Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[gcthomas]

If we cannot get the information, we cannot get an answer.

If we have the information, can we get an answer?

The information you need is what you are using to define the speed relative to.

If you run into the wind its speed relative to you is faster than if you were standing still. So what is the speed of light you mentioned measured relative to? What is the effect on the measured speed of motion into or away from the beam of light?

 

[Stripe]

The information you need is what you are using to define the speed relative to.

:dizzy:

Does the information exist? Is there a distance between the stars and the observer? Is there a speed for light?

 

[gcthomas]

:dizzy:

Does the information exist? Is there a distance between the stars and the observer? Is there a speed for light?

If there is just one speed independent of the observer motion, then we must be in the realm of special relativity, Lorentz contraction and time dilation.

If you instead have speeds relative to each observer then you must state which object the speed is fixed relative to. Then you could work out some distances from timings.

 

[Stripe]

If you instead have speeds relative to each observer then you must state which object the speed is fixed relative to. Then you could work out some distances from timings.

:chuckle:

Was that a "yes"?

 

[gcthomas]

:chuckle:

Was that a "yes"?

Yes.

But with each observer making their own arbitrary guess as to the reference frame for the speed of light, they will not agree on whether the explosions were at the same or different times.

 

[Stripe]

Yes.

Yes?

But with each observer making their own arbitrary guess as to the reference frame for the speed of light, they will not agree on whether the explosions were at the same or different times.

That is a "no."

You need to make up your mind. Given the information I asked for, is it possible to work out the order of events?

 

[gcthomas]

Yes?



That is a "no."

You need to make up your mind. Given the information I asked for, is it possible to work out the order of events?

No, because you haven't defined a velocity for the light.

 

[Stripe]

No, because you haven't defined a velocity for the light.

Sure, I have.

You're really struggling with this reading stuff, aren't you?

 

[gcthomas]

Sure, I have.

You're really struggling with this reading stuff, aren't you?

Velocity is the rate of change of displacement with time, agreed?

And displacement is a space vector joining two locations, yes? It has to be a vector quantity to make velocity a vector when displacement is divided by the scalar time elapsed for the rate calculation.

So velocity is the rate of change of a displacement vector. If one end of this vector represents the progression of the beam of light, what does the other end get fixed to?

Are you following this Stripe? It is a fairly introductory level of kinematics.

 

[Stripe]

Velocity is the rate of change of displacement with time, agreed? And displacement is a space vector joining two locations, yes?

Velocity is distance divided by time in a specified direction. I think that is the same as what you said.

So velocity is the rate of change of a displacement vector. If one end of this vector represents the progression of the beam of light, what does the other end get fixed to?

The star, obviously.

 

[gcthomas]

Velocity is distance divided by time in a specified direction. I think that is the same as what you said.

Distance from where? From the star?

The star, obviously.

So if you are measuring the velocity relative to the star, and the star is moving away from the observer, how can the speed of light be measured by the observer to be the same as the speed relative to the star?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It's stripe we're talking about. He just knows.

 

[Stripe]

Distance from where? From the star?

If you have the velocity and you have the distance, you can work out the event timing.

So if you are measuring the velocity relative to the star, and the star is moving away from the observer, how can the speed of light be measured by the observer as the same as the speed relative to the star?

You need to finish the conversation we were having rather than launching into the justification of your conclusion.

Given the information, the event's timing can be determined.

 

[gcthomas]

If you have the velocity and you have the distance, you can work out the event timing.

You need to finish the conversation we were having rather than launching into the justification of your conclusion.

Given the information, the event's timing can be determined.

Imagine you are flying a jet fighter at 300 m/s speed relative to the air, and you fire shells at a plane flying at 200 m/s head on towards you. the air itself is blowing side on at 30 m/s over the ground.

What does it mean to say that the shells have a speed of 500 m/s? Does it mean that it leaves the barrel at that speed, or it hits the target at that speed, or is it the speed over the ground?

If you think they are all the same, then carry on with your 'velocities don't need to be measured relative to anything' meme. Else think harder.

 

[Stripe]

Imagine you are flying a jet fighter at 300 m/s ...

Imagine if you were willing to respond rationally to my simple and correct point.

If the information were made available, the order of the two explosions could be determined.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

 

[gcthomas]

Imagine if you were willing to respond rationally to my simple and correct point.

If the information were made available, the order of the two explosions could be determined.

From Google Nexus and the TOL app!

How can you have the speed of light leaving the exploding star te same as the speed as it arrives when the star and observer are moving at different velocities? This is fundamental, Stripe, even though you don't want to accept the obvious conclusions from the jet fighter example.

Velocities are measured relative to something, and it makes a difference which you pick, doesn't it?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Imagine if you were willing to respond rationally to my simple and correct point.

If the information were made available, the order of the two explosions could be determined.

Reiteration is not a rebuttal.

 

[Lighthouse]

This is why researchers use light.

It's referencing topics that it assumes you are already familiar with as it is from a science journal intended to be read by experts not laymen. You can look these things up independently.

You're lazy.

Yes and no.

I think it would be more accurate to say gravity affects the curvature of space-time. What's happening is the distance the light must travel is increased, and so it takes longer.

Link

Or at least that is my understanding of Special relativity.

Can you prove that it is space-time that is affected and not simply light?

 

[Stripe]

How can you have the speed of light leaving the exploding star te same as the speed as it arrives when the star and observer are moving at different velocities?

:dizzy:

The light traveled a knowable distance at a knowable velocity. If we know those two numbers, we can know when it exploded.

That you keep arguing shows that you are determined to insist your model for a problem future to the discussion is the right one. However, if you cannot agree on the simple things, why should we accept your future arguments?

 

[gcthomas]

:dizzy:

The light traveled a knowable distance at a knowable velocity. If we know those two numbers, we can know when it exploded.

That you keep arguing shows that you are determined to insist your model for a problem future to the discussion is the right one. However, if you cannot agree on the simple things, why should we accept your future arguments?

By knowable velocity, do you mean that all observers, whatever their motion, will measure the velocity relative to them the same? Of not then your premise is inconsistent.