"Light is frame-dependent in PF, but constant in SR"

[Syne]

Still flapping your lips.

It is you who disagrees with the widely held model, so the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that the model is wrong. That you have not done so should clue you in on the fact that your criticism is in no way compelling. You just keep showing the same picture and making the same inane criticisms as if repetition is going to work some magic that these things on their own otherwise cannot. Have you heard the adage about the results of repetition and sanity?

 

[Motor Daddy]

It is you who disagrees with the widely held model, so the burden of proof is yours to demonstrate that the model is wrong. That you have not done so should clue you in on the fact that your criticism is in no way compelling. You just keep showing the same picture and making the same inane criticisms as if repetition is going to work some magic that these things on their own otherwise cannot. Have you heard the adage about the results of repetition and sanity?

I keep showing it because nobody has pointed out how it's wrong. Tell me specifically where the mistake is in that diagram. You can continue to change the subject, talk about how I am bat crap crazy, etc, but the fact remains that you have yet to show me where the mistake is in my diagram. I'm rootin' for ya.

 

[arfa brane]

The mistake in your diagram is that you assume a diagram can be substituted for a real, physical experiment.

Or the mistake is your belief that mathematics or a mathematical diagram is somehow real and physical, when mathematics doesn't care/know about physical anything.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The mistake in your diagram is that you assume a diagram can be substituted for a real, physical experiment.

Or the mistake is your belief that mathematics or a mathematical diagram is somehow real and physical, when mathematics doesn't care/know about physical anything.

Your mistake is thinking that reality can be any different than the way I have it described in the geometry in my pic. Maybe you don't quite understand what the pic represents? You seem to be confused, because there is no other valid alternative, because by definition if you differentiate from my pic, you are wrong.

 

[arfa brane]

Your mistake is thinking that reality can be any different than the way I have it described in the geometry in my pic.

You're compounding your mistake. Reality isn't a diagram.
Why should anyone except you even think you have a diagram that represents reality? You've had it pointed out repeatedly that reality, at least in physics, is ultimately testable with experiments. There is no experiment that supports your diagram of reality. So what's wrong with experimental evidence that contradicts your "reality"? Can you enlighten us (I doubt it)?

 

[Motor Daddy]

You're compounding your mistake. Reality isn't a diagram.
Why should anyone except you even think you have a diagram that represents reality?

Because that's how we've defined distance and time to be in reality. Take the numbers away for all I care, the geometry is valid and it can't be changed.

So what's wrong with experimental evidence that contradicts your "reality"? Can you enlighten us (I doubt it)?

Sure. You see in my diagram how the light sphere hits the z receiver at t=.65 seconds? You see how the distance in the cube from the source to the z receiver is .5 light seconds? You see how .65 is more than .5? Whoops, how the heck did that happen? Wait, did the light travel from the source to the z receiver in the cube frame, or did the light travel from the center of the light sphere to the z receiver in space, which is .65 light seconds distance at t=.65 seconds?

 

[arfa brane]

You see in my diagram how the light sphere hits the z receiver at t=.65 seconds?

Yes: "in your diagram".

did the light travel from the source to the z receiver in the cube frame, or did the light travel from the center of the light sphere to the z receiver in space

Neither; because you haven't physically measured anything. You don't have anything more than a diagram and some numbers, and a firmly-held belief that you can draw reality on paper. It just does not work that way.


*Where is your physical test (experiment) that supports the drawing?
Wait, I know this one: the answer is: "nowhere to be seen". Probably ever.

Result: one deluded diagram artist. You want to believe in your diagram so much that you're prepared to skip over physical reality. Once again: reality is NOT a diagram.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Sure. You see in my diagram how the light sphere hits the z receiver at t=.65 seconds? You see how the distance in the cube from the source to the z receiver is .5 light seconds? You see how .65 is more than .5? Whoops, how the heck did that happen? Wait, did the light travel from the source to the z receiver in the cube frame, or did the light travel from the center of the light sphere to the z receiver in space, which is .65 light seconds distance at t=.65 seconds?

Your diagram is not clear; you've muddled the word "frame". A frame in SR is nothing like a frame of movie film -- although it's not clear that's what you think.

The error in your diagram is that you illustrate relative motion, but spacetime is unaffected. This is grossly erroneous, so it doesn't matter what numbers you've plugged in. The other bizarre distraction is that you carry out umpteen digits of precision in some of the numbers, for no reason.

But the gross error is that you are not accounting for relativity at all. There is one diagram that you would need to address to get started. I'm referring Einstein's discussion of a ball dropping inside the train car while it's moving. The inside observer sees the ball fall at a right angle to the floor of the train. The person trackside sees the ball fall at a slant, which is a longer path length. Even at speeds negligible to the speed of light this gives a simple example of your error. Until you are able to draw and explain this diagram, you don't have a chance illustrating light propagation between reference frames. If your numbers seem right to you it's only because you haven't accounted for the way spacetime distorts under SR. There's nothing to check in your arithmetic worth evaluating until you draw the diagram correctly.

 

[Tach]

I keep showing it because nobody has pointed out how it's wrong.

Many of us had, the issue is that you are so deeply deluded to think that we haven't.

 

[James R]

Are you saying you don't agree with the numbers in my diagram? If not, then give specifics.

What did I tell you about your diagram in that thread?

What have I told you over and over again about your theory, in every thread you have posted on it?

Show me that you understand what I have told you - even if you disagree with it.

 

[James R]

A reminder:

from here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Simultaneity&p=2762573&viewfull=1#post2762573

 

[Motor Daddy]

What did I tell you about your diagram in that thread?

What have I told you over and over again about your theory, in every thread you have posted on it?

Show me that you understand what I have told you - even if you disagree with it.

You told me that the it always takes .5 seconds for the light to reach the receivers. I do not agree.
You told me that according to the embankment frame the length is contracted along the x axis (direction of motion) but not the y or z axis. BULL.
You told me there is time dilation. BULL
You told me that the 2nd postulate of SR says that light is always measured to be traveling at c in any inertial frame. I do not agree.

Under the circumstances of not agreeing with those statements I am left with no alternative but to conclude that SR is a pile of trash theory.
Under the circumstances I created my own proper theory of how it really works.

 

[Robittybob1]

According to special relativity, no, not in any inertial frame. Light is observed to expand in a sphere when it is emitted isotropically.

According to Motor Daddy's imaginary universe, light only expands in a sphere in one unique reference frame: the frame Motor Daddy calls "space" and everyone else calls the imaginary preferred absolute reference frame. In any other frame in the MD model, it must expand in some kind of strange ellipsoid or something.

MD - When you said "Deluded is thinking a center of a light sphere can travel in space!" Are you happy with what James R has answered then? To me James R doesn't say the center of a light sphere travels in space. Was that your view too?

 

[Motor Daddy]

MD - When you said "Deluded is thinking a center of a light sphere can travel in space!" Are you happy with what James R has answered then? To me James R doesn't say the center of a light sphere travels in space. Was that your view too?

You see the "Einstein train frame" James posted? James says that it always takes .5 seconds for the light to reach the receivers in the train frame. You see the pic in the link I posted? You see how it takes .65 seconds for light to travel the distance of .5 light seconds in the cube frame? One of those can't be correct. Do you know which one?

 

[Robittybob1]

You see the "Einstein train frame" James posted? James says that it always takes .5 seconds for the light to reach the receivers in the train frame. You see the pic in the link I posted? You see how it takes .65 seconds for light to travel the distance of .5 light seconds in the cube frame? One of those can't be correct. Do you know which one?

Can you refer to the post you are meaning? Please. Waite David explained something similar to me recently and it is the two way speed of light that is measured in a moving frame so there is a short and long leg of the light path. But once I know where you are referring to I'll comment further. (tomorrow for me)

 

[Motor Daddy]

Can you refer to the post you are meaning? Please. Waite David explained something similar to me recently and it is the two way speed of light that is measured in a moving frame so there is a short and long leg of the light path. But once I know where you are referring to I'll comment further. (tomorrow for me)

Yup. This is my world: http://www.freeimagehosting.net/47g8k

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Your mistake is thinking that reality can be any different than the way I have it described in the geometry in my pic

Please prove that your interpretation of how reality supposedly works is not only the true way reality works but that reality could not work any other way. This is a very big assertion of yours, that not only are the laws of nature as you claim but that they could not be any other way.

And this isn't an ignorable request, I am explicitly requiring you to prove that claim of yours. If you ignore this then I'll give you a warning for trolling. You complain people ban you when you show they are wrong, I'm asking for you to present your case. I believe you'll have nothing more than further blanket assertions, prove me wrong.

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Interesting.

You told me that the it always takes .5 seconds for the light to reach the receivers. I do not agree.

No, I did not. You haven't appreciated the point I made about difference reference frames, which is actually the crux of your problem. See the diagrams above for the embankment frame and the train frame. Note that they are different in the relativistic picture. Note that in the embankment picture, light hits the rear wall of your box/train carriage before the front wall, while in the frame of the box itself those events are simultaneous.

You told me that according to the embankment frame the length is contracted along the x axis (direction of motion) but not the y or z axis. BULL.

It's a simple consequence that follows from the postulates of the theory.

You told me there is time dilation. BULL

There is, but that concept is way beyond you at this point. There's no point discussing it until you get the basic reference frame thing sorted.

You told me that the 2nd postulate of SR says that light is always measured to be traveling at c in any inertial frame. I do not agree.

Look it up! That is indeed what the 2nd postulate of SR says.

Under the circumstances of not agreeing with those statements I am left with no alternative but to conclude that SR is a pile of trash theory.

But you haven't even bothered to check each theory against experimental results.

Nature doesn't care what you think is trash. Nature doesn't care about your wishful thinking. Nature doesn't care that you don't understand reference frames.

Under the circumstances I created my own proper theory of how it really works.

Your theory has been proven false by literally thousands of experiments. And it's not even an original theory. It's just basic Galilean relativity with a preferred frame tacked on.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Please prove that your interpretation of how reality supposedly works is not only the true way reality works but that reality could not work any other way. This is a very big assertion of yours, that not only are the laws of nature as you claim but that they could not be any other way.

And this isn't an ignorable request, I am explicitly requiring you to prove that claim of yours. If you ignore this then I'll give you a warning for trolling. You complain people ban you when you show they are wrong, I'm asking for you to present your case. I believe you'll have nothing more than further blanket assertions, prove me wrong.

As James previously posted, this will give you a solid basis to start. Once you have understood all that I explain in that thread and you STILL don't understand then I will entertain any further specific questions you have.

 

[James R]

Cast your mind back to 1 June, 2011, Motor Daddy. I wrote this (slightly edited):

The first thing to say about your [Motor Daddy's] diagram is that it is clearly drawn in the "embankment" or "space" frame, which is the only one in the Motor Daddy universe in which light is observed to spread out in a sphere around a source.

In an absolute universe, your diagram would be correct, but we don't live in that kind of universe. [Emphasis added]

....

You have not drawn any diagram for the train frame. In fact, I doubt you know how that frame would look in the Motor Daddy universe. In Einstein's universe (i.e. the real one), things look like what I have drawn on the right-hand side of my diagrams above.

Do you have any comments on this, or just more empty assertions about "reality" and more LOLs in an attempt to dismiss the Einstein universe, knowing that you can't disprove it in any way?

Link: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...Simultaneity&p=2762504&viewfull=1#post2762504

Now, you've had almost 2 years to think about this, Motor Daddy. Have you got any closer to coming up with an answer to my question at the end of that post, or is it still all just empty assertions with you?

Show me your diagram for the train frame. I dare you.