Faster or Slower?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, Apr 25, 2022.

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    For the life of me I can't figure out if you are stupid or trolling.

    No one ever claimed there will be 46,500,00 sticks. There are still 93,000,000 sticks, it is just that the sticks will be shorter.

    I'm curious to see what new strawman you will construct for your reply. Hmm, I guess since you are making strawmen for your replies, it must be that you are just trolling and not really that stupid.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    Demonstrably false.
    And if you are in the moving frame each one of those sticks will be shorter. Still 93,000,000 sticks but the distance will be less than 93,000,000 miles.
    From the moving frame, 46,500,000 miles and 93,000,000 shorter sticks.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Yeah, there's still 2,159 Blue sticks on the moon laid end to end across the diameter of the moon, it's just that 2,159 blue sticks is 6" because my hand is 2,159 blue sticks. Same, see?? (rolls eyes)

    So the Moon is 6" wide! Fix the Wiki link!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    Correct, from the perspective of the moving frame! You got it!
     
  8. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    So, by that logic, does the light from my flashlight travel at a different speed depending on if I point it East or West?
     
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    So you are saying the Moon is 6" in diameter. Got it! Now change the Wiki link, because we all live on Earth, and from Earth the Moon is 6" in diameter! Length contraction at its finest! What a load of shit!

    The Moon is MEASURED to be 2,159 Blue sticks in diameter, when the Blue sticks are laid end to end on the Moon. For you to be so ignorant to claim the Moon is really 6" in diameter is beyond moronic! Go measure the Moon, on the Moon and stop claiming the Moon is the same size as your hand!
     
  10. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    The light from your flashlight travels at 1 speed in space. It does not matter which way you point the flashlight, the light travels at 1 speed in space.

    If you point the flashlight at a car that is 10 feet away from you it will take the light a different amount of time to get there then it will if you point the light at a car 500 feet away from you. The light travels a greater distance in a greater time to get to the car 500 feet away than it does to get to the car 10 feet away.

    500 feet in 10 seconds is 50 ft/sec.
    10 feet in .2 seconds is 50 ft/sec.

    One traveled 10 feet and the other traveled 500 feet. The light traveled the SAME speed, 50 ft/sec. (exaggerated example to make it perfectly clear!)
     
  11. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    I think I am going to have to report you for trolling. Almost without fail you put up a strawman for every point given to you. It is also obvious that the reason you never specify the reference frame (even though you are asked to do so repeatedly) is because that makes your comment more difficult to put into proper context. You are rather transparent...
     
  12. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    • Please do not flame other members.
    Oh my God, PLEASE DON'T REPORT ME, exchemist, or DaveC, or Bells, or whoever you are at the time with all your different socks.

    Let's see, is James Neddy too? Is he Baldeee too? Is he Sarkus too??

    Report me you sorry FUCK!

    That's all you have except for your claim that the Moon is 6" in diameter! That the Moon and your hand are the same size! Bwhahahahahahaha

    You can't get more moronic than that!
     
  13. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,609
    OK.
     
  14. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    But the earth is already rotating at approx 1000 MPH through space. When I shine my light west, the car in front of me is hurling towards the light at 1000 MPH. When I shine it east, the car is traveling away form the emitted light at 1000 MPH. In fact isn't that (more or less) why you claim the light in the box arrives at the sides at different times? Because the box is traveling through space. Logically, the same scenario applies here. The earth is moving through space...
     
  15. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    1,000 Miles Per Hour is 100 miles per 6 minutes, 10 miles per .6 minutes, 1 mile per .06 minutes, .1 mile per .006 minutes, .01 mile per .0006 minutes, and .001 mile per .00006 minute.

    .001 Mile = 63.36 Inches
    .00006 Minute = .0036 seconds

    Light travels 299,792,458 meters per second. In .0036 seconds light travels 1,079,252.8488 meters, which is 42,490,269.6378 Inches.

    In order for light to travel 500 ft, light travels 152.4000 meters.
    For light to travel 152.4000 meters it takes .00000005 seconds.

    So, in conclusion, for light to travel 500 feet it takes .00000005 seconds. 500 feet is 6,000 inches. Light travels 6,000 inches in .00000005 seconds. 63.36 inches is 0.01056 of 6,000 inches, and 0.000038016 seconds is 0.01056 of .0036 seconds.

    You can not measure that difference with a flashlight, a clock, and a car! Duh? And that is on a road, which light travels independently of. Who said anything about Earth, anyway. The speed of light in a VACUUM (space (3D distance) is 299,792,458 m/s. Earth is not part of that equation.
     
  16. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    This is your only response to what I put to you in post #128? Why haven't you tried to produce some evidence that supports your thought experiments' application in the real world? Really, there's no need to ask this, is there? It's because either (a) you know that real-world evidence does not support your view, or (b) you don't have a clue about how you could go about collecting appropriate evidence, or (c) you're too lazy to actually do anything about this other than to sit at your computer and make assertions, or (d) some combination of two or more of the above.
    ---
    You say you made some "mile sticks". But you didn't make them while you were moving past them. They were stationary when you made them. How can you guarantee, then, that your mile sticks will remain 1 mile long when you move past them?

    Note: you can't just assert that they will stay the same. You need to show it - preferably with reference to experiments that support your claim. Your "common sense" counts for nothing when it comes to determining whether relativity is right or wrong. Understand that.

    Also understand that I'm not interested in hearing anything more about what your "common sense" tells you the world "ought" to be like. I'm interested in how it actually is, not in how you think it should be. Try to bring some evidence of how it really is, next time.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    Motor Daddy:

    Like I said, rotation is almost certainly too hard for you to cope with, given that you can't understand the basics of length contraction in a straight line. I'm going to skip your stuff about rotating gears until we have sorted you out on straight-line motion. Otherwise, I'll just be wasting my time.
    When the gear is stationary, you mean? Yes.
    You're still trying to argue by assertion. Skip it. It's not getting you anywhere.
    More about rotating objects. You don't seem to realise that the elliptical shape of the wheel doesn't rotate along with the wheel in this example. There's no point in my going into further detail, so I won't.
    No. You must specify which frame of reference you are using to measure the distance. This is a basic mistake. I talked you through this 10 years ago in some detail, trying to educate you about reference frames.

    Why have you done no work on understanding this stuff in the 10 years you have been away from sciforums?
    Try to keep up. Everybody has already agreed with that.
    That is a useful example in showing you how the apparent size of an object can differ from its actual size. In that example, the reason the apparent size is different from the actual size is due to your making the mistake of assuming that the moon is at the same distance as your hand, which it isn't.

    When it comes to relativity, the mistake you keep making is in assuming that observers in relative motion all perceive a "blue ruler" to have the same length, regardless of their velocity with respect to the ruler. They do not. Your error, again, is in ignoring differences in perspective. In fact, I sometimes think that you believe there's really only one "god-like" observer in the universe.
    Why don't you learn the relativistic length contraction formula? Then you'll be able to work out answers to simple questions for yourself.

    Look, I'll provide it for here, just this once, with instructions on its use.

    1. Measure the length of an object (or set of objects) when it is at rest relative to an observer, whom we will call A. If you want the distance between Earth and the Sun, imagine 93 million mile-long rulers placed end-to-end between the Earth and the Sun by A, who does this in such a way that the Earth and the Sun and the rulers are not moving with respect to A. (We can assume A does this at a given instant in time, so we don't have to worry about the Earth's revolution around the Sun etc.)

    2. Assume that observer B is moving at speed v in a straight line, relative to observer A (whom we assumed to be "at rest" relative to the distance we measured in item 1, above).

    3. Calculate the Lorentz factor using the following formula:
    \(\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(v/c)^2}}\)
    where c=299792458 m/s (a constant equal to the speed of light in vacuum). Be careful to convert the v value to units of metres per second first.

    4. Calculate the length of the object or objects, as measured by observer B, using the following formula (use your result for the Lorentz factor from step 3, above):
    \(L_B=L_A/\gamma\)

    Easy!

    Now, let's have a quick test to see if you can do this yourself. Here's the problem:

    Observer A measures the distance between Earth and the Sun to be 150,000,000,000 metres. At a given instant in time, Observer B is travelling in a straight line that is parallel to a line drawn between Earth and the Sun, at a speed of v=0.866 c, where the value of c is given in step 3, above.
    Question: What is the distance from Earth to the Sun, according to observer B?

    ---
    In case you're confused, this question is not asking you what you think the distance should be. This is solely a test to see whether you can use the method above to calculate what distance the theory of relativity would predict. I don't care whether you think this is the wrong distance; I already know you think that. What I want to see is that you're capable of following a simple set of instructions to apply a theory with which you disagree. If it turns out you're incapable of doing that, then future discussion with you on this topic is likely to be a complete waste of time.

    I'll wait for your answer.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    While I'm waiting...
    Over 10 years ago, you and I had some long discussions about that word "space". It is a loaded term, the way you use it, even though that is not obvious in the post I am quoting.
    ---
    Note to other readers:

    I would like to warn you that when Motor Daddy says "space", he is thinking of an absolute "preferred" frame of reference. He seems to believe that such a reference frame exists, despite 100+ years of experimental evidence that says otherwise.

    In Motor Daddy's moving cube example, the speed of light "in space" remains c in both directions (parallel to the direction of motion of the cube), because Motor Daddy assumes that the frame that is watching the cube moving is the frame of "space". It follows, in MD's absolute Newtonian universe, that any observer moving with the cube and measuring the speed of light will not measure it to be c, but rather c-v in the direction of motion of the cube, where v is the cube's velocity "in space". Typically, MD will refuse to recognise this fact and will assert that the speed of light must remain at c, even when it is being measured by the person inside the cube. That is, MD is not consistent about his usage of the magical words "in space". He mixes reference frames willy nilly. Just something to look out for.
    ---
    Back to our original programme....

    There is no problem with this. Both calculations are being done in the same frame of reference. Relativity is only needed when we consider more than one reference frame.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    37,359
    Moderator note: Motor Daddy has been warning for flaming another member.
     
    billvon and exchemist like this.
  20. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    James, while you certainly have the right to post anywhere you like, I have the right not to respond to you. I am not responding to your responses because I deem them to be disingenuous, that always skirt the issue when confronted, by saying things like "it's too hard for you to understand" and such. For those types of responses are avoiding issues that I raise. I will not respond to your posts any more, because I interpret your responses to be troll like behavior, which avoid the issues and instead make inflammatory comments that are completely off topic. For someone to claim their hand is the same size as the Moon is not too hard for me to understand that that person needs to be mentally evaluated by a professional. I have effectively placed you on ignore and will not be responding to your personal comments in my threads. I will continue to acknowledge your posts as a moderator. Good day!
     
  21. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,378
    I'm just looking at the obvious logical conclusion of your light in the center of a box "thought experiment". You say it takes the light longer to reach one side of the box than the other because the box is moving through space... Well, the Earth is also moving through space. By your logic, we should be able to determine which direction and speed the Earth is moving by checking the differences in the speed of light in different directions.
     
  22. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,712
    Too much math?
     
  23. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Light does not travel at 299,792,458 m/s in Earth's atmosphere, it is much slower. The speed of light is in a vacuum, not an atmosphere. The atmosphere of the Earth is just a less dense area of the Earth than the terrestrial part of the Earth.

    We live IN the Earth, not on it.

    SPACE is where light travels at 299,792,458 m/s, and objects in space also have a motion in space. Space is volume, which is 3D distance. Distance and time is speed.
     

Share This Page