@Brandon9000,
The measured value of c is based on the formula:
Quote:speed = distance / time
By the convention of course
Quote:What do you mean by time at a distance?
For instance at this moment is Marty experiencing the same instant
dalehileman wrote:
...........
However, that assumes that when we energized the light Marty’s clock was also reading 12:00.......
Quote:It makes no such assumption. It would be based on the reading of the Earthly clock when the light left and when it retured.
But suppose instead Marty’s clock was reading 12:05 at the instant we turned on the lamp. That would make light velocity many times c if not infinite
dalehileman wrote:
In a slight further simplification........so that when it’s noon here we can consider it almost exactly 12:05 on Mars.
Quote:I don't follow your conclusion. How does me imagining concentric circles around each observer lead to a 5 minute disagreement between the two clocks?
Because in the circle intersecting Marty, if when we turned on our light his clock was reading 12:05 (Oops that should be 4 minutes) time-at-a-distance is resolved in favor of the intuition
dalehileman wrote:
Thus the beam arrived there almost instantaneously.
Quote:What? I don't see how you get this conclusion.
Because at noon when we switched on our light it was 12:05 on Marty’s clock
dalehileman wrote:
You object that if its velocity is so much greater than c, why can’t we see the reflection the instant we turn it on
That’s easy. To us, the beam had spent eight minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror.
Quote:What? Please explain thus muddled mish-mash of statements.
To us the wavefront spent 8 minutes bouncing off Marty’s mirror just as to Arty 8 minutes elapsed back here the instant he pushed the button that fires his retro; though I remember having explained this
dalehileman wrote:
Now, to those not initiated in the ins and outs of relativity, the foregoing suggestion sounds absurd.......
Quote:Yes it's much more absurd. Einstein used a series of sound deductions to reach his conclusion.
To some at first, Einstein ’s assertions seemed absurd. Hitler so reacted, calling relativity “Jewish science"
dalehileman wrote:
........Assuming somehow the de-ac-celeration doesn't kill him, to him during that instant 8 minutes elapses back on Earth, ZIP, just like that. Any physicist will agree
Quote:A high deceleration causes a larger elapsed time on Earth? How do you figure that?
Conventional relativity teaches that the acceleration experienced by Arty when he fires his retro to him instantaneously causes 8 minutes to elapse on Earth
In brief, Einstein would agree that during his entire journey our clocks were stopped at 12:00 and during his entire return trip at 12:08
dalehileman wrote:
So I’m simply asking you to adopt Arty’s point of view as a means to explore the intuitional validity of my approach to time-at-a-distance
Quote:Physics may be inspired by intuition from time to time, but results are not determined by intuition.
No they’re of course not determined. However may students agree that Einstein’s original insights were purely intuitional
That my speculation so neatly resolves the strange changes in a moving object, if not constituting proof might at least stimulate curiosity of the unbiased
Quote:Problem: A block slides down a 45 degree inclined plane........
I worked this out in about half of a handwritten page. If you have some bizarre objection to this problem, I will give you one from some other area of physics.
No, thank you Brand, I’ll take your word for it