not talking about what space looked like that long ago, we are isolating the FACT that time did not start and time will not end.
> 
> ...


[video=youtube_share;ANtpsunRYIs]http://youtu.be/ANtpsunRYIs[/video]

Sorry this is about creationism too.

Also, know that time is not constant. Mass changes time.. In a black hole they say time stands still..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41298959/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/fully-mature-black-holes-time-stands-still/


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Time did not start and time will not end; it's inevitable!


How do you know this? cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> How do you know this? cn


Because the concept of time is as I previously explained, there is an infinite past and an infinite future. Time is a concept, not a material object such as the universe.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Actually, we now know that the expansion of the universe is not slowing down, but is actually speeding up (heading more toward a big rip than a big crunch). It's not just that all matter in the universe is being pushed away from each other by dark energy, but that space itself is expanding between these bodies. In 10,000 years we won't be able to receive any light from outer space and the night sky will be completely black and barren. We're fortunate to live in this era where we can directly witness this cosmic wonder...


Actually, a Big Rip, if it is indeed coming, is billions of years (for humans, an effective eternity) into the future. But whether or not there will be one is still an open question iirc. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Because the concept of time is as I previously explained, there is an infinite past and an infinite future. Time is a concept, not a material object such as the universe.


I prefer to think that time is a property of (and bound to) our universe. Unhitch it from its material/dimensional substrate, and it might become unrecognizable as time. I find it eminently reasonable to hold that time (as we know it) had a start point. cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I prefer to think that time is a property of (and bound to) our universe. Unhitch it from its material/dimensional substrate, and it might become unrecognizable as time. I find it eminently reasonable to hold that time (as we know it) had a start point. cn


I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks *measure* time like a meter stick measures a meter.


----------



## Doer (Sep 12, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey Doer. I like the way you think, so I'm curious; what is the best model in your opinion and why?


I put this all out in the Science section for background if you want to read some more of it. I don't really favor anything, at this point, but the Big Bang Theory conforms to the math and to previous observation. But, I'll say why I think that is now un-trustworthy. So, BB is the Theory. If you want to go up against the Theory, the models need some observations we don't have.

But, BB is blown, to me because we know that Space seems to compress and therefore Lens light around large objects in "predictable" ways.

But, consider that even with the model, of Dark Matter; we say that gravity is being affected, we think, by other forms of Matter. That is just a guess. There is no model for what that matter could be. Some proposals. Just educated guesses that it even 'is' matter. The gravitation effect is observable, however. They have mapped our galactic DM cloud, by careful check of the material orbits left from the passing of the much smaller Sagittarius galaxy. But, it has a funny shape. Like a squashed beach ball, from the sides. More mystery.

Dark Energy is a calculation of the extra energy to account of the observation that Space is not only compressible it is filling in somehow. 

It is not a lot of energy at all, but on the scale of the universe, accounts for 70% of all Energy. Dark Matter accounts for another 25% of the entire Energy Budget of the universe we can now observably calculate. 

That's 5% left for our Reality.

If space is filling, the rate is only known, currently. It was recently discovered. Nothing can be said about the rate of Dark Energy in the past. Maybe it's erratic, or on it's own schedule. We can't assume it is a constant acceleration, as we couldn't assume there was no acceleration. We had to check. And we can be surprised.

If Dark Matter is in control of gravity, and Dark Energy is filling in Space and Space is compressible and de-compressible, then we have lost even the Standard Candle Type A Super Nova, as a measure of vast distance already.

We have no idea what tangled path that light came through to make the universe appear 17 billion years old. We don't know the speed of light in various regions of Space Density. It could be like a traffic jam out there and light is just breaking free into our cooler, less dense region...to paint the pretty picture. We don't know. All bet are off. It could be the Density of Space and the Speed of Light are not constants.


----------



## Doer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks *measure* time like a meter stick measures a meter.


No, no, no. That's not right. What is the first duration available to early man? Night/Day. Clocks are not needed. Clocks were not invented. Clocks were invented to split that first duration. If you leave a skin bag dripping you can tell how long till dawn, caveman. Or, look at the Stars. Durations.

That created time to change the look out. Time to get the fire going. Time is the measure of matter crossing space. The duration of that, we called time. Just made it up. It's a tool of the hunt, fingers of Sun above the horizon, brought in the cave for some more peace of mind at night.

The definition of Time is matter crossing space and the crossing of Space takes a Duration. No Space. No Time. The cooling of energy into SpaceTime is what began the ability to have a concept of Time. You have to have Space.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> No, no, no. That's not right. What is the first duration available to early man? Night/Day. Clocks are not needed. Clocks were not invented. Clocks were invented to split that first duration.


I didn't say clocks were needed, I said clocks MEASURE time. Do you understand the difference between what is being measured, and the equipment used to take that measurement? There is duration and there is clocks. Clocks MEASURE duration (time). 




Doer said:


> If you leave a skin bag dripping you can tell how long till dawn, caveman. Or, look at the Stars. Durations.


Again, you are using the concept of a clock (dripping skin bag). There is time, and there is clocks to measure time. There need not be a clock (or any measuring device) for time to exist. Even if it were possible that space could be absolutely void of all matter there would still be time. Nobody there to measure it, nothing to measure it with, but there would still be time. Time is a concept, not a physical entity. Same goes with distance. Distance is inevitable. It is impossible for there to NOT be distance. Distance and time always existed, and always will exist. They need not have been created. No answer is required to the question "where did distance and time come from?" because they are inevitable. There is no concept of no distance and time.





Doer said:


> That created time to change the look out. Time to get the fire going. Time is the measure of matter crossing space. The duration of that, we called time. Just made it up. It's a tool of the hunt, fingers of Sun above the horizon, brought in the cave for some more peace of mind at night.


Time is not made up, a unit of measure of time is what is man made. Time exists with or without man.





Doer said:


> The definition of Time is matter crossing space and the crossing of Space takes a Duration. No Space. No Time. The cooling of energy into SpaceTime is what began the ability to have a concept of Time. You have to have Space.


Again, there you go again. There is no concept of "No Space." Space is volume, period. It is simply impossible for there to NOT be volume. What is contained in that volume is questionable, but space itself (volume) is inevitable.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks *measure* time like a meter stick measures a meter.


I did not introduce the time/duration dichotomy, or the question of its measurement. I am not sure at what you're getting here. Before the universe existed, could there be time? No. Because time is a property of our universe. We have excellent evidence that the universe unfolded from not-time, not-space to give us the timespace that thoroughly informs us. We have extreme difficulty imagining existences without the presence of its frame, our three-plus-one dimensions. 

This is a pure guess on my part, but I suspect you're insisting that time be eternal because you have a visceral, not rational, distaste for the idea of its being limited. cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> God my fuckin head hurts..
> 
> Durden, you have a link to anything about this? And did you read the link I put up?


I did read the short article your link pointed to. It's the first I've ever been exposed to this hypothesis, thanks for sharing. My current favorite series for understanding spacetime is Brian Greene's Fabric of the Cosmos series on Nova:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html# 

Part 1 is entitled, 'What is Space?', and that episode goes into space expanding and it's objects rushing away from each other identifiable by their red shift. The entire series is amusing and informative with great CGI, so get out the heavy indica and lock yourself into your couch  Also, this wiki entry sums it up well - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I did not introduce the time/duration dichotomy, or the question of its measurement. I am not sure at what you're getting here. *Before the universe existed, could there be time? No. Because time is a property of our universe.* We have excellent evidence that the universe unfolded from not-time, not-space to give us the timespace that thoroughly informs us. We have extreme difficulty imagining existences without the presence of its frame, our three-plus-one dimensions.


I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly you mean by saying "BEFORE the universe existed?" The term before implies a previous time prior to a later point in time. If I say I created a widget at 11:30, and I ate lunch before I created that widget, what does that mean to you? To me it means that there was a previous time. But you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you talk about a time before the universe, and in the same breath you say there was no time before the universe. If you say time started then there is no concept of "before" that point, which is totally incorrect.



cannabineer said:


> This is a pure guess on my part, but I suspect you're insisting that time be eternal because you have a visceral, not rational, distaste for the idea of its being limited. cn


Limited compared to what?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I feel a void from the lack of Chief so,
> 
> You only accept this because it makes you feel comfortable. You don't want there to be stars in the sky, because you are afraid to look up. If everything was black then you'd have no reason to look up and threaten your materialistic comfort. You only believe dark energy because of your narrow science view, but science can't tell you about things that can not be detected, like mind energy. Also, Tesla.


LOL! I don't miss him much, I needed a break from irrationality this week. I pretty sure he went back to his home planet...


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around what exactly you mean by saying "BEFORE the universe existed?" The term before implies a previous time prior to a later point in time. If I say I created a widget at 11:30, and I ate lunch before I created that widget, what does that mean to you? To me it means that there was a previous time. But you seem to contradict yourself. On one hand you talk about a time before the universe, and in the same breath you say there was no time before the universe. If you say time started then there is no concept of "before" that point, which is totally incorrect.
> 
> 
> 
> Limited compared to what?


Yes; the "before" is paradoxical. Our imaginations insist that the Cosmos emerged into an existing stream of time. I was tolerating a defect in our thoroughly temporal use of language in order to keep my point compact. 

The question "limited compared to what?" can only be answered by resorting to abstractions, like the infinite scalar of numbers. As others have mentioned, the only likely comparison for time is space, even though they are quite different. But they're inextricably linked. 

The bit that our animal intuitions have much trouble grasping (since they are woven onto the loom of time and space) is that when there was no Universe, there was no space, no time. There was almost certainly a hyperspace/hypertime manifold from which the Cosmos "precipitated" in the Big Bang event. But (and here the language bites me again) "before" it precipitated, there was only nullity from our perspective. Less than nullity even, since without space and time there could be no observing it. cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> But (and here the language bites me again) "before" it precipitated, there was only nullity from our perspective. Less than nullity even, since without space and time there could be no observing it. cn


That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.

If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 12, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Also, Tesla.


I actually laughed really loudly at this remark. Heh.


----------



## Doer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.
> 
> If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?


SpaceTime is Relative, Einstein, said. If you have no reference it's void. Even the concept of void, is not it. It is void, of even that. I don't mean biblical void, I don't mean Zero. There is no before, before.

No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time. Times is this tool of convenience in the macro world. 

What you are imagining, I think is something else. NOW. We can imagine it is now everywhere. We can imagine the same now is forever, across vast distance. Regardless of Causality or Relativity we can imagine Now in a context where the universe is not. Why? No constraints. No information is exchanged. And when I delve into the concepts of Quantum non-causality that can be proven experimentally, I understand that Now is all that is possible.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 12, 2012)

Doer said:


> SpaceTime is Relative, Einstein, said. If you have no reference it's void. Even the concept of void, is not it. It is void, of even that. I don't mean biblical void, I don't mean Zero. There is no before, before.
> 
> No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time. Times is this tool of convenience in the macro world.



You've made yourself believe that it's possible for there to be "nothing." What makes you believe such a strange concept? You believe that it's possible for there to be no volume? Describe to me a lack of volume, in your own words. I'm looking forward to hearing this tale of yours.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> That's not a language problem that's a concept problem. You have a concept of there being no time BEFORE the universe was created. That is nonsensical.
> 
> If I let you slide on the term "before" will you tell me your concept of there being no space? Does that mean there was no volume? No vacuum? No distance?


If there was no cosmos, there was no time, space, distance, volume, duration or anything else that requires our spatiotemporal environment to inform the term with meaning. The Big Bang was a singularity in all senses of the word. After it, the term "after" acquired meaning. That is how I understand it.

If you are championing the opposed position, that time was in place before any of the other framing members of existence ... how might you illustrate or otherwise substantiate the idea? cn


----------



## polyarcturus (Sep 12, 2012)

welyou need to go trip again cause i dont think you ever came down. life is pure chance and the development of specialized organs to generate the materials needed to procreate took a long fuckn time. at first ther was no genetic code, only as you put, biomass. this biomass continued to collect break apart evolve and this led to allkinds of life devolping there was no directed action or more of the species on this planet would have more similar origins. lots of aquatic animals appear as if they have never im the time of this planet had any relation to one another as far as origin. i mean you just cant tell me jellyfish and regular fish have the same origin, but you could tell me that mushrooms and jellyfish do.


----------



## Doer (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You've made yourself believe that it's possible for there to be "nothing." What makes you believe such a strange concept? You believe that it's possible for there to be no volume? Describe to me a lack of volume, in your own words. I'm looking forward to hearing this tale of yours.


You seem to be trying to laugh at me. But, I assure you this is exactly what is proposed by Big Bang Theory. Void of the concept of nothing. Void of description. Void. It's not even lack. Void lacks the concept for lack. It's not something I believe. It's the math. There is no reference. It's not belief.

If you really want to know where I get this, go over the Science section and see. I've posted plenty. I'm done some homework. I know where you get the common view of time. I'm not making this up. And I have documented enough for you to see it. But, I don't care if you agree. I'm not trying to stretch your world view, if it can't.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 12, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I find it total irrational to assume that duration (time) could ever start or stop, as duration is not a material object, that would be a clock. Clocks *measure* time like a meter stick measures a meter.


what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 12, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?


We might know in time. ~giggling, ducking~ cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 13, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> what is time except for the measurement of change. We have the concept from sci-fi and fantasy of time standing still, we can appreciate that means nothing in the universe is progressing. What about at the end of the universe, when all atoms have been ripped apart and the temperature has reach near absolute zero. The only 'existence' is the quantum foam with random particles flitting in and out of esistence. With such a universe, there is nothing to measure time against. There is literally no change in anything, time loses all meaning. Isn't this the same as having no time? Isn't it identical to time standing still?


One mathematical next step has been proposed: Because all possible change has occurred, there is no more entropy possible. Information constraints are gone because all relativity is washed out "It's" all filled in and smooth energy is all that's left, no fundamental forces, yet,...*No Spacetime, no volume, no vacuum, no direction, no distance. No Reference. No Relativity. No Time. 

*No SIZE is possible.

The math says that without these constraint an instantaneous (in the Now) phase change can occur. That which has expanded, at last, into smooth quantum fluctuations is NOW void. And the phase change is the Big Bang. From all position, to none, to some. Wait for it.....BANG.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

What a load of crap!

It is impossible for there to be no distance or no volume. Just because there is no matter in space doesn't mean there isn't space. Get a grip on yourself man, Einstein was the biggest BS artist of all time.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 13, 2012)

"If an outsider perceives 'something wrong' with a core scientific model, the humble and justified response of that curious outsider should be to ask 'what mistake am I making?' before assuming 100% of the experts are wrong." - David Brin


The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that essentially relies on a lack of imagination. In short, this fallacy is invoked when someone simply says, &#8220;I don&#8217;t believe that&#8221; and leaves the rebuttal there. This is an indication the argument amounts to little more than the inability to understand complexity.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

> *Throughout history, Every mystery, Ever solved has turned out to be, Not Magic. - Tim Minchin
> 
> *


What about the mysteries that haven't been solved? I suspect if it really is magic that those mysteries wouldn't have been solved, nor could they be if all solved mysteries are not magic. (rolls eyes)


----------



## Doer (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What about the one's that haven't been solved? I suspect if it really is magic that those mysteries wouldn't have been solved, nor could they be if all solved mysteries are not magic. (rolls eyes)


Like I said, if you can't take it in, don't stain. Belief based views are quite alright. Believe what you what. I, however, am a skeptic. I can only be swayed by the math.....and even then, there is an edge to it all, we just don't know.


----------



## Doer (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What a load of crap!
> 
> It is impossible for there to be no distance or no volume. Just because there is no matter in space doesn't mean there isn't space. Get a grip on yourself man, Einstein was the biggest BS artist of all time.


Oh, I'm gripped up fairly tight, you? I would like to hear more of your views on Einstein. At what point, do you think he slipped? Or was he always just seeking fame, an artist, as you say.

BTW< Big Bang didn't bang into Space. Big Bang created Space. We are in the spacetime blast front. We have no idea where we are in this expanding skin or how thick it is, or how wide.

That's Big Bang Theory.

Just saying it's impossible or I'm silly to believe it is getting old. First off, I don't believe BBT. Never said I did. You are surely happy to remain just as confused as before. It's too big a picture. Fine. 

So, relax and tell us, when did you first begin to have these feelings about Herr Einstein? In your childhood? Was it your Mother?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> So, relax and tell us, when did you first begin to have these feelings about Herr Einstein? In your childhood? Was it your Mother?


When I started reading his work and noticing that we had very different views on space and time, and upon closer examination it was revealed he was full of it...

For instance, the second postulate in SR. While Einstein postulates that the speed of light is measured to be c in all frames of reference, I can show this to be unequivocally false. The only way light can be measured to be c in a reference frame is if the frame is at an absolute zero velocity. Make no mistake, a meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Light travel time defines the meter, hence the speed of light is defined. With the defined speed of light, traveling independently of objects means that as the object's absolute velocity changes, so too does the time it takes for light to travel the length of a meter in that frame, hence the speed of light can't be measured to be c in a frame of reference unless that frame has an absolute zero velocity in space.


----------



## Doer (Sep 13, 2012)

OK, what is your theory of everything?


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> When I started reading his work and noticing that we had very different views on space and time, and upon closer examination it was revealed he was full of it...


Einstein's views of space and time were different from _everyone's_ views. They seem to be on the right track, especially seeing that we use them to get to specific sectors of Mars very accurately using them...


> For instance, the second postulate in SR. While Einstein postulates that the speed of light is measured to be c in all frames of reference, I can show this to be unequivocally false. The only way light can be measured to be c in a reference frame is if the frame is at an absolute zero velocity. *Make no mistake, a meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Light travel time defines the meter, hence the speed of light is defined.* With the defined speed of light, traveling independently of objects means that as the object's absolute velocity changes, so too does the time it takes for light to travel the length of a meter in that frame, hence the speed of light can't be measured to be c in a frame of reference unless that frame has an absolute zero velocity in space.


Wait, how is the bolded statement above true? The meter was an establish unit of measure in 1875, we had no idea about the speed and nature of light at that time...


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> OK, what is your theory of everything?


I don't have a TOE, I have a theory of absolute velocity.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> Wait, how is the bolded statement above true? The meter was an establish unit of measure in 1875, we had no idea about the speed and nature of light at that time...




Are you denying the definition of a meter is as follows??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter

The *metre* (*meter* in American English), symbol *m*, is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth&#8242;s equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. *Since 1983, it has been defined as &#8220;the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of




of a second.*


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Are you denying the definition of a meter is as follows??
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter
> 
> ...



I was unaware of this, thanks for sharing!


----------



## Doer (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I don't have a TOE, I have a theory of absolute velocity.



Can you share the nutshell? The Elevator Pitch? The Abstract?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

Doer said:


> Can you share the nutshell? The Elevator Pitch? The Abstract?


Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Light is emitted at time t=0 at a point in space from a source, and light travels spherically away from that point in space that it was emitted. The distance the light travels is ct from the point of emission. The absolute velocity of the source is in relation to that point in space that it emitted the light sphere. If the source remains at that point then the source remains at the center of the expanding light sphere and the source has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame (that the light sphere created.) If the source travels away from that point in space then the source is no longer at the center of the expanding light sphere. The distance the source travels away from that point, can be used to calculate the absolute velocity of the source in the time the light traveled ct. Absolute velocity in the preferred frame. Of course, all objects travel in the preferred frame, and at the same time can have a relative velocity to another object in the preferred frame.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Light is emitted at time t=0 at a point in space from a source, and light travels spherically away from that point in space that it was emitted. The distance the light travels is ct from the point of emission. The absolute velocity of the source is in relation to that point in space that it emitted the light sphere. If the source remains at that point then the source remains at the center of the expanding light sphere and the source has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame (that the light sphere created.) If the source travels away from that point in space then the source is no longer at the center of the expanding light sphere. The distance the source travels away from that point, can be used to calculate the absolute velocity of the source in the time the light traveled ct.* Absolute velocity in the preferred frame.* Of course, all objects travel in the preferred frame, and at the same time can have a relative velocity to another object in the preferred frame.


Does the bolded not contradict itself? cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 13, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Does the bolded not contradict itself? cn


No. The preferred frame is space. Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Absolute velocity is the velocity of the object in the preferred frame (space). That velocity is not relative to another object, it is relative to a point in space which is incapable of motion in the preferred frame. It is simply a point in space. There is nothing there if the source travels away from that point.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> No. The preferred frame is space. Light travel time defines distance in the preferred frame. Absolute velocity is the velocity of the object in the preferred frame (space). That velocity is not relative to another object, it is relative to a point in space which is incapable of motion in the preferred frame. It is simply a point in space. There is nothing there if the source travels away from that point.


I hope I'm reading this wrong, but defining space as being/having a preferred frame sounds like the aether, which is really another way of saying that the universe has a net (zero) velocity. Relativity put paid to that. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> When I started reading his work and noticing that we had very different views on space and time, and upon closer examination it was revealed he was full of it...
> 
> For instance, the second postulate in SR. While Einstein postulates that the speed of light is measured to be c in all frames of reference, I can show this to be unequivocally false. The only way light can be measured to be c in a reference frame is if the frame is at an absolute zero velocity. Make no mistake, a meter is defined as the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. Light travel time defines the meter, hence the speed of light is defined. With the defined speed of light, traveling independently of objects means that as the object's absolute velocity changes, so too does the time it takes for light to travel the length of a meter in that frame, hence the speed of light can't be measured to be c in a frame of reference unless that frame has an absolute zero velocity in space.


You appear to be making post-hoc arguments. The meter was defined using the speed of light in a vacuum (c) because it is a standard that is based on the fact that c doesn't change. Are you suggesting a variable speed of light? If so, you should know that every experiment conducted to disprove SR and GR has failed. Time dilation and length (Lorentz) contraction are real effects. It still takes the same time for light to travel the meter in the other frames because the meter is shorter when observed from an independent FoR. 

Please expand on your hypothesis. If you were driving a car at 0.99*c and turned on the headlights, what would you see? Would photons be traveling at 0.01*c?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 13, 2012)

Seedling said:


> No. The preferred frame is space.


Then please explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 14, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You appear to be making post-hoc arguments. The meter was defined using the speed of light in a vacuum (c) because it is a standard that is based on the fact that c doesn't change.


It doesn't matter what it USED to be defined as, or it's origin, it is what it is today. Even if you were to change it back my theory would still be correct and Einstein's wrong. The definition is what helped me along to see how it really works, which allowed me to see Einstein's mistakes. 



mindphuk said:


> Are you suggesting a variable speed of light? If so, you should know that every experiment conducted to disprove SR and GR has failed.


No I am NOT suggesting a variable speed of light, I am saying that light speed is constant (as defined), but that MEASUREMENTS of the speed of light will be taken differently depending on the frame one takes those measurements in.





mindphuk said:


> Time dilation and length (Lorentz) contraction are real effects.


Time dilation and length contraction are BS! Length contraction has never been proven to be a real effect. Length contraction is more a hindrance to SR than anything the way I see it. Length contraction only applies to one axis, say the x axis, while the y and z axis are not length contracted. That creates massive problems and ultimately internal innconsistancy in SR.



mindphuk said:


> It still takes the same time for light to travel the meter in the other frames because the meter is shorter when observed from an independent FoR.


You better learn to understand what the definition of a meter is and how you would go about establishing the length of a meter in a particular frame using light and clocks. You obviously have no real understanding of which you speak. You are simply parroting what you've been brainwashed with.



mindphuk said:


> Please expand on your hypothesis. If you were driving a car at 0.99*c and turned on the headlights, what would you see? Would photons be traveling at 0.01*c?


The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you. That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders. I can tell you the velocity of the frame, Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space, so he makes up his BS second postulate and claims all frames will measure the speed of light to be the same. That is simply an impossibility according to the definition of the meter.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 14, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I hope I'm reading this wrong, but defining space as being/having a preferred frame sounds like the aether, which is really another way of saying that the universe has a net (zero) velocity. Relativity put paid to that. cn


No, I speak of space as simply a volume in which light travels and defines distance. I made no mention of an aether. 

The universe is an object in space. The universe is getting less dense by means of expanding its volume. The volume of the universe is the volume of space that the universe occupies in space. The finite but expanding volume of the universe resides in an infinite volume of surrounding space. I made no mention of the velocity of the universe in that space.


----------



## Doer (Sep 14, 2012)

And you talk like a Charlatan. Insult and derision to hide that fact that you don't know what you are taking about.

I doubt that you are at all familiar with the modern experiments since, obviously you are such a high ego that you don't "get" Einstein. And you are such a low-brow character as to brush it all off as bullshit art. 

From the beginning you have derided anyone that wants to discuss this with you. Bully-boy tactics just mean you are a lost, anti-science fight-boy. That's all you want is to get into a name calling fight, seems to me.

You don't even know who you are talking to. But, it's good you didn't post claptrap in the Science section. You don't have the papers to reference. Or the Math. So, personal theories are interesting to me. But, you would not take this smarmy mouth, approach in person.

And it means you have no training or ability to carry on a conversation at this level and you are stooping to picking the posts apart instead of riding straight at the fact these ideas were dis-proven, long ago.

You can't even come up with the guys that have proposes these ideas, with math, but had their math dis-proven. They had courage. What do you call this stuff? I know what I call it. Arguing in circles.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> And you talk like a Charlatan. Insult and derision to hide that fact that you don't know what you are taking about.
> 
> I doubt that you are at all familiar with the modern experiments since, obviously you are such a high ego that you don't "get" Einstein.
> And you are such a low-brow character as to brush it all off as bullshit art.
> ...


So you ask me a question, I give you specifics, and later actual numbers, with the concept just as clear as can be, and you have no response to the actual concept or numbers, but simply rebut with gibberish. 

Please explain clearly in you own words, staying on topic, where I go wrong. I have clearly shown where Einstein goes wrong, and given you the correction. Now, put up or shut up. Save the personal insults for some other time. Stick to the task at hand.


----------



## danbridge (Sep 14, 2012)

Dude, you said that you were trippen on DMA. Then you mentioned God. That is a blatent no-no for coversation threads. Please be careful. Thank you.


----------



## cues (Sep 14, 2012)

Personally, I think we are all thinking 'inside the box' too much.
Much as (not many) years ago we thought the earth was flat, now we are narrow-minded enough to think ours is the only universe.
If space has a limit, what is at the edge? A brick wall or something?
Then there is the next unlimited dimension. Time. Where is the limit on that? If those monkeys haven't written the complete works of Shakespeare yet, you can bet they will at some point.
I honestly believe that somewhere, sometime, someone or something will be writing this exact same message but over millions of miles and millions of years away. The reason we don't accept this is a combination of narcissism and a lack of scientific knowledge.
P.S. The bible makes a good door-stop.


----------



## Doer (Sep 14, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you ask me a question, I give you specifics, and later actual numbers, with the concept just as clear as can be, and you have no response to the actual concept or numbers, but simply rebut with gibberish.
> 
> Please explain clearly in you own words, staying on topic, where I go wrong. I have clearly shown where Einstein goes wrong, and given you the correction. Now, put up or shut up. Save the personal insults for some other time. Stick to the task at hand.


You stick and we all will. Don't keep playing smarmy. This is not a right or wrong discussion for God sake! You have clearly not shown anything. And this burning desire of yours, to be right, makes this a very un-interesting conversation. 

Since Space seems to be compressible and forms gradients around mass. (observable) And the spaceframe around Earth drags against the rotation. (observable) and Light does nothing observable when the source moves. I don't see that you have the total concept, to debate against. The light source, due to all the planes of rotation is never still. Never was and cannot be. There may be an absolute inertia frame for the universe, perhaps. (Maxwell?) But there is no such thing as, observable Absolute Reference Frame. You want your point source to be the absolute reference but it is in known and unknown combinational motion. So not a reference.

Of course, you seem to still believe that Space was here before the Big Bang. That is a religious style of thinking. It is impossible, by what we know, (now)

So, the burden of proof is hardly on me. You are behind in your reading, I think.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 14, 2012)

Doer said:


> You stick and we all will. Don't keep playing smarmy. This is not a right or wrong discussion for God sake! You have clearly not shown anything. And this burning desire of yours, to be right, makes this a very un-interesting conversation.
> 
> Since Space seems to be compressible and forms gradients around mass. (observable) And the spaceframe around Earth drags against the rotation. (observable) and Light does nothing observable when the source moves. I don't see that you have the total concept, to debate against. The light source, due to all the planes of rotation is never still. Never was and cannot be. There may be an absolute inertia frame for the universe, perhaps. (Maxwell?) But there is no such thing as, observable Absolute Reference Frame. You want your point source to be the absolute reference but it is in known and unknown combinational motion. So not a reference.
> 
> ...


You should be a politician if not already one, your ability to evade the issue is exceptional!

I said:



> *The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you.*


Do you agree with those numbers? If not, clearly state in the context of the example given why you don't agree and give the numbers you think are correct. Please don't go off on another tangent, that is so boring and uninteresting listening to you evade the task at hand.

Mind you, that measurement was taken along one axis in your frame, we'll say the x axis. Do you think if you took a measurement along the y or the z axis that it would be the same as it was along the x axis? Certainly that would be *impossible*, since along different axis in your frame the light is different distances from you after 1 second has elapsed.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2012)

Seedling said:


> No, I speak of space as simply a volume in which light travels and defines distance. I made no mention of an aether.
> 
> The universe is an object in space. The universe is getting less dense by means of expanding its volume. The volume of the universe is the volume of space that the universe occupies in space. The finite but expanding volume of the universe resides in an infinite volume of surrounding space. I made no mention of the velocity of the universe in that space.


You are decoupling the Universe from space. The problem is, that space is the Universe. They are the same thing. Time obeys a similar constraint.
This is the key concept on which we disagree. You want to give space a sort of aseity (independent, self-supported reality): a sempiternal existence independent of all its other entanglements and "obligations" that physicists recognize.
Since you have not advanced a descriptive theory (starting from known or accepted premises of math/physics), you run afoul of a basic principle of this forum: what was presented without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. You are making statements that declare a rejection of relativity, but not one based on comprehension of the theory. 
Your claim that there is space apart from the Universe is in conflict with existing theory about the Universe and timespace. I must conclude that you invented your model from whole cloth. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2012)

cues said:


> Personally, I think we are all thinking 'inside the box' too much.
> Much as (not many) years ago we thought the earth was flat, now we are narrow-minded enough to think ours is the only universe.
> If space has a limit, what is at the edge? A brick wall or something?
> Then there is the next unlimited dimension. Time. Where is the limit on that? If those monkeys haven't written the complete works of Shakespeare yet, you can bet they will at some point.
> ...


There is extensive mathematical exploration of the nature of timespace and the material universe strung onto it. They are bound to and inform each other. And that math describes a "closed" continuum if we could visualize it in a purely imagined hyperspatial matrix. So while from our perspective space has no limits, from a higherdimensional one it looks perhaps like the surface of a ball, without borders but nonetheless with finite size. cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 14, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> You are decoupling the Universe from space. The problem is, that space is the Universe. They are the same thing.


So what you are saying is that we can eliminate either the term space, or the term universe from our vocabulary, since they are the exact same thing according to you? Mathematically, if space is represented as a, and the universe is represented as b, you are saying a=b, and therefor b=a, correct? You are saying that there is no difference between the universe and space? The universe has mass, space does not! Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance, irrespective to the mass contained in that volume. You can have the space of 1 gallon of gas or 1 gallon of oxygen. The space is the same, the mass of the contents is different and has no bearing on the 3 dimensional distance (volume).


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 14, 2012)

> * Dude, you said that you were trippen on DMA. Then you mentioned God. That is a blatent no-no for coversation threads. Please be careful. Thank you. ​
> *


Why is that? Makes no sense to me. Do you not think of these things while tripping?


----------



## cues (Sep 14, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> There is extensive mathematical exploration of the nature of timespace and the material universe strung onto it. They are bound to and inform each other. And that math describes a "closed" continuum if we could visualize it in a purely imagined hyperspatial matrix. So while from our perspective space has no limits, from a higherdimensional one it looks perhaps like the surface of a ball, without borders but nonetheless with finite size. cn


O.K. Then 
I will re-phrase that to 'Thinking within the sphere'
Seriously though Cb, my response wasn't a knee-jerk reaction but is something I have been interested in for years.
So, what are your opinions on black holes and white holes? I suspect it is all related and is the 'missing link' we are looking for in time travel.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So what you are saying is that we can eliminate either the term space, or the term universe from our vocabulary, since they are the exact same thing according to you?


 No. That is not what I am saying.


> Mathematically, if space is represented as a, and the universe is represented as b, you are saying a=b, and therefor b=a, correct? You are saying that there is no difference between the universe and space? The universe has mass, space does not!


You drew these conclusions from your distortion of my argument, not from what I provided.


> Space is simply volume, which is simply 3 dimensional distance, irrespective to the mass contained in that volume. You can have the space of 1 gallon of gas or 1 gallon of oxygen. The space is the same, the mass of the contents is different and has no bearing on the 3 dimensional distance (volume).


What I see you doing is conflating two semantic nuances of the word and forcing identity upon them to make a point. The Germans do it better imo, they use the word _Raum _for space as volume and _der Weltraum_ for space as the totality of volume, and the dimensionality of that volume-conferring condition. 
I did not do this conflation, and I disagree with it. It allows the derivation of patently absurd conclusions, as you have shown.

We only know of space as within the context/embrace of our cosmos. In fact, the math of cosmology describes that that space is congruent with the cosmos. So all space is contained within the Universe, and every point within that universe is space. But the other properties: time, zero point, mass, objects, events ... while they all exist within space, they are distinct. I never claimed otherwise. 

What makes the topic difficult (but irresistible for some) is that we're trying to describe the nature and limitations of universal properties from within. We're limited by our 3+1-dimensional imaginations. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2012)

cues said:


> O.K. Then
> I will re-phrase that to 'Thinking within the sphere'
> Seriously though Cb, my response wasn't a knee-jerk reaction but is something I have been interested in for years.
> So, what are your opinions on black holes and white holes? I suspect it is all related and is the 'missing link' we are looking for in time travel.


I don't think time travel can ever be achieved in a useful form; it would violate Niven's Law. 
As for black holes, I don't know. The topic is a bit beyond me. I've nibbled at the edges of papers describing the "lost space" inside the event horizon as going "down" and not "up", suggesting they contact continua dimensionally/causally impoverished compared to ours. Just as our cosmos is thought to have "precipitated" within a dimensionally richer ur-continuum. (iirc it was all very speculative, perhaps metaphysical.) But to suggest that time and space as we know it operated/operates within that ur-continuum is something I can't accept without the full weight of theory behind it. Without it, that would be a human-centered imposition fully as arrogant as to declare that there is a God who resembles us. We might be ill-equipped to see reality from unhuman angles. cn


----------



## cues (Sep 14, 2012)

Umm yah, o.k.
The way I see it, light speed is supposed to be the be all and end all, impossible to achieve, but black holes appear to circumnavigate that and even have the gravity to pull in light. The theory is that there is a white hole to every black hole where this matter is being spewed back out (surely it can't just vanish). We know about the time/distance relationship changing near light speed. If something is pulling in something faster than light, surely there is some form of time travel going on?
This reminds me of a girlfriend I had once that was psychic and could see into the future. She once kicked the shit out of me in a row about my current g/f before I'd even met her! SHe was O.K about the future wife though because she likes her dog (Bit weird, I hate dogs, but then again , haven't met them yet).


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 14, 2012)

cues said:


> Umm yah, o.k.
> The way I see it, light speed is supposed to be the be all and end all, impossible to achieve, but black holes appear to circumnavigate that and even have the gravity to pull in light. The theory is that there is a white hole to every black hole where this matter is being spewed back out (surely it can't just vanish). We know about the time/distance relationship changing near light speed. If something is pulling in something faster than light, surely there is some form of time travel going on?
> This reminds me of a girlfriend I had once that was psychic and could see into the future. She once kicked the shit out of me in a row about my current g/f before I'd even met her! SHe was O.K about the future wife though because she likes her dog (Bit weird, I hate dogs, but then again , haven't met them yet).


Iirc the event horizon is defined by the surface where escape velocity touches c. Since this cannot be exceeded in our space, everything inside the event horizon is no longer in our universe. But since a white hole hasn't been observed, I'm not sure about the hypothesis binding the black ones to white ones. 

As for the material and information ... from our perspective it did vanish! It's no longer in, or accessible to/from/ our continuum. I did read that right at the edge of the event horizon, relativistic effects become extreme. The outside universe's rate of time appears to become infinitely fast, and even the cosmic background is blueshifted/intensified to a blinding blaze of hard gamma. Some theorists think that in that extreme environment, some spacelike dimensions (in our space) become more timelike. I have trouble visualizing that, and the weirdness of the idea suggests even greater weirdness in the "unspace" behind the event horizon. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2012)

Seedling said:


> It doesn't matter what it USED to be defined as, or it's origin, it is what it is today. Even if you were to change it back my theory would still be correct and Einstein's wrong. The definition is what helped me along to see how it really works, which allowed me to see Einstein's mistakes.


You used that fact of our standard as the basis for your claim. The origin matters because if c wasn't a constant, then you couldn't use it to define a measurement. If I can measure the speed of light in my inertial FoR different than your measurement of the same beam then we cannot agree on lengths. So somewhere our measurements must be in error, either length, time or speed of light. If we cannot agree on basic measurements, then it becomes impossible to do science and each and every place in the universe can have it's own local laws. 



> No I am NOT suggesting a variable speed of light, I am saying that light speed is constant (as defined), but that MEASUREMENTS of the speed of light will be taken differently depending on the frame one takes those measurements in.


How is it to be determined who has the 'correct' measurement then? Who's FoR is the preferred one? 



> Time dilation and length contraction are BS!


How do you explain atomic clock experiments traveling on planes showing a discrepancy exactly equal to what was predicted using Lorentz transformations? 


> Length contraction has never been proven to be a real effect


It hasn't been directly observed, correct. Nothing is actually ever proven in science so your language is suspect. Length contraction has never been falsified. 


> . Length contraction is more a hindrance to SR than anything the way I see it.


I don't expect you see much considering your lack of understanding of the implications of your unfounded beliefs. 


> Length contraction only applies to one axis, say the x axis, while the y and z axis are not length contracted. That creates massive problems and ultimately internal innconsistancy in SR.


Length contraction occurs in every axis of travel. No one expects contraction in a direction where there is no relative movement. Using the Cartesian coordinates, if I am moving in only the x axis, that is where the contraction will occur, if I'm moving in both the x and y axises, there will be contraction in both of those. 



> You better learn to understand what the definition of a meter is and how you would go about establishing the length of a meter in a particular frame using light and clocks.


You are making it impossible as there is no way to determine a preferred frame of reference. In your world, everyone will measure a meter an/or a second different depending on how they are moving. 


> You obviously have no real understanding of which you speak.


Really? I could say the same for you bu I am better off merely demonstrating why you don't understand. 


> You are simply parroting what you've been brainwashed with.


Learning physics is not being brainwashed. 



> The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you.


So the speed of light IS variable. I measuring the same beam of light at 10% of the speed that you are measuring it.


> That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from


Zero velocity relative to what? You? Why is your FoR special? 


> (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders.


More like his brilliant insight. If I'm traveling .99c relative to you, then you appear to be traveling .99c away from me. Who's motion is preferred? You on earth are flying through the solar system, which is zooming through the galaxy, which is moving withing our local group, etc. Where exactly is the 'at rest' FoR? 


> I can tell you the velocity of the frame,


No you actually cannot which is your major error on which your whole house of cards falls. 


> Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space,


No one has any way of knowing, including you. You have no way of knowing if your inertial reference frame has any velocity unless you consider it relative to something else, hence the name.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 15, 2012)

^^ Damn, MP! +rep...


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 15, 2012)

Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
or 
b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You used that fact of our standard as the basis for your claim.


I'm upholding the definition of the meter, SR does not. Explain to me how you determine the length of a meter in a frame, using light and clocks, according to SR and I will show you the error of your way. 




mindphuk said:


> The origin matters because if c wasn't a constant, then you couldn't use it to define a measurement.


What does the origin of the definition have to do with light traveling at a constant speed in a vacuum? We use light travel time to define the meter because light does travel at a constant rate in a vacuum, INDEPENDENT OF OBJECTS!!!!! The speed of light is not relative to objects, it is relative to space. Light is laying meter sticks in space as it travels its constant rate for a duration of time.




mindphuk said:


> If I can measure the speed of light in my inertial FoR different than your measurement of the same beam then we cannot agree on lengths.


Correction, if you don't know what your frame's velocity is, then you have no business measuring light in your frame and debating me about the speed of light in my frame (that does know the frame's velocity, and therefor can know both the speed of the frame and the speed of light). I know the speed of the frame, so like in your example, I determined the car was traveling .99c, so I KNOW that since my car is traveling .99c that the real speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. On the other hand, you don;t know the velocity of the car, because you have no way of determining that velocity in space, not relative to no other object. There is no other object to have a relative velocity to, there is simply a car in space and the light it emitted. You made up some BS .99c car velocity, like you had known that from measurements you took in the car. So tell me, how did you determine the .99c velocity using light and clocks in your car??? I'm dying to hear this!!! 



mindphuk said:


> So somewhere our measurements must be in error, either length, time or speed of light. If we cannot agree on basic measurements, then it becomes impossible to do science and each and every place in the universe can have it's own local laws.


Don't make plural what is not. It's not "our" measurements in error, it's YOUR measurements in error. I know what the velocity of the frame is, you do not. Since I know the velocity of the frame I can make an ACCURATE determination of the real speed of light. 



mindphuk said:


> How is it to be determined who has the 'correct' measurement then? Who's FoR is the preferred one?


Everyone has the correct measurement if they first know their frame's velocity. If you use Einstein's ways, you don;t know the frame's velocity, because in Einstein's world, it's not your frame that is moving, it's every other frame that is moving. Ask all of them, they'll tell you. (What a load of crap!)



mindphuk said:


> Nothing is actually ever proven in science so your language is suspect. Length contraction has never been falsified.
> I don't expect you see much considering your lack of understanding of the implications of your unfounded beliefs.


Length contraction has never been falsified so it's what, still taken to be true? (rolls eyes) I have an invisible blue dragon in my living room. It's never been falsified.



mindphuk said:


> Length contraction occurs in every axis of travel. No one expects contraction in a direction where there is no relative movement. Using the Cartesian coordinates, if I am moving in only the x axis, that is where the contraction will occur, if I'm moving in both the x and y axises, there will be contraction in both of those.


If you are moving only along the x axis the y and z axis are NOT contracted. So as in your car example, the car is moving along the x axis. Do you think the light will be the same distance from you along the y and z axis after 1 second, as it is along the x axis after one second?



mindphuk said:


> You are making it impossible as there is no way to determine a preferred frame of reference.


Another correction. It's Einstein that doesn't have a way to determine the preferred frame. I have a way of determining an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I know the frame's velocity, regardless of the velocity (to include a zero velocity). Einstein has no method of determining an absolute zero velocity, so he fabricates his illusion world.



mindphuk said:


> In your world, everyone will measure a meter an/or a second different depending on how they are moving.


Correct, but again, they know the frame's velocity in addition to the measurements they took, and from that information they know the speed of light. But, let's get real here for a minute. It's only in Einstein's world do you need to keep measuring the speed of light over and over and over. In my world (and in yours too) the speed of light is defined, so I know what the speed of light is. Light travel time DEFINES the meter, hence the speed of light is defined!



mindphuk said:


> So the speed of light IS variable.


No, the speed of light is defined. It is impossible for the speed of light to be anything different than 299,792,458 m/s, because the very definition of a meter is the length of the path that light travels in a vacuum in 1/299792458 of a second. So, light travels 299,792,458 meters in one second, hence the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Not variable, not possible to be different than 299,792,458 m/s. Comprehend?



mindphuk said:


> I measuring the same beam of light at 10% of the speed that you are measuring it.


Did you take into account that your frame had a velocity in space where light travels independent of your frame?



mindphuk said:


> Zero velocity relative to what?


Relative to the light sphere. Relative to the point that the light was emitted in space.



mindphuk said:


> You?


 No, the point of emission of light, the center of the light sphere.



mindphuk said:


> Why is your FoR special?


It's not "my" frame of reference, it's the preferred frame because all objects travel in the preferred frame where light travel time defines distance.



mindphuk said:


> More like his brilliant insight. If I'm traveling .99c relative to you, then you appear to be traveling .99c away from me. Who's motion is preferred?


No, his BS! I had it right the first time. There is one car in space. How do you determine its velocity using light and clocks? Again, Einstein has no way of knowing that, so he pretends that since you don't know the velocity of the frame, and no way of knowing, that it must be zero. lol



mindphuk said:


> You on earth are flying through the solar system, which is zooming through the galaxy, which is moving withing our local group, etc. Where exactly is the 'at rest' FoR?


When light travel time is the same one way times along a stick and back, in all directions, then the stick has an absolute zero velocity. If the one way times were 1/299792458 of a second, then that stick is a meter stick.



mindphuk said:


> No one has any way of knowing, including you. You have no way of knowing if your inertial reference frame has any velocity unless you consider it relative to something else, hence the name.


Who the F is Einstein to tell me no one can know the absolute velocity of my frame. His whole world is based on a misguided assumption that one can't possibly know the velocity of a frame in the preferred frame. His whole world is based on the assumption that his frame is never in motion, it's always the 'other' frame that's in motion. Sorry buddy, when using light and clocks to determine the meter you have to KNOW the velocity of the frame!


----------



## Seedling (Sep 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
> a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
> or
> b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?


You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?


----------



## Doer (Sep 15, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?


This is how meglomaniacs think. A lazy, giant ego, un-educated, and unwilling to be in the crucible. Certainly, and completely un-quaified.

And willing to be a jerk about it. The peanut gallery of faith. No there is not the slightest chance. You don't have the math. You substitute derision and sour grapes toward the true giants of thought. The ones that have advanced us, their ideas,
are certainly to be challenged, but you make it personal and thus very juvenile. And credibility is gone.

There have been guys like Chandra, that work alone with the math before they are ever "discovered." And that is exactly the story of Einstein. No Blues without Dues. Really if you just want an audience for ideas, everyone knows I like that.

If you can't discuss without a right-fight, it means you are not qualified.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 15, 2012)

Doer said:


> This is how meglomaniacs think. A lazy, giant ego, un-educated, and unwilling to be in the crucible. Certainly, and completely un-quaified.
> 
> And willing to be a jerk about it. The peanut gallery of faith. No there is not the slightest chance. You don't have the math. You substitute derision and sour grapes toward the true giants of thought. The ones that have advanced us, their ideas,
> are certainly to be challenged, but you make it personal and thus very juvenile. And credibility is gone.
> ...


So you evade the scene until you think the coast is clear and then when you do make a reappearance you only throw personal insults around. When are you going to answer my questions that I asked of you? Your drivel is meaningless, and I will not carry on a one sided conversation with you. What's the point if you never answer any of my questions? Answer the questions and I will carry on with you, if not, I'll not respond to a intellectually dishonest person such as yourself.


----------



## Doer (Sep 15, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you evade the scene until you think the coast is clear and then when you do make a reappearance you only throw personal insults around. When are you going to answer my questions that I asked of you? Your drivel is meaningless, and I will not carry on a one sided conversation with you. What's the point if you never answer any of my questions? Answer the questions and I will carry on with you, if not, I'll not respond to a intellectually dishonest person such as yourself.



He seems to have no idea what he's talking about. Evading the scene? I have a life. He's the meglo here. Very entertaining.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 15, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You used that fact of our standard as the basis for your claim. The origin matters because if c wasn't a constant, then you couldn't use it to define a measurement. If I can measure the speed of light in my inertial FoR different than your measurement of the same beam then we cannot agree on lengths. So somewhere our measurements must be in error, either length, time or speed of light. If we cannot agree on basic measurements, then it becomes impossible to do science and each and every place in the universe can have it's own local laws.
> 
> 
> How is it to be determined who has the 'correct' measurement then? Who's FoR is the preferred one?
> ...


I had tried to point this out earlier. Positing a privileged frame of reference is the same as resurrecting the notion of an aether. 
At that point, the edifice collapses with a ponderous inevitability. You did by main force what I tried to do with elegance.


> More like his brilliant insight. If I'm traveling .99c relative to you, then you appear to be traveling .99c away from me. Who's motion is preferred? You on earth are flying through the solar system, which is zooming through the galaxy, which is moving withing our local group, etc. Where exactly is the 'at rest' FoR?
> No you actually cannot which is your major error on which your whole house of cards falls.
> No one has any way of knowing, including you. You have no way of knowing if your inertial reference frame has any velocity unless you consider it relative to something else, hence the name.


----------



## Doer (Sep 15, 2012)

And yet if space turns out to be bendy and there is a Higgs field, the idea of a cosmic constant, which Einstein rejected, could still be in play. In fact, the expansive nature of Dark Energy, seems to be what Einstein found so preposterous in his math.

Aether is a fine a word, as any. Remember, the EM is postulated to be everywhere. It's the medium for radio, etc. Waves propogate against the EM field and the energy is passed. It's like sonar thru water. EM is the "water" for radio in vacuum. Something is acting as the the water for gravity waves, we think, The Higgs Field? 

And matter does appear to make Space act like a gel that can compress. Why matter would moves easier and always toward other matter, in "thicker" Space?.....well, a Nobel Prize awaits.

EDIT: It wants to clump together, matter does. It wants to increase its affinity to clump even more. Only velocity can keep it apart. And that's from our shoes to the orbits of galaxies. Is it the affinity to control the wild effect of spacetime thru gravity? Gravity = Black Holes as the ultimate fate, but perhaps not the only fate. The other is worse from Matter's point of view. Annihilation. Matter could be trying to "escape" Dark Energy. Gravity as a survival mechanism for Matter?

What we call entropy appears, now to be, a race between two forces. Dark Energy and Matter. Can all the matter be collapsed into a Black Holes before Dark Energy can create the uniform quantum uncertainty? It does this by simply making distance and duration, too great, to hold Matter together. Space itself had changed dimension such that the Strong and Weak atomic forces can't keep it together, is the model.

I've read one view that equates this to a life cycle. If a universe can make Black Holes well enough, it can blow off entire universes from the "bottom" of it biggest Holes. It collects Matter and Fruits, as it were, mathematically speaking. In this model Dark Energy is the Death of the particular Universe's, blood line, if it can't spawn for some Quantum reason with the necessary Forces. And it's eventually, the natural death of the Parent Universe. Not so sad, considering the richness of Multi-verses, spawned by her.


----------



## cues (Sep 15, 2012)

I think I liked that. Well, the bits I understood anyway.


----------



## Chief Walkin Eagle (Sep 15, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I feel a void from the lack of Chief so,
> 
> You only accept this because it makes you feel comfortable. You don't want there to be stars in the sky, because you are afraid to look up. If everything was black then you'd have no reason to look up and threaten your materialistic comfort. You only believe dark energy because of your narrow science view, but science can't tell you about things that can not be detected, like mind energy. Also, Tesla.


Lol its good to know that I'm on your mind when we are not conversing.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 15, 2012)

I'm a little behind. So what you guys are saying is that the big crunch/big bang theory is wrong. And the Dark Matter theory is more plausible. And it is basically where energy just forms, and pushes the galaxies apart. And sooner or later, no stars are going to be visible due to how far away they are. Is this because they are separating faster than the speed of light? Confusseeddddd, I need to do more reading.. But for now until I feel like it Id rather discuss it on here.

I had a theory the other night, givin that bigbang/bigcrunch theory was correct that the universes outside of our universe are constantly doing this cycle. And they zip around in random patterns. Now if youve ever read about String Theory(Me, of course I hardly know anything about it buuuttt....) then one of the parts I remember is that inside of quarks there are vibrant strings right? And they randomly jiggle around. Now what if, since space and time DO NOT exist in between the universes doing this cycle. What if those universes are actually strings in our life. And there is some crazy explanation as to where since there is no time and space,it is actually possible that HUGE/tinytinytiny universes(including our own) are currently making up the tiniest atomic particle, and ALSO making up the huge universes as they are? Just like a loop. Ive always believed in some kind of loops theory, but that theory makes made more sense to me than any other loop theory Ive come up with.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 15, 2012)

Really.. Sooner or later, if the theory of gravity is right then the universe will become a singularity again though.. Once all stars are sucked into black holes, and then the more massive black holes consuming the less massive, all making one black hole making the universe a singularity. I dont know, I need to talk about it with you guys so I can get a more clear thought level on the whole thing.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 15, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> Really.. Sooner or later, if the theory of gravity is right then the universe will become a singularity again though.. Once all stars are sucked into black holes, and then the more massive black holes consuming the less massive, all making one black hole making the universe a singularity. I dont know, I need to talk about it with you guys so I can get a more clear thought level on the whole thing.


Except that's not the way gravity works. You (and current scientific theory) have it wrong. Mass does not come together, mass moves apart, and rightfully so, since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always INCREASES. That means mass gets less dense over time by means of expanding its volume.

So for instance, the planets in our solar system and our sun are one and the same object. The solar system is the sun, with its outer most boundary being the least dense area, naturally, since the density order of the universe is for the core of an object to be the most dense, and as the distance from the core increases, the density decreases. It's an "outward" flow of mass, and as the mass gets further away it gets less dense.

So is that just a bunch of BS? NO! What it means is that the planets came from the sun, and they continue to get further away from the sun as time marches on. That also means that all the mass surrounding a black hole in a galaxy came from that black hole. The core of the galaxy being the most dense (black hole) and the outer boundary of the galaxy being the least dense. Everything moves AWAY from the core as the core itself gets less dense by expanding its volume. Mass evolves to space! The earth came from the sun.


----------



## high|hgih (Sep 15, 2012)

That makes sense. Funny, thats the exact opposite of my thought process. Put a new twang on it though. 

I just read some thing about negative energy, and it is formed in between two attracting pieces of mass in a vacuum. In this negative energy, light can actually flow faster than its original speed. If two normal pieces of mass attract, then how is the sun pushing planets away? How are Galaxies pumping stars out? Where do the stars come from?


----------



## eye exaggerate (Sep 15, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> [...]On an atomic level, what happens as the organism is growing? Not a cellular level. But an atomic level. How do the atoms 'know' to form into organelles? How do atoms 'know' to form into mitochondrias in order to produce proteins for the cells? If genes and DNA code for all of this, how was it made?


...my current understanding of things is that every single thing is a sexual interaction. From the 'bonds' to the bondage I guess lol: I kidding)

...but really, It's pretty amazing to think that what keeps things going here on earth is sex. We hold tensions, and or reproduce. Maybe the quantum level doesn't know why it does what it does either. Drive. <-- That's the deal on this side of the beyond. (imo)


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 16, 2012)

Entertaining thread. Seedling, you might want to tone it down about 6 notches. You are being uber obvious as a troll and/or dangerous retard.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Correction, if you don't know what your frame's velocity is, then you have no business measuring light in your frame and debating me about the speed of light in my frame (that does know the frame's velocity, and therefor can know both the speed of the frame and the speed of light). I know the speed of the frame, so like in your example, I determined the car was traveling .99c, so I KNOW that since my car is traveling .99c that the real speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. On the other hand, you don;t know the velocity of the car, because you have no way of determining that velocity in space, not relative to no other object. There is no other object to have a relative velocity to, there is simply a car in space and the light it emitted. You made up some BS .99c car velocity, like you had known that from measurements you took in the car. So tell me, how did you determine the .99c velocity using light and clocks in your car??? I'm dying to hear this!!!


I used a car as an example because I was using a traditional thought experiment. Keep in mind, the principle of relativity has been around a lot longer than Einstein's explicit use. It goes back to Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance) and applies to Newtonian mechanics as well. All it means is that physical laws must look the same to one observer as they do to another. 
So let's try this again. You and I are in space, maybe in an EVA suit, traveling toward one another at a constant velocity of 99% of the speed of light. There are no planets or stars visible, we are in intergalactic space, the only reference to determine that you or I are even moving is that we can see each other. I measure you coming toward me at about .99c and you therefore must be measuring the same thing. We both have flashlights. How do you determine that you are the one that is stationary and I am moving, i.e. that your frame is the correct one? How do you know that I'm not traveling at .49c and you at .5c? Of course it doesn't actually matter as there is no such thing as non-relative motion or a special frame of reference because there is nothing in empty space that can be referenced, like the luminiferous aether. So in this scenario, how would you prove to me that you are stationary and your measurement of light is the correct one and mine in in error. The answer you have basically given is that we both turn on our flashlights and the one that measures c at 300,000 km/s is the correct one. There's the rub. If your belief in some absolute space is true, then we should be measuring the speed of light differently at different directions the earth is moving when orbiting the sun. When going one direction against the fixed space that you claim is present we should get one result and 6 months later we should get another, and the guy in the space suit that positioned himself near the sun would get a third. You are basically ruling out any long range radio communication with my friend in another galaxy because his galaxy is whizzing by us at tremendous speeds yet he thinks his galaxy is the stationary one and ours is the one that is moving... what a fool, huh? 


> Don't make plural what is not. It's not "our" measurements in error, it's YOUR measurements in error. I know what the velocity of the frame is, you do not. Since I know the velocity of the frame I can make an ACCURATE determination of the real speed of light.


Do you deny you are moving at great speeds through space while sitting in your house typing this now? Tell me the exact velocity of the frame you are now in. Don't forget to take into account what time of year it is because sometimes the earth is moving in the same direction as the spiral arms of the Milky Way are moving and sometimes the opposite. I can't wait to hear how fast we are actually going, especially considering the expansion of space has been accelerating since the Big Bang. 


> Everyone has the correct measurement if they first know their frame's velocity.


Yet unless there is something inherent in space we can measure against, like the aether, how can we know our velocity? 


> If you use Einstein's ways, you don;t know the frame's velocity, because in Einstein's world, it's not your frame that is moving, it's every other frame that is moving. Ask all of them, they'll tell you. (What a load of crap!)


As explained, it's not a principle of Einstein, it's a self-evident fact about measuring invariant speed. It is impossible to tell if I am moving or I am completely still and everything else is moving. You keep failing to explain how we are supposed to know anything about the absolute velocity of any frame if it is not relative to anything. 


> Length contraction has never been falsified so it's what, still taken to be true? (rolls eyes) I have an invisible blue dragon in my living room. It's never been falsified.


Sure an invisible dragon might not be able to be falsified yet we didn't arrive at thinking there is an invisible dragon based on evidence. It is funny how you completely ignore my comments about time dilation, which can be measured and is intrinsically linked to length contraction. 


> If you are moving only along the x axis the y and z axis are NOT contracted. So as in your car example, the car is moving along the x axis. Do you think the light will be the same distance from you along the y and z axis after 1 second, as it is along the x axis after one second?


Who's x and y axis? Mine or yours? If I appear to be moving diagonally from your POV, that's two axises. Of course from my POV, your apparent movement is on one axis only because the Cartesian grid I setup is shifted 45 degrees from the one you are using. Oh, wait, you can just turn your head a bit and I'm no longer going diagonally but straight from left to right. 


> Another correction. It's Einstein that doesn't have a way to determine the preferred frame. I have a way of determining an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I know the frame's velocity, regardless of the velocity (to include a zero velocity). Einstein has no method of determining an absolute zero velocity, so he fabricates his illusion world.


Well I'm still waiting for you to give us your magical answer of how you determine anywhere has zero velocity. I have already demonstrated that you can pick a point in space and I can show that you are in motion. Of course that can only be done in space where there are other things to measure your relative motion against. 


> No, the speed of light is defined.


Incorrect. The speed of light has been measured. It was discovered, not defined. 


> It is impossible for the speed of light to be anything different than 299,792,458 m/s,


Correct. So now back to you and I in empty space with flashlights. We BOTH must get the same measurement for the speed of light, even though we are approaching each other at 99& of that speed. My flashlight beam is traveling at 300,000 km/s same as yours, yet we both feel like we are standing still so we each think the other is the one that is moving and if each of us are carrying light clocks, it will appear to each of us that the other person's clocks have slowed down and if each of us were carrying a one meter metal rod, it MUST appear to each of us that the other guy's is shorter than our meter. 


> > Relative to the light sphere. Relative to the point that the light was emitted in space.
> 
> 
> Throughout all of history, every time many has measured the speed of the sphere of light form their fixed position, they have been moving through space at tremendous speeds. There is no spot in the entire universe that you can point to that has true absolute zero velocity.
> ...


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 16, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Except that's not the way gravity works. You (and current scientific theory) have it wrong. Mass does not come together, mass moves apart, and rightfully so, since the second law of thermodynamics states that entropy always INCREASES. That means mass gets less dense over time by means of expanding its volume.


The second law applies to closed systems. The universe as a whole is always increasing entropy but that doesn't preclude local areas of increased order. The universe will eventually experience heat death, the highest level of entropy but that doesn't mean that currently gravity cannot create a star.


> So for instance, the planets in our solar system and our sun are one and the same object. The solar system is the sun, with its outer most boundary being the least dense area, naturally, since the density order of the universe is for the core of an object to be the most dense, and as the distance from the core increases, the density decreases. It's an "outward" flow of mass, and as the mass gets further away it gets less dense.


Our solar system used to be a big dust cloud, a state of high entropy. However, at some point, the force of gravity acted on it that created a local area of lower entropy when our star formed at the center. 


> So is that just a bunch of BS? NO! What it means is that the planets came from the sun, and they continue to get further away from the sun as time marches on. That also means that all the mass surrounding a black hole in a galaxy came from that black hole. The core of the galaxy being the most dense (black hole) and the outer boundary of the galaxy being the least dense. Everything moves AWAY from the core as the core itself gets less dense by expanding its volume. Mass evolves to space! The earth came from the sun.


There's no such thing as black holes if Einstein was wrong.


----------



## Doer (Sep 16, 2012)

See, he somehow thinks science is arguing with HIM, over right and wrong. Joan d'Arc might agree with that kind of logic, but not Science.

There is no right and wrong in Science only the current Understanding and that's what makes him wrong in layman's terms.

Mass moves outward? Against gravity? In motion, mass exchanges energy to slow the rotation of the parent body and the orbit does move out.

Our moon was much closer, maybe even 50,000 miles. But, earth was rotating much faster. Conservation of Momentum is all that this concept is. Just some snake oil with window dressing to say it's the Correct way to perceive orbital
gravity mechanics.

It just does not play in the galactic scale. The outer reaches are rotating way too fast, and don't meet the Conservation of Momentum rule. It's how we discovered Dark Matter.

And, others, please don't fall into the lazy trap that some PhDs will figure it all out. By the time you learn what was figured out, they will have moved on.

Big Bang has tried to included Dark Matter and Energy, I just consider the math quite torturous, and not KISS, not Occam's Razor. But, that's the Theory and neither right or wrong.

So, no one but the truly lost will say there is any absolute Scientific proof of anything.


----------



## Doer (Sep 16, 2012)

high|hgih said:


> I'm a little behind. So what you guys are saying is that the big crunch/big bang theory is wrong. And the Dark Matter theory is more plausible. And it is basically where energy just forms, and pushes the galaxies apart. And sooner or later, no stars are going to be visible due to how far away they are. Is this because they are separating faster than the speed of light? Confusseeddddd, I need to do more reading.. But for now until I feel like it Id rather discuss it on here.
> 
> I had a theory the other night, givin that bigbang/bigcrunch theory was correct that the universes outside of our universe are constantly doing this cycle. And they zip around in random patterns. Now if youve ever read about String Theory(Me, of course I hardly know anything about it buuuttt....) then one of the parts I remember is that inside of quarks there are vibrant strings right? And they randomly jiggle around. Now what if, since space and time DO NOT exist in between the universes doing this cycle. What if those universes are actually strings in our life. And there is some crazy explanation as to where since there is no time and space,it is actually possible that HUGE/tinytinytiny universes(including our own) are currently making up the tiniest atomic particle, and ALSO making up the huge universes as they are? Just like a loop. Ive always believed in some kind of loops theory, but that theory makes made more sense to me than any other loop theory Ive come up with.


Well, you are mixing up a lot of Scientific thinking here, but, generally, pretty close to understanding the problem. We just don't know.

The vast, beyond imagination could instantly become tiny, beyond imagination, because the random fluctuation in Quantum pairs mean Locality as well and Causality (before/after) becomes indeterminate. Information exchange restraints, of the speed of light, are gone. Light is gone. There is no relativity (to what?)

So, the Universe could collapse instantly into the actual beginning state, not just a state similar to the initial Big Bang. But, the actual Bang just repeats itself. Non-causal means an instant (in the Now) reversion to the initial state. 40 billion years as if it never happened. The Universe just kills the old time line and starts again.

The Greeks seemed quite sure that "Time" was a repeating cycle. Maybe they were on to something?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 16, 2012)

eye exaggerate said:


> ...my current understanding of things is that every single thing is a sexual interaction. From the 'bonds' to the bondage I guess lol: I kidding)
> 
> ...but really, It's pretty amazing to think that what keeps things going here on earth is sex. We hold tensions, and or reproduce. Maybe the quantum level doesn't know why it does what it does either. Drive. <-- That's the deal on this side of the beyond. (imo)


Imo the question moots itself. At an atomic level there is no difference between alive and otherwise. Life organizes itself at the molecular level on up. Molecules and crystals are the highest level of organization in which atoms participate in a way that depends on their properties. Molecules are not alive, and neither are crystals. Large complex assemblies of molecules combine and confederate to form organelles etc. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 16, 2012)

You guys are all wrong. Gravity is just a concept created by the man to hold us down. Not me though. *puff, puff*

*floats away*


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 16, 2012)

Lightweight. cn


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 18, 2012)

[video=youtube;M9iJMWJdyw8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9iJMWJdyw8[/video]

If you want to hear an actual physicist address some of these issues.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 18, 2012)

Hmm, seedling seems to be evading this discussion. Wasn't that the term he used when he accused Doer of not answering his questions? Ironic isn't it. 
Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Hmm, seedling seems to be evading this discussion. Wasn't that the term he used when he accused Doer of not answering his questions? Ironic isn't it.
> Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.



You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself???

You asked:


mindphuk said:


> Seedling, serious question-- which do you think is more likely...
> a- 100 years of brilliant theorists and experimentalists have been unable to see these obvious problems with relativity which are so apparent to some random guy on a stoner website?
> or
> b- there are some aspects and concepts of Einstein's theories that you just don't understand or comprehend?


I replied:


Seedling said:


> You mean "more likely" as in not 100%? You mean there is a slight chance that a stoner on a website could be right and all those "brilliant" theorists could be wrong? Is that what you are implying, that a stoner on a website could be right?



You later stated:


mindphuk said:


> Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.


...and my reply is:
I guess that answer's my question, you do think there's a small chance that a stoner on a website could be right.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 18, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself???
> 
> You asked:
> 
> ...



There's a small chance you will sit down on your chair and vanish into an unknown, alternate universe too. 


I'm going to go ahead and apply Occam's razor to this situation.


You seem to be clinging to this faint glimmer, that a stoner somewhere, might have out smarted hundred's of scientists that have devoted their lives to their respected fields. 

Talk about clutching straws!


----------



## Seedling (Sep 18, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> There's a small chance you will sit down on your chair and vanish into an unknown, alternate universe too.
> 
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and apply Occam's razor to this situation.
> ...


I'm not clinging to that, I was pointing out that it was a BS question. If you want to make a statement that nobody on a stoner website could possibly disprove SR and provide the correct method then be my guest. You know you'd be wrong to say that, because it is possible, unless you can show how it is impossible?? I'll wait. 

In the mean time, can I have your opinion on these numbers from the previous conversation in this thread? 



Seedling said:


> The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you. That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders. I can tell you the velocity of the frame, Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space, so he makes up his BS second postulate and claims all frames will measure the speed of light to be the same. That is simply an impossibility according to the definition of the meter.


Do you agree with these numbers? Just a simple yes or no will do.


----------



## Doer (Sep 18, 2012)

Then the man made concept is wrong. The Meter is wrong, you are saying? So, NO.

And Science can easy disprove your idea because you lack the basics. You really don't understand that Science is discovery, only.

The simple reason that you are not credible is that you insist that your point source creates a stable, absolute velocity reference. But, it does not. As you have been shown. Science is not set up or useful for disproving any random straw proposal.

Education is so that we can stand on the shoulders of these giant thinkers. So that the proposals are original and not already refuted.

Education in the Method means you understand your entire approach to this discussion seems rather daft in part, unfinished. I can't tell yet, if you do actual have a cogent idea. Maybe drop the profanity? You aren't helping us to be so dismissive.

Perhaps if you understood that zero motion is impossible? Everything has velocity. Everything. And that there are more motions than we know, right? Nagging about this one little math trick you think you have found?
It is not even a trick, at all, in the broader sense. All is in motion.

More Education?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 18, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I'm not clinging to that, I was pointing out that it was a BS question. If you want to make a statement that nobody on a stoner website could possibly disprove SR and provide the correct method then be my guest. You know you'd be wrong to say that, because it is possible, unless you can show how it is impossible?? I'll wait.


Any one with 1/2 a brain wouldn't claim to know certainty, but to the same end, any one with half a brain isn't going to lend the same kind of credibility to 'a stoner on a website'. 

Are you a physicist?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 18, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You fall into the same category as Doer, the category in which you evade answering questions posed to you, and in turn reply with gibberish. I asked you a slew of questions in post #77 which you failed to answer. If you want to carry on a conversation with me then you need to start answering the questions I ask you. Start with one of the ones in post #77, how did you determine the car had a velocity of .99c from within the car frame? When you say the car is traveling at a velocity of .99c, in what frame are you saying the car is traveling that velocity? When you take the car frame to be at rest, in what frame do you think the car is at rest? Do you think it's possible that the car could have an out of body (pun intended) experience so as to have a velocity greater than zero, compared to itself??


I answered it by changing the thought experiment to one that you might find easier to understand. Since you ignored my comment that the car going .99c was relative to you. I determined the car had that velocity because that's the velocity I chose. All of your other questions about the car are red herrings because you are misapplying the idea. 

Now how about reading the answers I gave you regarding why it is impossible for you to declare any FoR absolute or preferred? 



> You asked:
> 
> I replied:


Right. You replied to a question with a question and now you pretend you answered me. I wasn't interested in playing your game as to whether there's some ridiculously low probability that you might be correct, especially when it was obvious you have a some clear misconceptions and inadequate mathematical knowledge in order to actually be right, the answer is so close to zero that most non-delusional people would realize that. 

If you don't want to continue learning about why you're wrong, that's fine with me but suffice it to say, you haven't been able to defend your position adequately. I can summarize your counter-arguments as, "nuh-huh."


----------



## Seedling (Sep 18, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I answered it by changing the thought experiment to one that you might find easier to understand. Since you ignored my comment that the car going .99c was relative to you. I determined the car had that velocity because that's the velocity I chose. All of your other questions about the car are red herrings because you are misapplying the idea.
> 
> Now how about reading the answers I gave you regarding why it is impossible for you to declare any FoR absolute or preferred?
> 
> ...


Actually it's what you don't say that sums up your position quite well. You can't reply with any integrity to my concept because it's upholding the definition of the meter and the proper use of reference frames. You know my statements are accurate so you change the scenario so you don't have to have an inner battle of what is correct, and what you've been told is correct and believe to be true.



http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory

If you are familiar with Chapter 9 in the link I posted maybe you'd care to discuss it. I can school you on why it's nonsense according to the definition of the meter and the concept of reference frames.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 18, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Actually it's what you don't say that sums up your position quite well. You can't reply with any integrity to my concept because it's upholding the definition of the meter and the proper use of reference frames. You know my statements are accurate so you change the scenario so you don't have to have an inner battle of what is correct, and what you've been told is correct and believe to be true.


I changed the scenario to make it more clear. I wanted to eliminate any side-tracking using GR so I eliminated the variable of the car needing to accelerate to get up to a specific speed. Now how about answering it instead of continuing to throw out insults. 
If both you and I are in EVA suits in empty space, and we are traveling toward each other at .99c, who has the preferred frame?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 19, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> I changed the scenario to make it more clear. I wanted to eliminate any side-tracking using GR so I eliminated the variable of the car needing to accelerate to get up to a specific speed. Now how about answering it instead of continuing to throw out insults.
> If both you and I are in EVA suits in empty space, and we are traveling toward each other at .99c, who has the preferred frame?


It is not "traveling towards each other at .99c," that is a *closing speed* of .99c which you speak of. You have no clue which part of that .99c, if any, each of us posses as a velocity. A closing speed is not a velocity, it is simply the distance between us increasing or decreasing over time. Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity? 


All objects travel in the preferred frame in which light travel time defines distance.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 19, 2012)

Seedling said:


> It is not "traveling towards each other at .99c," that is a *closing speed* of .99c which you speak of. You have no clue which part of that .99c, if any, each of us posses as a velocity. A closing speed is not a velocity, it is simply the distance between us increasing or decreasing over time. Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity?


You are sort of getting the point but not answering the question. Yes, that's the closing speed, good job. However, I never said either of us had a specific velocity, that was part of my question to you. Did you actually read it in the extended reply in post #92? How do YOU determine who has velocity in this scenario? One of us? Both of us? We both "feel" at rest, but it is clear we are not at rest relative to one another. If you cannot answer that question, how do you determine who sees light traveling at c when they turn on their lamps? 


> All objects travel in the preferred frame in which light travel time defines distance.


I can't tell if you are just being stubborn or incredibly dense but this is not any kind of answer. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this circular argument of yours can be applied to different situations. Merely repeating yourself is not answering questions. Unless light is measured in a vacuum at different speeds depending on where you observe it from, which experimentally has been proven to not occur, then you cannot say there are any preferred frames. I just don't know how to explain it any better. You haven't responded about the Michelson-Morley experiment, you haven't acknowledged how the principle of relativity has been proven since Galileo, and you haven't responded to where exactly in this universe you think some absolute stationary frame of reference can even exist and since no one in the history of mankind has ever been in a stationary frame with respect to other moving bodies, then how do you explain that the speed of light is ALWAYS measured the same? 


Here's another thought experiment for you question about chapter 9. You and I are still in our EVA suits in space. We are now a fixed distance apart and we are holding a rope with a lamp exactly midpoint between us. Now, when the lamp is turned on, you should agree that the light sphere expands at exactly the same rate in all directions so we see the light at the exact same time. Now suppose that Doer now comes floating past us, or maybe we are floating past him, it's of course impossible to say either one is more correct. Let's say he is behind you and off to your left and apparently traveling in my direction, like if we were passing him on a highway. What would Doer see? He would see the lamp light reach me before it reaches you because from his perspective I am traveling toward the light shell and you are traveling away from it. So from his POV, the two events did NOT occur simultaneously.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You are sort of getting the point but not answering the question. Yes, that's the closing speed, good job. However, I never said either of us had a specific velocity, that was part of my question to you. Did you actually read it in the extended reply in post #92? How do YOU determine who has velocity in this scenario? One of us? Both of us? We both "feel" at rest, but it is clear we are not at rest relative to one another. If you cannot answer that question, how do you determine who sees light traveling at c when they turn on their lamps?


So you agree that's a closing speed. Is that to say that you are acknowledging that at least one of us, maybe both of us have a velocity contributing to that closing speed? If so, in what frame would you say that velocity occurs? In other words, the closing speed is .99c. Let's just say that I can state as a fact that I have a velocity of .09c, and you have a velocity of .9c. In what frame do you think those velocities are relative to? In what frame do you think our individual velocities that make up the closing speed occur in?




mindphuk said:


> I can't tell if you are just being stubborn or incredibly dense but this is not any kind of answer. I'm asking you to demonstrate how this circular argument of yours can be applied to different situations. Merely repeating yourself is not answering questions. Unless light is measured in a vacuum at different speeds depending on where you observe it from, which experimentally has been proven to not occur, then you cannot say there are any preferred frames.


You still don't get it. "Where" you measure it from is implying that you remain at a fixed point in space and measure the speed of light. The only way you can measure the speed of light from a "where" for a duration of time is if you remain at that "where" point for the entire duration, otherwise you were at multiple "wheres" for that duration, which makes your measurements of the speed of light inaccurate, because you failed to acknowledge your own frame's velocity and take that into account in your measurement. The speed of light is defined, if you measure something different than 299,792,458 m/s from your frame then you either performed the measurement incorrectly, or your frame has a velocity, take your pick!





mindphuk said:


> Here's another thought experiment for you question about chapter 9. You and I are still in our EVA suits in space. We are now a fixed distance apart and we are holding a rope with a lamp exactly midpoint between us. Now, when the lamp is turned on, you should agree that the light sphere expands at exactly the same rate in all directions so we see the light at the exact same time.


Just because the distance between us remains fixed doesn't mean we don't each have a velocity. We could be traveling together through space at the same rate, like two cars on a highway that are traveling 75 MPH with a fixed distance of 50 feet between them.

You are assuming that we both see the light at the same exact time. That can only happen if we both remain the same distance from the point of emission of the light. Just because we remain the same fixed distance from _the source_ the entire duration doesn't mean we remained the same distance from _the point in space where the light was emitted_. The source and you and me could have moved as a unit away from the point in space the light was emitted. If that be the case then the source is no longer at the point the light was emitted, hence the source had an absolute velocity away from that point and is no longer at the center of the light sphere.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you agree that's a closing speed. Is that to say that you are acknowledging that at least one of us, maybe both of us have a velocity contributing to that closing speed? If so, in what frame would you say that velocity occurs? In other words, the closing speed is .99c. Let's just say that I can state as a fact that I have a velocity of .09c, and you have a velocity of .9c. In what frame do you think those velocities are relative to? In what frame do you think our individual velocities that make up the closing speed occur in?


Why are you asking me to tell you what I asked you to demonstrate? If we have a closing speed of .99c, how do you determine individual velocities if we BOTH feel we are at rest and it is the other person that is traveling? This is the entire crux of what I am trying to help you understand and you merely talk around it. HOW do you state for any fact that you are traveling .09c? Relative to what frame? The fact is there are no frames of pure space that anyone can say with any certainty that has absolute zero velocity. The measurement of any velocity is relative to where the measure is done. How fast is that car going? If you on earth measure, you might say 55mph. However, an observer on Jupiter will measure the speed as a combination of the earth's rotation and and orbital velocities in the tens of thousands mph. If an observer is outside the Milky Way, he would measure a velocity in the hundreds of thousands mph. EVERY velocity measurement is dependent on where the observer is. If you don't accept this, then it is up to you to show and explain why. 


> You still don't get it. "Where" you measure it from is implying that you remain at a fixed point in space and measure the speed of light.


What is my point fixed to? You keep saying that there is this implication and I'm explaining why this is a false assumption on your part. If I am in an inertial FoR, I do not experience motion, therefore, my frame is at rest, relative to me. Yet I keep demonstrating how this is factually untrue, that it is impossible for anyone to claim any point is completely at rest, but thankfully, math and physics show this doesn't matter. All physical laws operate the same in all inertial FoR. One inertial frame can be converted to another by a transformation, Galilean in Newtonian physics and Lorentz in relativity. 


> The only way you can measure the speed of light from a "where" for a duration of time is if you remain at that "where" point for the entire duration, otherwise you where at multiple "wheres" for that duration, which makes your measurements of the speed of light inaccurate, because you failed to acknowledge your own frame's velocity and take that into account in your measurement.


So quit stalling and demonstrate how this is even possible. I keep asking and you just keep repeating the same thing. If I can't even stay at the same spot in space by sitting in my living room, how the hell am I supposed to measure light? Did you understand the implications of the Michleson-Morley experiment? This is what they demonstrated, that even though the earth is rotating quite fast, and moving around the sun even faster the measurement of light remained the same in every direction, disproving there is something about space that can be fixed with respect to motion and measuring light speed. 


> The speed of light is defined, if you measure something different than 299,792,458 m/s from your frame then you either performed the measurement incorrectly, or your frame has a velocity, take your pick!


Ho do you know what the true speed of light is since no human in history has ever had a completely stationary frame? Everyone has had velocity.


> Just because the distance between us remains fixed doesn't mean we don't each have a velocity.


True. 


> We could be traveling together through space at the same rate, like two cars on a highway that are traveling 75 MPH with a fixed distance of 50 feet between them.


exactly...


> You are assuming that we both see the light at the same exact time


No assumption need to be made. We WILL measure the light at the same time, there is no relative motion between us, we both feel we are at rest. The only problem is from which vantage point the measurement is made. 


> That can only happen if we both remain the same distance from the point of emission of the light.


That was a given based on this problem. The lamp is directly in between us, it doesn't move, relative to either of us. 


> Just because we remain the same fixed distance from the source the entire duration doesn't mean we remained the same distance from the point in space where the light was emitted.


correct. This is exactly like measurements on earth. We can say we are at rest, but in fact we are never in the same "piece" of space- if you want to call it that - from one moment to the next. 


> The source and you and me could have moved as a unit away from the point in space the light was emitted. If that be the case then the source is no longer at the point the light was emitted, hence the source had an absolute velocity away from that point and is no longer at the center of the light sphere.


That's exactly true, you and I could have moved, however it could be that you and I are stationary and the observer is the one that is moving. The point is, and I hope you at least try to understand by now that there is no way to tell, therefore all frames are equally valid and all measurements therefore are valid. There is no preferred frame. If you don't accept that, then I'm sorry, there's nothing more I can help with, especially if you can't answer the question of how you determine any part of space anywhere in the entire universe is fixed, and then answer fixed with regard to what.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

What are your questions and rebuttals concerning this diagram? Let us stay with this diagram so we are on the same sheet of music. Your errors are numerous as I've explained in my responses to you, and you don't respond to my leading questions because of the very nature of the question you see where you go wrong, and you avoid the concept of the question all together. Let's stay on course and use this example as our focal point. 

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

Does the diagram answer your question as to how a frame can tell if it is at an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame? As you can clearly see in the diagram, the ONLY time the receivers will show a time of .5 seconds is IF the cube frame has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. If the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach all the receivers in .5 seconds. The cube is traveling in the preferred frame according to the definition of the meter and the speed of light, relative to no other object. The absolute velocity of the cube is not a closing speed with reference to another object, it is the cube's absolute velocity in the preferred frame. There are no other objects in this diagram. There is a cube with a source that stays at the center of the cube at all times, and there is the light that that source emits. "DATS IT!"


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

Imagine a point in space that is comprised of simply an infinite amount of clocks all at that point. We'll call that time t=0. At t=0 there was a massive explosion, and all the clocks instantly traveled away from the center point in every direction so as to form an expanding sphere of clocks that keeps expanding. The clocks are moving away from the center point of the sphere where they all once resided. They are all moving away from that point at the speed of light. There is no difference between distance and time at any point in time, because the clocks are distance, by definition. As each second elapses the distance increases 299,792,458 meters. So two clocks that are traveling in opposite directions read exactly the same time at all times. They have each traveled 299,792,458 meters away from the center of the sphere of clocks, and the distance between them is 599,584,916 meters at t=1 seconds. 

Do you agree with those numbers?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What are your questions and rebuttals concerning this diagram? Let us stay with this diagram so we are on the same sheet of music. Your errors are numerous as I've explained in my responses to you, and you don't respond to my leading questions because of the very nature of the question you see where you go wrong, and you avoid the concept of the question all together. Let's stay on course and use this example as our focal point.
> 
> http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k
> 
> Does the diagram answer your question as to how a frame can tell if it is at an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame? As you can clearly see in the diagram, the ONLY time the receivers will show a time of .5 seconds is IF the cube frame has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. If the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach all the receivers in .5 seconds. The cube is traveling in the preferred frame according to the definition of the meter and the speed of light, relative to no other object. The absolute velocity of the cube is not a closing speed with reference to another object, it is the cube's absolute velocity in the preferred frame. There are no other objects in this diagram. There is a cube with a source that stays at the center of the cube at all times, and there is the light that that source emits. "DATS IT!"



All those measurements are taken from the point of view of an observer looking at a topographical view of the map. From that point of view you can clearly see the box moving _relative_ to yourself. Now if you were inside the box you would get different measurements. In fact you would measure the speed of light to be exactly the same in all directions. Further more every single one of your measurements of the speed of light will not only agree with each other, but with every other measurement made by every other person, in every other possible frame of reference.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> All those measurements are taken from the point of view of an observer looking at a topographical view of the map. From that point of view you can clearly see the box moving _relative_ to yourself. Now if you were inside the box you would get different measurements. In fact you would measure the speed of light to be exactly the same in all directions. Further more every single one of your measurements of the speed of light will not only agree with each other, but with every other measurement made by every other person, in every other possible frame of reference.


There is not a "point of view," there were measurements of the amount of time it took for light emitted from the source to reach each receiver. Obviously if there were an outside observer that was 2 light seconds from the point of origin of the light sphere, the measurements were already completed BEFORE the expanding light sphere ever reached that outside observer. 

You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube??? Are you out of your mind? Did you even understand the concept of the diagram?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

And to expand on that point in case you still disagree with my previous post consider this:

I have a lab located on earth which is spinning around an axis, which is revolving around the sun, which is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. Also our galaxy is moving relative to all other galaxies. I can measure the speed of light in my lab. I can measure it in any direction, east, west, north, south, up, down, and any combination of those directions. I can measure at night when I am spinning in one direction on the earth, or I can measure in the day when my lab has reversed direction and is traveling the exact opposite way it was 12 hours previously. I can measure it at different times of the year when the earth is in different parts of it's orbit and is traveling in different directions. No matter when or where I measure the speed of light I will get EXACTLY the same speed. This has been proven experimentally. Every measurement of the speed of light is the same regardless of the source of light, or the frame of the observer.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> There is not a "point of view," there were measurements of the amount of time it took for light emitted from the source to reach each receiver. Obviously if there were an outside observer that was 2 light seconds from the point of origin of the light sphere, the measurements were already completed BEFORE the expanding light sphere ever reached that outside observer.
> 
> You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube??? Are you out of your mind? Did you even understand the concept of the diagram?


I do which is why I pointed out the critical flaw in your logic of using it to measure your speed. You are implying there is an "absolute" time, which there is not. Time will elapse differently for the observer looking down on the diagram (and not being in the box) and the observer IN the box.

Also: "You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube?"

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. This is also what has been proved experimentally. It is the reality which we live in, so get used to it.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> And to expand on that point in case you still disagree with my previous post consider this:
> 
> I have a lab located on earth which is spinning around an axis, which is revolving around the sun, which is revolving around a black hole in the center of our galaxy. Also our galaxy is moving relative to all other galaxies. I can measure the speed of light in my lab. I can measure it in any direction, east, west, north, south, up, down, and any combination of those directions. I can measure at night when I am spinning in one direction on the earth, or I can measure in the day when my lab has reversed direction and is traveling the exact opposite way it was 12 hours previously. I can measure it at different times of the year when the earth is in different parts of it's orbit and is traveling in different directions. No matter when or where I measure the speed of light I will get EXACTLY the same speed. This has been proven experimentally. Every measurement of the speed of light is the same regardless of the source of light, or the frame of the observer.


Yes, because you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the earth, moon, galaxy, or any other material object. Light travels independently of objects. Light travel time is distance, they are inseparable when speaking about the distance and time of light travel.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I do which is why I pointed out the critical flaw in your logic of using it to measure your speed. You are implying there is an "absolute" time, which there is not. Time will elapse differently for the observer looking down on the diagram (and not being in the box) and the observer IN the box.
> 
> Also: "You say you would measure the speed of light to be c in all directions regardless of the velocity of the cube?"
> 
> Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am saying. This is also what has been proved experimentally. It is the reality which we live in, so get used to it.


If there is no absolute time then there is no absolute speed of light, as the length of the meter is defined by light travel time. Effectively what you are saying is that the radius of a light sphere grows at different rates, depending on what frame you are in. Is that what you think?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes, because you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the earth, moon, galaxy, or any other material object. Light travels independently of objects. Light travel time is distance, they are inseparable when speaking about the distance and time of light travel.


But somehow if you are inside a box you don't measure the speed of light to be c? I don't understand how my lab is any different from the hypothetical box in your diagram. My lab is flying through space with a million different directional velocities, yet I turn my laser on and point it to the front of the lab and I measure the speed of light to be c, then I point it to the back and my measurement is the same. And it is the same no matter which way I point it, or what speed and/or direction my lab is traveling through space.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If there is no absolute time then there is no absolute speed of light, as the length of the meter is defined by light travel time. Effectively what you are saying is that the radius of a light sphere grows at different rates, depending on what frame you are in. Is that what you think?


That's the thing about the speed of light, it always APPEARS to have an absolute speed. No matter where you measure from it ALWAYS measures to be the exact same. Time and length can vary depending on your speed though. Time dilation and length contraction.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> But somehow if you are inside a box you don't measure the speed of light to be c? I don't understand how my lab is any different from the hypothetical box in your diagram. My lab is flying through space with a million different directional velocities, yet I turn my laser on and point it to the front of the lab and I measure the speed of light to be c, then I point it to the back and my measurement is the same. And it is the same no matter which way I point it, or what speed and/or direction my lab is traveling through space.


Again, you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the lab, correct? Or do you wish to imply that you are taking into account the lab is in motion into your results?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Time and length can vary depending on your speed though. Time dilation and length contraction.



So which comes first, knowing the time and length traveled and then knowing your speed, or knowing your speed and then knowing the time and length traveled? Oh, you better be extremely careful on this one.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Again, you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the lab, correct? Or do you wish to imply that you are taking into account the lab is in motion into your results?


Yes you are measuring the speed of light.

Here is where you are going wrong: in your link http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

at t=0 light is emitted from the center of the box (or lab). If you are INSIDE the box light will hit all walls at the same time. It does not matter the direction you are moving or how fast. 

From the reference point above it is clear that the box is moving to the right. You see the source of light pulse and a light sphere expand. You also see the box moving to the right. 

But from INSIDE the box, right next to the light source, you see the light pulse and a light sphere expand. You do not see yourself moving relative to the light source. You measure the distance between the source and the receiver, and you also measure the time it took for light to get there. You plug those values in and lo and behold you just measured the speed of light to be exactly what it should be.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So which comes first, knowing the time and length traveled and then knowing your speed, or knowing your speed and then knowing the time and length traveled? Oh, you better be extremely careful on this one.


Speed by definition is distance over time.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yes you are measuring the speed of light.
> 
> Here is where you are going wrong: in your link http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k
> 
> ...


Those times are taken INSIDE THE BOX. What part of that don't you understand? The light was emitted and the timers on the receivers were started, and the timer stops when the light reached the timer. This is not one of Einstein's smoke and mirror tricks, this is a measurement of time of light travel from the source to each receiver. There is no "view." The measurements were taken and the results are posted. The results are a reality, every thing else is an illusion of distance and time!


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Speed by definition is distance over time.


So you are saying you first measure the distance and time, and then you do the math and arrive at the speed?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> *Those times are taken INSIDE THE BOX*. What part of that don't you understand? The light was emitted and the timers on the receivers were started, and the timer stops when the light reached the timer. This is not one of Einstein's smoke and mirror tricks, this is a measurement of time of light travel from the source to each receiver. There is no "view." The measurements were taken and the results are posted. The results are a reality, every thing else is an illusion of distance and time!


No they were not. The diagram clearly shows a source of light, and a box moving relative to the source of the light. If the measurements were taken INSIDE THE BOX the light source would start at the center and not move relative to the box.

The diagram states that the source is at the center of the box, but the picture shows something different.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No they were not. The diagram clearly shows a source of light, and a box moving relative to the source of the light. If the measurements were taken INSIDE THE BOX the light source would start at the center and not move relative to the box.
> 
> The diagram states that the source is at the center of the box, but the picture shows something different.


Maybe you are color blind? Do you not understand that the source (yellow dot) stays at the center of the cube at all times? The red dot is simply the origin of the light sphere, it is not the source! The light expands from the point of origin, regardless of if the source stays at that point or not!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The light would be traveling at c, and you would be traveling at .99c, so from the start point, 1 second later the light would be 299,792,458 meters away from the start point, and you would be 299,792,458*.99=296,794,533.42 meters away from the start point. The light would be 2,997,924.58 meters ahead of you after 1 second. Your measure of the speed of light would therefor be 2,997,924.58 m/s, because the light started at the same point you did, and after 1 second it was 2,997,924.58 meters away from you. That is, if you consider your frame to be at a zero velocity to take measurements from (which clearly isn't in your question, because you stated the car was driving .99 c), which is another of Einstein's blunders. I can tell you the velocity of the frame, Einstein can not. He has no way of knowing the velocity of a frame in space, so he makes up his BS second postulate and claims all frames will measure the speed of light to be the same. That is simply an impossibility according to the definition of the meter.


No no no no no no. No. That is not how it works. If I am standing on the side of the road and you drive by at .99c and flip your headlights that is what I would see and what I would measure as an observer on the side of the road, not moving. I measure 1 second, and I see the light from the head lights is 299,792,458 meters ahead of the point when you turned it on, and you are 296,794,533.42 meters. 

The problem with this is that it depends on who is taking the measurement. One second ticking by on MY clock is the not the same as one second ticking on YOUR clock (which is in the car with you) because we are moving relative to each other. You are moving away from me at 0.99c. I assure you that if you measure the distance light travels in front of you, and you time it with an accurate clock, you will measure that light has moved 299,792,458 meters ahead of you after 1 of YOUR seconds. This will happen if you are standing still, or if you are traveling forward at .99, or if you are traveling backwards at .99c. No matter how fast you are moving, or what direction, or where you are when you measure it it will be the exact same.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

Let me guess, Einstein says it takes 1 second round trip time for light to travel the 1 light second total round trip distance? But how could that be, seeing how the real round trip time is 1.689999 seconds, which means light traveled a round trip distance in space 506,648,954 meters in 1.689999 seconds, which means light traveled at the speed 0f 299,792,458 m/s.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Maybe you are color blind? Do you not understand that the source (yellow dot) stays at the center of the cube at all times? The red dot is simply the origin of the light sphere, it is not the source! The light expands from the point of origin, regardless of if the source stays at that point or not!


No. Yes I understand it, but the diagram does NOT represent that. 

Lets assume you are in a perfect sphere instead of a box, and the light source is at the center. You are inside next to the light source. You are not accelerating. From inside you cannot tell which direction you are traveling, or how fast*. You turn the light on. The entire inside surface of the sphere will be illuminated at the exact same time (from your point of view inside the sphere, moving with zero velocity relative to the sphere)


* This is the exact same principle of why you cannot tell how fast the earth is moving. We are spinning on an axis, and revolving around the sun, but to us this frame is at rest. It appears as though everything else is moving around us and we are stationary. If you go inside your house and close the windows though, you have no other "frame of reference" to even be aware that you are moving.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No no no no no no. No. That is not how it works. If I am standing on the side of the road and you drive by at .99c and flip your headlights that is what I would see and what I would measure as an observer on the side of the road, not moving. I measure 1 second, and I see the light from the head lights is 299,792,458 meters ahead of the point when you turned it on, and you are 296,794,533.42 meters.


Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity? 

So we painted a line on the road. The car is approaching the line at a constant rate. Just as the car comes in contact with the line the headlights are activated. The road is marked like a ruler at every meter. You are 299,792,458 meters away from the start line. When the light reaches you the position of the car is marked. At what meter point is the car when the light hits you?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. Yes I understand it, but the diagram does NOT represent that.


What do you mean the diagram doesn't represent that?? Didn't you see the color coding chart? Above that it says the source remains at the center of the cube. What do you not understand about that?



guy incognito said:


> Lets assume you are in a perfect sphere instead of a box, and the light source is at the center. You are inside next to the light source. You are not accelerating. From inside you cannot tell which direction you are traveling, or how fast*. You turn the light on. The entire inside surface of the sphere will be illuminated at the exact same time (from your point of view inside the sphere, moving with zero velocity relative to the sphere)
> 
> 
> * This is the exact same principle of why you cannot tell how fast the earth is moving. We are spinning on an axis, and revolving around the sun, but to us this frame is at rest. It appears as though everything else is moving around us and we are stationary. If you go inside your house and close the windows though, you have no other "frame of reference" to even be aware that you are moving.


So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place. Now, you fire the sphere's rocket engine for a duration of time and you accelerate the sphere (you can tell you are accelerating because the force between you and the seat increases dramatically!!) You accelerate for a duration of time and then you shut off the rocket booster. What you have done is change your velocity in space. Since you previously observed that the light hit the inner surface of the sphere in the same amount of time, when the sphere was at a zero velocity, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach the inner surface at the same time at every point on the inner surface of the sphere after the acceleration, due to the FACT that you can no longer be at a zero velocity, because you ACCELERATED for a duration of time. You CHANGED your velocity. Changing does not mean staying the same, it means it most certainly is NOT the same! So the velocity of the sphere is not zero, it is >0, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, which means there ain't no way in hell the light can possibly reach the entire inner surface at the same exact time in every direction. This is not even debatable, it is a rock solid mathematical, geometrical FACT!!!!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What do you mean the diagram doesn't represent that?? Didn't you see the color coding chart? Above that it says the source remains at the center of the cube. What do you not understand about that?


The legend does indeed state that, but the actual diagram does not represent that. What I mean is that simply saying "this yellow dot is the light source", and then placing that dot into a diagram does not mean that you are accurately representing the real world behavior of light. 



Seedling said:


> So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place. Now, you fire the sphere's rocket engine for a duration of time and you accelerate the sphere (you can tell you are accelerating because the force between you and the seat increases dramatically!!) You accelerate for a duration of time and then you shut off the rocket booster. What you have done is change your velocity in space. Since you previously observed that the light hit the inner surface of the sphere in the same amount of time, when the sphere was at a zero velocity, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach the inner surface at the same time at every point on the inner surface of the sphere after the acceleration, due to the FACT that you can no longer be at a zero velocity, because you ACCELERATED for a duration of time. You CHANGED your velocity. Changing does not mean staying the same, it means it most certainly is NOT the same! So the velocity of the sphere is not zero, it is >0, which makes it IMPOSSIBLE for you to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions, which means there ain't no way in hell the light can possibly reach the entire inner surface at the same exact time in every direction. This is not even debatable, it is a rock solid mathematical, geometrical FACT!!!!


Did I personally do a test? No, but others have and every single one of their results verified that everything I said was correct.

For the last time, THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE VELOCITY. It does not exist. And more importantly LIGHT does not acknowledge it's existence. Everything you have said in this paragraph is absolute rubbish.

Let me try to explain this one more time. You have a perfect sphere with a light source at the center. You have 2 engines outside of the sphere on opposite sides. You have your sphere sitting stationary on the top of a mountain. I am going to present 3 different scenarios:

1. You get in the sphere. You do not turn on the engines, you just stay where you are. You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

2. You get in the sphere. You turn on one engine only and accelerate west in a straight line until you are traveling at .99c relative to earth*. You then turn off the engine and remain at a constant velocity (ie not accelerating in any direction). You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

3. You get in the sphere. You turn on one engine only and accelerate east in a straight line until you are traveling at .99c relative to earth*. You then turn off the engine and remain at a constant velocity (ie not accelerating in any direction). You turn on the light. From your view point the light sphere hits all points on the inside surface at the exact same time.

I know that it is totally mind blowing and goes against your basic intuition, but it has been proven experimentally. If you do not believe reality then I don't know how else to convince you.

* "0.99 c relative to earth" means that you, from inside your ship, look out the window and see earth (which we are considering "stationary" (as in example 1)) traveling away from you at 0.99c according to YOUR measurements of time and distance.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What are your questions and rebuttals concerning this diagram? Let us stay with this diagram so we are on the same sheet of music. Your errors are numerous as I've explained in my responses to you, and you don't respond to my leading questions because of the very nature of the question you see where you go wrong, and you avoid the concept of the question all together. Let's stay on course and use this example as our focal point.
> 
> http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k
> 
> Does the diagram answer your question as to how a frame can tell if it is at an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame? As you can clearly see in the diagram, the ONLY time the receivers will show a time of .5 seconds is IF the cube frame has an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. If the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame it is IMPOSSIBLE for the light to reach all the receivers in .5 seconds. The cube is traveling in the preferred frame according to the definition of the meter and the speed of light, relative to no other object. The absolute velocity of the cube is not a closing speed with reference to another object, it is the cube's absolute velocity in the preferred frame. There are no other objects in this diagram. There is a cube with a source that stays at the center of the cube at all times, and there is the light that that source emits. "DATS IT!"


Why are you trying to bring something new to discuss? Please just try to answer some of my questions. If you can answer them, I can figure out what you are thinking. If you continue to dodge them, I have no choice but to assume you cannot answer them. I don't think you are even pondering them. If you did, you would at least understand what I am saying instead of creating a strawman and merely declaring I'm making mistakes. So how about you try to explain how physics has been wrong for 500 years and there is such a thing as an absolute reference frame and where exactly this mythical place is. Please explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment using your rules and frames. Please explain why in your world, different observers should be getting different results for the speed of light but in reality and experimentation, this does not occur. Until you answer these very basic points which should be simple since they are merely an expansion of the idea that you keep presenting, there is no reason anyone should take you seriously. You keep repeating the same thing without elaboration. You keep claiming how frames that are outside your mythical 'preferred' frame should be measuring light speed different, yet in reality they don't. If you make claims, back them up. Repetition is not proof.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes, because you are measuring the speed of light, not the speed of the earth, moon, galaxy, or any other material object. Light travels independently of objects. Light travel time is distance, they are inseparable when speaking about the distance and time of light travel.


Yet if the observer is moving, you are claiming they no longer are at the same point in space where the light originated from, so how do they continually measure light speed as c? The point is those other velocities are irrelevant as long as we are not accelerating. ALL inertial frames are equal when it comes to measuring physical laws. This is not an Einstein trick, this relativity principle has been proven and understood for almost 500 years. You are introducing completely new paradigm without adequate explanation. If motion is not relative but can be linked to some absolute frame, this would overturn virtually all of physics, not just Einstein but Newton too. Everything we know about motion is wrong, yet for some reason all of our technology that is based on our current understanding of physics still works.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

Mindphuk, Seedling has already declared special relativity to be "smoke and mirrors". His insistence on a preferred or null observing frame is part of the same circular argument. It puts me in mind of some of the Critical Thought Experiments puzzles, in which our human intuition can be fooled by a false correlation. 
It's surprising to me that what I see as Einstein's act of genius ... to discard the concept of invariant time and distance ... Seedling sees as a deception. 
And I agree with you and the others that Seedling's opinion about the Michaelson-Morley experiment (which is what compelled Einstein to take his radical step) would be informative. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you did a test and the light reached the inner surface of the sphere at the same exact time everywhere on that surface. The ONLY way that is possible is IF the sphere had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. That means the sphere must be at an absolute zero velocity, if that is what actually took place.


Again I want to point out that our sphere is no different than a lab located on earth. Earth is revolving around the sun at tremendous speeds. So at any given point earth is flying through space around the sun (which means my lab is flying through space at the same velocity). So how come if I measure the speed of light from a laser in one direction I get the exact same result as if I measure in the other direction? That can only occur when I am at absolute zero velocity correct? And When I measure again 6 months later when my lab is on the other side of the sun traveling at approximately the same velocity in the opposite direction (relative to when I last took measurements) I still get the same result no matter which way I point the laser?

By your theory shouldn't there be an "absolute" frame of reference? Shouldn't my measurements of the speed of the laser be different in different directions? and at different times of the year when my entire lab has a different direction and speed?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Again I want to point out that our sphere is no different than a lab located on earth. Earth is revolving around the sun at tremendous speeds. So at any given point earth is flying through space around the sun (which means my lab is flying through space at the same velocity). So how come if I measure the speed of light from a laser in one direction I get the exact same result as if I measure in the other direction? That can only occur when I am at absolute zero velocity correct? And When I measure again 6 months later when my lab is on the other side of the sun traveling at approximately the same velocity in the opposite direction (relative to when I last took measurements) I still get the same result no matter which way I point the laser?
> 
> By your theory shouldn't there be an "absolute" frame of reference? Shouldn't my measurements of the speed of the laser be different in different directions? and at different times of the year when my entire lab has a different direction and speed?


Guy, you are pointing out my prime complaint about Seedling's claim. His "preferred frame" is the same thing as positing an aether. And Michaelson-Morley put paid to that. 
I also agree with you that the image link Seedling provided only works if one assumes a privileged or null frame, and that's where it diverges with observation. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Mindphuk, Seedling has already declared special relativity to be "smoke and mirrors". His insistence on a preferred or null observing frame is part of the same circular argument. It puts me in mind of some of the Critical Thought Experiments puzzles, in which our human intuition can be fooled by a false correlation.
> It's surprising to me that what I see as Einstein's act of genius ... to discard the concept of invariant time and distance ... Seedling sees as a deception.
> And I agree with you and the others that Seedling's opinion about the Michaelson-Morley experiment (which is what compelled Einstein to take his radical step) would be informative. cn


This is why I tried to step back from Einstein and SR and see how his model works with classical mechanics. Even when absolute time and space is assumed, physics still demonstrates that all inertial frames are equal with respect to physical laws. It is only when the speed of light is introduced, where we have demonstrated it does not need a medium to move throws everything off. 

There are only two possibilities - 
1. that time and space are absolute and different observers must measure the speed of light different depending on their point of view, 

OR 

2. the speed of light is constant for every observer and time and space are malleable. 

Seedling seems to want to introduce a third option, but there cannot be one. He claims constant speed of light but when we ask him about observations outside of his mythical frame, he dismisses it without explanation.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Guy, you are pointing out my prime complaint about Seedling's claim. His "preferred frame" is the same thing as positing an aether. And Michaelson-Morley put paid to that.
> I also agree with you that the image link Seedling provided only works if one assumes a privileged or null frame, and that's where it diverges with observation. cn


I know, i'm trying to word it so he can understand the fallacy he is making. I know it's been explained by you and mindphuck in this thread, but he still doesn't seem to grasp it.

Yes his image is the exact same as the one with a train with a light bulb on it that everyone who has trawled through some relativity forums has seen countless times.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling to[B said:


> * guy incognito*[/B] ;8024223]Do you know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity?
> 
> So we painted a line on the road. The car is approaching the line at a constant rate. Just as the car comes in contact with the line the headlights are activated. The road is marked like a ruler at every meter. You are 299,792,458 meters away from the start line. When the light reaches you the position of the car is marked. *At what meter point is the car when the light hits you?*


Guy, I expect an answer to this question.


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

OK, I read it again. Just for you. I can say certainly that the math works to exclude, for the train's reference, the answer of simultaneity for these lightening flash events.

Furthermore, you cannot provide the math that will give the answer you propose.

And to tie it to the entirely man-made concept of Meter, is the false trail.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Guy, I expect an answer to this question.


I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.

Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.
> 
> Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)


You are standing on the road 299,792,458 meters from the start line. What meter marker is the car at when the light hits you?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

I'll wait.


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

The ball is in your court. Are you calling time out?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

Doer said:


> The ball is in your court. Are you calling time out?


I want an answer to my question. Maybe you'd like to take a shot at it?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You are standing on the road 299,792,458 meters from the start line. What meter marker is the car at when the light hits you?





Seedling said:


> I'll wait.





guy incognito said:


> I already answered you in post #131 where I also explained what is wrong with your logic.
> 
> Me standing on the ground watching you drive a car, and you inside the car are 2 different reference frames. You cannot take time or distance measurements in one frame and apply it to the other. This is literally the crux of the entire theory. The theory of relativity. The measurements are RELATIVE (to whoever is doing the observing!)


post 131 for those of you that are retarded/illiterate (seedling):



guy incognito said:


> No no no no no no. No. That is not how it works. If I am standing on the side of the road and you drive by at .99c and flip your headlights that is what I would see and what I would measure as an observer on the side of the road, not moving. I measure 1 second, and I see the light from the head lights is 299,792,458 meters ahead of the point when you turned it on, and you are 296,794,533.42 meters.
> 
> The problem with this is that it depends on who is taking the measurement. One second ticking by on MY clock is the not the same as one second ticking on YOUR clock (which is in the car with you) because we are moving relative to each other. You are moving away from me at 0.99c. I assure you that if you measure the distance light travels in front of you, and you time it with an accurate clock, you will measure that light has moved 299,792,458 meters ahead of you after 1 of YOUR seconds. This will happen if you are standing still, or if you are traveling forward at .99, or if you are traveling backwards at .99c. No matter how fast you are moving, or what direction, or where you are when you measure it it will be the exact same.


Just in case you cannot read large red letters I have stated that, FROM MY FRAME OF REFERENCE (which is standing on the road not moving relative to the road), that after 1 second (as measured by me) light will have traveled 299,792,458 meters (as measured by me) and your car will have traveled 296,794,533.42 meters (as measured by me). Because of your learning disability and comprehension problem I feel like I need to reiterate that the time, and all distances are measured BY ME from MY FRAME OF REFERENCE and ARE NOT THE SAME AS YOU WOULD MEASURE.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Just in case you cannot read large red letters I have stated that, FROM MY FRAME OF REFERENCE (which is standing on the road not moving relative to the road), that after 1 second (as measured by me) light will have traveled 299,792,458 meters (as measured by me) and your car will have traveled 296,794,533.42 meters (as measured by me). Because of your learning disability and comprehension problem I feel like I need to reiterate that the time, and all distances are measured BY ME from MY FRAME OF REFERENCE and ARE NOT THE SAME AS YOU WOULD MEASURE.


The light sphere is a reality, it is not going away. The radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 meters at t=1 in your frame. In the frame of the car, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The light sphere is a reality, it is not going away. The radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 meters at t=1 in your frame. In the frame of the car, how far ahead of the car is the light?


See what you did there? You claim the light sphere is a reality, and is 299,792,458 at t=1 in my frame of reference. Then you ask how far ahead of the car the light sphere is IN THE FRAME OF THE CAR. The implication you have made is that time is absolute and t=1 for me is the same as t=1 for you in the car. That is not the case. The light sphere is indeed a reality to me, in my frame of reference. You will have your own light sphere according to your own measurements.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling, please address post #112 and answer some questions that I have asked multiple times. It will help clarify to those that accuse you of holding contradicting views. If you continue to avoid answering some of these questions, you will continue to frustrate people that are trying to understand your claims. It will also help identify to you the points we think you are missing. 

So once again, how do you determine who has velocity when the two of us are closing .99c when both of us feel we are at rest? BTW, for simplification sake, let's round up and use 300,000,000 m/s for c rather than the actual value. It won't change anything and make the math easier to do and read.


----------



## TroncoChe (Sep 20, 2012)

I've seen some videos on YouTube that show pretty good evidence that the big bang didn't happen and that its electric. Just a thought.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 20, 2012)

TroncoChe said:


> I've seen some videos on YouTube that show pretty good evidence that the big bang didn't happen and that its electric. Just a thought.


I've seen some videos that show evidence the big bang happened.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> I've seen some videos that show evidence the big bang happened.


They were very, very old.  cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

Oh, I see. Let me check. Nope, I answered. The Ball is still in your court to answer what I said about the lightening thought experiment.

OK. No time out is called. Begin.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> See what you did there? You claim the light sphere is a reality, and is 299,792,458 at t=1 in my frame of reference. Then you ask how far ahead of the car the light sphere is IN THE FRAME OF THE CAR. The implication you have made is that time is absolute and t=1 for me is the same as t=1 for you in the car. That is not the case. The light sphere is indeed a reality to me, in my frame of reference. You will have your own light sphere according to your own measurements.


I didn't ask you anything about the clock in the car frame, I asked you, in the car frame, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you? According to the car observer and his meter stick, how far ahead of the car is the light when it hits you?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> So once again, how do you determine who has velocity when the two of us are closing .99c when both of us feel we are at rest? BTW, for simplification sake, let's round up and use 300,000,000 m/s for c rather than the actual value. It won't change anything and make the math easier to do and read.


I answered you several times and you fail to acknowledge I answered your question, but I did. I told you about measuring one-way time along a stick, and when the one-way times were the same in all directions then the stick had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I also stated that if those times were 1/299792458 of a second, then that stick was a meter stick.

I then answered your question in graphic detail by posting a link to a pic outlining the concept, with actual distances and times as measured, and the formulas to boot! What else do you want? Do you not understand the diagram, the formulas and the numbers? Maybe you should show me SR's numbers of the situation? Oh, that's right, the only pic SR knows how to draw is a cube with a circle exactly touching all the receivers at the same time. What a load of crap!


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I didn't ask you anything about the clock in the car frame, I asked you, in the car frame, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you? According to the car observer and his meter stick, how far ahead of the car is the light when it hits you?


If .99c, then one-tenth of a light second. cn


----------



## Doer (Sep 20, 2012)

I think the real question is what was the acceleration of the photon. Infinite? It is instantly at the velocity, and "stays there." Why is it that it can't go faster? A photon instantly takes a virtual mass. A unity, All photons will always will strike a surface, a light sail, at the same imparted exchange of velocity vector. If the sail is a foot away or a mile. The light reflects, not as energetic a wavelength but still going the same speed. 

But, what subjects it to this speed limit of light?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I answered you several times and you fail to acknowledge I answered your question, but I did. I told you about measuring one-way time along a stick, and when the one-way times were the same in all directions then the stick had an absolute zero velocity in the preferred frame. I also stated that if those times were 1/299792458 of a second, then that stick was a meter stick.
> 
> I then answered your question in graphic detail by posting a link to a pic outlining the concept, with actual distances and times as measured, and the formulas to boot! What else do you want? Do you not understand the diagram, the formulas and the numbers? Maybe you should show me SR's numbers of the situation? Oh, that's right, the only pic SR knows how to draw is a cube with a circle exactly touching all the receivers at the same time. What a load of crap!


Bullshit! You haven't answered any of the questions in any meaningful way. You keep using circular arguments to support your position, i.e. the frame where measuring times are all the same in all directions is not an answer because as I keep pointing out, this occurs regardless of where we are in space, even when in motion. That's the point that Einstein made. If every observer measures light the same, then time and space are variable, they are different for different observers. You can't keep saying there is a preferred frame when EVERY frame measures light the same. Unless you can point to an experiment that light appears slower or faster when in motion, you are just talking out of your ass.

Other questions ignored- 
1. Michelson-Morley experiment, why doesn't it support your claim? If your hypothesis is correct, then the M-M experiment would demonstrate that. 
2. How is it possible to have measured light anywhere on earth and not get conflicting values based on whether or not we are in summer or winter, or night or day? Why do you think we can ignore the motion of the earth, solar system and galaxy? Do you actually think humans have ever had a reference frame that is zero velocity with respect to space... EVER? 
3. How can you ignore 400 years of physics where since Galileo, it has been recognized that motion can only be discussed in relation to something else? How do you assign any meaningful values of velocity to anything without something to reference it against? 
4. Do you understand the concept of inertial motion? How do you explain that two objects in relative motion opposite of one another will get the exact same measurements for light, but get different measurements for time? 
5. Consider that there are only two possibilities, either light speed is variable and depends on the frame it is measured in, or it is constant and Einstein was right. You keep implying there is a third alternative but have yet to explain how and why or even offer an experiment to test your claim. How do you think your claim can be verified? Einstein was proven right through experimentation. How do you explain the results of those experiments if he was wrong? Why does everything in this world appear to follow the laws of relativity? 

6. Are you the biggest troll in the universe or just very stupid?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 20, 2012)

Mindphuk, compared to the Ambulatory Avian in Authority, Seedling is the lesser troll. Too narrow a _répertoire_. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I didn't ask you anything about the clock in the car frame, I asked you, in the car frame, how far ahead of the car is the light when the light hits you? According to the car observer and his meter stick, how far ahead of the car is the light when it hits you?


relativity of simultaneity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYWM2oZgi4E

and here is one that is exactly like your original figure about the box with mirrors. Hopefully you will see why I say the frame of reference in your diagram is incorrect.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHjpBjgIMVk


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 20, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> 6. Are you the biggest troll in the universe or just very stupid?


I called him out in this thread 5 days ago.



guy incognito said:


> Entertaining thread. Seedling, you might want to tone it down about 6 notches. You are being uber obvious as a troll and/or dangerous retard.


Just sayin.

The only reason i'm continuing to participate is because I know other non trolls do in fact believe some misconceptions and have a hard time grasping the reality of the situation. Hopefully someone gets interested in the heat of the thread and actually learns something.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I called him out in this thread 5 days ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I can't think of how someone can believe that he has figured out that 400 years of physics has been wrong. As his claim is not merely about Einstein as he says, but about the equivalency of inertial frames. Someone like that is either stupid, delusional or trolling IMO. That he continually avoids questions and then acts impudent when he perceives others as avoiding his is evidence of his delusion IMO.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 20, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Mindphuk, compared to the Ambulatory Avian in Authority, Seedling is the lesser troll. Too narrow a _répertoire_. cn


He is not being honest with us or himself. He's not reading posts and actually thinking about them but merely skimming them to look for what he perceives as an error. This is exactly like CWE IMO.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> 1. Michelson-Morley experiment, why doesn't it support your claim? If your hypothesis is correct, then the M-M experiment would demonstrate that.


I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off the results. In the not so distant past the neutrino was measured to be traveling faster than light. Did you jump up and down and claim it as a fact? I doubt it, you were probably a skeptic, that there was probably a mechanical problem in the system, human error was to blame, or there was something wrong with the method or mathematics. You know that feeling? Well that is the feeling I have about the MM experiment, not to mention that there is always a chance that a hidden agenda was an inspiration for an integrity problem. Sure, there was a bad connection later found to be the cause of the neutrino results, but that is hind sight. You may have been a skeptic of the results prior to knowing there was in fact a problem. So test until you get the results you are looking for, eh? I'll keep that in mind. (rolls eyes) 



mindphuk said:


> 2. How is it possible to have measured light anywhere on earth and not get conflicting values based on whether or not we are in summer or winter, or night or day? Why do you think we can ignore the motion of the earth, solar system and galaxy? Do you actually think humans have ever had a reference frame that is zero velocity with respect to space... EVER?


For the last f'ing time, are you measuring the speed of light or the speed of the earth? Are you admitting that if my method were correct that your results would have shown different, as the earth (lab) is in motion? You are measuring the speed of light, what don't you understand about that? Do you know the difference between measuring the speed of light, and measuring how much time it takes for light to traverse a length in a frame?? Evidently f'n not!



mindphuk said:


> 3. How can you ignore 400 years of physics where since Galileo, it has been recognized *that motion can only be discussed in relation to something else*? How do you assign any meaningful values of velocity to anything without something to reference it against?


Again, you are confusing closing speed with velocity. Do you actually know what a velocity is? Certainly not, because you keep claiming a closing speed as a velocity.



mindphuk said:


> 4. Do you understand the concept of inertial motion? How do you explain that two objects in relative motion opposite of one another will get the exact same measurements for light, but get different measurements for time?


Yes I do understand inertial motion, which is saying nothing more than "not accelerating." The real question is, do you understand that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity? Do you understand that an object has to have a velocity at all times, even if that velocity is zero???? If I can accelerate, which I can, then I must have an initial velocity in space in order for that acceleration to change that velocity. You don't have a f'n clue of which you speak, you are only parroting the yesteryear BS that you've been brainwashed with!



mindphuk said:


> 5. Consider that there are only two possibilities, either light speed is variable and depends on the frame it is measured in, or it is constant and Einstein was right. You keep implying there is a third alternative but have yet to explain how and why or even offer an experiment to test your claim. How do you think your claim can be verified? Einstein was proven right through experimentation. How do you explain the results of those experiments if he was wrong? Why does everything in this world appear to follow the laws of relativity?


Again, you don't even know the difference between the speed of light and a measurement of the speed of light. You talk like your measurement of the speed of light is the speed of light. What the f don't you understand about the definition of the meter defining the speed of light? Are you for real??? 



mindphuk said:


> 6. Are you the biggest troll in the universe or just very stupid?


So you couldn't find a mistake in the link I posted, you have no numbers for the pic according to SR, you don't know the difference between a defined speed of light and a measured speed of light, you fail to grasp the concept of a light sphere and the center point of that sphere, you don't know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity, and you call me stupid?? Pot, is that you, this is kettle.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> If .99c, then one-tenth of a light second. cn


So you are saying that the car observer says the light is 29,979,245.8 meters ahead of him when the light hits the road observer?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> *I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off the results.* In the not so distant past the neutrino was measured to be traveling faster than light. Did you jump up and down and claim it as a fact? I doubt it, you were probably a skeptic, that there was probably a mechanical problem in the system, human error was to blame, or there was something wrong with the method or mathematics. You know that feeling? Well that is the feeling I have about the MM experiment, not to mention that there is always a chance that a hidden agenda was an inspiration for an integrity problem. Sure, there was a bad connection later found to be the cause of the neutrino results, but that is hind sight. You may have been a skeptic of the results prior to knowing there was in fact a problem. So test until you get the results you are looking for, eh? I'll keep that in mind. (rolls eyes)
> 
> 
> 
> For the last f'ing time, are you measuring the speed of light or the speed of the earth? _*Are you admitting that if my method were correct that your results would have shown different, as the earth (lab) is in motion?*_ You are measuring the speed of light, what don't you understand about that? Do you know the difference between measuring the speed of light, and measuring how much time it takes for light to traverse a length in a frame?? Evidently f'n not!


Then how do you know anything? We build upon the knowledge of others. Do you know anything about what goes on inside a nuclear reactor? How do you REALLY know though? Do you know anything about the composition of the sun? Or the ocean? Did you personally take the measurements that led you to those conclusions? Your ignorance of not only the results of that experiment, but the experiment itself, along with your ignorance of all the other experiments that have confirmed, reconfirmed, and reconfirmed yet again with even greater precision and accuracy is astounding and speaks volumes for your lack of understand of relativity. 

I'm not surprised that you don't know enough about the experiment to comment, even though it's been brought up about 10 times in this thread, and is fundamental to understanding relativity. What they were looking to measure was exactly how YOU think light works. They were looking to measure the difference in the speed of light based on the direction of the "aether". They assumed we were in some non zero velocity frame, or that we were dragging through some type of aether that would affect the speed of light. So they set up an apparatus that had arms with mirrors and could rotate about the center. What they expected to find was a variable speed of light based on the influence of the aether. What they found was a constant speed of light in every direction. 

We are measuring the speed of light. Yes, if YOUR understanding of the behavior of light is correct, then the results would indeed be different than they were; They would have demonstrated the behavior you claim will happen. However the results do not show different. They show the exact same results every time. How do you reconcile this with your belief of how light works? How do different people, at different locations, at different times of day, and different times of the year measure the same value for c?

Please explain the difference between measuring speed and measuring distance and time. It is my understanding the speed is defined as distance over time. I fail to see how any speed can be measured directly without measuring both distance and time.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Then how do you know anything? We build upon the knowledge of others.


Yes, we build upon the knowledge of others, but is that knowledge always correct? Science has shown over and over again that what it once held true is no longer valid. "It's valid until it isn't" should be the motto for science. It's lived up to that motto since science began. What you fail to realize with my pic is that it is a visual of the definition of the meter, as defined. There is no escaping those numbers or the concept of the object having an absolute velocity in the preferred frame which is created by the expanding light sphere. By the very definition of the geometry it represents there is no other possibility. For you to claim my pic wrong is for you to claim the definition of the meter invalid, and geometry itself obsolete. I'm not prepared to accept those terms from you. Never will I accept those terms, because I have shown you the geometry of the light sphere, and the velocity of objects in that frame (preferred frame).




guy incognito said:


> I'm not surprised that you don't know enough about the experiment to comment, even though it's been brought up about 10 times in this thread, and is fundamental to understanding relativity. What they were looking to measure was exactly how YOU think light works. They were looking to measure the difference in the speed of light based on the direction of the "aether". They assumed we were in some non zero velocity frame, or that we were dragging through some type of aether that would affect the speed of light. So they set up an apparatus that had arms with mirrors and could rotate about the center. What they expected to find was a variable speed of light based on the influence of the aether. What they found was a constant speed of light in every direction.


So you are saying that they measured the speed of light to be c in every direction. Well duh, the light sphere expands its radius in every direction at the rate of c. If the experiment was trying to measure a closing velocity and came up empty handed, and then claimed light is always measured to be c in every direction, well WTF, Chuck? Who'da thunk? Do you know the difference between the velocity of light and measuring a closing speed?




guy incognito said:


> We are measuring the speed of light. Yes, if YOUR understanding of the behavior of light is correct, then the results would indeed be different than they were; They would have demonstrated the behavior you claim will happen. However the results do not show different. They show the exact same results every time. How do you reconcile this with your belief of how light works? How do different people, at different locations, at different times of day, and different times of the year measure the same value for c?
> 
> Please explain the difference between measuring speed and measuring distance and time. It is my understanding the speed is defined as distance over time. I fail to see how any speed can be measured directly without measuring both distance and time.


So you are admitting that you are measuring a closing speed and calling it the speed of light?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off the results. In the not so distant past the neutrino was measured to be traveling faster than light. Did you jump up and down and claim it as a fact? I doubt it, you were probably a skeptic, that there was probably a mechanical problem in the system, human error was to blame, or there was something wrong with the method or mathematics. You know that feeling? Well that is the feeling I have about the MM experiment, not to mention that there is always a chance that a hidden agenda was an inspiration for an integrity problem. Sure, there was a bad connection later found to be the cause of the neutrino results, but that is hind sight. You may have been a skeptic of the results prior to knowing there was in fact a problem. So test until you get the results you are looking for, eh? I'll keep that in mind. (rolls eyes)


The very same rigorous methodology which showed the fault behind FTL neutrinos is also why we trust the Michelson-Morley experiment. That "feeling" you are talking about is the implication that our entire paradigm would have to change if the information were true. That is why it is automatically suspect. This is the same feeling we get about your assertions here. The MM experiment was not a one time thing, but was repeated with more and more sophisticated controls and has been thoroughly peer reviewed. Strange that you would favor doubt over something so demonstrated when doing so supports your view, but shrug off doubt when it is aimed at your view. Your conclusion that the opposition must be brainwashed and your need to communicate eye rolling betrays your confidence. Such attitudes are the refuge of the indefensible. You seem to be unable to clearly demonstrate your position to anyone but yourself. IOW, you imagine you know, but you only know what you imagine. Unless you can offer a way to falsify the MM experiment, your position is not one of challenge, but denial.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> You seem to be unable to clearly demonstrate your position to anyone but yourself. IOW, you imagine you know, but you only know what you imagine. Unless you can offer a way to falsify the MM experiment, your position is not one of challenge, but denial.


 I demonstrated my position very clearly in the diagram, which you evidently brushed off. Your inability to comprehend the concept doesn't change the fact that it is correct. Show me the SR equivalent of a light sphere, and a cube in motion. Until you do that I will conclude that SR is not capable of responding to the concept, because SR is only valid when talking about relative velocities, of which we are not talking about. I can add a person walking around inside the cube and create relative velocities too, and could also measure closing speeds between the receivers and the person in motion. I could give the person's absolute velocity in the preferred frame, as I could give the person's velocity in the cube frame. I am speaking about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY IN THE PREFERRED FRAME!!!!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I demonstrated my position very clearly in the diagram, which you evidently brushed off. Your inability to comprehend the concept doesn't change the fact that it is correct. Show me the SR equivalent of a light sphere, and a cube in motion. Until you do that I will conclude that SR is not capable of responding to the concept, because SR is only valid when talking about relative velocities, of which we are not talking about. I can add a person walking around inside the cube and create relative velocities too, and could also measure closing speeds between the receivers and the person in motion. I could give the person's absolute velocity in the preferred frame, as I could give the person's velocity in the cube frame. I am speaking about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY IN THE PREFERRED FRAME!!!!


We have, repeatedly. As I said before, the diagram you posted showing the motion of the cube is NOT from the point of view INSIDE the cube. It is the view of someone outside the cube looking at the cube moving RELATIVE to himself. This is preciously the reason the cube moves to the right (because it is moving RELATIVE to the outside observer). I do not know how to state this anymore clearly than I already have.

You want the equivalent of a light sphere and a cube in motion? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

Imagine that you are inside that cube, and it has no windows. You cannot see or measure anything outside of your cube. The only thing you have is an apparatus to measure the speed of light (because you can measure the length the light travels, and you can time it - and for the last time stop saying this is "closing speed" and not velocity). You don't know if this cube is sitting on earth, sitting perfectly still in space, or traveling in some direction close to the speed of light, you cannot determine that. You measure the speed of light with your apparatus in every direction.

According to you:

You get different results depending on which direction you measure in, and depending on your speed according to an outside observer.

According to einstein and thousands of confirmed experiments and reality:

You get the exact same result in every direction every time no matter which direction/speed you are traveling.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes, we build upon the knowledge of others, but is that knowledge always correct? Science has shown over and over again that what it once held true is no longer valid. "It's valid until it isn't" should be the motto for science. It's lived up to that motto since science began. What you fail to realize with my pic is that it is a visual of the definition of the meter, as defined. There is no escaping those numbers or the concept of the object having an absolute velocity in the preferred frame which is created by the expanding light sphere. By the very definition of the geometry it represents there is no other possibility. For you to claim my pic wrong is for you to claim the definition of the meter invalid, and geometry itself obsolete. I'm not prepared to accept those terms from you. Never will I accept those terms, because I have shown you the geometry of the light sphere, and the velocity of objects in that frame (preferred frame).


No, which is why we test and retest and retest to get repeatable results. How many fucking times do you want them to perform the experiment to measure light and get the EXACT SAME results before you conclude it is right? 2 times? 10 times? 100 times? Is there a number that will satisfy you? Or will you disregard the results of all experiments that don't jive with your preconceived views?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you are saying that the car observer says the light is 29,979,245.8 meters ahead of him when the light hits the road observer?


With apologies ... I think my answer was wrong. I need to reconsider. i remembered the relativistic (Lorentz) factor as being a simple square root. it contains an inverse term, and I need to wrap my head around that before continuing. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you are saying that they measured the speed of light to be c in every direction. Well duh, the light sphere expands its radius in every direction at the rate of c. If the experiment was trying to measure a closing velocity and came up empty handed, and then claimed light is always measured to be c in every direction, well WTF, Chuck? Who'da thunk? Do you know the difference between the velocity of light and measuring a closing speed?


 Uh, they did try to measure a closing velocity. Their assumption was that they were moving through an aether. If they were perfectly at rest then the light sphere should behave that way, it should expand equally fast in all directions. If however they were moving through the aether, lets say oh I don't know at 0.638971c like your graph, then they should get different values. But they don't. They get exactly c every time. And unlike your box they have windows they can look out of to solidify the claim. They measure it the same in all directions, then their lab accelerates and changes directions (as the earth does) and they repeat the experiment with repeatable results. Case closed.

The problem you are having with closing speed is that you think it is strictly summative like in classical physics. You drive a car 50 mph, and you throw a baseball 50mph and voila, clearly the ball is traveling 50+50=100mph. This is not true, and it is not how the world works. 

p=mv/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) is the momentum of a particle. as v approaches 0 the term (v/c)^2 approaches 0 and hence the denominator approaches 1. 

So if we plug v = 50mph (approx 25/ms) into the equation the denominator is essentially 1. In fact if you plug in 25,000 m/s (56,000 mph) the denominator is still .999999997, which is not noticeable to us, which makes sense because even at that speed we are only traveling a fraction of a fraction of the speed of light. 

It does matter when your velocity is a significant fraction of the speed of light though, which is why all your examples using high velocity do not conform to classical physics.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> With apologies ... I think my answer was wrong. I need to reconsider. i remembered the relativistic (Lorentz) factor as being a simple square root. it contains an inverse term, and I need to wrap my head around that before continuing. cn


gamma = y = 1 / sqrt(1-B^2) where B = v/c

But with this specific example it gets murky as to what everything means. The car passes point A, and how far is he when light passes ME (who is up ahead)? Well classically we assume light is instantaneous. It is so fast compared to everyday speeds that when plugged into the equations it is essentially instantaneous, and we can then use simpler equations that are amazingly accurate. But how do you decouple the speed of light with the observer in the car at such high speeds without delving into relativity of simultaneity? What does it even mean to ask how much distance is between the front of the car and the person standing up there? What you really mean is how much distance is between us after the light has traveled all the way there, then reflected back to the car to be detected, which cannot be ignored at these velocities.

Without actually calculating it out I know the observer in the car will measure a much smaller distance, and a much smaller quantity of time elapsing. He will however agree that the every photon he observed traveling at precisely c.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> gamma = y = 1 / sqrt(1-B^2) where B = v/c
> 
> But with this specific example it gets murky as to what everything means. The car passes point A, and how far is he when light passes ME (who is up ahead)? Well classically we assume light is instantaneous. It is so fast compared to everyday speeds that when plugged into the equations it is essentially instantaneous, and we can then use simpler equations that are amazingly accurate. But how do you decouple the speed of light with the observer in the car at such high speeds without delving into relativity of simultaneity? What does it even mean to ask how much distance is between the front of the car and the person standing up there? What you really mean is how much distance is between us after the light has traveled all the way there, then reflected back to the car to be detected, which cannot be ignored at these velocities.
> 
> Without actually calculating it out I know the observer in the car will measure a much smaller distance, and a much smaller quantity of time elapsing. He will however agree that the every photon he observed traveling at precisely c.


Agreed that the light needs to be measured out&return. In fact, you've helped me realize that the assumption/illusion of an instantaneous means to monitor the participants is equivalent with a preferred frame. 
I did calculate gamma for .99c and find it to be about seven point one. 
But here's the part about which I am unsure after this morning's reading. The relative speed of the participants is .99c, and if we invoke the symmetry of relativistic effects, will the perceived elapsed time be different for the two observers? cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Agreed that the light needs to be measured out&return. In fact, you've helped me realize that the assumption/illusion of an instantaneous means to monitor the participants is equivalent with a preferred frame.
> I did calculate gamma for .99c and find it to be about seven point one.
> But here's the part about which I am unsure after this morning's reading. The relative speed of the participants is .99c, and if we invoke the symmetry of relativistic effects, will the perceived elapsed time be different for the two observers? cn


Are you asking if elapsed time for the observer in the car will differ from the stationary (with respect to ground) observer? Yes it will. At these speeds for long enough distances the difference will be severe. 

For example take identical twins, one stays on earth and one heads out in ship at .99c. When the ship twin returns he will find that his twin has aged significantly more than he himself has. If you could travel fast enough, you could return from a journey where you only experienced a few minutes elapse and yet find millions of years has elapsed on earth and everyone you ever knew or loved is gone and has since been replaced in the robotic uprising.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I can't answer that question, as I personally wasn't there to inspect the apparatus, and I certainly wasn't there to monitor the test to observe for any error, or integrity problems. Even if I had witnessed it first hand there are unforeseen glitches in the system that can occur and throw off the results. In the not so distant past the neutrino was measured to be traveling faster than light. Did you jump up and down and claim it as a fact? I doubt it, you were probably a skeptic, that there was probably a mechanical problem in the system, human error was to blame, or there was something wrong with the method or mathematics. You know that feeling? Well that is the feeling I have about the MM experiment, not to mention that there is always a chance that a hidden agenda was an inspiration for an integrity problem. Sure, there was a bad connection later found to be the cause of the neutrino results, but that is hind sight. You may have been a skeptic of the results prior to knowing there was in fact a problem. So test until you get the results you are looking for, eh? I'll keep that in mind. (rolls eyes)


I think the idiocy of discounting this when you clearly do not know anything about it has been pointed out.



> For the last f'ing time, are you measuring the speed of light or the speed of the earth?


You are measuring the speed of light while in motion, something you claim should yield different results if I were in motion one direction vs. the other. Since no frame on earth is at zero velocity with respect to light, the answers you get will be different according to you. 


> Are you admitting that if my method were correct that your results would have shown different, as the earth (lab) is in motion?


Right. I'm suggesting a way to test your hypothesis something you you keep ignoring.


> You are measuring the speed of light, what don't you understand about that? Do you know the difference between measuring the speed of light, and measuring how much time it takes for light to traverse a length in a frame?? Evidently f'n not!


Yes, I know there is no difference between speed and time over distance. This is a fact by definition. 


> Again, you are confusing closing speed with velocity. Do you actually know what a velocity is? Certainly not, because you keep claiming a closing speed as a velocity.


No, I'm not confusing the two. If you are in empty space and feel at rest, there is no way to determine any velocity. You need something to measure it against. Velocity is a speed in a specific direction. Are you able to tell me the velocity you are traveling through space RIGHT NOW? It clearly is not zero. 


> Yes I do understand inertial motion, which is saying nothing more than "not accelerating." The real question is, do you understand that acceleration is the rate of change of velocity? Do you understand that an object has to have a velocity at all times, even if that velocity is zero????


Are you able to point to anything that has a zero velocity? Where? 


> If I can accelerate, which I can, then I must have an initial velocity in space in order for that acceleration to change that velocity. You don't have a f'n clue of which you speak, you are only parroting the yesteryear BS that you've been brainwashed with!


What if you accelerate to counteract the velocity you already have? I am purposely not discussing acceleration because that brings us to GR and you can't even grasp the simpler SR. 


> Again, you don't even know the difference between the speed of light and a measurement of the speed of light. You talk like your measurement of the speed of light is the speed of light. What the f don't you understand about the definition of the meter defining the speed of light? Are you for real???


The meter does not define the speed of light. The speed of light IS what you measure it to be. ALL speeds are what their measurement is. What else is speed but a measurement of something traveling a specific distance over a specific time? 


> So you couldn't find a mistake in the link I posted, you have no numbers for the pic according to SR, you don't know the difference between a defined speed of light and a measured speed of light,


How was the speed of light defined? Did God tell us? No, it was measured. It was found to be the same in every frame regardless of velocity. This is why it is called a constant. 


> you fail to grasp the concept of a light sphere and the center point of that sphere, you don't know the difference between a closing speed and a velocity, and you call me stupid?? Pot, is that you, this is kettle.


You fail to grasp the every light sphere ever produced has never been done in a resting frame with respect to space. If I turn on a light, a split second later I have dragged that light with me across space. The earth is spinning and orbiting, you CANNOT discount these facts no matter how hard you try. I'm not measuring the speed of the earth, I'm only taking it into account when trying to figure out if I am at rest with respect to a specific point in space.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> We have, repeatedly. As I said before, the diagram you posted showing the motion of the cube is NOT from the point of view INSIDE the cube. It is the view of someone outside the cube looking at the cube moving RELATIVE to himself. This is preciously the reason the cube moves to the right (because it is moving RELATIVE to the outside observer). I do not know how to state this anymore clearly than I already have.


There is no view, for the last time! The test was conducted in the cube. There were no outside observations. There was light emitted from a source that remains at the center of the cube at all times (motionless in the cube frame), and there were receivers in the cube, mounted at the center of each wall, each of them the same exact distance from the source. Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took 1.38 seconds to reach the y receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took only .305 seconds for the light to return to the source from the x receiver (which is a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame). How do you explain the fact that a cube observer would have 3 different measurements of light in the same frame? There is no outside observer!



guy incognito said:


> Imagine that you are inside that cube, and it has no windows. You cannot see or measure anything outside of your cube. The only thing you have is an apparatus to measure the speed of light (because you can measure the length the light travels, and you can time it - and for the last time stop saying this is "closing speed" and not velocity). You don't know if this cube is sitting on earth, sitting perfectly still in space, or traveling in some direction close to the speed of light, you cannot determine that. You measure the speed of light with your apparatus in every direction.
> 
> According to you:
> 
> ...



How many times do I have to tell you, light travels independently of the cube. Am I speaking English?? Do you fail to grasp what that means? So if you say you understand what that means then why do you keep insisting on measuring the time it takes for light to travel a length in your frame and think that is the speed of light? Only a moron would not recognize the fact that the cube is capable of motion relative to the light sphere, which means you first must KNOW the velocity of the frame before you try to measure the velocity of something that travels independently of the frame.!!!


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Are you asking if elapsed time for the observer in the car will differ from the stationary (with respect to ground) observer? Yes it will. At these speeds for long enough distances the difference will be severe.
> 
> For example take identical twins, one stays on earth and one heads out in ship at .99c. When the ship twin returns he will find that his twin has aged significantly more than he himself has. If you could travel fast enough, you could return from a journey where you only experienced a few minutes elapse and yet find millions of years has elapsed on earth and everyone you ever knew or loved is gone and has since been replaced in the robotic uprising.


Yes, but in the twins paradox, the important thing is acceleration and turnaround ... it decouples the frames. It's the contribution of gravitational (more generally, accelerational) relativity. In the car instance, neither participant is accelerating, so their frames are coupled. Thus my wonderment. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 21, 2012)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Dingle


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Uh, they did try to measure a closing velocity. Their assumption was that they were moving through an aether. If they were perfectly at rest then the light sphere should behave that way, it should expand equally fast in all directions. If however they were moving through the aether, lets say oh I don't know at 0.638971c like your graph, then they should get different values. But they don't. They get exactly c every time. And unlike your box they have windows they can look out of to solidify the claim. They measure it the same in all directions, then their lab accelerates and changes directions (as the earth does) and they repeat the experiment with repeatable results. Case closed.
> 
> *The problem you are having with closing speed is that you think it is strictly summative like in classical physics. You drive a car 50 mph, and you throw a baseball 50mph and voila, clearly the ball is traveling 50+50=100mph. This is not true, and it is not how the world works. *
> 
> ...


Clearly you are putting words in my mouth by saying the bold print. If I measured the road to have an absolute zero velocity, and I was driving along the road at 50 MPH, and I threw a ball at 50 MPH, the ball would float along side the car as we both traveled at the same rate , with a zero relative velocity between us. We each have a 50 MPH absolute velocity in the same direction.

However...If you claim to not be able to tell what speed the road is traveling in space, then all your measurements are not absolute velocities, they are relative motion, measured as closing speeds. Zero closing speed is zero relative motion. A closing speed of .75c means just that, that the distance is changing at the rate of .75c. That has no insight into the measure of each of the objects absolute velocities in space. So, back to the road example. You don't know the road's absolute velocity, and you know the relative velocity between you and the ball is zero, so why do you claim to throw the ball at 50 MPH when there is relative velocity of zero m/s between you and the ball. All your measurements are taken along the road, correct? Why would you use the road to measure your speed, and know you have a speed of 50 MPH, and then turn around and claim the ball has a 50 MPH relative velocity to you, as if you had a zero velocity?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> There is no view, for the last time! The test was conducted in the cube. There were no outside observations. There was light emitted from a source that remains at the center of the cube at all times (motionless in the cube frame), and there were receivers in the cube, mounted at the center of each wall, each of them the same exact distance from the source. Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took 1.38 seconds to reach the y receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame), and it took only .305 seconds for the light to return to the source from the x receiver (which is a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame). How do you explain the fact that a cube observer would have 3 different measurements of light in the same frame? There is no outside observer!


That is where you are wrong. You keep saying the test was conducted in the cube, but all the values you use for calculations is what an outside observer would measure. 

Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame)

NO IT DID NOT. As you are sitting in your chair looking at the diagram and making measurements from where YOU saw the light sphere originate, and where YOU see the light hit receiver Z you can measure a distance and a time and calculate the speed of the box. If you were inside the cube and you measured it you would NOT measure the same distance OR time. That is what is wrong with your diagram. That is what is wrong with your view point. You seem to think that if you can look at it from in front of your computer and measure, that the person INSIDE the cube moving RELATIVE to you will somehow have the same distance and time measurements. 

I don't like to resort to name calling but I think you may actually be retarded. Can anyone else chime in here? Am I explaining this correctly? Is it really that difficult to understand that if you were inside the cube actually taking measurements that you would get different values that someone that is watching the cube move relative to themselves? 

Not only is that not what happens according to relativity, we have actually conducted this EXACT experiment a number of times and we keep repeatedly showing you the results.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Clearly you are putting words in my mouth by saying the bold print. If I measured the road to have an absolute zero velocity, and I was driving along the road at 50 MPH, and I threw a ball at 50 MPH, the ball would float along side the car as we both traveled at the same rate , with a zero relative velocity between us. We each have a 50 MPH absolute velocity in the same direction.
> 
> However...If you claim to not be able to tell what speed the road is traveling in space, then all your measurements are not absolute velocities, they are relative motion, measured as closing speeds. Zero closing speed is zero relative motion. A closing speed of .75c means just that, that the distance is changing at the rate of .75c. That has no insight into the measure of each of the objects absolute velocities in space. So, back to the road example. You don't know the road's absolute velocity, and you know the relative velocity between you and the ball is zero, so why do you claim to throw the ball at 50 MPH when there is relative velocity of zero m/s between you and the ball. All your measurements are taken along the road, correct? Why would you use the road to measure your speed, and know you have a speed of 50 MPH, and then turn around and claim the ball has a 50 MPH relative velocity to you, as if you had a zero velocity?


No I am not. You seem to not even grasp classical physics. 

I will dumb it down and be even more specific since you are mentally challenged:

There is a train traveling north at 50 mph. I am standing on top of this train. Right as the train passed by you, I throw a baseball towards the front of the train (north) at 50mph.

How fast is the baseball traveling according to you?

EDIT: Also there is no air. We are on a hypothetical earth with no atmosphere so we can ignore the effects of air resistance.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> That is where you are wrong. You keep saying the test was conducted in the cube, but all the values you use for calculations is what an outside observer would measure.
> 
> Astonishingly, the light took .65 seconds to reach the z receiver (which is only a length of .5 light seconds in the cube frame)
> 
> NO IT DID NOT.


Yes it f'n did!!! You're so hung up on visual illusions you don't know the meaning of reality! A light transmitter emitted a sphere of light at t=0. The radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters when it reached the z receiver. Distance and time are bound together when speaking about the distance light travels in a duration of time BY F'N DEFINITION!!! If the radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters then it was t=.65 seconds! DEAL WITH IT!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

And a further thought experiment. Imagine there is an identical train traveling south on the same tracks. And instead of 50mph I am traveling at .99c. The other train is also traveling at .99c in the opposite direction. You observe us both traveling towards each other at 0.99c each, and you measure our closing velocity to 1.98c. 

What velocity do I calculate the south bound train moving at?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No I am not. You seem to not even grasp classical physics.
> 
> I will dumb it down and be even more specific since you are mentally challenged:
> 
> ...


50 MPH. You gave me the ball's velocity and your velocity as measured from the tracks. They are both traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks. Why would you use the tracks as your reference to speed, and use you as the ball's reference to speed?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes it f'n did!!! You're so hung up on visual illusions you don't know the meaning of reality! A light transmitter emitted a sphere of light at t=0. The radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters when it reached the z receiver. Distance and time are bound together when speaking about the distance light travels in a duration of time BY F'N DEFINITION!!! If the radius of the light sphere was 194,865,098 meters then it was t=.65 seconds! DEAL WITH IT!


There you go with the universal time again. You think an outside observer and the person inside the cube will both measure t=0.65s when light reaches the receiver. Reality tells us otherwise, deal with it.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> 50 MPH. You gave me the ball's velocity and your velocity as measured from the tracks. They are both traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks. Why would you use the tracks as your reference to speed, and use you as the ball's reference to speed?


so you are saying if I am traveling on top of a train that is going 50mph, and I pick up a baseball and throw it at 50mph towards the front of the train, that the ball will simply hover above the train traveling at the same speed?

and no i didnt. I gave you the trains speed relative to the ground. I have you the balls speed relative to the train. You are an idiot for not understanding what i meant.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> There you go with the universal time again. You think an outside observer and the person inside the cube will both measure t=0.65s when light reaches the receiver. Reality tells us otherwise, deal with it.


So how much time do you think elapsed in the cube frame for the light to reach the z receiver??


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> so you are saying if I am traveling on top of a train that is going 50mph, and I pick up a baseball and throw it at 50mph towards the front of the train, that the ball will simply hover above the train traveling at the same speed?


Correct. Maybe you wish to clarify your question a bit? Which best describes your idea of the situation:

A. The ball is traveling away from you at 50 MPH which means it is traveling along the tracks at 100 MPH.

B. The ball has no relative motion to you and is traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So how much time do you think elapsed in the cube frame for the light to reach the z receiver??


1/2 second. That is what you would measure if you were inside the cube. You ready to have your mind blown? because you would also measure t=1/2s to hit receiver x.

I know, I know, "but how can they both be t=.5s? that means it happened at the same time, when clearly my diagram shows it didn't! z happened first, then x!"

*sad trumpet*

wah wah wah

Thus the problem of relative simultaneity. Some outside the cube (sitting in your chair viewing the diagram in 2 dimensions) would indeed take all the measurements that are on your diagram. They would also conclude that z happened, and then x, which is in agreement with their measurements. 

INSIDE the cube however you will turn the light on, see a sphere emanate from the center as if you were stationary, and will measure z and x happening simultaneously at t=.5s


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Correct. Maybe you wish to clarify your question a bit? Which best describes your idea of the situation:
> 
> A. The ball is traveling away from you at 50 MPH which means it is traveling along the tracks at 100 MPH.
> 
> B. The ball has no relative motion to you and is traveling 50 MPH relative to the tracks.


bahahahahahaha.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> 1/2 second. That is what you would measure if you were inside the cube. You ready to have your mind blown? because you would also measure t=1/2s to hit receiver x.
> 
> I know, I know, "but how can they both be t=.5s? that means it happened at the same time, when clearly my diagram shows it didn't! z happened first, then x!"
> 
> ...


That is simply an impossibility! A center of a light sphere can't travel along with a source that emitted the light sphere. You fail to understand that a light sphere increases it's radius, but that the center of the light sphere is incapable of motion, because it is not an object, it is a point in space.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> That is simply an impossibility! A center of a light sphere can't travel along with a source that emitted the light sphere. You fail to understand that a light sphere increases it's radius, but that the center of the light sphere is incapable of motion, because it is not an object, it is a point in space.



Translation: I don't understand it so it must be wrong!

Again I want to point out the Michelson&#8211;Morley experiment. Should they have have gotten different results? I want to stress again just how fucking exactly similar the box diagram is to the real life measurement of the speed of light. Inside your box you think that you will measure different times for light to reach z and x, even though they are both the same distance when it is emitted. Experimentally it has been done to death and the results show that you are wrong.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Translation: I don't understand it so it must be wrong!


Wrong again, Bucko! When you can explain to me how a light sphere can expand its radius, and at the same time travel along with an object then I will accept that the speed of light is always measured to be c in every frame. Until then you are just blowing hot air. The light sphere is a geometrical fact. SR twists and distorts the truth which is not correct geometry, it's, how you say....illusions!.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> bahahahahahaha.


So which is it, Teach?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Wrong again, Bucko! When you can explain to me how a light sphere can expand its radius, and at the same time travel along with an object then I will accept that the speed of light is always measured to be c in every frame. Until then you are just blowing hot air. The light sphere is a geometrical fact. SR twists and distorts the truth which is not correct geometry, it's, how you say....illusions!.


What is your take on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I demonstrated my position very clearly in the diagram, which you evidently brushed off. Your inability to comprehend the concept doesn't change the fact that it is correct. Show me the SR equivalent of a light sphere, and a cube in motion. Until you do that I will conclude that SR is not capable of responding to the concept, because SR is only valid when talking about relative velocities, of which we are not talking about. I can add a person walking around inside the cube and create relative velocities too, and could also measure closing speeds between the receivers and the person in motion. I could give the person's absolute velocity in the preferred frame, as I could give the person's velocity in the cube frame. I am speaking about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY IN THE PREFERRED FRAME!!!!


So when called out about your song and dance, you respond with more song and dance. The MM experiments falsify your theory and you have no defense other than to double down on stubbornness. You are starting to sound like a child who thinks repeating his position louder and louder makes him more and more correct. You obviously have not reconciled the legacy of MM experiments with your views because you were ignorant of them. Either that, or you were disingenuous when suggesting the experiment could be flawed. Your recourse is to attack the very method you used for defense a few posts ago. You seem confused and biased.



> Yes, we build upon the knowledge of others, but is that knowledge always correct? Science has shown over and over again that what it once held true is no longer valid. "It's valid until it isn't" should be the motto for science. It's lived up to that motto since science began


You have now crossed over into special pleading. Science is too lame to accept your point, yet it's science you use to demonstrate it. Science makes room for new ideas even if they change old views; something you are not willing to do apparently. Science has not overlooked your theory, it's discounted it through rigorous testing. Science is willing to believe your are right, you have simply failed to provide convincing evidence. Where are the experiments which demonstrate your views in the real world? How would your theory falsify the experiments which rule it out? The MM experiments give any rational person the conviction they need to favor SR, you are unable to explain why they shouldn't other than to cast ambiguous doubt and to belittle science. This is not a defense of your position but an attack on opposition. You are not challenging any views, you are denying them.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So which is it, Teach?


It's obviously A. When I say that I throw a ball at x velocity it is implied that I mean x speed relative to my own. I am standing on a train not moving. If I throw a ball straight up in the air, it comes straight back down to me. You would see the ball go up, and also continue moving forward at 50 mph, then descending back down to me. If I throw the ball forward, then you will see the ball moving at the speed I throw it, plus the speed I am moving relative to you. If I face the back of the train and throw it 50mph (from my frame) then you will see the ball drop straight down.

My whole point with this example is that this stuff seems very elementary and intuitive. And this stuff is accurate for the speeds we are talking because at such low velocities relative to the speed of light the 1-(v/c)^2 term approaches 0. For very fast moving objects though this intuition is NOT true. Say I have a gun that shoots a bullet at 0.5c, and I am riding on a train that is going .9c according to your measurements. I fire my gun from the front of the train (in the same direction me/train is traveling). How fast do YOU see the bullet traveling?

Intuition tells you that it will be 0.5c + 0.9c = 1.4c because that works for baseballs and trains and cars and everything we experience in regular life. That is not the case though. You will measure the bullet going faster than 0.9c, but less than 1c. I will measure the bullet as traveling 0.5c away from me though.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> What is your take on this video?
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM


There were two light sphere's emitted. The point at which they meet is the half way point between the point of origin of each light sphere. The radius of the light spheres are the same when they meet. The radius of the light sphere is inseparable from the time of light travel, by definition. 

Since the man on the platform was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit him, that means he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since he had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit him at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and he is correct to state so. The train observer failed to acknowledge that the tracks are at an absolute zero velocity and the train was in relative motion to the tracks, which means the train has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the forward light sphere was less than the radius of the rearward light sphere when they impacted the train observer at the center position of the train at different times. So lesson to be learned here, don't make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' girl made a fool of herself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. She is living in a world of illusions because she doesn't know her absolute velocity and she is making judgements about simultaneity.


----------



## Doer (Sep 21, 2012)

You can't have zero velocity. You can only have relative, matched velocities. This is proven to the current Understanding and there is no way to rule it out. If you don't want to or can't get it, that's an entirely different matter, I guess.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> It's obviously A. When I say that I throw a ball at x velocity it is implied that I mean x speed relative to my own. I am standing on a train not moving. If I throw a ball straight up in the air, it comes straight back down to me. You would see the ball go up, and also continue moving forward at 50 mph, then descending back down to me. If I throw the ball forward, then you will see the ball moving at the speed I throw it, plus the speed I am moving relative to you. If I face the back of the train and throw it 50mph (from my frame) then you will see the ball drop straight down.
> 
> My whole point with this example is that this stuff seems very elementary and intuitive. And this stuff is accurate for the speeds we are talking because at such low velocities relative to the speed of light the 1-(v/c)^2 term approaches 0. For very fast moving objects though this intuition is NOT true. Say I have a gun that shoots a bullet at 0.5c, and I am riding on a train that is going .9c according to your measurements. I fire my gun from the front of the train (in the same direction me/train is traveling). How fast do YOU see the bullet traveling?
> 
> Intuition tells you that it will be 0.5c + 0.9c = 1.4c because that works for baseballs and trains and cars and everything we experience in regular life. That is not the case though. You will measure the bullet going faster than 0.9c, but less than 1c. I will measure the bullet as traveling 0.5c away from me though.


Then make it clear what your point is. You give a vague description as to obscure your true meaning and try to sway people into a train of thought, and then you switch the concept with later clarification. The only real problem is that you didn't explain your position well enough and created confusion.

So what is your point then? The ball is traveling 100 MPH along the tracks and you are traveling 50 MPH along the tracks. That means before you threw the ball the ball was traveling 50 MPH along the tracks and you were traveling 50 MPG along the tracks. You accelerated the ball's initial velocity from 50 MPH to 100 MPH when you threw the ball. What is your point, now that I have made you clarify your statement so as to be no confusion?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> There were two light sphere's emitted. The point at which they meet is the half way point between the point of origin of each light sphere. The radius of the light spheres are the same when they meet. The radius of the light sphere is inseparable from the time of light travel, by definition.
> 
> Since the man on the platform was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit him, that means he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since he had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit him at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and he is correct to state so. The train observer failed to acknowledge that the tracks are at an absolute zero velocity and the train was in relative motion to the tracks, which means the train has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the forward light sphere was less than the radius of the rearward light sphere when they impacted the train observer at the center position of the train. So lesson to be learned here, don;t make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' girl made a fool of herself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. She is living in a world of illusions because she doesn't know here absolute velocity and she is making judgements about simultaneity.


Wait a minute there professor. Slow your roll. 

Since he had a zero velocity in space

wait, how do you know he had zero velocity? The video just said he was standing on a platform. How do you know the train is not at zero velocity and the earth and tracks and platform are traveling?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Wait a minute there professor. Slow your roll.
> 
> Since he had a zero velocity in space
> 
> wait, how do you know he had zero velocity? The video just said he was standing on a platform. How do you know the train is not at zero velocity and the earth and tracks and platform are traveling?


Because he was at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred, and the lights hit him at the same time. That means light traveled the same distance to get to him, which means light traveled the same time to get to him, and since the lights hit him simultaneously that means the strikes occurred simultaneously. The only possible way that the embankment observer could have been equal distance from where the strikes occurred, the light traveling the same distance to reach him, and the light hit him at the same time, is that he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Each light sphere had the same radius when they hit him simultaneously.

This is simply Chapter 9 which I mentioned much earlier in this thread. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Lets flip it and go from her perspective. A woman is sitting in the middle of a train. The ground (including the tracks and platform) appear to be moving at some velocity. Right as she moves past the observer on the platform she sees simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and rear of the train. She is equal distance from both strikes, and saw them both at the same time, therefore she concludes they were simultaneous.

She predicts her friend on the platform will have a different view. Since the strikes happened simultaneously, and equal distance from him, he will continue to travel along with the ground and the tracks, all getting pulled toward the rear of the train. Therefore he will be pulled toward the rear strike and away from the front strike. Therefore he will see the rear strike before the front strike. 

*Since the woman on the train was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit her, that means she had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since she had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit her at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and she is correct to state so. The platform observer failed to acknowledge that the train ise at an absolute zero velocity and the tracks/ground/platform was in relative motion to the train, which means the tracks/ground/platform has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the rear light sphere was less than the radius of the front light sphere when they impacted the platform observer at the center position of the platform. So lesson to be learned here, don;t make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' man made a fool of himself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. He is living in a world of illusions because he doesn't know his absolute velocity and he is making judgements about simultaneity.*


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)




----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Lets flip it and go from her perspective. A woman is sitting in the middle of a train. The ground (including the tracks and platform) appear to be moving at some velocity. Right as she moves past the observer on the platform she sees simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and rear of the train. She is equal distance from both strikes, and saw them both at the same time, therefore she concludes they were simultaneous.
> 
> She predicts her friend on the platform will have a different view. Since the strikes happened simultaneously, and equal distance from him, he will continue to travel along with the ground and the tracks, all getting pulled toward the rear of the train. Therefore he will be pulled toward the rear strike and away from the front strike. Therefore he will see the rear strike before the front strike.
> 
> *Since the woman on the train was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit her, that means she had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since she had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit her at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and she is correct to state so. The platform observer failed to acknowledge that the train ise at an absolute zero velocity and the tracks/ground/platform was in relative motion to the train, which means the tracks/ground/platform has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the rear light sphere was less than the radius of the front light sphere when they impacted the platform observer at the center position of the platform. So lesson to be learned here, don;t make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' man made a fool of himself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. He is living in a world of illusions because he doesn't know his absolute velocity and he is making judgements about simultaneity.*


You didn't use the same scenario from her perspective you created a different scenario. In the original scenario the woman on the train was struck by the lights at different times. That is reality. She was not struck by the light simultaneously in the original scenario, so it wasn't a change of perspective you illustrated in the "flip," it was a entirely different scenario.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You didn't use the same scenario from her perspective you created a different scenario. In the original scenario the woman on the train was struck by the lights at different times. That is reality. She was not struck by the light simultaneously in the original scenario, so it wasn't a change of perspective you illustrated in the "flip," it was a entirely different scenario.


Yes, the youtube video already showed both POV for the scenario. I presented an entirely different scenario. Who is correct in the second scenario? Did the lighting strikes indeed occur simultaneously? She thinks they did, he thinks they didn't.

EDIT: To clarify what I meant by "*Lets flip it and go from her perspective*" Is I meant let's pretend we are her, sitting in a train, and we see simultaneous lighting strikes.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yes, the youtube video already showed both POV for the scenario. I presented an entirely different scenario. Who is correct in the second scenario? Did the lighting strikes indeed occur simultaneously? She thinks they did, he thinks they didn't.
> 
> EDIT: To clarify what I meant by "*Lets flip it and go from her perspective*" Is I meant let's pretend we are her, sitting in a train, and we see simultaneous lighting strikes.


Good, so you understand your mistake. Now do you understand that in the second scenario it is the woman on the train that has the absolute zero velocity and is correct about the simultaneity of the strikes, and the platform observer is clueless as to the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of the strikes? So what you have learned is that it is utterly foolish to make assumptions about the simultaneity of events unless you first know your absolute velocity, because a light sphere is a clock, for all intent and purposes. Furthermore, you've also learned that the relativity of simultaneity is complete nonsense, that it only exists in the mind of people that don't have a clue as to their absolute velocities and make incorrect statements about simultaneity or lack thereof.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Ok so lets go with a third scenario. It combines both of these scenarios. We will call them scenario A (youtube vid) and scenario B (my example). 

The train passenger does not know if she is moving, or if the ground is moving. She doesn't know and cannot tell. It appears that the ground is moving past her.

The observer on the platform does not know if he is moving, or if the train is moving. He cannot tell. It appears to him that the train is moving past him though.

I have not made any definite statements about any velocity other than each observer thinks they are at absolute rest.

Train passes observer on platform and scenario A happens. Man on the platform thinks strikes are simultaneous. Woman in train thinks they were not simultaneous.

At this point the platform observer runs faster than the train and stops at the next platform.

Train passes observer on platform and scenario B happens. The woman thinks THESE strikes are simultaneous, and the man thinks they were not.

Which strikes were in fact simultaneous? The first set? or second? Who has the zero velocity reference frame, and why?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Ok so lets go with a third scenario. It combines both of these scenarios. We will call them scenario A (youtube vid) and scenario B (my example).
> 
> The train passenger does not know if she is moving, or if the ground is moving. She doesn't know and cannot tell. It appears that the ground is moving past her.
> 
> ...


In scenario A the embankment observer was at an absolute zero velocity. He is correct to state that the strikes occurred simultaneously. After the strikes hit him simultaneously he runs to the next platform and gets there before the train. When he started to run he accelerated to a velocity greater than zero, and when he stopped at the next station he decelerated back to a zero velocity. He is once again at an absolute zero velocity. In scenario B the woman is struck by the light simultaneously and the man is not. The man is at an absolute zero velocity, and he is at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred. He knows the radius of each light sphere when it hits him. When the first one hits him he knows the time the strike originally occurred due to the radius acting as a clock. He then gets struck by the other light sphere a duration of time later, which also had the same radius as the first one. So he does a little simple math and KNOWS that the strikes occurred at different times, and he knows how far light traveled for each strike to reach him, and he knows the duration of time in between strikes. He has it all figured out, because he knew his absolute velocity. The woman, however, still not knowing her own velocity still has no business making statements as to the simultaneity or lack thereof of the strikes. Even though the lights hit her at the same time on the train, she still does not know if the strikes occurred simultaneously and she had a zero velocity, or if she had a velocity and the strikes occurred at different times. We know the truth, that the embankment is at a zero velocity and the train is in relative motion to the embankment, so the train must posses a velocity greater than zero. Since the train posses that velocity, and the woman was struck by the lights simultaneously, then for certain the strikes did NOT occur simultaneously, and the embankment observer is correct once again.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> In scenario A the embankment observer was at an absolute zero velocity.


Wait, how do you know this? I've already asked you once. This was your reply:



Seedling said:


> Because he was at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred, and the lights hit him at the same time. That means light traveled the same distance to get to him, which means light traveled the same time to get to him, and since the lights hit him simultaneously that means the strikes occurred simultaneously. The only possible way that the embankment observer could have been equal distance from where the strikes occurred, the light traveling the same distance to reach him, and the light hit him at the same time, is that he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Each light sphere had the same radius when they hit him simultaneously.
> 
> This is simply Chapter 9 which I mentioned much earlier in this thread. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html


Now can the women on the train not make the exact same argument? 

In scenario B (the second set of strikes)
She is midway between the front and back of the train. She observes simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and back. She is equal distance from both front and back, so she concludes that SHE is the one at absolute rest. She never accelerated or decelerated, therefore she has always been at absolute rest.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seriously, go back and reread chapter 9. You do not understand what it is saying.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Seriously, go back and reread chapter 9. You do not understand what it is saying.


In chapter 9 there is only one point in time that the marks align and the strikes occur. It is 100% correct to say that it is impossible for 2 strikes to occur at different times if they both occurred when the marks where aligned. Einstein himself set up the scenario with the tracks having an absolute zero velocity, and he didn't seem to realize it, or he did realize it and tried to pass it off as legit, take your pick.

Pic from Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Go read it again, you still don't comprehend it. Only the guy on the platform agrees that all the marks were lined up and lighting struck all at the same time. The person on the train sees it differently. 

Going with the nomenclature of chapter 9, lets say on the embankment the strikes occur at A and B. The man is standing in the middle at point M. The train we will say the strikes occur at A' and B', and the center of the train where the lady is is M'.

According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when A' passes A.

According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when B' passes B.

The man thinks both of these events happened simultaneously. That is what he sees. He sees M' passing him, and he sees both strikes of lighiting. He knows A->M = M->B, and c is constant, therefore both strikes must have occurred simultaneously.

The lady in the train thinks they were sequential. That is what she sees. She shes a strike at the the front when A' passes A, then a strike at the back when B' passes B. She knows A'->M' = M'->B', and c is constant, therefore one strikes must have occurred first.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Wait, how do you know this? I've already asked you once. This was your reply:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the radius of the light spheres were the same when they impacted her simultaneously at the midpoint then the time of light travel was the same, and the distances were the same, so yes, she would be at an absolute zero velocity. If she was in relative motion to the tracks then the tracks would have a velocity greater than zero. That is not the situation though, I explained that the tracks were at a zero velocity in the first scenario, and you said he ran down to the next platform and stood there (presumably at the midpoint.) That would put him at a zero velocity, and if the strikes impacted him at different times then the strikes occurred at different times. That means that the train lady is wrong to say that she was midpoint of the points of origin of the spheres when the lights impacted her.


----------



## Doer (Sep 21, 2012)

You mean zero relative velocity, don't you? But, only relative.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Go read it again, you still don't comprehend it. Only the guy on the platform agrees that all the marks were lined up and lighting struck all at the same time. The person on the train sees it differently.
> 
> Going with the nomenclature of chapter 9, lets say on the embankment the strikes occur at A and B. The man is standing in the middle at point M. The train we will say the strikes occur at A' and B', and the center of the train where the lady is is M'.
> 
> ...


Basically this is what you are saying:

You are standing at the 50 yard line of a football field. Two footballs, one from opposite directions hit you at the same time. You don't know how far the footballs traveled to reach you and you don't know how much time they were in flight, you simply know that two footballs hit you from opposite directions at the same time. 

So, being smart as hell as you are, you make a declaration that the footballs were thrown at the same time because they hit you at the same time. WTF???


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If the radius of the light spheres were the same when they impacted her simultaneously at the midpoint then the time of light travel was the same, and the distances were the same, so yes, she would be at an absolute zero velocity. If she was in relative motion to the tracks then the tracks would have a velocity greater than zero. That is not the situation though, I explained that the tracks were at a zero velocity in the first scenario, and you said he ran down to the next platform and stood there (presumably at the midpoint.) That would put him at a zero velocity, and if the strikes impacted him at different times then the strikes occurred at different times. That means that the train lady is wrong to say that she was midpoint of the points of origin of the spheres when the lights impacted her.


How was she wrong? She is in the middle of the train. One sphere had its origin at the front of the train, and one at the back, both equal distance from her. The light from both strikes got to her simultaneously. She saw it with her own eyes. What exactly is wrong? Did she measure the train wrong?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> How was she wrong? She is in the middle of the train. One sphere had its origin at the front of the train, and one at the back, both equal distance from her. The light from both strikes got to her simultaneously. She saw it with her own eyes. What exactly is wrong? Did she measure the train wrong?


The points of origin of the light spheres do not share the motion of the train. The points of origin are incapable of motion. They are a point in space. Just because the lady is sitting midpoint in the train doesn't mean she remains midpoint of the points of origin of the light spheres. The train can travel in the preferred frame relative to those points, which means the lady shares the train's velocity if she remains seated in the train.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Basically this is what you are saying:
> 
> You are standing at the 50 yard line of a football field. Two footballs, one from opposite directions hit you at the same time. You don't know how far the footballs traveled to reach you and you don't know how much time they were in flight, you simply know that two footballs hit you from opposite directions at the same time.
> 
> So, being smart as hell as you are, you make a declaration that the footballs were thrown at the same time because they hit you at the same time. WTF???



1. The footballs had the same velocity, c.
2. They hit me at the same time.
3. I saw where each ball was thrown from (this is the lightning strike).

I use the constant velocity and measured distance to determine flight time of each ball. They both have equal flight times. The flight times ended simultaneously (by hitting me). Therefore they must have been thrown simultaneously.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The points of origin of the light spheres do not share the motion of the train. The points of origin are incapable of motion. They are a point in space. Just because the lady is sitting midpoint in the train doesn't mean she remains midpoint of the points of origin of the light spheres. The train can travel in the preferred frame relative to those points, which means the lady shares the train's velocity if she remains seated in the train.


Depends on your point of view. From inside the train, yes they do. That is what I keep trying to tell you. 

Say you are in a train, and you speed up to 299, 792,457 m/s relative to the tracks. You walk to the back of the train and turn a light bulb on. According to you the train is racing away from the light, so when the light is turned on the light will only propagate towards the front of the train at 1 m/s. Is this what you actually think?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

And another thought experiment. Say you are standing on the platform and see a train race by at 200,000,000 m/s. The track next to it has a train going the opposite direction at 200,000,000 m/s. Both trains flash a laser toward the other train immediately after passing. Does train ever see the light from the other trains laser?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> 1. The footballs had the same velocity, c.
> 2. They hit me at the same time.
> 3. I saw where each ball was thrown from (this is the lightning strike).
> 
> I use the constant velocity and measured distance to determine flight time of each ball. They both have equal flight times. The flight times ended simultaneously (by hitting me). Therefore they must have been thrown simultaneously.


If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Depends on your point of view. From inside the train, yes they do. That is what I keep trying to tell you.
> 
> Say you are in a train, and you speed up to 299, 792,457 m/s relative to the tracks. You walk to the back of the train and turn a light bulb on. According to you the train is racing away from the light, so when the light is turned on the light will only propagate towards the front of the train at 1 m/s. Is this what you actually think?


And what is the track's absolute velocity? If I laid a meter stick on the tracks and measured the one-way time of light travel in each direction would the times be the same?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?


She does. The speed of light is constant. She measured the distance from herself to the front and the back. She used those 2 pieces of information to calculate the time. This is EXACTLY what the person on the platform does, absolutely no different. If it's valid for him to calculate the time that way, it is also valid for her to calculate the time that way. After all, how do you know who is actually at rest?

The man claims to be at rest because he measured distance, knows the velocity of light, and calculated the time for each of the strikes in the first scenario, and concluded they were the same, therefore simultaneous.

The woman claims to be at rest because she measured the distance, knows the velocity of light, and calculated the time for each of the strikes in the second scenario, and concluded they were the same, therefore simultaneous.

Now who is right? On the one hand you can say the man must be at rest because of his simultaneous measurement of scenario A. Therefore he must clearly be at rest and it is the train that is moving.

On the other hand you can say the woman must be at rest because of her simultaneous measurement of scenario B. Therefore she must clearly be at rest and it is the tracks/earth/platform that is moving.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> And another thought experiment. Say you are standing on the platform and see a train race by at 200,000,000 m/s. The track next to it has a train going the opposite direction at 200,000,000 m/s. Both trains flash a laser toward the other train immediately after passing. Does train ever see the light from the other trains laser?



Yes the trains do see the lights from the other train (assuming the tracks to be at a zero velocity), because the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s along the tracks, and the trains are traveling in opposite directions at 200,000,000 m/s. The speed of the trains is not a factor in the speed of light along the tracks. Since the train is moving slower along the tracks than the light is, the light will eventually catch the train.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes the trains do see the lights from the other train (assuming the tracks to be at a zero velocity), because the speed of light is 299,792,458 along the tracks, and the trains are traveling in opposite directions at 200,000,000 m/s. The speed of the trains is not a factor in the speed of light along the tracks. Since the train is moving slower along the tracks than the light is, the light will eventually catch the train.


You are right for the wrong reasons. the speed of light is indeed 299,792,458 along the tracks. If you measured the speed of the laser that eventually catches you you would also measure it as 299,792,458. You would conclude, "AHA I must be at rest, it is the ground that is moving at 200,000,000 m/s! The light is traveling light speed and I am at rest!"

The guy in the other train would conclude the exact same thing. You can't both be right.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If the lady on the train knew the flight time of light then she would know that when the lights impacted her at different times in the first scenario that the strikes occurred simultaneously and had different light travel times. So what ground would she have to stand on if she knew the flight times were different?


She disagrees. One strike happened at the front of the train. She saw the strike hit the damn nose of the train. There is absolutely no question that the strike occurred at the front of the train, nor is there any question about the distance between her and the nose of the train. She also saw the strike hit the back of the train, and knows the distance. She calculates the same flight time for each pulse of light. But the strikes do no happen simultaneously. First one happens, then the other happens.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> And what is the track's absolute velocity? If I laid a meter stick on the tracks and measured the one-way time of light travel in each direction would the times be the same?


YES. It will ALWAYS be the same. It CANNOT EVER differ.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> YES. It will ALWAYS be the same. It CANNOT EVER differ.


Yes it can differ, I showed you how in my diagram.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Yes it can differ, I showed you how in my diagram.


Your diagram disagrees with every real world experiment ever performed. How do you explain that?


----------



## marc88101 (Sep 21, 2012)

I had a big bang last night! I banged my chicks anal cavity.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

I am done. I refuse to participate any longer until you explain how The _Michelson_&#8211;_Morley_ experiment managed to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions while rotating. They have real world data to back up their claim. How do you refute their data?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 21, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I am done. I refuse to participate any longer until you explain how The _Michelson_&#8211;_Morley_ experiment managed to measure the speed of light to be the same in all directions while rotating. They have real world data to back up their claim. How do you refute their data?


Guy, you are dealing with a combination of a complete faith in the intuition of classical mechanics and stubbornness unto intransigence. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 21, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Guy, you are dealing with a combination of a complete faith in the intuition of classical mechanics and stubbornness unto intransigence. cn


I know which is why I gave up. We have provided ample evidence for the way things really work. At this point he is refusing to acknowledge valid data in front of him.


----------



## dvs1038 (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Hmm, seedling seems to be evading this discussion. Wasn't that the term he used when he accused Doer of not answering his questions? Ironic isn't it.
> Maybe he now understands the futility of his argument and is too arrogant to admit he's wrong. Of course, there's always the possibility that he's such an idiot that he still thinks he's right and Galileo and all of the scientists since are wrong. Maybe he's right and we have another Nobel Prize winner in our midst. Amazing how many of them are on RIU.


Ya wanna know what else is ironic. The guy who founded the Nobel Peace Prize also invented TNT.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 22, 2012)

Awesome thread, gentlemen! For the last couple of days, I couldn't wait to get to my pc and read the latest posts. Great as usual, MP, but my hat goes off to guy for patience, humor and clarity. You are a front runner for this year's Anne Sullivan award


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> You are right for the wrong reasons. the speed of light is indeed 299,792,458 along the tracks. If you measured the speed of the laser that eventually catches you you would also measure it as 299,792,458. You would conclude, "AHA I must be at rest, it is the ground that is moving at 200,000,000 m/s! The light is traveling light speed and I am at rest!"
> 
> The guy in the other train would conclude the exact same thing. You can't both be right.


Look, I don't know how to say this any other way to get my point across. If you actually measured the speed of light, then why would you expect to get any other reading besides 299,792,458 m/s? I mean, if you ACTUALLY measured the SPEED OF LIGHT, and light always travels at c, then how is it possible for you to measure something different than c? If you do get a different result then you are NOT measuring the speed of light, you are measuring closing speed. It's like saying you are traveling down the highway in a car at a constant 60 MPH. Some other car on the highway wants to measure *your speed* (*not the closing speed* between you and the other car). If that car actually measured *your speed* they would have measured 60 MPH, regardless of their speed on the highway, or *regardless of the relative motion between you two*. If they were traveling 60 MPH towards you and they took a measurement claiming to be your speed, and their results were 120 MPH, then what they did is not measure your speed, they measured the closing speed. 

So why are you so surprised when you get the same results measuring the speed of light regardless in which direction you take that measurement, and regardless of your motion??? Basically what you are saying is that you are surprised to get the same results when measuring the car's speed on the highway. You are measuring the car's speed and not the closing speed, right?

Saying you are measuring the speed of light is comparable to saying you are measuring the expansion of the radius of the light sphere in my diagram. The radius of the light sphere ALWAYS increases its length by 299,792,459 m/s, creating the preferred frame. Taking a time measurement from the source in my diagram to the z receiver is measuring a closing speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere. Since the point is incapable of motion when you measure a closing speed from that point you know all the components of the closing speed is the z receiver in motion, because *it is impossible for the point to posses any component of that speed.* From there I used the Pythagoras theorem to create the equation to know when and where the light sphere hits the receivers. The equation does not lie, and for you to say that it can be any other way is to say that the Pythagoras Theorem is incorrect.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> She disagrees. One strike happened at the front of the train. She saw the strike hit the damn nose of the train. There is absolutely no question that the strike occurred at the front of the train, nor is there any question about the distance between her and the nose of the train. She also saw the strike hit the back of the train, and knows the distance. She calculates the same flight time for each pulse of light. But the strikes do no happen simultaneously. First one happens, then the other happens.


She did not see the strike hit the nose, the only thing she knows is that the clock stops when the photon from that direction hits her. She doesn't see anything, as when the photon impacts her the measurement is complete. ...and here's the kicker, the clock stops when the photon hits her, but she has no clue as to when the clock started (when the strike occurred), so she has no way of knowing the time of light travel.

There is no question that she remains at the midpoint of the train, that is correct. The question is not of at what point she remains on the train, the question is what point does the train remain in the frame of the light sphere. The train moves relative to the light sphere. The point of the nose of the train is at the point of origin of the light sphere when the strike occurred. The question is whether the points remain together. If the points do not remain together then the train moved, as it is impossible for the point of origin of the light sphere to move. If the train moves then the lady also moves, as she was at rest in the train frame.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 22, 2012)

There is no absolute zero velocity.

Everything is always moving, in reference to something else. 


At the point of the big bang, the singularity must have been motionless because space didn't exist for it to move around in. Perhaps that's the one point in existence we could call 'stationary', but we have no reference as to where that point exists now because of the expansion of the universe. Any reference point you select now, is flying through space at an inconceivable speed.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Look, I don't know how to say this any other way to get my point across. If you actually measured the speed of light, then why would you expect to get any other reading besides 299,792,458 m/s? I mean, if you ACTUALLY measured the SPEED OF LIGHT, and light always travels at c, then how is it possible for you to measure something different than c?


Here you go again with your equivocation and lack of detail. 
If you want to measure the speed of light, you measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance. However, according to YOU, if you and the light source are in motion, you won't get a real result because you and the light source are moving with respect to the point in space where the light sphere began and thus you will not be measuring the actual speed of light but the apparent velocity, depending on if you are moving toward or away from the actual point where the light began it's journey. 
Yet you keep ignoring the fact that we are constantly in motion and it has nothing to do with measuring the speed of anything else but the earth's rotation and orbit are not going to stop just so you can get an accurate measurement, yet the light is not connected to the earth in any way, making it impossible for you or anyone on earth to get a real measurement for light. You tell me that you cannot discount motion relative to the light sphere yet you are constantly doing so with every example you give. You cannot keep ignoring the fact that everyone that measures light speed have done so in a non-zero velocity frame but continue to get constant results. This is actually a test of your hypothesis and it continues to support the null hypothesis. 


> If you do get a different result then you are NOT measuring the speed of light, you are measuring closing speed. It's like saying you are traveling down the highway in a car at a constant 60 MPH.


60mph relative to the earth. 


> Some other car on the highway wants to measure *your speed* (*not the closing speed* between you and the other car). If that car actually measured *your speed* they would have measured 60 MPH,


My speed is 60mph with respect to the earth. With respect to you or the sun or Jupiter or Andromeda, you will get different results because you cannot define motion as absolute, it is ALWAYS relative. Do you disagree that a car moving west at 60mph relative to the earth can actually appear to be traveling east relative to a satellite sitting in position between the earth and the sun? 


> regardless of their speed on the highway, or *regardless of the relative motion between you two*. If they were traveling 60 MPH towards you and they took a measurement claiming to be your speed, and their results were 120 MPH, then what they did is not measure your speed, they measured the closing speed.


They are measuring relative speed, with respect to the frame they are in.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Saying you are measuring the speed of light is comparable to saying you are measuring the expansion of the radius of the light sphere in my diagram. The radius of the light sphere ALWAYS increases its length by 299,792,459 m/s, creating the preferred frame.


The light sphere relative to what? Earth? In every experiment ever done, the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of where the measurement is done from. If your light sphere was created by a flash of lightning right next to you, a split second later both you and the spot in space where the lightning struck has already moved. You keep claiming a preferred frame but that frame's speed is always relative to something. If you are standing still, then you measure it relative to the earth itself. You cannot deny that the earth is actually in motion though so there is still no absolute resting frame. 



> Taking a time measurement from the source in my diagram to the z receiver is measuring a closing speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere. Since the point is incapable of motion when you measure a closing speed from that point you know all the components of the closing speed is the z receiver in motion, because *it is impossible for the point to posses any component of that speed.* From there I used the Pythagoras theorem to create the equation to know when and where the light sphere hits the receivers. The equation does not lie, and for you to say that it can be any other way is to say that the Pythagoras Theorem is incorrect.


The point is incapable of moving, yet the earth still moves underneath any point that the light was emitted. Therefore, according to your hypothesis, no measurement of light taken on earth is capable of giving the correct answer, yet it always the same, regardless of where it is measured, whether stationary on earth, the moon, in a plane, train, or rocket ship. When we shoot a laser at the moon to measure it's distance, you do realize that the moon is in motion relative to the earth and the point from which the laser began has moved relative to it's original point in space as the earth rotates beneath it and the orbit adds another speed vector in a different direction making for complex, impossible calculations using your hypothesis. Good thing that light remains constant regardless of what frame it is measured from, as long as there is no acceleration.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> If you want to measure the speed of light, you measure how long it takes to travel a certain distance.


If you want to measure the speed of light then you need to measure the radius of the light sphere, period!



mindphuk said:


> However, according to YOU, if you and the light source are in motion, you won't get a real result because you and the light source are moving with respect to the point in space where the light sphere began and thus you will not be measuring the actual speed of light but the apparent velocity, depending on if you are moving toward or away from the actual point where the light began it's journey.


Correct, I will take that closing speed measurement and use it to determine the real speed of light. I am measuring my velocity in space in the preferred frame when I take that closing speed measurement, because the point of reference I use to take that measurement (the point of origin of the light sphere) plays no role in any part of that closing speed, so I know it's all me! 




mindphuk said:


> 60mph relative to the earth.
> My speed is 60mph with respect to the earth. With respect to you or the sun or Jupiter or Andromeda, you will get different results because you cannot define motion as absolute, it is ALWAYS relative. Do you disagree that a car moving west at 60mph relative to the earth can actually appear to be traveling east relative to a satellite sitting in position between the earth and the sun?
> 
> They are measuring relative speed, with respect to the frame they are in.


All you are saying is that the closing speed of the two vehicles will vary depending in what frame you take those measurements from. For the last time, you are not measuring the closing speed between you and me, you are measuring my speed compared to the road. You are measuring my speed, not our relative speed.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> The light sphere relative to what? Earth? In every experiment ever done, the speed of light is measured to be the same regardless of where the measurement is done from. If your light sphere was created by a flash of lightning right next to you, a split second later both you and the spot in space where the lightning struck has already moved. You keep claiming a preferred frame but that frame's speed is always relative to something. If you are standing still, then you measure it relative to the earth itself. You cannot deny that the earth is actually in motion though so there is still no absolute resting frame.



Let me get this straight. I am standing 10 feet away from a tree. Lightening strikes the tree. The earth (and the tree and I) moves after the lightening strike occurs. The tree was at the center of the light sphere at t=0. The earth and tree moved after t=0. Are you saying that as the tree moves that so too does the center of the light sphere? Effectively what you are saying when you say that is that as the tree moves the light sphere travels along with it, to ensure that the light sphere's radius is increasing at the same rate in every direction from that tree. Get real my friend, when the earth and tree travel in space, that has absolutely no bearing on the expanding wavefront of the light sphere in space. The wave front expands in every direction at the same rate away from the point it was emitted, whether the tree is still at that point after the strike occurred or not!!! Ever heard of the Doppler effect? How exactly do you think Doppler occurs if the source always remains at the center of the light sphere?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

Me to you: Measure my speed.

You to me: OK, we have a relative speed of 120 MPH

Me to you: No, I mean tell me my speed, not our relative speed.

You to me: You don't have a speed, only we have a speed.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If you want to measure the speed of light then you need to measure the radius of the light sphere, period!


And again, and again, I keep asking you how you think you can accomplish such a thing without knowing the summation of all of the velocities that take you away from that point in space where the light began. If the point is not stationary relative to earth, which it cannot be, since light doesn't need a medium to travel through, then how do you even know what direction you are moving and how fast? 



> Correct, I will take that closing speed measurement and use it to determine the real speed of light. I am measuring my velocity in space in the preferred frame when I take that closing speed measurement, because the point of reference I use to take that measurement (the point of origin of the light sphere) plays no role in any part of that closing speed, so I know it's all me!


Give an example, you are not being clear. Closing speed relative to what? If you say the closing speed relative to the point in space where the light was emitted, I contend that is an impossible task as no one knows how fast we are moving through space and what direction. The summation of all of the vectors that we are even aware of makes the situation you describe extremely complicated, not to mention the vectors we are not aware of. 


> All you are saying is that the closing speed of the two vehicles will vary depending in what frame you take those measurements from.


I am saying that all speed is relative to where you take the measurement from. The speed of the two cars relative to each other, i.e. the closing speed of the cars, is simple. The speed of the cars relative to something else 


> For the last time, you are not measuring the closing speed between you and me, you are measuring my speed compared to the road. You are measuring my speed, not our relative speed.


For the last time, you just explained how to measure speed relative to the road, i.e. the earth. This does not however tell you anything about your absolute speed through space. You keep arguing about absolute speed and an absolute zero velocity yet every time it is always relative to something, not absolute. Yet in spite of the fact that every frame is in motion relative to SOMETHING, we ALWAYS measure the speed of light exactly the same, in every single reference frame, without exception. How does this fact not contradict everything you are trying to claim. 

If I do not feel that I am in motion, i.e. a non-accelerating, non-gravitational, inertial frame, then there are absolutely no forces acting on me. This by definition is a resting frame yet I can be zooming through space relative to the earth and zooming in a completely opposite direction relative to Saturn. I feel at rest, so I assume that it is Saturn moving in one direction, while the earth is moving in another. An observer on earth who thinks he's at reast sees me moving through space but I see him moving through space while I'm at rest. Neither POV is wrong. I'm moving relative to earth but we both measure the speed of light from the sun to reach us exactly the same.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> And again, and again, I keep asking you how you think you can accomplish such a thing without knowing the summation of all of the velocities that take you away from that point in space where the light began. If the point is not stationary relative to earth, which it cannot be, since light doesn't need a medium to travel through, then how do you even know what direction you are moving and how fast?
> 
> Give an example, you are not being clear. Closing speed relative to what? If you say the closing speed relative to the point in space where the light was emitted, I contend that is an impossible task as no one knows how fast we are moving through space and what direction. The summation of all of the vectors that we are even aware of makes the situation you describe extremely complicated, not to mention the vectors we are not aware of.
> I am saying that all speed is relative to where you take the measurement from. The speed of the two cars relative to each other, i.e. the closing speed of the cars, is simple. The speed of the cars relative to something else
> ...


Did you even bother to look at my diagram? It clearly explains the concept. Do you see a light sphere? Do you see the source? Do you see that the source is no longer at the center of the light sphere after it emitted light? Are you denying that is accurate?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

Apparently you are wrong, the source (red dot) doesn't stay at the center of the light sphere, as depicted by this Doppler scene. Do you notice the lengths of the red lines are different? What's that all about?? (rolls eyes)


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Did you even bother to look at my diagram? It clearly explains the concept. Do you see a light sphere? Do you see the source? Do you see that the source is no longer at the center of the light sphere after it emitted light? Are you denying that is accurate?


Your diagram is wrong and we have explained why. From an observer inside the box, whether it is a train or rocket or merely a laboratory that is stationary on a moving earth, if a light in the center of the box is illuminated, the receivers at Z and X will see the light hit all sides of the box simultaneously. This is confirmed by experiment after experiment and is in essence the same as the M-M test. How do you not understand this? If you were correct, then every measurement on earth in a square room would get different times at Z and X as you claim but that never happens, therefore your claim is falsified... AGAIN.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Me to you: Measure my speed.
> 
> You to me: OK, we have a relative speed of 120 MPH


Yes, your speed is 120mpg relative to my frame. 


> Me to you: No, I mean tell me my speed, not our relative speed.


Your speed relative to earth is 60mph. 



> You to me: You don't have a speed, only we have a speed.


Your speed relative to the moon is 132,000mph. Your speed relative to the black hole at the center of the galaxy is, 52,493,093 mph (sure I made up the number but the point is still valid)



>


For not being able to understand speed is only meaningful when discussed relative to something, and that every speed I just mentioned is valid, I agree you should bang your head until it sinks in.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> For not being able to understand speed is only meaningful when discussed relative to something, I agree you should bang your head until it sinks in.


You telling me our relative speed is 120 MPH when I don't know your speed or my speed is the very definition of meaningless.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> View attachment 2344823View attachment 2344824
> 
> Apparently you are wrong, the source (red dot) doesn't stay at the center of the light sphere, as depicted by this Doppler scene. Do you notice the lengths of the red lines are different? What's that all about?? (rolls eyes)


The speed relative to somewhere will give us a Doppler effect. Our own sun will red shift when viewed from another galaxy but from our FoR traveling with the sun, there is no Doppler effect because the source is not moving away from us at great speeds. So we only see a Doppler effect when viewed from a FoR that has relative speed toward or away from us


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You telling me our relative speed is 120 MPH when I don't know your speed or my speed is the very definition of meaningless.


How is it meaningless, it gives me an exact figure that I can do calculations on? What's meaningless is assuming anyone is moving when not specifying what FoR you are discussing.

If I'm traveling at 20mph and you are traveling toward me at 100ph all relative to the road, everything will look identical as if I was traveling 60mph and you were traveling 60mph and the earth suddenly vanished. Without the road for a reference point, the only thing we can say is our relative speed (closing speed as you like to says) is 120mph, our individual speeds relative to a road that is no longer there is what is meaningless.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> How is it meaningless, it gives me an exact figure that I can do calculations on? What's meaningless is assuming anyone is moving when not specifying what FoR you are discussing.


Oh good, I was hoping you could help me figure this out:

I am traveling along a road and you are traveling towards me in the opposite lane. Our relative speed is 120 MPH coming towards each other. There is a Home Depot located exactly at the mid point between you and me at t=0. The distance to the Home Depot for each of us is 60 miles. How much time does it take each of us to get to the home depot?


----------



## Doer (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The points of origin of the light spheres do not share the motion of the train. The points of origin are incapable of motion. They are a point in space. Just because the lady is sitting midpoint in the train doesn't mean she remains midpoint of the points of origin of the light spheres. The train can travel in the preferred frame relative to those points, which means the lady shares the train's velocity if she remains seated in the train.


A point in space is not an absolute reference. Absolute to itself? Meaningless.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Oh good, I was hoping you could help me figure this out:
> 
> I am traveling along a road and you are traveling towards me in the opposite lane. Our relative speed is 120 MPH coming towards each other. There is a Home Depot located exactly at the mid point between you and me at t=0. The distance to the Home Depot for each of us is 60 miles. How much time does it take each of us to get to the home depot?


Since the Home Depot is stationary relative to the road and you are specifying speed relative to the road and each other, it is simple to transfer the mechanics from one frame to the other. Your problem seems to be when speeds are given and the frame is assumed based on the wording of a problem, and not explicitly mentioned. 

Let's say that Home Depot is decoupled from the earth, just like a source of light would be. Then the person traveling WITH the rotation of the earth will arrive at the HD earlier than the other person. Yet this is not what happens with light, even though it is decoupled from the earth's rotation and orbital speeds. Let's say this Home Depot blew up. We each will see the explosion at the same time. However, an observer from orbit will see the person traveling in the same direction as the rotation of the earth will see the explosion first.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Since the Home Depot is stationary relative to the road and *you are specifying speed relative to the road and each other,* it is simple to transfer the mechanics from one frame to the other. Your problem seems to be when speeds are given and the frame is assumed based on the wording of a problem, and not explicitly mentioned.


The 120 MPH is our relative speed. It is a closing speed between us. You have no idea of what component velocity each of us has relative to the road. You only know that the distance between us is decreasing at the rate of 120 MPH. That says NOTHING as to each of our speeds along the road.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The 120 MPH is our relative speed. It is a closing speed between us. You have no idea of what component velocity each of us has relative to the road. You only know that the distance between us is decreasing at the rate of 120 MPH. That says NOTHING as to each of our speeds along the road.


Right. The road is in a different FoR than each of us. However, what does it matter what the speed relative to the road is unless we are measuring something on the road? If you move us into space, the closing distance is still 120mph and without a road for reference, there is no way to tell who is moving and how fast relative to a non-existent road. The only thing that matters now is that you are moving relative to me at 120mph and from your perspective I am moving toward you at 120mph. You can use the road to make another relative velocity measurement but it still is all relative and absolute velocities is meaningless, you need a reference point to make any velocity meaningful and by declaring a reference point, you are defining the FoR for what we are measuring.


How long are you going to ignore the fact that we have continually demonstrated that real-world experiments conflict with your hypothesis? Michelson and Morley were sure that light had to be tied to some absolute reference, that since it is a wave, it must propagate 'through' something. This is the same proposal you are making, that the light sphere has some absolute, fixed position from where it started so if we move away from that point, it should take longer for the light to reach us, i.e. your Z receiver in the box. However, their experiment, and every single one since then has shown that light does not propagate through anything and is not tied to any spacial coordinates. Experiments have proven that light behaves the same regardless of the frame's motion through space. This means that light speed is the same for all observers. Since your hypothesis contradicts this, then either the every experiment ever done is wrong or you are wrong. Since you haven't produced any experimental data that supports your belief, it can be dismissed as having been falsified. How can you keep disagreeing with this?


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2012)

dvs1038 said:


> Ya wanna know what else is ironic. The guy who founded the Nobel Peace Prize also invented TNT.


Actually no. TNT was first described by German chemist Julius Wilbrand in 1863. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If you want to measure the speed of light then you need to measure the radius of the light sphere, period!


Alright, here is the kicker dude. Remember that example with lighting striking at the front of the train? The guy on the platform thinks the flash originated exactly M->A distance away from him when A and A' met up in his frame of reference. He saw the light come from there. From his perspective it happened at rest relative to him. From his perspective the flash happened M->A distance from him, therefore he calculates the time it took to get to him and all his measurements make sense _to him_. He comes to the conclusion that the strike happened in his frame of reference, and that he and the lighting strike were at rest and it was the train that was the one moving.

The lady in the train however disagrees. She saw the exact same lighting strike when A and A' aligned, however she sees it from the front of the train. She measured the distance from M'->A', and calculated the time it takes for light to get from the front of the train to her. From her perspective it happened at rest relative to her. From her perspective the flash happened M'->A' distance from her, therefore she calculates the time it took to get to her and all her measurements make sense _to her_. She comes to the conclusion that the strike happened in her frame of reference, and that she and the lighting strike were at rest and it was the platform/tracks/earth that was the one moving.

The light sphere originates exactly at the point A and A' align. The man sees A' (the point on the train) move _away_ from the origin of the light sphere. He sees A and the center of the light sphere to be one and the same, and that never changes from his stationary perspective. 

The woman agrees that the light sphere originates exactly when A and A' align. The difference however is that she sees A' and the center of the light sphere to be one and the same. She sees point A (the point on the platform) as moving _away _from the source of the light.

Now who is correct? A, A', and the lightning strike were all superimposed. There is no argument from anyone that that is the reality of how it happened. But what happens when A and A' move apart? Where does the origin of the light sphere go? The answer depends on who you ask. if you ask the man it stays at point A and does not move. If you ask the woman it stays at point A' and does not move. The answer is *relative* to who you ask.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Look, I don't know how to say this any other way to get my point across. If you actually measured the speed of light, then why would you expect to get any other reading besides 299,792,458 m/s? I mean, if you ACTUALLY measured the SPEED OF LIGHT, and light always travels at c, then how is it possible for you to measure something different than c? If you do get a different result then you are NOT measuring the speed of light, you are measuring closing speed. It's like saying you are traveling down the highway in a car at a constant 60 MPH. Some other car on the highway wants to measure *your speed* (*not the closing speed* between you and the other car). If that car actually measured *your speed* they would have measured 60 MPH, regardless of their speed on the highway, or *regardless of the relative motion between you two*. If they were traveling 60 MPH towards you and they took a measurement claiming to be your speed, and their results were 120 MPH, then what they did is not measure your speed, they measured the closing speed.
> 
> So why are you so surprised when you get the same results measuring the speed of light regardless in which direction you take that measurement, and regardless of your motion??? Basically what you are saying is that you are surprised to get the same results when measuring the car's speed on the highway. You are measuring the car's speed and not the closing speed, right?
> 
> Saying you are measuring the speed of light is comparable to saying you are measuring the expansion of the radius of the light sphere in my diagram. The radius of the light sphere ALWAYS increases its length by 299,792,459 m/s, creating the preferred frame. Taking a time measurement from the source in my diagram to the z receiver is measuring a closing speed relative to the point of origin of the light sphere. Since the point is incapable of motion when you measure a closing speed from that point you know all the components of the closing speed is the z receiver in motion, because *it is impossible for the point to posses any component of that speed.* From there I used the Pythagoras theorem to create the equation to know when and where the light sphere hits the receivers. The equation does not lie, and for you to say that it can be any other way is to say that the Pythagoras Theorem is incorrect.


Speed means absolutely nothing unless it's relative to something else. When you say the car is traveling 60mph you mean 60mph relative to the earth. 

Lets say we are driving towards each other at 60mph each. All of a sudden the ground vanishes. It pops out of existence along with everything in the universe except for our 2 cars. Now your memory is wiped clear. You have no memory of the ground. You have absolutely no reference point to gauge your speed. You look around your car, and at yourself. You don't appear to be moving. You and the car and everything inside the car appears to be absolutely still. Now you see me coming at you in the opposite direction.

What speed do you determine me to be traveling?
What speed are you traveling? and how can you tell?

wrong again. From your perspective at the computer the light sphere originates in the center of the cube, then the cube moves away from it. From INSIDE the cube you do not see that. This is the exact same scenario from my previous post. From the computer you view the light sphere as eminating from the point A (just like your diagram shows). From INSIDE the sphere you see it as originating at A' (the center of the cube). No matter what perspective you have, the light sphere does not move relative to you.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You telling me our relative speed is 120 MPH when I don't know your speed or my speed is the very definition of meaningless.


Why? Any interaction between you 2 can then be calculated. In fact, the "absolute speed" you seem to speak of is the very definition of meaningless. What possible information can be gained from knowing your "absolute speed" in this scenario? If you want to transfer information, or objects, or avoid hitting the car the only thing that matters is your relative velocities. If you want to calculate a distance or a time for him to be at some coordinate on the ground, then you need to know his relative velocity in relation to the ground, which can be calculated from your relative velocity to the ground and his relative velocity to you. At no point, and for no reason, does knowing "absolute speed" provide any helpful information. If you measure the speed of light in your car, and he measures it in his car you both get c. Absolute speed does not exist, and cannot exist. The concept doesn't even make sense.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Let me get this straight. I am standing 10 feet away from a tree. Lightening strikes the tree. The earth (and the tree and I) moves after the lightening strike occurs. The tree was at the center of the light sphere at t=0. The earth and tree moved after t=0. Are you saying that as the tree moves that so too does the center of the light sphere? Effectively what you are saying when you say that is that as the tree moves the light sphere travels along with it, to ensure that the light sphere's radius is increasing at the same rate in every direction from that tree. Get real my friend, when the earth and tree travel in space, that has absolutely no bearing on the expanding wavefront of the light sphere in space. The wave front expands in every direction at the same rate away from the point it was emitted, whether the tree is still at that point after the strike occurred or not!!! Ever heard of the Doppler effect? How exactly do you think Doppler occurs if the source always remains at the center of the light sphere?


Yes. That is exactly what he (and I, and einstein, and M-M, and several others in this thread, and millions of scientist over the last hundred years) is saying. t=0 is by definition in the reference frame of you/earth/tree. If it was a meteor flying by just overhead it would be t'=0. t = t' only at 0. After that t' and t have different values. c remains constant for both. Therefore from each ones point of view they see a perfectly spherical light sphere emanate from the point of origin, and it stays in their FoR.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Oh good, I was hoping you could help me figure this out:
> 
> I am traveling along a road and you are traveling towards me in the opposite lane. Our relative speed is 120 MPH coming towards each other. There is a Home Depot located exactly at the mid point between you and me at t=0. The distance to the Home Depot for each of us is 60 miles. How much time does it take each of us to get to the home depot?


You need to know either your speed relative to the home depot, or his speed relative to home depot. This is not a result of using "relative" or "closing" speeds either. If you want to use your mythical "absolute" speed you still do not have sufficient information to solve the problem. You are implying that using relative speeds has a drawback because it is inherently lacking information. That is flawed and dishonest.

If you disagree please explain how would answer if you were given the "absolute" speed of both cars but not of the home depot.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2012)

Second wind, Guy? cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 22, 2012)

Yea. I'm pretty sure he is just trolling, but it still gives a good excuse to play out all these thought experiments to demonstrate how SR works. It is a tough concept. I spent many hours on the internet and on forums discussing it before I finally grasped it. I was never pig headed and stubborn like seedling is, but it was still difficult to grasp. When you have an intuitive belief so ingrained and someone comes along and turns you on your ear your natural response is to dismiss it as nonsense. But when EVERYONE is saying you are wrong, including the greatest minds of the last century, something else should click and make you say "wait a minute...why am I the only one not understanding this...". I suspect there are a lot of people on RIU that don't fully understand, but will be helped out enormously by all the examples and explanations in this thread.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 22, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yea. I'm pretty sure he is just trolling, but it still gives a good excuse to play out all these thought experiments to demonstrate how SR works. It is a tough concept. I spent many hours on the internet and on forums discussing it before I finally grasped it. I was never pig headed and stubborn like seedling is, but it was still difficult to grasp. When you have an intuitive belief so ingrained and someone comes along and turns you on your ear your natural response is to dismiss it as nonsense. But when EVERYONE is saying you are wrong, including the greatest minds of the last century, something else should click and make you say "wait a minute...why am I the only one not understanding this...". I suspect there are a lot of people on RIU that don't fully understand, but will be helped out enormously by all the examples and explanations in this thread.


It is a tough concept, and I agree it's fun and worthwhile to be challenged about it. I've refined my own internal metaphors thanks to this thread and especially your contributions. 
Here's a cool site that illustrates relativistic distortions. For some reason I have a tough time accessing the vid files; maybe you'll do better. cn

http://www.spacetimetravel.org/inhalt.html


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 22, 2012)

I enjoyed reading and thinking about your (plural) examples here. This was a new argument for me to witness, which is why I stayed out of it except for describing the smell of bullshit. I found it mostly stimulating, however, in the end all Seedling was able to demonstrate is that he is a denialist.


----------



## Doer (Sep 22, 2012)

Set and match. Good play, gentlemen.

For the next question:

Matter and Space. Can't have one without the other?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 22, 2012)

Doer said:


> Set and match. Good play, gentlemen.


Not even close. "Some men you just can't reach."


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

Two cars are traveling towards each other on a road. One car has a speed of 30 MPH along the road, the other car has a speed of 70 MPH along the road. The distance between them is closing at the rate of 100 MPH. Each driver observes the distance between them as closing at that rate. According to SR, does each driver see the same number of meter sticks between them at every point in time? What I'm getting at is, if the distance between the cars in the road frame is 100 miles, and each driver sees that distance closing at the rate of 100 MPH, then all the frames (road, driver a, and driver b) see that distance as 100 miles, and they also see the time elapsing at the same rate, correct?

Another question:

At what rate does the center point of the cars change along the road as the distance between the cars decreases over time? For instance, there's a distance of 100 miles between the cars at t=0. Their center point is a Burger King that is 50 miles away from each of them. In one hour when the cars crash into each other, the car that was traveling 70 MPH is 20 miles past the Burger King, and the car that was traveling 30 MPH is 20 miles short of the Burger King. So the center point was the Burger King at t=0 seconds, and the final center point was 20 miles away from that point at t=3600 seconds. The center point changed at a rate of 20 MPH. Put that into your pipe and smoke it!!!!


...and yet another question:



Imagine the large spring spring as a light wave. The distance between the coils is the Wavelength. The NUMBER OF COILS is the cycles. The speed of light is equal to wavelength times frequency (cycles per second, or Hertz). In the pic assume the long spring to have completed 13 cycles, as the spring has roughly 13 complete coils over the total length of the spring. 

As you compress the spring the wavelength gets shorter and the number of coils stays the same, correct?


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Two cars are traveling towards each other on a road. One car has a speed of 30 MPH along the road, the other car has a speed of 70 MPH along the road. The distance between them is closing at the rate of 100 MPH. Each driver observes the distance between them as closing at that rate. According to SR, does each driver see the same number of meter sticks between them at every point in time? What I'm getting at is, if the distance between the cars in the road frame is 100 miles, and each driver sees that distance closing at the rate of 100 MPH, then all the frames (road, driver a and driver b) see that distance as 100 miles, and they also see the time elapsing at the same rate, correct?
> 
> Another question:
> 
> ...


Seedling says the darnedest things...


----------



## Doer (Sep 23, 2012)

The coils are infinite. If you so call, compress the spring, or really increase frequency, just more "coils" are added in the spaces.

BTW, EM radiation propagation cannot be seen as coils and that's why the simile is not used. It's meaningless.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling, that's a useless question for two reasons: 
1) The speeds involved are very slow and conform almost perfectly to the classical/Newtonian limit.
2) The presence of the road intuitively supports the spurious "preferred frame" that is the downfall of your entire hypothesis. You can get away with our intuition of Newtonian mechanics complete with Aristotelian aether at slowest speeds, but in a relativistic scheme that intuition harms more than helps. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Two cars are traveling towards each other on a road. One car has a speed of 30 MPH along the road, the other car has a speed of 70 MPH along the road. The distance between them is closing at the rate of 100 MPH. Each driver observes the distance between them as closing at that rate. According to SR, does each driver see the same number of meter sticks between them at every point in time? What I'm getting at is, if the distance between the cars in the road frame is 100 miles, and each driver sees that distance closing at the rate of 100 MPH, then all the frames (road, driver a, and driver b) see that distance as 100 miles, and they also see the time elapsing at the same rate, correct?


Your first question:

Yes, both drivers see the same number of meter sticks between them. A person standing at the burger king DOES NOT. At relative speeds of 100mph the lorentz factor approaches 1. "sqrt(1-(v/c)^2)" = 1 when v <<< c

Say that instead of 30mph and and 70mph they are going .31c and .71c (as measured from the ground). The person at the burger king (in the same frame as the ground) measures them at 0.31c and 0.71c. He calculates their closing speed to be 1.02c, FASTER than the speed of light! thats insane! But what does the driver see? When they measure the other drivers speed he measures some value slightly less than the speed of light. 

Say that the burger king measures each of the cars speeds to be .99c. He then measures their closing speed to be 1.98c. Each driver still perceives the other driving to be driving at LESS than the speed of light. This is the reason your box diagram does not make sense. I can measure a closing speed between the light and the sensors from MY point of view and calculated the speed you are moving RELATIVE _to me_. Inside the cube though you will measure the speed of light to be exactly c REGARDLESS of your direction or speed or the light sources direction or speed. 

I know it seems crazy and counter intuitive, but that is simply how it works. No matter where or when you measure the speed of light, even if you are moving, or if the light source is moving, you WILL measure it to be exactly c, and that has been proven by experiment after experiment.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Remember my example about the baseball and the train? Throwing a baseballs 50mph relative to the train, and the train moving 50mph relative to the ground? The entire reason I brought that example up was to illustrate that it SEEMS like the ball is going 100mph relative to the ground, but it is NOT. It is going slightly less than 100mph. The difference between the actual speed and 100mph is going to be imperceivable at those speeds. You will not be able to even measure it the difference will be so small. But if you replace those values with 0.6c you should see the error in your ways.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Another question:
> 
> At what rate does the center point of the cars change along the road as the distance between the cars decreases over time? For instance, there's a distance of 100 miles between the cars at t=0. Their center point is a Burger King that is 50 miles away from each of them. In one hour when the cars crash into each other, the car that was traveling 70 MPH is 20 miles past the Burger King, and the car that was traveling 30 MPH is 20 miles short of the Burger King. So the center point was the Burger King at t=0 seconds, and the final center point was 20 miles away from that point at t=3600 seconds. The center point changed at a rate of 20 MPH. Put that into your pipe and smoke it!!!!


I don't understand your point. They were both moving at different speeds relative to the burger king. That was the premise you set up.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Remember my example about the baseball and the train? Throwing a baseballs 50mph relative to the train, and the train moving 50mph relative to the ground? The entire reason I brought that example up was to illustrate that it SEEMS like the ball is going 100mph relative to the ground, but it is NOT. It is going slightly less than 100mph. The difference between the actual speed and 100mph is going to be imperceivable at those speeds. You will not be able to even measure it the difference will be so small. But if you replace those values with 0.6c you should see the error in your ways.


So which is it, did you throw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you, or did you throw the ball slightly less than 50 MPH relative to you? Or maybe you're saying that the train is traveling slightly less than 50 MPH and you actually threw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you. Which is it??? Do you see how you bait and switch?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So which is it, did you throw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you, or did you throw the ball slightly less than 50 MPH relative to you? Or maybe you're saying that the train is traveling slightly less than 50 MPH and you actually threw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you. Which is it??? Do you see how you bait and switch?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So which is it, did you throw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you, or did you throw the ball slightly less than 50 MPH relative to you? Or maybe you're saying that the train is traveling slightly less than 50 MPH and you actually threw the ball at 50 MPH relative to you. Which is it??? Do you see how you bait and switch?


No bait and switch. I'm saying I throw the ball RELATIVE TO ME at 50mph. The train is moving RELATIVE TO YOU at 50 mph. YOU (in YOUR frame of reference on the ground) cannot simply assume that the ball will be traveling at 50mph +50mph = 100mph. Those 50mph measurements were taken from different reference frames (one from the ground [speed of the train] and one from the train [speed of the ball]).

Say for example I am standing on a platform, and a train goes by with the simultaneous lighting strike from chapter 9. The man measures the distance between point A and M and B and M, and concludes the strikes happened simultaneously, therefore he is at absolute rest. Agreed?

(we don't actually agree...this is wrong and i'll point out why shortly..)

So now the man is standing there and sees another train coming, this time at 0.99c. The front of the train has a gun that can fire a bullet at 0.99c relative to the train. The train engineer fires a bullet and he measures it speed ahead of him at 0.99c and concludes his gun is working. What speed does the man measure the bullet?

The train fires a second bullet after passing the man. Does the man ever see the 2nd bullet?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

And another question...

The man sees yet a 3rd train, this one is coming from the opposite direction. He measures it 0.99c. Now there is train 2 going away from him in one direction at 0.99c, and train 3 going away from him in the opposite direction at 0.99c. The man is at absolute rest (according to your definitions and "logic" that you laid out previously in this thread). The trains point lasers at each other. Are they able to see the light from the lasers?


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No bait and switch. I'm saying I throw the ball RELATIVE TO ME at 50mph. The train is moving RELATIVE TO YOU at 50 mph. YOU (in YOUR frame of reference on the ground) cannot simply assume that the ball will be traveling at 50mph +50mph = 100mph. Those 50mph measurements were taken from different reference frames (one from the ground [speed of the train] and one from the train [speed of the ball]).



You are basically a point on a train that is traveling 50 MPH in the track frame. Your frame overlaps distance in the track frame at every point in time. At 12:00 you are standing on a 1 mile long train at the midpoint. The front of the train is .5 miles from the station. You are 1.0 mile from the station and the rear of the train is 1.5 miles from the station. At 12:01 the front of the train is .25 miles from the station, you are .75 miles from the station, and the rear of the train is 1.25 miles from the station. AT EVERY POINT IN TIME your frame distance is equal to the track frame distance. You do not have separate length in your respective frame, you have identical lengths in each frame and there is no question about it. At EVERY POINT IN TIME, you are in the frame of the tracks. You are also in the preferred frame, as is the train, the tracks, the ice cream man, and big bird!!! They are all in the preferred frame!


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You are basically a point on a train that is traveling 50 MPH in the track frame. Your frame overlaps distance in the track frame at every point in time. At 12:00 you are standing on a 1 mile long train at the midpoint. The front of the train is .5 miles from the station. You are 1.0 mile from the station and the rear of the train is 1.5 miles from the station. At 12:01 the front of the train is .25 miles from the station, you are .75 miles from the station, and the rear of the train is 1.25 miles from the station. AT EVERY POINT IN TIME your frame distance is equal to the track frame distance. You do not have separate length in your respective frame, you have identical lengths in each frame and there is no question about it. At EVERY POINT IN TIME, you are in the frame of the tracks. You are also in the preferred frame, as is the train, the tracks, the ice cream man, and big bird!!! They are all in the preferred frame!


You just don't get it.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> You are basically a point on a train that is traveling 50 MPH in the track frame.


Again, this depends on your point of view. YOU see me as a point on a train traveling 50mph. I do not detect any motion at all. I see YOU as a point on the ground that is traveling 50mph.



Seedling said:


> Your frame overlaps distance in the track frame at every point in time.


No it doesn't, no it doesn't, no it doesn't! For the umpteenth time NO IT DOESN'T. My measurement of distance and time is DIFFERENT from yours if I am moving relative to you. 



Seedling said:


> At 12:00 you are standing on a 1 mile long train at the midpoint. The front of the train is .5 miles from the station. You are 1.0 mile from the station and the rear of the train is 1.5 miles from the station. At 12:01 the front of the train is .25 miles from the station, you are .75 miles from the station, and the rear of the train is 1.25 miles from the station. AT EVERY POINT IN TIME your frame distance is equal to the track frame distance. You do not have separate length in your respective frame, you have identical lengths in each frame and there is no question about it. At EVERY POINT IN TIME, you are in the frame of the tracks. You are also in the preferred frame, as is the train, the tracks, the ice cream man, and big bird!!! They are all in the preferred frame!


Ok, back to the baseball example again. Remember when I said like 25 times that your notion of classical physics only works at extremely low velocities? by low I mean in relation to c. so even at speeds of 50,000 mph (which is practically 0 when compared to c) you cannot notice the effects of relativity. Your line of thinking APPEARS to be correct at these low speeds because v <<<<<< c, even at speeds of 50,000mph. If you take measurements of baseballs, bullets, trains, and cars everything will APPEAR to add up exactly like you think it will. However as v approaches c the effects become significant.

Let me try to explain this another way. I say gravity exists. I give you the equations to calculate the force of gravity. You seem skeptical so you set up this experiment:

Get a high powered rifle. Set up a target 1 mile away from you. Nothing is between you and the target. You fire the bullet at the target with deadly accuracy hitting the bullseye. Now you place a large mass, lets say your house at the midway point between you and the target, but slightly to the right. You fire again without moving the gun and get a bullseye again.

"AHA!" you exclaim. "That guy_incognito is such a bullshitter! The house didn't affect the bullet with it's so called "gravity" at all!"

The reality of of the situation is that you just could not measure the difference because the gravitational force generated between the bullet and the house was so small compared to the force that the bullet was fired with, that it was literally negligible to you. 

However, if you took the moon, and compressed it to fit in your house, and you repeated the expiriment you would find the gravitational force would significantly alter the path of the bullet. To the point that the bullet may actually start orbiting the house like a satellite. Hell it might even be so much gravitational force that the bullet plummets INTO the house.

Your argument is basically this:

I can fire my bullet at the target, and my house does not effect the path of travel because of gravitational force, therefore gravitational force must not exist. So when you place the moon next to my line of fire it also will not effect the path of my bullet.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Again, this depends on your point of view. YOU see me as a point on a train traveling 50mph. I do not detect any motion at all. I see YOU as a point on the ground that is traveling 50mph.



We both detect a 50 MPH closing speed. We each see the same distance close in the same amount of time. Do you agree?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> We both detect a 50 MPH closing speed. We each see the same distance close in the same amount of time. Do you agree?


Yes, but that is not what you said.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Yes, but that is not what you said.


So you agree that what I say is 50 miles between us at 12:00 is what you say is 50 miles between us at 12:00? Do you also agree that at 12:30 if I say there is 25 miles between us that you also say there is 25 miles between us at 12:30?


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 23, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> You just don't get it.


Until he answers the charges that real-world experiments have falsified his particular hypotheses, I don't see any reason to take him seriously.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Until he answers the charges that real-world experiments have falsified his particular hypotheses, I don't see any reason to take him seriously.


Maybe you care to help your friend out in time of need? I have him by the balls!

Closing speed is always agreed on, and in order for that to happen the distance and time must be agreed on, by every observer. There is no hanky panky smoke and mirrors with closing speeds, because the closing speed is always in the preferred frame, just like all of Moma's kiddies!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Maybe you care to help your friend out in time of need? I have him by the balls!


Are you interested in demonstrating your theory or grabbing other peoples balls? The goal of debate is to find common ground.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Are you interested in demonstrating your theory or grabbing other peoples balls? The goal of debate is to find common ground.


It's a figure of speech, you know, like got him backed into a corner. (rolls eyes) Common ground is the preferred frame!


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> It's a figure of speech, you know, like got him backed into a corner. (rolls eyes) Common ground is the preferred frame!


Sorry for expecting you to extract a point from my words. Let me be more clear.

I continued your premise. I don't think you want to actually grab balls, which would be hard to do through a computer screen. If your position hinges on backing someone into a corner instead of it's legitimacy, then there is no common ground to be had. You are a denialist who seeks to confine the debate to the parts you have thought through, and to avoid or discount the parts you haven't. You want to perform the song and dance you have practiced rather than actually counter the other person's moves. You are too busy rolling your eyes to have a look at what you're actually talking about. Anytime the conversation steers outside your comfort zone, you seek to steer it back. You want other's to be confined to the same low-information perspective as you.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 23, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Sorry for expecting you to extract a point from my words. Let me be more clear.
> 
> If your position hinges on backing someone into a corner instead of it's legitimacy, then there is no common ground to be had.


This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.


Finding common ground does not need to involve compromise. The point is to find where you agree so that you can identify the place where theories diverge, which is what everyone but you is attempting to do. Each time they do so and attempt to explain their reason for divergence, you double down and talk about how you must be right, but fail to actually demonstrate anything. You are unable to answer questions which should have easy answers. You resist when the conversation leads to real world data, and fall back again on your flawed hypotheticals. Your theory requires us to devalue the scientific method to accept it, but you are unable to explain why it deserves special consideration, making you a denialist or a moron. Since morons don't tend to understand math, I suspect the former. You are not interested in progress or sharing knowledge, you are interested in contradiction and conflict.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.


Then prove it. Stop dancing the I'm-right-you're-wrong dance, and develop the math for us to see. 
Because even though you are unilaterally declaring special relativity to be a theory with band-aids, that does not make it so. 
The Michaelson-Morley experiment speaks directly to your hypothesis and diagram ... and discharges both. 
Always remember that it only takes one inconvenient fact to destroy an otherwise beautiful theory. 

But "I'm right because I say so" is not unfamiliar in this forum, and just because you are not defending the usual set of ideas that comes with that challenge ... does not make your posture any more palatable. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> So you agree that what I say is 50 miles between us at 12:00 is what you say is 50 miles between us at 12:00? Do you also agree that at 12:30 if I say there is 25 miles between us that you also say there is 25 miles between us at 12:30?


No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 23, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.


Hrmm you must have some really slippery balls or else his reach exceeded his grasp.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Maybe you care to help your friend out in time of need? I have him by the balls!
> 
> Closing speed is always agreed on, and in order for that to happen the distance and time must be agreed on, by every observer. There is no hanky panky smoke and mirrors with closing speeds, because the closing speed is always in the preferred frame, just like all of Moma's kiddies!


Thats not true. If I measure you going 10 miles and clock it at 10 seconds, and you measure 100 miles and 100 seconds, then we both agree on speed (1 mi/s), but not on distance or time.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Hrmm you must have some really slippery balls or else his reach exceeded his grasp.


What a fool! My balls are in the preferred frame and his hand was not. I guess he should have accounted for that in his calculations.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 23, 2012)

Seedling said:


> This isn't a compromise, it's my way or the highway! You don't seem to understand, I am telling you that there is no other valid choice other than the way I have it laid out in my diagram. That is the geometry of distance and time, as defined. This is not smoke and mirrors using a box of band-aids to keep alive a pet theory, these are the facts of distance and time.


By who? By you? I have explained what is wrong with your diagram numerous times. That is not the reality we live in. Your box is essentially the same thing used in the mm experiment. Use the sunrise as your source of light in your box/diagram and measure the speed. Then use the sunset as your source of light and measure the speed. Same light source, different direction of travel, same speed.

Those are only facts in the mind of the ignorant. Everyone else recognizes them for the illusions they are.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. There is no such thing as universal time. There is no 12:00 that we share precisely unless we occupy the same space. Any distance between us at all necessarily means we CANNOT agree on a simultaneous time. Also we are not talking about 2 observers each observing each other. We are talking about 2 different observers both observing an object moving at different speeds relative to each of us.


Let me make myself more clear, since you failed to address the concept being discussed here. We each see the closing speed as 50 MPH. We agree that we each see the same distance decreasing in the same duration of time. You agreed to that. So we agree that there is always a distance between us, and at any given distance we will each agree to that distance. 

It's really non-negotiable to each agree, because all it is saying is that the distance between us is one distance, not two distances. I grab the end of a rope and you grab the other end of the rope. There is one distance between us at any given point in time. If either or both of us changes where they place their hand on the rope, then we both agree to the distance between us. There is no "speed of distance" there is the speed of light!

So let me ask you again, do you agree that the distance between each of us is the same for both of us at all times??


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Thats not true. If I measure you going 10 miles and clock it at 10 seconds, and you measure 100 miles and 100 seconds, then we both agree on speed (1 mi/s), *but not on distance or time.*


What do you mean we don't agree on distance and time? I ask you to tell me how much distance you traveled in 1 second, you answer 1 mile. I also measure you at traveling 1 mile in 1 second. There is no disagreement. We both agree that the distance is 1 mile and the time is 1 second. Tell me exactly what we disagree on?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> What do you mean we don't agree on distance and time? I ask you to tell me how much distance you traveled in 1 second, you answer 1 mile. I also measure you at traveling 1 mile in 1 second. There is no disagreement. We both agree that the distance is 1 mile and the time is 1 second. Tell me exactly what we disagree on?


View attachment 2347471

.......................


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> View attachment 2347471
> 
> .......................


If your language is Japanese and my language is English, and we are both looking at the same object then there is no disagreement. We are both describing the same thing when we each speak the name of the object in our own languages.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If your language is Japanese and my language is English, and we are both looking at the same object then there is no disagreement. We are both describing the same thing when we each speak the name of the object in our own languages.


That would be an accurate statement if that was what was happening here....


This thread is more like;

*You: I think objects moving close to the speed of light perform like this, XYZ.*

Everyone else, and every scientist, ever: That is a common misconception about objects moving very fast, here's why you're wrong; and here's a shit load of experiments to show you _how_ you're wrong.

*You: *Ignores all demonstrable evidence* No, no, no you don't get it.*

EE and ESE: Yeah, we get what you're saying, but you're wrong. Please just look at the evidence. 

*You: Why can't everyone see how right I am, and how every other expert in this field is so blatantly naive and wrong.



*I don't think I can really read this thread anymore; part of me compells me to keep reading, but part of me just says "Let it go"....


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> That would be an accurate statement if that was what was happening here....
> 
> 
> This thread is more like;
> ...


*
*
More like this:

Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
Everyone: Bullshit, that's old school thinking. We have mountains of evidence saying you're wrong.
Me: How can I be wrong, because the very definition of addition says I'm correct.
Everyone: BS, prove it. There is no absolute addition. Everyone does addition their own way.



Beefbisquit said:


> I don't think I can really read this thread anymore; part of me compells me to keep reading, but part of me just says "Let it go"....



See ya! Don't the door hit you in the ass on your way out.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> [/B]
> More like this:
> 
> Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
> ...


let*

Classical relativity breaks down at high speeds. It's really that simple.

Your 2+2=4 is in reality something like;

1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
+ 
1.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998
= 
3.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999998

Now, when you used speeds like 0.5c, the 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 becomes a much larger problem. It's really that simple.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

Beefbisquit said:


> let*
> 
> Classical relativity breaks down at high speeds. It's really that simple.
> 
> ...



I didn't say 1.999+1.999=3.999 I said 2+2=4! Do you know the difference between 1.99 and 2.0?


----------



## Doer (Sep 24, 2012)

The problem is a lack of education. I have a lack. I understand that. So, I'll say that human intuition is very powerful. But is has to be trained. Most of these math questions just sit there until someone has the trained intuition to take it farther.

HINT: cool guesses are not trained intuition. A scientifically and mathematically trained intuition can lead to new mathematical thought.

This is kinda like trolling. No math, but just the insistence and the tap dance. If he was selling it would be pure Snake Oil.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

Doer said:


> The problem is a lack of education. I have a lack. I understand that. So, I'll say that human intuition is very powerful. But is has to be trained. Most of these math questions just sit there until someone has the trained intuition to take it farther.
> 
> HINT: cool guesses are not trained intuition. A scientifically and mathematically trained intuition can lead to new mathematical thought.
> 
> This is kinda like trolling. No math, but just the insistence and the tap dance. If he was selling it would be pure Snake Oil.


My equations and the math, with actual numbers are part of the diagram. Did you bother to look at it and understand every aspect of it?


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I didn't say 1.999+1.999=3.999 I said 2+2=4! Do you know the difference between 1.99 and 2.0?


You can't just add velocities at near light speeds. It doesn't work like that, and it's already been demonstrated.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> [/B]
> More like this:
> 
> Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
> ...


The problem is that you're treating the 2+2=4 statement as axiom. In math, you get to do that, but not in physics. Michaelson-Morley showed that your 2=2 does not, in fact, yield precisely 4. 
You are trying to impose definition where that is forbidden by the scientific method. 
It is your stubborn unwillingness to admit the difference between mathematical and physical theorems that have given us over thirty pages of Mexican standoff. 
This thread is going to be one of those undead ones: you insisting that you're arguing correctness from axiom (in the face of a century of thought), us insisting that you please pay attention to how physics are done. Discourse is interesting when it's with the reasonable. This ... has crossed into the uninteresting many pages ago. cn


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Let me make myself more clear, since you failed to address the concept being discussed here. We each see the closing speed as 50 MPH. We agree that we each see the same distance decreasing in the same duration of time. You agreed to that. So we agree that there is always a distance between us, and at any given distance we will each agree to that distance.
> 
> It's really non-negotiable to each agree, because all it is saying is that the distance between us is one distance, not two distances. I grab the end of a rope and you grab the other end of the rope. There is one distance between us at any given point in time. If either or both of us changes where they place their hand on the rope, then we both agree to the distance between us. There is no "speed of distance" there is the speed of light!
> 
> So let me ask you again, do you agree that the distance between each of us is the same for both of us at all times??


No. We each measure the same closing speed. We do not measure the same distance or time. We have been over this a thousand times. No I do not agree we will agree on the distance, nor can we communicate our agreement/disagreement to each other because we don't have the same concept of time. My time is not the same as your time.

You are a fucking retard. 

The evidence has been laid out clearly. By evidence I mean real measurements taken in laboratories, ALL of which agree with the theory of SR. Not a single experiment has ever been done that contradicts SR, nor has one ever been conducted that supports your conflicting theory. Lots of evidence, 100% of which converges at the conclusion that Einstein was correct and seedling was wrong. If you can provide even a single piece of actual evidence to support your theory I will apologize to you, and I will restructure my own beliefs to incorporate that evidence. Until then I only see a few possible options:

You understand SR and agree the evidence supports it, yet you are lieing because you like drama on web forums.

You do not understand SR and are holding tightly to your views according to your own intuition and ignoring valid evidence.

You do not understand SR because you have not been presented with the evidence to support it.


Given that I have personally provided you with not only a detailed explanation of how SR works in multiple scenarios, but linked you directly to the experiments that provided the supporting data, that leads me to believe you are either stupid or a troll. Either way I see no reason for this discussion to continue.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> This ... has crossed into the uninteresting many pages ago. cn


Well thanks for playing. I suggest that you stop being a glutton for punishment and stop visiting this thread if it is uninteresting for you. Why would you keep coming back for more??

The problem with your


> *2=2 does not, in fact, yield precisely 4. *


 statement is that you're wrong, 2+2=4, always! If you mix up your 2's with your 5's then that's your mistake, and it doesn't mean 2+2 does not equal 4. Your method obviously has massive mistakes if the mathematics suggest 2+2 does not equal 4. The very nature of counting and adding is at stake in your method, and yet you insist it is correct. Like I said before, bait and switch.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> [/B]
> More like this:
> 
> Me: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are 2+2=4.
> ...


Yet even more like this:

*Seedling: Hey everyone, I have the facts, they are (2/x)+(2/x)=4.
non retards: You are wrong because you are assuming the x is EXACTLY 1. At a measured value of 2 I agree that x looks extremely close to 1, so close in fact that if you simply assume it is 1 and do your math then your answer of 4 will be close enough for everyday purposes. However once you reach integers of sufficient magnitude the x factor will NOT be 1.
seedling: How can I be wrong when I make up my very own definition of terms that says I'm correct?
non retards: Because you made up your own definition. We tried explaining that your definition is wrong and provided you with the correct equations to do the math. Then we provided you will real world examples and measurements that confirm everything we told you is correct.
seedling: DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP DERP
*


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No. We each measure the same closing speed. We do not measure the same distance or time. We have been over this a thousand times. No I do not agree we will agree on the distance, nor can we communicate our agreement/disagreement to each other because we don't have the same concept of time. My time is not the same as your time.
> 
> You are a fucking retard.
> 
> ...



If we do not agree on distance and time then we can not agree on a closing speed, which means you are full of shit! You're an Einstein groupie at an Einstein love fest. But don't worry, there are plenty of cult organizations out there, so you're in good company.

Thanks for playing!! When you finally figure it out you'll have a good laugh at yourself. But, you will be a day late and a dollar short, as I have already been laughing at you since the beginning.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> If we do not agree on distance and time then we can not agree on a closing speed, which means you are full of shit! You're an Einstein groupie at an Einstein love fest. But don't worry, there are plenty of cult organizations out there, so you're in good company.
> 
> Thanks for playing!! When you finally figure it out you'll have a good laugh at yourself. But, you will be a day late and a dollar short, as I have already been laughing at you since the beginning.


So if we are approaching each other and you measure the distance closed as 10 miles over a time period of 10 seconds, and I measure 11 miles over 11 seconds, what speed do each of us calculate?

EDIT: Just thought I should clarify that 10 and 11 are different numbers in case you were getting confused. You seem to have a tenuous grasp of math and science.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> So if we are approaching each other and you measure the distance closed as 10 miles over a time period of 10 seconds, and I measure 11 miles over 11 seconds, what speed do each of us calculate?
> 
> EDIT: Just thought I should clarify that 10 and 11 are different numbers in case you were getting confused. You seem to have a tenuous grasp of math and science.


The distance and time is 1 mile per second for each of us.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

NO NO NO NO you said total distance and total time. We disagree on both the distance AND the time, yet the math works out that we both agree on closing speed.

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and _vice versa_. Every reference-body has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> The problem with your statement is that you're wrong, 2+2=4, always! If you mess up your 2's with you'r 5's that's your mistake, and it doesn't mean 2+2 does not equal 4. Your method obviously has massive mistakes if the mathematics suggest 2+2 does not equal 4. The very nature of counting and adding is at stake in your method, and yet you insist it is correct. Like I said before, bait and switch.


Wow. You have now surpassed fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists with your level of arrogance and cluelessness. Do you really see your words as doling out punishment? In your mind, do you really feel that you are holding your own? You have everyone by the balls? It must be a pretty cool world you live in.

[video=youtube;C0HG5rkY8r4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0HG5rkY8r4[/video]


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Well thanks for playing. I suggest that you stop being a glutton for punishment and stop visiting this thread if it is uninteresting for you. Why would you keep coming back for more??
> 
> The problem with your statement is that you're wrong, 2+2=4, always! If you mix up your 2's with your 5's then that's your mistake, and it doesn't mean 2+2 does not equal 4. Your method obviously has massive mistakes if the mathematics suggest 2+2 does not equal 4. The very nature of counting and adding is at stake in your method, and yet you insist it is correct. Like I said before, bait and switch.


You have proven both my points. cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> NO NO NO NO you said total distance and total time. We disagree on both the distance AND the time, yet the math works out that we both agree on closing speed.


Are you fucking retarded?? I am not talking about the total distance and total time. I am talking about our closing speed. If we are separated by 100 miles do you have to travel 100 miles before I know your speed? Hell no!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Wow. You have now surpassed fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists with your level of arrogance and cluelessness. Do you really see your words as doling out punishment? In your mind, do you really feel that you are holding your own? You have everyone by the balls? It must be a pretty cool world you live in.
> 
> [video=youtube;C0HG5rkY8r4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0HG5rkY8r4[/video]















Simple Seedling.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Are you fucking retarded?? I am not talking about the total distance and total time. I am talking about our closing speed. If we are separated by 100 miles do you have to travel 100 miles before I know your speed? Hell no!


So when we meet up and you say you measured 100 miles and 10 seconds, and I say no I measured 110 miles and 11 seconds, who is right? I calculate the same speed.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

I keep saying i'm done with this thread but I just can't leave out of morbid curiosity for what seedling will post next. He is a train wreck. My jaw is dropping to unprecedented levels.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Heisenberg said:


> Wow. You have now surpassed fundamentalists and conspiracy theorists with your level of arrogance and cluelessness. Do you really see your words as doling out punishment? In your mind, do you really feel that you are holding your own? You have everyone by the balls? It must be a pretty cool world you live in.
> 
> [video=youtube;C0HG5rkY8r4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0HG5rkY8r4[/video]


Hmm. Now that i'm reexamining I don't think that youtube freeze frame was actually the preferred frame.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> So when we meet up and you say you measured 100 miles and 10 seconds, and I say no I measured 110 miles and 11 seconds, who is right? I calculate the same speed.


There you go again asking me who is right, the guy speaking Spanish or the guy speaking French. They are both describing the same distance and time with their different languages.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> There you go again asking me who is right, the guy speaking Spanish or the guy speaking French. They are both describing the same distance and time with their different languages.


No they aren't. Is 110 the same as 100? is 11 the same as 10? The math works out so they do actually both agree on the speed - but that is all. You are erroneously drawing the conclusion that if speed is the same then distance AND time must be the same. You seem very focused on the distance aspect and completely neglecting the time, which makes me believe you are assuming universal time. It has already been pointed out that there is no universal time. 

*Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa. Every reference-body has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event. *


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

We aren't even on relativity anymore. You can't seem to grasp the fact that 110 and 100 are different numbers. I saw you add 2+2 but I am convinced you simply copied the equation from a website.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> I keep saying i'm done with this thread but I just can't leave out of morbid curiosity for what seedling will post next. He is a train wreck. My jaw is dropping to unprecedented levels.


Now we know whence the mold came. cn


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> No they aren't. Is 110 the same as 100? is 11 the same as 10? The math works out so they do actually both agree on the speed - but that is all. You are erroneously drawing the conclusion that if speed is the same then distance AND time must be the same. You seem very focused on the distance aspect and completely neglecting the time, which makes me believe you are assuming universal time. It has already been pointed out that there is no universal time.


This is the deal. I have a size 10 shoe. You have a size 12 shoe. We are tasked to measure a football field in shoe lengths. I say it's 360 shoe lengths. You say it's 300 shoe lengths. 

You are asking me who is correct. Seriously, you are that retarded!!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> This is the deal. I have a size 10 shoe. You have a size 12 shoe. We are tasked to measure a football field in shoe lengths. I say it's 360 shoe lengths. You say it's 300 shoe lengths.
> 
> You are asking me who is correct. Seriously, you are that retarded!!


I would say nice try, but it wasn't. That is a terrible analogy and not even close to relevant to what is being discussed. 







More like we both have size 12 shoes and I ask you to measure the field while being at rest relative to the football field, and I will measure it while I fly by at a significant fraction of the speed of light. Then we compare distances and we have different measurements. Then we compare times and we clocked different times too! Then we plug our values in (you use the distance AND time YOU measured - I used the distance AND time I measured) and calculated the same closing speed between us.

Notice that neither of us agrees on distance. Notice neither of us agrees on time. Notice we do both agree on closing speed.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

Say real slowly 3 times while clicking your heals together:

Eye am sofa king we Todd did...


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

And I already anticipate your next question:

Seedling: om nom nom nom *takes cock out of mouth* But how do we measure a different distance!? The football field is a football field and it is the length of exactly 1 football field!!!! DERP DERPA DERP! It is 300 feet exactly! *inserts cock back into mouth*

me: You took that measurement from the frame of reference of yourself, which is not moving relative to the football field. If you are moving relative to the football field you will get a different results. Also, watch the teeth please.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> And I already anticipate your next question:
> 
> Seedling: om nom nom nom *takes cock out of mouth* But how do we measure a different distance!? The football field is a football field and it is the length of exactly 1 football field!!!! DERP DERPA DERP! It is 300 feet exactly! *inserts cock back into mouth*
> 
> me: You took that measurement from the frame of reference of yourself, which is not moving relative to the football field. If you are moving relative to the football field you will get a different results. Also, watch the teeth please.


I fucking laid my shoe end to end and counted the numbers of shoe lengths, what the fuck did you do, stand on the moon and hold your shoe in front of your eye about a foot away and say that your shoe covers 3600 football fields on earth???

Are you saying that if I look at the moon tonight and hold my shoe up to it and the shoe is the same length as the diameter of the moon that the moon is really the length of 1 of my shoe lengths?????

You fucking idiot, you wouldn't know a meter stick and clock if someone beat you over the head with it like your step chump did when you were a toddler. Can you blame him? Fuck no!!!


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

It's seedling. On his own.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> It's seedling. On his own.


Quitters never win and winners never quit!

I know what the fuck I'm talking about.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Quitters never win and winners never quit!


Depends on where you take the observation from.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2012)




----------



## Seedling (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Depends on where you take the observation from.


It's not an observation, it's a fact.


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Quitters never win and winners never quit!.





Seedling said:


> It's not an observation, it's a fact.


You are even willing to argue about arbitrary platitudes.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 24, 2012)

Seedling said:


> It's not an observation, it's a fact.


Michael Jordan was a basketball player for the Chicago Bulls. He led the Bulls to three straight NBA championships in 91, 92, and 93. He won the NBA MVP award for 2 of those years. He then retired (quit) basketball.

He later returned to the NBA and led the bulls to three straight NBA championships in 96, 97, and 98. He also won the MVP award for 2 of those years.

He is an example of both a winner quitting, and a quitter winning. 

How do you explain the evidence of the MJ experiment? I'm sure you will simply ignore it.


----------



## cannabineer (Sep 24, 2012)

guy incognito said:


> Michael Jordan was a basketball player for the Chicago Bulls. He led the Bulls to three straight NBA championships in 91, 92, and 93. He won the NBA MVP award for 2 of those years. He then retired (quit) basketball.
> 
> He later returned to the NBA and led the bulls to three straight NBA championships in 96, 97, and 98. He also won the MVP award for 2 of those years.
> 
> ...


Guy, I think you're trying to multitask. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 24, 2012)

Leonard Susskind starting from the beginning discussing reference frames in general and properties of inertial frames and the principle of relativity. 

[video=youtube;BAurgxtOdxY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAurgxtOdxY[/video]


----------



## Zaehet Strife (Sep 25, 2012)

I was under the impression it was called space-time. If there was no (space) before the BB, how could time (space-time) have existed?


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2012)

Seedling said:


> My equations and the math, with actual numbers are part of the diagram. Did you bother to look at it and understand every aspect of it?


Mathematical proof. Numbers are not math. Equations are not math. Rhetorical sarcasm is meaningless to me. Math must be proved back to the level of the geometry proofs. Prove a Triangle always = 180 degrees. Prove Pi R(sq) = Circumference of a Circle.

Have you ever done that? All of Einstein's math and all Math is proved to that level. Your conjectures were ruled out long ago. They can't withstand the Math, especially today. That is why we have Math. To prove conjecture and/or rule it out.

But, there is still much un-solved math, for you to ponder. I listed the top 10 in the Science section.


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Quitters never win and winners never quit!
> 
> I know what the fuck I'm talking about.


No, a claim is worthless without proof. Mathematical proof of the proposed equations. You are not even in the same boat as Super Symmetry, quantum gravity, Cosmic strings and a couple of others. All 5 can be proved. PROVED.

But, it takes advanced thinking indeed, to see that all 5 were a hall of mirrors reflecting Mathmatically, the 11 dimension of the Standard Quantum model. It's how we have that Model. You get the Noble Prize for PROOF.


----------



## Doer (Sep 25, 2012)

Seedling said:


> It's not an observation, it's a fact.


There is absolutely no difference in this context. You're observations are real if the experiment was tightly controlled, you hope. That's it. Then others must duplicate and agree.

You mis-understand. There are no "facts" as you say. There is only the current Understanding based on PROOF. And that is under constant assault by your associates that want your job.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 26, 2012)

The board is slow tonight. Where's seedling been? Poor thing, must be such a burden to know things that no one else on the planet knows.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 27, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> The board is slow tonight. Where's seedling been? Poor thing, must be such a burden to know things that no one else on the planet knows.


"You can't handle the truth!"


----------



## Doer (Sep 27, 2012)

Seedling said:


> "You can't handle the truth!"


You can't provide any.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 27, 2012)




----------



## mindphuk (Sep 27, 2012)

Seedling said:


> "You can't handle the truth!"


How about you try with some of the major questions I posed to you that you have yet to even attempt to answer? How can someone like you, that obviously has a modicum of intelligence, be so stubbornly obstinate when it comes to physics 101? 

Did you watch any of Susskind's lecture? Did you notice the point he made how physics has always measured velocities relative to _something_? Have you yet demonstrated how to measure a velocity that's not relative?


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 27, 2012)

I can just imagine him bobbing his head around like a pigeon right now and strutting around like he won instead of responding to your questions.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 28, 2012)

The crickets are deafening.


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 28, 2012)

I'm inclined to think that you guys really did finally get through to him. He put up a valiant, stubborn fight, but as intelligent as the guy is and as much as he was exposed to, I think he finally broke through. I don't think he's strong enough to admit it, but who knows. Worse comes to worse, there will be more fun, retarded posts to enjoy so we win either way...


----------



## Heisenberg (Sep 28, 2012)

I have began to watch the Stanford lectures on youtube, so at least _something_ good came out of it.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 29, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> The crickets are deafening.



I'm use to 'em. They usually show up when I start asking the relativist questions. The problem with a classroom environment education is that it's generally a one-sided conversation. The "lecturer" doesn't have time for debate or classroom antics, they are there to force feed you...That is not a good learning environment.


----------



## Seedling (Sep 29, 2012)

tyler.durden said:


> I'm inclined to think that you guys really did finally get through to him. He put up a valiant, stubborn fight, but as intelligent as the guy is and as much as he was exposed to, I think he finally broke through. I don't think he's strong enough to admit it, but who knows. Worse comes to worse, there will be more fun, retarded posts to enjoy so we win either way...


Not likely. I'm smart enough to know that "some men you just can't reach."


----------



## tyler.durden (Sep 29, 2012)

I guess worse came to worse...


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 29, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I'm use to 'em. They usually show up when I start asking the relativist questions. The problem with a classroom environment education is that it's generally a one-sided conversation. The "lecturer" doesn't have time for debate or classroom antics, they are there to force feed you...That is not a good learning environment.


Wow, Seedling you know everything about everything! You just explained the process in every classroom ever, in one sentence! I can see why you take yourself so seriously!

It must be hard being alone at the top of the world.



There are two scenarios;

1) Seedling is a troll and he's not worth anyones time.
2) Seedling isn't a troll, and he's still not worth anyones time.

Take your pick.


----------



## mindphuk (Sep 29, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I'm use to 'em. They usually show up when I start asking the relativist questions. The problem with a classroom environment education is that it's generally a one-sided conversation. The "lecturer" doesn't have time for debate or classroom antics, they are there to force feed you...That is not a good learning environment.


We aren't in a classroom here yet you don't seem to be able to have a conversation with people here that are knowledgeable about physics. You avoid the tough questions and act as if repetition of your incorrect claims are somehow explanations of said claims. Your dodging of relevant points are quite prevalent. Your belief that the principle of relativity began with Einstein and is something he introduced to physics is has clearly caused you confusion yet you have never addressed the fact that velocities are only meaningful when described as relative to something else. Why do you even bother coming back here to make these trite comments if you can't even address these most basic issues? Quit trying to pass this off as if everyone else is misguided because (you assume) we all were spoon-fed this information and act as if we don't know any better and would not come to the same conclusion if we took a different approach. Your attempt to poison the well and imply incompetence of your opposition is not only fallacious and makes you contemptible. 

You are worse than the religionists that target evolution and claim that it's not science and only accepted because it allows people to act immorally because you actually seem to know some science and your rejection of Einstein isn't based on actually critically examining it but because you have some sort of personal bias that you won't address. It's worse because you should know better and understand how the process of science works, rather than blame some bogeyman that suppresses free thinking and alternative theories. 

It's also sad because I have tried valiantly to understand what you are claiming and try to find support for what you claim yet when you make clear and obvious mistakes, you won't address them and with a wave of the hand, profess they are not mistakes without any substantive support.


----------



## Beefbisquit (Sep 29, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> You avoid the tough questions and act as if repetition of your incorrect claims are somehow explanations of said claims.



Thanks MP, you just summed up almost 400 posts in one sentence.


----------



## guy incognito (Sep 30, 2012)

Seedling said:


> Not likely. I'm smart enough to know that "some men you just can't reach."


Finally, he admits it. 

Hey look! It's ignorance! Let's go wallow in it.


----------



## Doer (Sep 30, 2012)

Seedling said:


> I'm use to 'em. They usually show up when I start asking the relativist questions. The problem with a classroom environment education is that it's generally a one-sided conversation. The "lecturer" doesn't have time for debate or classroom antics, they are there to force feed you...That is not a good learning environment.


What good are your antics? What can you discuss? What can you prove? Nada.

And when did you stop learning and take up trolling?


----------



## Indagrow (Oct 1, 2012)




----------



## tyler.durden (Oct 1, 2012)

^^ Not to mention our planet is spinning on it's own axis an 900+ mph...


----------



## Heisenberg (Oct 1, 2012)

Seedling apparently abandoned this line of thinking or found another forum to start his argument all over again. Special relativity survives! Moving this to science section.


----------



## cannabineer (Oct 1, 2012)

Are you sure? SS&P is this thread's preferred <cough!> oh look ... flies! cn


----------

