Summit Clock Experiment 2.0: Time is Absolute

[Stripe]

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.

If you know the velocity and you know the distance, you can work out the time.

You should not be disagreeing with anything I am saying.

 

[gcthomas]

If you know the velocity and you know the distance, you can work out the time.

You should not be disagreeing with anything I am saying.

Could you answer the question please, so I can decide if I agree with you or not?

Ta

 

[Stripe]

If we know the velocity and distance, we can work out the event's timing.

If you cannot agree with this, there is no point discussing anything with you.

 

[gcthomas]

There's certainly no point, since you have repeatedly ignored all questions about your definition of this fixed speed of light.

It seems you are either embarrassed about your inability to answer the question or, more likely I think, you are unable to understand how velocities are defined.

Good luck luck with your intuitive physics, while the rest of us have moved on to more rigorous thought.

:up:

 

[Stripe]

There's certainly no point, since you have repeatedly ignored all questions about your definition of this fixed speed of light.

If the velocity is known and the distance is known, then event's timing can be determined.

It seems you are either embarrassed about your inability to answer the question or, more likely I think, you are unable to understand how velocities are defined.

Evolutionists hate reading.

Good luck luck with your intuitive physics, while the rest of us have moved on to more rigorous thought.

:wave2:

Bye, again.

 

[gcthomas]

If the velocity is known and the distance is known, then event's timing can be determined.

Evolutionists hate reading.

:wave2:

Bye, again.

Until you decide which object the speed of light is measured relative to, then you can't say you know the velocity.

YECs hate real science.

 

[Stripe]

You can't say you know the velocity.

If the velocity cannot be known, the order of events cannot be known.

You asked how we could determine the order of two events. I said we need two of the distance, velocity and time for each event in relation to the observer.

That is the only way to answer your question.

Can your question be answered?

 

[gcthomas]

If the velocity cannot be known, the order of events cannot be known.

You are slowly getting there, perhaps?

You asked how we could determine the order of two events. I said we need two of the distance, velocity and time for each event in relation to the observer.

But you still have not explained whether the speed of light is the fixed value for every observer, and if not which is it fixed for?

Can your question be answered?

Yes, by having the velocity of light being the same for each observer regardless of their velocity relative to the other events. And the answer is that you can't determine which happened first for all observers and there is no way in principle to determine which observer has the privileged ("correct") view.

 

[Stripe]

But you still have not explained whether the speed of light is the fixed value for every observer, and if not which is it fixed for?

There is a good reason for that: It is irrelevant to the conversation. You asked a question and I answered it. What you need to learn to do is accept what I have said as accurate. That is how a rational conversation works.

Yes.

Great. :up:

So, tell us. If we know the velocity and know the distance, can we work out the order of events?

And the answer is that you can't determine which happened first.

So it is yes and no.

Evolutionists. :chuckle:

 

[gcthomas]

There is a good reason for that: It is irrelevant to the conversation. You asked a question and I answered it. What you need to learn to do is accept what I have said as accurate. That is how a rational conversation works.



Great. :up:

So, tell us. If we know the velocity and know the distance, can we work out the order of events?

Key question about velocities still unanswered - I'll try again:

If I shine a light pulse at another person who is moving away from me at half the speed of light, what speed does that person measure as the speed of that light pulse as it goes by?

 

[Stripe]

Key question about velocities still unanswered - I'll try again: If I shine a light pulse at another person who is moving away from me at half the speed of light, what speed does that person measure as the speed of that light pulse as it goes by?

You need to respond rationally to my answer to your first question, which was correct. :up:

If we have the velocity and the distance, then the timing of the events can be determined.

When you can agree with that without demanding adherence to your pet theory, we can discuss the problems related to finding the numbers.

 

[gcthomas]

You need to respond rationally to my answer to your first question, which was correct. :up:

If we have the velocity and the distance, then the timing of the events can be determined.

When you can agree with that without demanding adherence to your pet theory, we can discuss the problems related to finding the numbers.

I've not done any such thing.

You told me earlier that velocities do not need to be measured relative to anything, even though such relative measurement is a fundamental part of the definition of velocity, and has since at least the time of Newton.

I have demanded nothing except that you clarify the murky position of yours as to what you consider the speed fo light should be measured relative to. My last post was intended to make it easy for you to decide, since you continue to insist that the velocity can be defined without being specific about it.

In the example of my last post, my view is that both observers will measure the same velocity as a result of a combination of time dilation and Lorentz contraction of length metrics. You, I know, do not believe these things happen, so I want to see how you avoid having each observer recording a different speed for the light pulse.

How DO you account for that? Simple question, Stripe, that you have avoided a good half dozen times now.

 

[Stripe]

Simple question, Stripe, that you have avoided a good half dozen times now.

Nope. This is just you demanding that we adopt your pet theory.

And I answered your question right off the bat. You need to learn to read and remember what people say to you.

Meanwhile, the velocity and the distance given, we have what we need to work out the timing of the events. Your initial question is answered as well.

The good thing about my answer is that it is true no matter how much you want to avoid it.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope. This is just you demanding that we adopt your pet theory.

And I answered your question right off the bat. You need to learn to read and remember what people say to you.

Meanwhile, the velocity and the distance given, we have what we need to work out the timing of the events. Your initial question is answered as well.

The good thing about my answer is that it is true no matter how much you want to avoid it.

Can't you answer such a simple example? Two observers, what speeds do they measure?

I believe I know why you won't answer - it is that your reasoning will be seen to have a critical problem. How can you assume a single speed for the light, when the observers are moving at different speeds relative to each other?

If you can't answer that ...

(YECs hate answering direct questions!)

 

[Jukia]

Can't you answer such a simple example? Two observers, what speeds do they measure?

I believe I know why you won't answer - it is that your reasoning will be seen to have a critical problem. How can you assume a single speed for the light, when the observers are moving at different speeds relative to each other?

If you can't answer that ...

(YECs hate answering direct questions!)

Give it up. He will not answer directly. He cannot because to do so will suggest to him that somehow science provides a different answer than his Holy Book.

 

[Stripe]

(YECs hate answering direct questions!)

Evolutionists love jumping to a new conversation when faced with a rational response to the original one.

 

[gcthomas]

I'm sorry you can't answer a simple question about the nature of the velocity you want as a given. The speed of sound varies depending on which moving observer makes the measurement and what direction the wind is blowing. Without relativity you have the same problem you are unwilling to face.

So, either all will measure the speed of light (relativity ) or they measure different speeds (needing an ether probably).

Which do you choose? I choose the former. If you choose the latter or specify a third option then we can discuss it.

A non answer again will leave Einstein's Relativity unscathed from your junior school level arguments.

 

[Stripe]

A non answer again will leave Einstein's Relativity unscathed from your junior school level arguments.

I have not made an argument; I have answered your question correctly. If we are given the velocity and the distance, we can calculate the order of events.

You should be able to accept this as an accurate and complete answer to your question.

 

[gcthomas]

It isn't complete because you haven't decided what the fixed speed of light is measured relative to.

Do you really not understand that defining a reference frame is essential in dynamics problems, whether classical or relativistic?

 

[Stripe]

It isn't complete.

Here is your question.

Imagine two stars explode. They are far apart and both moving relative to each other and to an observer, who judges star A to have exploded before star B, while another observer, moving relative to the first observer, judges star B to have exploded first.

How do you go about deciding which star actually exploded first?

Answer: We need the velocity the light went at and the distance it traveled.