I am reading this book about time storms, and in the back with the science explanition it says basicly that time is light well read:
If a spaceship was headding to earth and another from earth at 12:01 at a speed almost that of light and the moon exploded at 12:01 and the ship coming to earth saw the explosion at 12:02 and the other ship saw it at 1:05 which time did the explosion happen?

It says at all times but this is impossiable it only happens at one tmie it doens matter how long it take sfor you to see it if ti has happend then it has allreayd happend. Any thoughts/explinations?

Try these links, you might find some answers there.

Time Polarization - Significance and Weaponization
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/time.htm

Time Technical proposals for time control research program. (Modern theories about nature of Space and Time.)
There are many known theories and no needs to comment all of them. I submitted here some data that is correlating with my own understanding. This data let me develop practical ideas and offer some time rate control experiments.
http://members.fortunecity.com/frolov/time.htm


A Partial List of Successful Documented Over-Unity and Negative Resistor Devices and Processes
Excerpt from the Tom Beardon wesite
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/oulist.htm

Hi Borg255,

I hope you won't mind me settling for a more "classical" explanation using the special theory of relativity.

The answer you read is correct. If one spaceship says the explosion occured at 1:05, then they are right. If the other spaceship reports the explosion at 2:02, they are also right. As a matter of fact, if you would be on a planet 4 lighthours away, you would say that the explosion occured at 16:01. You are also right.

Imagine we have two observers that are 1km apart, standing still, with perfectly synchronized timers and they see something happening. Before you can witness an event, the light that "displays" the event must reach your eyes. Since light travels at a finite speed (300.000 km/s) it takes a a short time before this happens. This has one important consequence: events happen at different times for different observers (simply because the light has to travel further, and needs this tiny bit more time to reach the second observer). On your clock you would see that this event occured at 12h01 and 0,000000 seconds. The other observer, 1km. further away from the event, would say it happened at 12h01 and 0,000003 seconds. In this scenario you are both right, since you both saw it happen at the time you recorded (note: in the classical way of thinking, seeing = truth ; this is no longer true in quantummechanics, but that's another ballgame).

The theory of special relativity explains how you can resolve the apparent paradox of something happening at two different times: if you want to describe an event, you do not only have to specify the location the event happened, but also the time it happened for an observer standing at the same location as the event.. As you could see in the previous example, the times did not match because the observers were standing at different positions. Therefor it is important to know the time something happens at the location it is actually happening.

Once you know the time something happens at the location it is happening, it is easy to calculate what time (non-moving) observers at different positions will see the event: the light travels at 300.000 km/s, so if you are 900.000 km away, you will see the event 3 seconds later than an observer standing at the location of the event (hence the name of the theory: the occuring of events is relative, dependant of the observer and not absolute).

Things get a bit more complicated if you also take account for moving observers (like the spaceships in your example). I won't go into much detail here, but if you are going pretty fast (half the speed of light for example), the time you measure an event changes aswel (because the light has to catch up with you for example).

If we apply all this to your example, you would get this:

For an observer standing on the moon - and what an unfortunate position he took - the moon explodes at 12:01.
The spaceship moving to the earth sees the explosion at 12:02. The light that displays the moon (and our unfortunate observer) exploding needs some time to reach the spaceship.
The other spaceship, moving away from earth at a high speed, sees the explosion at 1:05 because the light has to catch up with that spaceship.


You cannot say that anybody is right or wrong (it's all relative). Hence the explosion could happen at any time you want it to happen (if you just get further and further away, the explosion will happen later and later on your synchronized watches). What you can say for certain is that the explosion happened at 12:01 on the moon (specifiying both the time and the location, or as it is commonly refered to in theories of relativity: the point (t,x) in spacetime).

So to summarize: there is an important connection between the time you think something happens and the speed of light. Saying that "light = time" is perhaps a bit too drastic.

I hope this more or less clarifies some things; if you really want to go into more detail, I highly recommend reading a book on special relativity (eg. Taylor and Wheeler, "Spacetime physics". It doesn't use a lot of formulas and is quite intuitive. If you want to go into the serious math stuff behind all this, you'd better check the "advanced" literature).

Bye!

Crisp

Perhaps you should remind all of the astronomers of this relativity thing as they are the ones saying that we are witnessing events that occurred millions of years ago when we look at the stars.
where i run into problems is with viewing the beginning of the universe as they claim , cause that just messes up all sorts things.

time is a measurement of movement at a consistent interval t=m m=t mis t time is also a man made construct to orientate intervals of all forms of movement at a standardized rate. This is even proven through the famous Einstein equation in fact he discovered a way to break the barriers of what we call time but never released it I have documents I have just finished writing that explains how it is possible through high frequency vibration to accelerate particles to do this I will post them later

An event doesn't happen at only one time,time is different for each observer.
The speed of light is the only constant in the universe,therefore time and space must be relative to the speed and position of the observer.
Read Relativity by Einstein for further explanation.Very interesting.

Hi Borg255,

I hope you won't mind me settling for a more "classical" explanation using the special theory of relativity.

The answer you read is correct. If one spaceship says the explosion occured at 1:05, then they are right. If the other spaceship reports the explosion at 2:02, they are also right. As a matter of fact, if you would be on a planet 4 lighthours away, you would say that the explosion occured at 16:01. You are also right.

Imagine we have two observers that are 1km apart, standing still, with perfectly synchronized timers and they see something happening. Before you can witness an event, the light that "displays" the event must reach your eyes. Since light travels at a finite speed (300.000 km/s) it takes a a short time before this happens. This has one important consequence: events happen at different times for different observers (simply because the light has to travel further, and needs this tiny bit more time to reach the second observer). On your clock you would see that this event occured at 12h01 and 0,000000 seconds. The other observer, 1km. further away from the event, would say it happened at 12h01 and 0,000003 seconds. In this scenario you are both right, since you both saw it happen at the time you recorded (note: in the classical way of thinking, seeing = truth ; this is no longer true in quantummechanics, but that's another ballgame).

The theory of special relativity explains how you can resolve the apparent paradox of something happening at two different times: if you want to describe an event, you do not only have to specify the location the event happened, but also the time it happened for an observer standing at the same location as the event.. As you could see in the previous example, the times did not match because the observers were standing at different positions. Therefor it is important to know the time something happens at the location it is actually happening.

Once you know the time something happens at the location it is happening, it is easy to calculate what time (non-moving) observers at different positions will see the event: the light travels at 300.000 km/s, so if you are 900.000 km away, you will see the event 3 seconds later than an observer standing at the location of the event (hence the name of the theory: the occuring of events is relative, dependant of the observer and not absolute).

Things get a bit more complicated if you also take account for moving observers (like the spaceships in your example). I won't go into much detail here, but if you are going pretty fast (half the speed of light for example), the time you measure an event changes aswel (because the light has to catch up with you for example).

If we apply all this to your example, you would get this:

For an observer standing on the moon - and what an unfortunate position he took - the moon explodes at 12:01.
The spaceship moving to the earth sees the explosion at 12:02. The light that displays the moon (and our unfortunate observer) exploding needs some time to reach the spaceship.
The other spaceship, moving away from earth at a high speed, sees the explosion at 1:05 because the light has to catch up with that spaceship.


You cannot say that anybody is right or wrong (it's all relative). Hence the explosion could happen at any time you want it to happen (if you just get further and further away, the explosion will happen later and later on your synchronized watches). What you can say for certain is that the explosion happened at 12:01 on the moon (specifiying both the time and the location, or as it is commonly refered to in theories of relativity: the point (t,x) in spacetime).

So to summarize: there is an important connection between the time you think something happens and the speed of light. Saying that "light = time" is perhaps a bit too drastic.

I hope this more or less clarifies some things; if you really want to go into more detail, I highly recommend reading a book on special relativity (eg. Taylor and Wheeler, "Spacetime physics". It doesn't use a lot of formulas and is quite intuitive. If you want to go into the serious math stuff behind all this, you'd better check the "advanced" literature).

Bye!

Crisp

I believe it is incorrect to say that the light has to "catch up" to the spaceship.
Time on the spaceship actually slows down with speed of travel moving away relative to the light source.
Light landing on a moving spaceship,or coming from a moving source,always travels the same speed.
What happens is the color is shifted in frequency for the observer.
This is what is called red shift in astronomy and the degree of red shift tells astronomers the speed of heavenly bodies as they move away from the observer.
Light sources moving toward the observer would be shifted towards the blue end of the spectrum.
An analogy to sound would be a train approaching sounds higher pitched than a train retreating.

that is,the speed of light is always the same for all observers.
This is why time and space have to bend to allow for this constant.
Time slows down and space actually shortens in the direction of travel as perceived by an observer at the origin.

We need one universal time zone and this nonsense will go away. An event occurs at a specific time, and all agree on what time it occurred, regardless of how far away they were and how much additional time it took the light to reach them. Everyone in the universe needs to be on the same sheet of music!

that is,the speed of light is always the same for all observers.
This is why time and space have to bend to allow for this constant.
Time slows down and space actually shortens in the direction of travel as perceived by an observer at the origin.

wouldn't that mean that even as you approach the speed of light you are bending space and time?

the faster you move the less time passes by as space is bent more, but light is still moving at the same constant rate from your perspective, but your moving infinitly faster from the intial observer. therefore even as you approach the speed of light, light speed from your perspective is still constant??

that means time travel is not only possible but ocurring as we speak.

A traveler could technically fly around the galaxy and appear back not quite at the same time but only as long as it takes for the motion of your craft to stop and start from the inital observers perspective of their constant speed of light.

We need one universal time zone and this nonsense will go away. An event occurs at a specific time, and all agree on what time it occurred, regardless of how far away they were and how much additional time it took the light to reach them. Everyone in the universe needs to be on the same sheet of music!

I agree with one global time zone,but in reality universal time is not possible.
The rate of time varies with speed of travel relative to the observer.

wouldn't that mean that even as you approach the speed of light you are bending space and time?

the faster you move the less time passes by as space is bent more, but light is still moving at the same constant rate from your perspective, but your moving infinitly faster from the intial observer. therefore even as you approach the speed of light, light speed from your perspective is still constant??

that means time travel is not only possible but ocurring as we speak.

A traveler could technically fly around the galaxy and appear back not quite at the same time but only as long as it takes for the motion of your craft to stop and start from the inital observers perspective of their constant speed of light.

YES.
Except that to accelerate matter to the speed of light takes infinite force which is not possible.
If you could reach the speed of light time would stop and your length in the direction of travel would be zero.
This slowing down of time has been confirmed by spacecraft orbiting the earth,but is very small as the speed of the craft is only a small fraction of the speed of light.

and it is only travel backwards in time.

idk about impossible... we still have a very limited view of electromagnetism and the interplay between particles. I would like to say lightning is the key but it comes down to the boy who cried wolf scenario and even then it only explains the reaction not the cause to the effect which connects the magnetic core to the atmosphere. Or the difference in density that could possibly allow the reaction to take place and the lightning to fork as it chooses different paths of least resistance. Ion buildup caused by the electrical reaction of water vapor re-condensing in the face of nitrogen then grounding itself in the repetition of the nitrogen cycle....

positive to negative positive to negative as the magnetic field that repels certain harmful rays back into the cosmos builds up ions from the other side.

Its like we are in some sort of plasma ball in Brookstone except we can't really run our fingers over the glass to direct any part of the immense power that stems from the outside in instead of the inside out. unless we get struck by lightning but then of course it would be directing us.

YES.
Except that to accelerate matter to the speed of light takes infinite force which is not possible.
If you could reach the speed of light time would stop and your length in the direction of travel would be zero.
This slowing down of time has been confirmed by spacecraft orbiting the earth,but is very small as the speed of the craft is only a small fraction of the speed of light.

You can travel faster than the speed of light.

You can travel faster than the speed of light.

How exactly?

time is light well read:

I agree with this. It raises the question that if time cannot be measured without light, and at one time the sun's light was yet not focused on earth will the sun reached a light emitting phase - when did time start on earth? :confused:

I agree with this. It raises the question that if time cannot be measured without light, and at one time the sun's light was yet not focused on earth will the sun reached a light emitting phase - when did time start on earth? :confused:

You don't need the suns light to measure time :confused: Time existed long before the sun or earth existed.

Also, the suns light was always focused on earth.

time is a man made idea that humans use to express the flow of all things natural. Seeing as life is only natural on our planet and we are a statistical abnormality I would say that anything material or immaterial (existing only as an abstract) can contain time or be time as long as it follows a pattern. Time also pushes back on objects leading to more disorder in the long run.

Originally Posted by Borg255
If a spaceship was heading to earth and another from earth at 12:01 at a speed almost that of light ...
12:01 according to who? The Earth? I'm going to assume that you meant the Earth and ignore that there is more than one time-zone.

... and the moon exploded at 12:01 and the ship coming to earth saw the explosion at 12:02 ...
12:02 according to who? The Earth?

... and the other ship saw it at 1:05 ...
Once again, according to who? The Earth?

... which time did the explosion happen?
According to whose clock?
.
This example is extremely vague. IMHO there is a better way to present it. Instead of ambiguously stating that the Moon exploded at 12:01 you should declare that that observation happened at time zero. The question now becomes; how long does it take that light to reach each observer? According to your post, it took one minute for the incoming ship, an hour and four minutes for the outgoing ship and less than one minute according to the Earth (relative to the Earth observer). From this information the Earth observer can deduce each ships average distance from the Earth. However, if you were to ask someone on the incoming ship how long it took for that same light to reach each ovserver then they would come up with a different answer depending on their relative velocity to the event. If the Earth observer had that information (the time it took that same light to reach each observer relative to those individual observers) then he/she could deduce those ships velocity relative to event. Timekeeping is a man made apparition (12:01, 12:02 and 1:05) but a second will always be a second no matter the observers frame of reference. As long as each observer can agee on a common reference point then they can all agree on the amount of time any particular event takes place according to that common reference point relative to each observer.

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
We need one universal time zone and this nonsense will go away.
This can only happen if every observer in the hole entire universe could agree on a single reference frame from which they can all calculate their relative velocities (such as our Sun). However, this is not possible. Some observers will be to far away to be able to observe that single reference point because of our individual Hubble Volumes. The only "universal reference point" that I know of is the moment of the Big Bang (BB). If you were to observe the temperature of the microwave background radiation as X and yet I observed it as Y then we could deduce our relative velocities from each other according to the BB. Everything is moving away from the BB at a constant rate eventhough this rate can be different between each observer immersed inside our space-time continuum. Logically speaking, the closer any object is to the BB the younger the universe will appear to them. From what I've worked out, the faster any object is traveling relative to another object the longer it takes to move away from the BB according to the other observer. The same thing applies to strong gravitational fields. The stronger the gravitational field you find yourself in the longer it takes to move away from the BB according to any observer immersed inside a weaker gravitational field.

This can only happen if every observer in the hole entire universe could agree on a single reference frame from which they can all calculate their relative velocities (such as our Sun). However, this is not possible. Some observers will be to far away to be able to observe that single reference point because of our individual Hubble Volumes. The only "universal reference point" that I know of is the moment of the Big Bang (BB). If you were to observe the temperature of the microwave background radiation as X and yet I observed it as Y then we could deduce our relative velocities from each other according to the BB. Everything is moving away from the BB at a constant rate eventhough this rate can be different between each observer immersed inside our space-time continuum. Logically speaking, the closer any object is to the BB the younger the universe will appear to them. From what I've worked out, the faster any object is traveling relative to another object the longer it takes to move away from the BB according to the other observer. The same thing applies to strong gravitational fields. The stronger the gravitational field you find yourself in the longer it takes to move away from the BB according to any observer immersed inside a weaker gravitational field.

Velocity doesn't depend on another object's velocity. Velocity is a measure of distance and time, which already occurred in the past and was measured...or are you suggesting that the future can be measured??

Velocity doesn't depend on another object's velocity.

It does, because there is no such thing as "an absolute velocity of an object" within the universe.

It does, because there is no such thing as "an absolute velocity of an object" within the universe.

You're wrong.


An object's velocity is not dependent on another object. Distance and time are not dependent on objects.

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Velocity doesn't depend on another object's velocity. Velocity is a measurement of distance and time, which already occured in the past and was measured ... or are you suggesting that the future can be measured??
All I was commenting on is the difficulty in ascribing a "universal time zone" (as you put it). In one hand everything in the hole universe would have to relate their motion to an established object such as our sun. This is impossible due to observational boundaries. In the other hand eveything in the hole universe would have to establish their distance (time) from a universal event (such as the BB) and then communicate that information to other locations so that those other locations can deduce each others relative velocities from said event (pretty much impossible). As for your comment ... I disagree. Relative velocity depends on another object's relative velocity. Let's say that I am cruising down the freeway at a constant velocity of 120 km/hr. This velocity is in relation to the surface of the Earth. If I were to pass another automobile that was traveling along with me at a constant velocity of 115 km/hr, relative to the surface of the Earth, then I would have a relative velocity of 5 km/hr relative to both of our automobiles. Now let's say that there was another automobile traveling towards me at the same constant velocity I was traveling toward them (relative to the surface of the Earth). I would be correct if I said that that automobile had a velocity of 240 km/hr relative to me even though the car I just passed (traveling with me) would say that it was traveling 235 km/hr relative to them. I'm not going to get into a debate over semantics with you but I'm curious. How would you describe these scenarios without using another object's velocity?

All I was commenting on is the difficulty in ascribing a "universal time zone" (as you put it). In one hand everything in the hole universe would have to relate their motion to an established object such as our sun. This is impossible due to observational boundaries. In the other hand eveything in the hole universe would have to establish their distance (time) from a universal event (such as the BB) and then communicate that information to other locations so that those other locations can deduce each others relative velocities from said event (pretty much impossible). As for your comment ... I disagree. Relative velocity depends on another object's relative velocity. Let's say that I am cruising down the freeway at a constant velocity of 120 km/hr. This velocity is in relation to the surface of the Earth. If I were to pass another automobile that was traveling along with me at a constant velocity of 115 km/hr, relative to the surface of the Earth, then I would have a relative velocity of 5 km/hr relative to both of our automobiles. Now let's say that there was another automobile traveling towards me at the same constant velocity I was traveling toward them (relative to the surface of the Earth). I would be correct if I said that that automobile had a velocity of 240 km/hr relative to me even though the car I just passed (traveling with me) would say that it was traveling 235 km/hr relative to them. I'm not going to get into a debate over semantics with you but I'm curious. How would you describe these scenarios without using another object's velocity?

Let's take your 240 km/hr scenario into consideration.

There is a straight road that is 240 kilometers long. Two cars (one car from each end) are traveling at the same velocity towards the midpoint of the road that is 120 kilometers from each end of the road. The cars had stop watches activated when they started their journey towards the midpoint. They impact each other exactly at the midpoint and the stop watches stop at precisely the same elapsed times. Each car traveled the same distance in the same elapsed time, 120 kilometers in exactly one hour.

Each car had a velocity of 120 km/hr. Nothing traveled 240 km/hr. You would be wrong to say, or think the other car was traveling 240 km/hr. Torque proves my point, as the torque on the axles on each car can be measured, and calculated into Power, which is equal to work/time, work being equal to force*distance. Each engine is doing work, as the crank has a load on it (torque) and it is spinning at an RPM. 1 HP=550 ft-lb of work per second, or HP=Torque*RPM/5252

An object's velocity is not dependent on another object. Distance and time are not dependent on objects.
Try this scenario: you are somewhere in the vacuum of space, and there are no visible objects in view. Can you tell if you have any velocity?
Or, does determining your velocity require the existence of at least one other object that you can locate?

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Let's take your 240 km/sec scenario into consideration.
There is a straight road that is 240 kilometers long. Two cars (one from each end) are traveling at the same velocity towards the midpoint of the road that is 120 kilometers from each end of the road. ... They impact each other exactly at the midpoint ... Each car traveled the same distance in the same elapsed time, 120 kilometers in exactly one hour ... There is nothing that traveled 240 km/hr.
Please answer the question. The amount of force that is transferred between each automobile (in the event of a car-crash) depends on your answer. It seems to me that there are still a few things you need to learn.

Try this scenario: you are somewhere in the vacuum of space, and there are no visible objects in view. Can you tell if you have any velocity?

Or, does determining your velocity require the existence of at least one other object that you can locate?

Velocity is not dependent on another object, it is a measure of distance and time traveled, relative to space, whether you can measure it or not. That is silly to ask me if I can tell if I have relative velocity to another object with no other objects, don't you think?

See my "A train, three clocks, and an observer thread."

Please answer the question. The amount of force that is transferred between each automobile (in the event of a car-crash) depends on your answer. It seems to me that there are still a few things you need to learn.

Sorry, the clock stops when both cars have exactly zero space between them. There is no damage up until then, and we are not looking at the time after that, unless you want to add more time to the exact hour? But, that would make a different velocity, wouldn't it? Darn it!! :rolleyes:

That is silly to ask me if I can tell if I have relative velocity to another object with no other objects, don't you think?

See my "A train, three clocks, and an observer thread."

Well, why did you say an object's velocity isn't dependent on another object? Obviously determining velocity does require other objects, objects which are visible or detectable somehow.

Well, why did you say an object's velocity isn't dependent on another object? Obviously determining velocity does require other objects, objects which are visible or detectable somehow.

Velocity is not relative velocity.

Velocity is not dependent on another object, it is a measure of distance and time traveled, relative to space, whether you can measure it or not.
How do you measure distance or time relative to empty space?

Velocity is not relative velocity. Yes, it is. All velocities are relative.

How do you measure distance or time relative to empty space?
Yes, it is. All velocities are relative.

No, they aren't.

Light travels at ~186,000 mi/sec, correct?

Light travels at ~186,000 mi/sec, correct? Yes, but so what? All that means is that light has an absolute maximum velocity in a vacuum.
The speed of light is lower in a dense medium, like transparent glass say.

So light also has a velocity which is relative to the (refractive index of the) medium it propagates in.

Do you know how to determine the speed of light using only light, and no other "objects"? You realise the speed of light is calculated relative to fixed points, which also coincide with charged particles, like electrons?

Yes, but so what? All that means is that light has an absolute maximum velocity in a vacuum.
The speed of light is lower in a dense medium, like transparent glass say.

So light also has a velocity which is relative to the (refractive index of the) medium it propagates in.

We'll just stick to the speed in a vacuum.

If a light was emitted at 12:00:00, how far did it travel in one second?

How does light, as an object, know how fast it moves in a vacuum?

How does light, as an object, know how fast it moves in a vacuum?

It doesn't. How do you know how much time passes when you sleep?

I thought we were going to stick with the speed of light in a vacuum.

Light propagates independently of time, we can calculate the speed of light because we know how to measure distance, between objects that light travels from and to.
Light has no "frame of reference", so we impose an external one for it. But this is for our benefit--we need to know about distance and time, light just "travels".

I thought we were going to stick with the speed of light in a vacuum.

Light propagates independently of time, we can calculate the speed of light because we know how to measure distance, between objects that light travels from and to.
Light has no "frame of reference", so we impose an external one for it. But this is for our benefit--we need to know about distance and time, light just "travels".

Light travel time defines distance, try again!

Motor Daddy,
What if I made my measurements from the rear bumper of each vehicle? Now it's way past my bedtime but I wanted to tell you ... If both cars had the same mass and they were traveling at exactly the same velocity then, in a head-on collision, both cars would come to a complete standstill (as if hitting a brick wall at half its velocity) and the amount of force transferred between each automobile depends on their mass and velocity.

Light travel time defines distance, try again!
You aren't seeing it are you? We define distance, and so the distance that light travels.
It doesn't "define" it, we do.

Motor Daddy,
What if I made my measurements from the rear bumper of each vehicle. Now it's way past my bedtime but I wanted to tell you ... If both cars had the same mass and they were traveling at exactly the same velocity then, in a head-on collision, both cars would come to a complete standstill (as if hitting a brick wall at half its velocity) and the amount of force transferred between each automobile depends on its mass and velocity.


If you made the measurements from the rear bumper, the rear bumpers would have to touch for the cars to have traveled 120 km. But, when the front bumpers impact each other, each car's velocity dramatically decreases to 0 m/s. If the rear bumpers don't touch, the clock keeps ticking. So the distance is not 120 km for each car, and has stopped changing, and yet the clocks are still ticking. How do you know what the velocity was when the time continues to tick and the distance traveled was less than 120 km???

You aren't seeing it are you? We define distance, and so the distance that light travels.
It doesn't "define" it, we do.

Wrong, light travel time defines the meter, look it up!

Wrong, light travel time defines the meter, look it up! What's a "meter"?

What's a "meter"?

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


The metre (or meter), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole, its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it is defined as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.

Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North PoleWhy wasn't the metre defined in terms of the distance traveled by light, originally?
Who defined it? Were they a member of the human race, and if so, does that mean the metre is an invention that existed before humans knew about the finite speed of light?

Are you still convinced that light, not humans, is what defines the metre?
Another question: do humans decide what light is, or does light define itself somehow?

Why wasn't the metre defined in terms of the distance traveled by light, originally?
Who defined it? Were they a member of the human race, and if so, does that mean the metre is an invention that existed before humans knew about the finite speed of light?

Are you still convinced that light, not humans, is what defines the metre?
Another question: do humans decide what light is, or does light define itself somehow?

:rolleyes:

I'll ask again, since you now know the definition of a meter.

If a light was emitted at 12:00:00, how far did it travel in one second?

If a light was emitted at 12:00:00, how far did it travel in one second? How about: it traveled the distance that light travels in one second?

I already knew the definition of the metre. You appeared to believe that a metre is something that has nothing to do with humans making decisions about what distance and time are. You're just being smug and ignorant.

How about: it traveled the distance that light travels in one second?

I already knew the definition of the metre. You appeared to believe that a metre is something that has nothing to do with humans making decisions about what distance and time are. You're just being smug and ignorant.

So are you saying it traveled ~186,000 miles in the duration of one second?

The meter is a unit of measure, like a lb, or HP, or teaspoon, or gallon, etc..

We use them to communicate and measure.

What are you confused about? Do you think I believe light has a mind of its own, and that it was credited with the invention of the meter by all the other light in the universe?

Remember this?

You aren't seeing it are you? We define distance, and so the distance that light travels.
It doesn't "define" it, we do.
First you say this:
Wrong, light travel time defines the meter, look it up!
Then you say this:

The meter is a unit of measure, like a lb, or HP, or teaspoon, or gallon, etc..

We use them to communicate and measure. So is it wrong or right? Do we decide what a metre is, or what a second is, as I stated?

Remember this?

First you say this:
Then you say this:
So is it wrong or right? Do we decide what a metre is, or what a second is, as I stated?

Light travels a distance in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second. That distance is a meter. Yes, we are human, and we use light to define the meter. Answer the question, did the light travel ~186,000 miles in that second?

Yes, we are human, and we use light to define the meter. So when you said I was wrong about humans defining the metre, were you just being smug, or were you being ignorant, or a bit of both?

Answer the question.

Motor Daddy, I have almost unlimited patients in all things except two. The first, drama queens and the second, ignorance. You fall under the latter. Philosophy and physics are no longer considered the same discipline and everthing you have said thus far has nothing to do with physics. You said:
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy Velocity doesn't depend on another objects velocity. You are dead wrong, PERIOD. I'm not sure what you think you're accomplishing with this declaration. I'm under the impression that you are in denial of the fact that there are more than a few basic concepts you have yet to understand (such as relative velocity which is the basis for sound measurements and predictions as well as the cause of this thread). Instead of admitting this you chose to ramble off a bunch of gibberish that is in total disregard to the fact that physics is the science of measurements. The amount of force exchanged between any two vehicles involved in a head-on collision is one such measurement. Contrary to your claim this depends (in part) on the sum of each cars velocity. The part you are willingfully ignorant of is the fact that every observer can (I didn't say must) declare any other object to be at rest. I'll ask one last time. If I'm traveling down the freeway at a constant velocity of 120 km/hr, relative to the surface of the Earth, and I pass another car moving in the same direction as I am, but traveling at a constant velocity of 115 km/hr relative to the surface of the Earth. What is the other cars canstant velocity relative to me? This measurement (which will aid in revealing the amount of force exchanged between both of our vehicles in the event I should rear-end them) is dependent on comparing one cars velocity to the other. I don't care what you think. You have to explain this through physics not philosophy. If you are not willing to admit your mistakes then please, for the love of all that's true in this world, stop posting in the science sub-forums.

You have a gross misunderstanding of velocity, particularly with the direction of travel.

Two cars traveling down a road in the same direction of travel. One is 115 km from the start line, the other is 120 km from the start line. They both started at the start line and left at the same exact time.

Now, you are in the car that is 120 km away from the start line an hour after the start of travel. You want to say you have a right to say the other car is traveling away from you at 5 km/hr in the opposite direction?? Go ahead, we both know you are dead wrong! You have a serious misunderstanding of velocity and direction of travel. Furthermore, nothing is traveling 5 km/hr!

Skirt the issue all you want, if light travels for one second in a vacuum, it traveled ~186,000 miles, regardless of how far away the source is after the one second duration! If the source traveled the opposite direction of travel during that one second at .5c, the distance between the source and the light will be greater than 186,000 mi. The source has nothing to do with the velocity of light after the emission of said light! Get it through your head!

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Two cars traveling down the road in the same direction of travel. One is 115 km from the start line, the other is 120 km from the start line. They both started at the start line and left at the same exact time.
My god, you are so f**king ignorant. Who said anything about a start line. Acceleration is not the same thing as constant velocity.

Originally Posted by Acitnoids
If I'm traveling down the freeway at a constant velocity of 120 km/hr, relative to the surface of the Earth, and pass another car moving in the same direction as I am, but (it is) traveling at a constant velocity of 115 km/hr relative to the surface of the Earth. What is the other cars constant velocity relative to me?
Go ahead! Add whatever words that pop into your head so that you can feed your own narcissism. If you can't answer such a basic scenario then you have no right discussing higher applications.

My god, you are so f**king ignorant. Who said anything about a start line. Acceleration is not the same thing as constant velocity.

Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. If a car travels 120 km in exactly one hour, the velocity is 120 km/hr. You have some serious learnins to do!


Go ahead! Add whatever words that pop into your head so that you can feed your own narcissism. If you can't answer such a basic scenario then you have no right discussing higher applications.

I just answered the scenario. The distance and time were measured. How did you measure the 5 km/hr, and what object traveled 5 km/hr, and in what direction did it travel, towards the start line?? That is the question!

Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I just answered the scenario. The distance and time were measured. How did you measure the 5 km/hr, and what object traveled 5 km/hr, and in what direction did it travel, towards the start line?? That is the question.
Once again with the start line. You do know that an object can not travel 120 kilometers in one hour unless it is already traveling 120 km/hr at the moment it crosses the 'start line'? It seems that "You have some serious learnins to do!"

Once again with the start line. You do know that an object can not travel 120 kilometers in one hour unless it is already traveling 120 km/hr at the moment it crosses the 'start line'? It seems that "You have some serious learnins to do!"

I was giving a simple example of a constant velocity, whereas the cars cross the start line at a constant velocity and continue without acceleration the entire hour. Why are you bringing acceleration into the picture? It has nothing to do with what you are talking about. You are trying to say the 115 km/hr car is traveling in the direction away from you in your 120 km/hr car, towards the start line at 5 km/hr. Prove it!

You realize the start line was where the cars were when the timer was started, correct? As the cars crossed the line the timer was started. An hour later one car is 120 km from the start line and one car is 115 km from the start line. So in order for the 115 car to be traveling away from the 120 car (like you are suggesting), it has to be traveling in the direction towards the start line, correct?

You can travel faster than the speed of light.

No fedr,once again you seek to decieve.:bugeye:
"You" or anyone,or anything cannot travel faster than light.
And I was not quite correct either saying you can travel backwards in time.
By moving through space very fast you can slow down your time,so you end up younger than your twin.

I am not thinking completely clearly either,as it seems to me since travelling away from the observer would slow your time then travelling towards should speed up your time(but this is not true).
Also since all motion is relative,why does only the spaceship time slow down when both bodies are moving apart relative to each other?
Can a real physicist help me here?