Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    NO, all observers would agree that a yard stick is a yard.
    But they don't, as confirmed by the experiments twelve other people have already told you about.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    It is relevant when you consider who's defining the speed, are you to say that the speed of light we measure is even remotely correct ? how do you know it is even fast? fast relative to what?

    The Universe defines the universe it is not of us to define speed to being absolute to a time frame made by us.


    If you did the maths you would find that presently the speed of light is faster than time,
    Exactly what the Michelson-morley experiment was trying to determine. The speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s relative to EVERYTHING!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    To clarify, you're doing the wrong calculation. Technically speed is the derivative of position with the respect to time, but over small enough changes in position we can approximate it as the change in position - distance - over the change in time. In this case assume x is the position of light. Then

    c=\frac{\mathrm{d} x}{\mathrm{d}t} \approx \frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}.

    In your notation, you can write this as

    c=\frac{d}{t}.

    Now consider two different observers in difference reference frames. The first observer, Alice, measures the speed of light to be c and the distance and time to be d_1 and t_1 respectively. The second observer, Bob, also measures the speed of light to be c (by the postulate of SR, as confirmed experimentally). He measures the distance and time to be d_2 and t_2. Where is the contradiction here?

    \frac{d_1}{t_1}=c=\frac{d_2}{t_2  }.

    We only need t_1=t_2 if d_1=d_2, but this is manifestly not the case for different reference frames! There are infinitely many variations that leave the speed of light invariant. For example, if d_2=2d_1 and t_2=2t_1,

    \frac{d_2}{t_2}=\frac{2d_1}{2t_1  }=\frac{d_1}{t_1}

    and there is no problem.
    Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    Exactly what the Michelson-morley experiment was trying to determine. The speed of light is 3x10^8 m/s relative to EVERYTHING!
    Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
    That post explicitly demonstrated how you can have the same speed of light with t_1 \neq t_2. The problem you are having is that you are insisting that d_1 = d_2, which is also experimentally false.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Your problem is because you insist that the observers have different rates of time, if t1 is different to the rate of t2 then the result of speed is different.
    Michelson-morley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.

    NO! It will reach you at the same speed. Michelson-morley!!!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Nope . if you are travelling at 1 mph towards a light source, the light is reaching you faster than if you stood still.
    That is false, as demonstrated by millions of experiments. As demonstrated the very bloody experiment you are being told about. Go read a book.

    Do you actually give a **** about the truth?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    That post explicitly demonstrated how you can have the same speed of light with t_1 \neq t_2. The problem you are having is that you are insisting that d_1 = d_2, which is also experimentally false.

    OK let us talk about distance not to be mistaken for a length.

    Are you saying you are disagreeing that a 30cm ruler is not 30cm?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    OK let us talk about distance not to be mistaken for a length.

    Are you saying you are disagreeing that a 30cm ruler is not 30cm?
    A ruler measured to be 30cm in a reference frame that is stationary with respect to that ruler would not be measured as 30cm in a reference frame that is moving with respect to the ruler.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    That is false, as demonstrated by millions of experiments. As demonstrated the very bloody experiment you are being told about. Go read a book.

    Do you actually give a **** about the truth?

    The teacher is losing their composure.

    Do you care about the truth?


    If you start a journey that is 100 mile to reach your friend at point B, and you travel at 100 mph how long does it take you to get there?


    Play along and I will show you
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    A ruler measured to be 30cm in a reference frame that is stationary with respect to that ruler would not be measured as 30cm in a reference frame that is moving with respect to the ruler.
    Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    The teacher is losing their composure.

    Do you care about the truth?
    There is no teacher, and yes I do care about the truth.


    If you start a journey that is 100 mile to reach your friend at point B, and you travel at 100 mph how long does it take you to get there?


    Play along and I will show you
    Is it 100 miles in the reference frame stationary with respect to point B or 100 miles in the reference frame travelling at 100mph with respect to point B? If you just insist that they're the same now, you will be question-begging. If it turns out that you are correct and both are the same, you should be quite free to specify a frame.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
    Unfortunately I very much doubt you can, since experiment confirms that the ruler does contract. If you model proves that the ruler does not contract, your model is therefore false.

    How are you defining the distinction between the 'visual perception' of a contracted ruler and the contracted ruler?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    There is no teacher, and yes I do care about the truth.




    Is it 100 miles in the reference frame stationary with respect to point B

    A motorway will do.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Implication)
    Unfortunately I very much doubt you can, since experiment confirms that the ruler does contract. If you model proves that the ruler does not contract, your model is therefore false.

    How are you defining the distinction between the 'visual perception' of a contracted ruler and the contracted ruler?

    light length between eye and object is visual contraction,

    And my model and physical real life experiment shows there is no physical length contraction.
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    Great, I have lead you to the Lorentz contractions, I can prove that the ruler does not contract and it is only a visual perception.
    It is not an illusion!!! It actually contracts!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    It is not an illusion!!! It actually contracts!!!


    No it does not, Einstein had to exaggerate the Lorentz visual transformation to justify his parlour tricks turning them into a physical contraction when this does not happen and is easy to prove it does not . by a simple experiment involving train carriages
    • Aston Villa FC Supporter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Aston Villa FC Supporter
    (Original post by AlbertXY)
    No it does not, Einstein had to exaggerate the Lorentz visual transformation to justify his parlour tricks turning them into a physical contraction when this does not happen and is easy to prove it does not . by a simple experiment involving train carriages
    Actually, that very experiment proves that the contraction is real!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyx)
    Actually, that very experiment proves that the contraction is real!!!
    Only if you don't look at it closely, I have read his papers of relativity and SR, that is why I know he was wrong and was able to work out where he was wrong using a train analogy and creating a physical test that shows it does not happen.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: April 25, 2016

University open days

  1. University of Cambridge
    Christ's College Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Sep '18
  2. Norwich University of the Arts
    Undergraduate Open Days Undergraduate
    Fri, 28 Sep '18
  3. Edge Hill University
    Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
    Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.