"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Again: Speed = travelled distance / time.
Observers in different reference frames observe different times. The speed of light can not be a constant relative to all observers.

Wrong, it is still the exact same speed, just represented in a different format.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually YOU failed miserably on the Keller's cone matter. You tried to claim that there is a cone in the Huygen's wavelet simulation and yet you failed to explain how the sides of the wave bend above the center part of the light. I am still waiting for your explanation. You just silently went away :)
There is no cone in the simulation. The simulated wave is a planar wave causing horizontal stripes.
Now. Would YOU like to explain to me what is it that the speed of light is a constant relative to???

YOU made the claim that the wave theory of light cannot account for the Keller cone, when it was actually a solution to the wave equations that lead Keller to his cone.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Again: Speed = travelled distance / time.
Observers in different reference frames observe different times. The speed of light can not be a constant relative to all observers.

Then you better dig up Einstein and explain to him that Special Relativity is wrong.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Again: Speed = travelled distance / time.
Observers in different reference frames observe different times. The speed of light can not be a constant relative to all observers.

Reality is not obliged to conform to your misconceptions.

polymath257 wrote:

They also observe different distances. The two cancel out when calculating velocities.

There you go. Everyone observes a different light year.

Relative to what does light travel one light year in a year?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go. Everyone observes a different light year.
Relative to what does light travel one light year in a year?

That does not change the speed of light.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go. Everyone observes a different light year.
Relative to what does light travel one light year in a year?

To everything in uniform motion. You seem to not understand that both spacial distances and time intervals are relative to the frame in which the observations are done. But, no matter what frame is used, the speed of light comes out to be the same. A spaceship going past at 99% of the speed of light will measure distances and times different than the way I do, but there are many things we will agree upon. THAT is what spewcial relativity is all about: the invariants.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
I tried to explain to you what you got wrong. Apparently you refused it. Then, by all means, do explain what fallacy you see in my thinking.
What fallacy do you see?

You suffer delusions of adequacy.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go. Everyone observes a different light year.
Relative to what does light travel one light year in a year?

Relative to 9.4607*10^15 meters.

polymath257 wrote:

To everything in uniform motion. You seem to not understand that both spacial distances and time intervals are relative to the frame in which the observations are done. But, no matter what frame is used, the speed of light comes out to be the same. A spaceship going past at 99% of the speed of light will measure distances and times different than the way I do, but there are many things we will agree upon. THAT is what spewcial relativity is all about: the invariants.

You're not making sense. Observers may be in uniform motion at different speeds. Thus they experience different times. So when you say "to everything in uniform motion", you have uttered a fallacy. Your uniform motion comment only applies to those few observers that see light travel exactly one light year in one of their years.

You are forced into a position where there must be a single universal coordinate system which is actually dictated by light. This base reference frame is where light travels one light year in a year. Every observer's reference frame then must be only calculated relative to this base reference frame dictated by light.

So you actually have a "fixed-relativity" fixed to the fundamental properties of light. Instead of a stationary coordinate system of the universe you are using a stationary coordinate system of light.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You're not making sense. Observers may be in uniform motion at different speeds. Thus they experience different times. So when you say "to everything in uniform motion", you have uttered a fallacy. Your uniform motion comment only applies to those few observers that see light travel exactly one light year in one of their years.
You are forced into a position where there must be a single universal coordinate system which is actually dictated by light. This base reference frame is where light travels one light year in a year. Every observer's reference frame then must be only calculated relative to this base reference frame dictated by light.
So you actually have a "fixed-relativity" fixed to the fundamental properties of light. Instead of a stationary coordinate system of the universe you are using a stationary coordinate system of light.

Do you want me to run some numbers for you?

OK, suppose I create a laser beam with x=0 and t=0 at its creation. Three seconds later, that light is 3*186,282=553,846 miles away. Let's assume it is absorbed at that point. So, when it is absorbed, x=553,846 miles and t=3 seconds. We good?

Now, someone else goes past me at 99% of the speed of light. That person has x'=0 and t'=0 at the creation of the laser beam. What are the x' and t' that this ship measures for the event when the light is absorbed? Well, it turns out that x'=39615 miles and t'=.2126 seconds.

Both observers are measuring the same events: the creation and the absorption of the light. They set their origin and clocks to agree when the light is created. But they differ in how far they measure the light to travel and how long it took to go that far. But, in spite of this, they both measure the speed of light to be 186282 miles per second.

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
You're not making sense. Observers may be in uniform motion at different speeds. Thus they experience different times. So when you say "to everything in uniform motion", you have uttered a fallacy. Your uniform motion comment only applies to those few observers that see light travel exactly one light year in one of their years.

Correction: one of *their* light years in one of their years.

You are forced into a position where there must be a single universal coordinate system which is actually dictated by light.

No, I am not. Both space and time measurements are affected by motion.

This base reference frame is where light travels one light year in a year.

This happens in *all* reference frames.

Every observer's reference frame then must be only calculated relative to this base reference frame dictated by light.
So you actually have a "fixed-relativity" fixed to the fundamental properties of light. Instead of a stationary coordinate system of the universe you are using a stationary coordinate system of light.

Wrong. See the example above. If you want, I can add a few more observers and run the numbers.

By the way, the numbers I got are from the Lorentz transformations.

polymath257 wrote:

Do you want me to run some numbers for you?
OK, suppose I create a laser beam with x=0 and t=0 at its creation. Three seconds later, that light is 3*186,282=553,846 miles away. Let's assume it is absorbed at that point. So, when it is absorbed, x=553,846 miles and t=3 seconds. We good?
Now, someone else goes past me at 99% of the speed of light. That person has x'=0 and t'=0 at the creation of the laser beam. What are the x' and t' that this ship measures for the event when the light is absorbed? Well, it turns out that x'=39615 miles and t'=.2126 seconds.
Both observers are measuring the same events: the creation and the absorption of the light. They set their origin and clocks to agree when the light is created. But they differ in how far they measure the light to travel and how long it took to go that far. But, in spite of this, they both measure the speed of light to be 186282 miles per second.

Ok. Suppose the ship going past you does the same as you do, at the very same time, it being only just a meter away from you so the angle of the two beams is about zero. You both aim your lasers at the same point which absorbs them. What numbers you get for each observing each other's beam's x and t? How do you think "the spot" sees the beams "coming"?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. Suppose the ship going past you does the same as you do, at the very same time, it being only just a meter away from you so the angle of the two beams is about zero. You both aim your lasers at the same point which absorbs them. What numbers you get for each observing each other's beam's x and t? How do you think "the spot" sees the beams "coming"?

Does the ship have its own absorber, or is it using the absorber you think it stationary?

Here's another one:

Two space ships A and B are 5 light minutes away from Earth, relative to earth they are stationary.

The space ships are identical and equipped with extremely powerful laser beams capable of destroying the earth.

At t=0 point in time ship A fires its beam directly at Earth. One minute later ship B starts to move directly towards Earth at 0.5 light speed and also fires its beam directly towards Earth.

Which beam destroys Earth, beam from ship A or beam from ship B?

humble brother wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok. Suppose the ship going past you does the same as you do, at the very same time, it being only just a meter away from you so the angle of the two beams is about zero. You both aim your lasers at the same point which absorbs them. What numbers you get for each observing each other's beam's x and t? How do you think "the spot" sees the beams "coming"?

Again, this is a fairly straightforward exercise using Lorentz transformations. The y component isn't affected, but the x and t components are. Just do the calculations and see what happens.

humble brother wrote:

Here's another one:
Two space ships A and B are 5 light minutes away from Earth, relative to earth they are stationary.

OK, so all the frames involved here are at rest with respect to each other.

The space ships are identical and equipped with extremely powerful laser beams capable of destroying the earth.
At t=0 point in time ship A fires its beam directly at Earth. One minute later ship B starts to move directly towards Earth at 0.5 light speed and also fires its beam directly towards Earth.
Which beam destroys Earth, beam from ship A or beam from ship B?

The laser from A. Clearly.

humble brother wrote:

Here's another one:
Two space ships A and B are 5 light minutes away from Earth, relative to earth they are stationary.
The space ships are identical and equipped with extremely powerful laser beams capable of destroying the earth.
At t=0 point in time ship A fires its beam directly at Earth. One minute later ship B starts to move directly towards Earth at 0.5 light speed and also fires its beam directly towards Earth.
Which beam destroys Earth, beam from ship A or beam from ship B?

I assume you mean 1 minute in the common stationary frame and that the distance between B and earth hasn't changed.

polymath257 wrote:

OK, so all the frames involved here are at rest with respect to each other.
The laser from A. Clearly.

I find this quite funny...

You speak of this "speed of light speed limit for everything" but then you extend the relative maximum speed limit by making observers in other reference frames experience different time. So there really isn't any speed limit actually, there is only an odd limit inside the reference frames.

Let's put it like this. If there was a big bang, and matter flew out of an singularity with speed of light. Could any part of that matter do anything else to change its movement other than first slow down?