Speed of light revisited yet still again

@dalehileman,

Why should someone read something based upon fiction, that is attributed to be fact?

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

No one can go through 20 minutes of photons in 10 minutes as you claimed.

But if Martha's original reading of our time is 11:40, how can it be 12:00 here when she arrives, unless she ploughs through two sets of photons to get here

1 Reply

http://jeremylaurenson.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/flypaper.jpg

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

If earth time is 12:00 then how can Martha's time be 12:00. You keep trying to claim Martha's time is earth time. It isn't.

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

If earth time is 12:00 then how can Martha's time be 12:00.

I don't recall saying it is; you might reread the posting where you suppose I've done so. When she fires her rocket it's 11:50 to both of us (that's assuming the conventional time-at-a-distance of course) but then (to us) her watch is stopped (again for the sixth time; sorry Para no offense), remaining indefinitely at that reading as she passes by us at noon (our time of course)

Quote:

You keep trying to claim Martha's time is earth time. It isn't

I don't remember making that claim either. Of course it isn't; where and how did you derive that impression

For the twelfth time, Para, and my apologies if I wasn't clear, here our watch continues to run at a perfectly normal rate while Marty's is apparently stuck at 11:50 as she zooms past

I'm not entirely sure where your misunderstanding arises although it might be purely semantic. Of course Marty presumably knows that by our reckoning and that of nearly everyone else in the Universe with whom we're at rest, her trip takes 10 minutes

It's merely her sense that the trip is instantaneous. To her of course, her watch is running at a normal rate of speed. However, to her, in effect the Universe has shrunk, as if she were time-traveling, circumnavigating the Universe 54 times in the half-second (still by her watch now remember) before she hits that asteroid

[I've naturally taken the liberty to assume a finite Universe but the typical a2k'er surely will be able to forgive my presumption for the purpose of simplicity

No Para we don't see her pass by a second time. We're long since dead and maybe even Earth is gone

Come on now Para, and again my apologies if you're not, but so far your objections give the impression of trolling. Do you honest-to-god insist that Marty's clock doesn't seem to be stopped as she speeds past us

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Do you honest-to-god insist that Marty's clock doesn't seem to be stopped as she speeds past us

Marty's clock appears that way to earth.
Earth's clock appears to be stopped for Marty as he speeds past while he sees his clock as moving normally.

By Marty's clock, the trip takes 10 minutes. Earth can't see Marty's clock the same way Marty sees it because of relativity.

2 Replies

@parados,

You have never visited the speed of light, thus your clock is off it's rocker.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

Quote:
Do you honest-to-god insist that Marty's clock doesn't seem to be stopped as she speeds past us

Yes indeed it does, as Marty watches it pass through his side window. More about this toward the end of that other thread where I've been chatting with you

Quote:

Marty's clock appears that way to earth.

Yes, throughout her entire trip

Quote:

Earth's clock appears to be stopped for Marty as he speeds past while he sees his clock as moving normally

Yes Para, yes, precisely what I've been trying to get across in my inadequate 84-year-old way

It's only while looking out her front window does Marty apparently see our clock rushing ahead

Quote:

By Marty's clock, the trip takes 10 minutes.

Now Para here's where, I'm sorry, but you're dead wrong. When Marty fires her rocket she and her watch come to a (almost) complete halt in the view of anybody anywhere in the entire universe who's more-or-less at rest (with respect to that nettlesome, non-existent stationary ref)

Quote:

Earth can't see Marty's clock the same way Marty sees it because of relativity

Absolutely right, Para. But as she departs that strange quick jump she perceives in the reading of our watch owes to her acceleration

Part of our problem Para, maybe that when I assert that she passes through two parcels of our photons, you suppose I'm supposing they'd have to be approaching her much faster than c because after all their actual width (to us) is 20 light minutes

To resolve this apparent violation of Einstein, and again I'm repeating myself for the nth time, as she fires her rocket we (the Earth, the moon, everything more or less at a relative standstill) suddenly jumps to within a few kilometers, meters, feet, or centimeters, having squished in the direction of motion to a thickness of what, 4 kilo? 50 ft? 2 millimeters? depending on her exact speed

So the entire bundle swishes past her (by her own reckoning) in what, half a minute? two seconds? seven microseconds? 42 millinanoseconds? at velocity (ever-so-slightly less than) c

You don't hafat be a mathematician….

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

If earth time is 12:00 then how can Martha's time be 12:00.

It isn't, it's still 11:50, same as when she took off. After she passes by it appears stuck at 11:50 'til she's so far off we can't see her anymore

Of course on her way here to us (arriving at noon) it was reading 11:50 all the way even though we can't confirm that until she (formerly called Marty I believe) has arrived

Quote:

You keep trying to claim Martha's time is earth time. It isn't

No I never said it was, unlesss a slip or snafu

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

I admit my fault on the nuetrinos. However, I still can't find the proper formula for E=MC^2

1 Reply

@somewhatsolved,

Quote:

However, I still can't find the proper formula for E=MC^2

???????

Some, you'll have to elaborate on that. It itself's already a proper formula

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

The clock is not stopped, and time is passing normally for both parties....

the end............

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

You have never visited the speed of light, thus your clock is off it's rocker

???? I don't see how the reading of my clock depends upon whether or not I have ever traveled at or near that velocity

Quote:

The clock is not stopped, and time is passing normally for both parties....

I'm not sure which clocks you mean, DNA. But time of course passes normally for both us and Marty, I never said it didn't

Come on now DNA, are you merely pulling my old leg

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

It's all nonsense until it is acted upon. Now if there was such a ship that could do this, and it traveled really fast, went out for a week at this speed, he would come back week later, by both peoples times. Could I be wrong, sure, but there is no reason to think so. Are you aware that black holes may now not exist? Hawking admitted making stuff up, and now we have this http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I gladly will.

E=MC^2 isn't correct past positive matter. Add in antimatter which is electrons that have a positive charge and protons with a negitive charge. And it falls to shredds. So then it was determined that E=+/-MC^2 with these discoveries (you will find backed up proof by looking at the articles on the [please insert proper scientists name] Sea, also known as the Electron Sea). However, my physics teacher when I told him this and wrote it down to show him just shook his head and then wrote out a much more complex notation and said that what he wrote was the proper notation and walked off with the paper.

I can more or less remember it but not quite. For all I know it is fake or I am remembering right.

(E=+/-MC^2)/1-(C-1/C^2) This is what I think my teacher had written down that day.

So is this right.

provide link or explain the formula and the reasons behind it.

3 Replies

@somewhatsolved,

somewhatsolved wrote:

I gladly will.

E=MC^2 isn't correct past positive matter. Add in antimatter which is electrons that have a positive charge and protons with a negitive charge. And it falls to shredds. So then it was determined that E=+/-MC^2 with these discoveries (you will find backed up proof by looking at the articles on the [please insert proper scientists name] Sea, also known as the Electron Sea). However, my physics teacher when I told him this and wrote it down to show him just shook his head and then wrote out a much more complex notation and said that what he wrote was the proper notation and walked off with the paper.

I can more or less remember it but not quite. For all I know it is fake or I am remembering right.

(E=+/-MC^2)/1-(C-1/C^2) This is what I think my teacher had written down that day.

So is this right.

provide link or explain the formula and the reasons behind it.

E = mc^2 is correct for all matter. Either you're misstating the question, or you're simply wrong.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

All matter is not known, in fact 96 percent of all matter is missing, and where it is or in what state it exist, is also unknown. So E=MC2 might be true for all we know, which is .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 percent of the universe.

Next

0 Replies

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

It's all nonsense until it is acted upon.

Of course DNA, most casual assertions of this sort require the impossible, thus don't require accurate numbers. "If" gets to be an important lead-in

Quote:

Now if there was such a ship that could do this, and it traveled really fast, went out for a week at this speed, he would come back week later, by both peoples times.

Not by both. By hers possibly; but having returned, she finds us and probably our planet too long gone, probably by millions if not billions of years

Quote:

Could I be wrong, sure, but there is no reason to think so.

Oh, no offense DNA, but there is

Quote:

Are you aware that black holes may now not exist?

So I've heard

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

The Earth was flat, until it was sailed. Your clocks do not match, in theory, but no one has sailed at light speed yet,,,,,,, sail first, talk later.

1 Reply

@DNA Thumbs drive,

Quote:

The Earth was flat, until it was sailed.

Interesting you should so assert, DNA. In fact I just thinking about Marty's departure, when (to him) we suddenly jump up close with the Earth flattened out like a pancake

A disk, 8000 mi dia, maybe 3 mm thick

Quote:

Your clocks do not match, in theory, but no one has sailed at light speed yet,,,,,,, sail first, talk later

No not yet but a fast moving object (to us) does age slower than it should, with its clock running slower than ours. So it's pretty reasonable to suppose in accordance with Al's math, if it were goin' at c it would appear stopped

1 Reply

Speed of light revisited yet still again

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know