Absolute Velocity

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:29 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:What you SHOW is the box moving away from the depicted center of the light circle.

If the center of the light circle does not stay in the center of the box - how could the box not be moving?


The center of the light circle is the point in space where the light source was when it emitted light.

Yes, the box has moved in space away from that point in space. That is what absolute velocity is! It is the motion of a single object in space.

So back to where we started - the box is moving with respect to the source of light and the observer (else the observer would think that space was moving to the left).

So the true inertial frame in this scenario is the source of the light and the box is moving to the right as the light chases the box's right wall.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:30 pm

There is no such thing as absolute velocity. In a single-object universe, velocity is not absolute, it is undefinable.

</thread>
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:36 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:So back to where we started - the box is moving with respect to the source of light and the observer (else the observer would think that space was moving to the left).

So the true inertial frame in this scenario is the source of the light and the box is moving to the right as the light chases the box's right wall.


The entire box is the inertial frame. Every clock in the box at every point in the box reads the exact same time. The distance between the center of the box, where the light source is, and each receiver is EXACTLY the same.

IN THE BOX, light takes different amounts of time to reach the different receivers, which are all the same distance from the center. That makes the speed of light different to the different receivers.

IN THE BOX, the speed of light is different in different directions.

The box is moving in SPACE, it is traveling a distance in space per a duration of time.

We are not talking about closing speed, we are talking about absolute velocity!
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:39 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
We are not talking about closing speed, we are talking about absolute velocity!


see above
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:43 pm

pood wrote:
see above


If you are trying to say "no it isn't" that isn't going to cut it here.

Show me where my error is or keep your "no it isn't" comments to yourself.

Just saying "no" is not a valid response.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:51 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:So back to where we started - the box is moving with respect to the source of light and the observer (else the observer would think that space was moving to the left).

So the true inertial frame in this scenario is the source of the light and the box is moving to the right as the light chases the box's right wall.


The entire box is the inertial frame. Every clock in the box at every point in the box reads the exact same time. The distance between the center of the box, where the light source is, and each receiver is EXACTLY the same.

That would be true of every frame - it has nothing to do with being the "inertial frame".

Motor Daddy wrote:IN THE BOX, light takes different amounts of time to reach the different receivers, which are all the same distance from the center. That makes the speed of light different to the different receivers.

IN THE BOX, the speed of light is different in different directions.

That is YOUR theory - unproven(able).

You are saying that light travels at different speeds in a vacuum - how would the light know what direction the box is moving so as to change its speed?

Motor Daddy wrote:The box is moving in SPACE, it is traveling a distance in space per a duration of time.

And that means that it is not the observer's frame of reference. The observer cannot see empty space - moving or not.

So you want there to be a separate observer in the box. And your theory is that observer2 will note that the light from observer1's flash will meet one side of the box before the other - Relativity disagrees.

Without that second observer - relativity had nothing to do with your scenario.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 2:51 pm

I already told you. Velocity is not definable in a single-object universe. Crack a physics textbook.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:27 pm

pood wrote:I already told you. Velocity is not definable in a single-object universe. Crack a physics textbook.


Nobody said anything about a "single object universe."

Absolute velocity is the velocity of an object in space, irrespective of any relative velocity that object has to any other object.

It doesn't matter what the relative velocity is between the box and another object, that is "closing speed." I am talking about the velocity of an object in space, not the relative velocity of one object compared to another object.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:37 pm

-
James expressed the same concern that you are trying to express in his Stopped Clock Paradox thread from years ago. He used many gif's such as the following one that depicts the paradox of relativity theory -
      Image
He shows that when the light meets at a clock at the same instant to stop the clock - the station observer must see the station clock stop but the train observer must see the train clock stop - but only one of them can be right.

Also this one -
      Image
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:38 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
The motion is the box traveling in space at the absolute velocity of .638971c. It is a single box traveling in the vacuum of space. There is no relative motion to any other object.


That is positing a single-object universe. Velocity is undefinable, not absolute.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:39 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
Without that second observer - relativity had nothing to do with your scenario.


It has everything to do with Einstein's second postulate that says the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame.

NO, it is not constant, as I've shown in the box, that light speed is different, depending on the direction you measure it in the box.

The ONLY way the light will reach all the receivers at the same time in .5 seconds is IF the box has an absolute zero velocity in space.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:42 pm

pood wrote:
Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
The motion is the box traveling in space at the absolute velocity of .638971c. It is a single box traveling in the vacuum of space. There is no relative motion to any other object.


That is positing a single-object universe. Velocity is undefinable, not absolute.


No it is not! I am not talking about the closing speed between the box and the Earth, for example. I am taking about the velocity of the box in space.

It is the velocity of 1 rocket traveling in space, regardless of the closing speeds between that rocket and every other object in the universe. The rocket has it's own velocity, irrespective of the closing speed between it and another object.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:45 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:
Without that second observer - relativity had nothing to do with your scenario.


It has everything to do with Einstein's second postulate that says the speed of light is constant in an inertial frame.

NO, it is not constant, as I've shown in the box, that light speed is different, depending on the direction you measure it in the box.

The ONLY way the light will reach all the receivers at the same time in .5 seconds is IF the box has an absolute zero velocity in space.

You can't assume non-relativity (as you have been doing) in the effort to prove non-relativity.

According to relativity the observer in the box WILL see the light strike both walls at the same time. You haven't proven relativity wrong - only stated that you disagree.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:52 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:You can't assume non-relativity (as you have been doing) in the effort to prove non-relativity.

According to relativity the observer in the box WILL see the light strike both walls at the same time. You haven't proven relativity wrong - only stated that you disagree.


My theory has both absolute velocity and relative velocity. I am talking about the absolute velocity of the box in space.

It is not an opinion as to whether the light sphere contacted the receivers at the same time or not. A single light at the center is emitted, and the receivers are contacted at different times. That is a FACT!

I know you have faith that in the box the receivers are contacted by the light at the same time, but your faith is garbage! The receivers are contacted at DIFFERENT TIMES, even though the distance is the same from the center.

There goes your faith about "light speed is constant in an inertial frame!" It certainly is NOT, it depends on the direction of measure as to what the speed of light is in the box!
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:55 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:No it is not! I am not talking about the closing speed between the box and the Earth, for example. I am taking about the velocity of the box in space.


Velocity with respect to what?
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:57 pm

If a light is in the center of a moving box, then the light source is traveling with the box and will strike all the walls simultaneously.
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:57 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:James expressed the same concern that you are trying to express in his Stopped Clock Paradox thread from years ago.


It's too bad James isn't here to support his conjecture! Since you are not James I'll avoid talking to you about his arguments. I'd gladly talk to James about it, but since you are not him it would be wasting my time talking to you about his ideas.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 3:58 pm

pood wrote:
Motor Daddy wrote:No it is not! I am not talking about the closing speed between the box and the Earth, for example. I am taking about the velocity of the box in space.


Velocity with respect to what?


Space. Velocity is distance/time. Distance in space over the duration of time.
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:00 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You can't assume non-relativity (as you have been doing) in the effort to prove non-relativity.

According to relativity the observer in the box WILL see the light strike both walls at the same time. You haven't proven relativity wrong - only stated that you disagree.


My theory has both absolute velocity and relative velocity. I am talking about the absolute velocity of the box in space.

It is not an opinion as to whether the light sphere contacted the receivers at the same time or not. A single light at the center is emitted, and the receivers are contacted at different times. That is a FACT!

I know you have faith that in the box the receivers are contacted by the light at the same time, but your faith is garbage! The receivers are contacted at DIFFERENT TIMES, even though the distance is the same from the center.

There goes your faith about "light speed is constant in an inertial frame!" It certainly is NOT, it depends on the direction of measure as to what the speed of light is in the box!

Your argument amounts to - "if there is no relativity then I must be right."

Motor Daddy wrote:It's too bad James isn't here to support his conjecture! Since you are not James I'll avoid talking to you about his arguments. I'd gladly talk to James about it, but since you are not him it would be wasting my time talking to you about his ideas.

His thread is still there. It's rather long.

The problem that I see is that you have no idea what relativity is about anyway so you are not actually proving anything whether you are right or not.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:02 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
pood wrote:
Motor Daddy wrote:No it is not! I am not talking about the closing speed between the box and the Earth, for example. I am taking about the velocity of the box in space.


Velocity with respect to what?


Space. Velocity is distance/time. Distance in space over the duration of time.

You have to have 3 or more objects to have distance.
Last edited by obsrvr524 on Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:02 pm

pood wrote:If a light is in the center of a moving box, then the light source is traveling with the box and will strike all the walls simultaneously.


NO IT WILL NOT! You are saying the center of the light sphere will travel along with the box, and that is impossible! The center of the light sphere is a point in space, not capable of motion.

The light sphere expands its radius in space over a duration of time. The center of the light sphere never changes location in space.

If you think the receivers are contacted simultaneously, show me! Or be very accurate with your calculations and distances, times, and coordinates, like I have shown you!
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:03 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:You have to have 2 or more objects to have distance.


You don't need ANY objects to have distance. Distance is inevitable! There is no other alternative!
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby pood » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:03 pm

You can’t define velocity with respect to empty space.

Once again, </thread>
pood
Thinker
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2021 5:29 pm

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby obsrvr524 » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:05 pm

Motor Daddy wrote:
obsrvr524 wrote:You have to have 3 or more objects to have distance.


You don't need ANY objects to have distance. Distance is inevitable! There is no other alternative!

So if there was only one object - how big might it be?

If there were no objects - how wide would the universe be?
              You have been observed.
    Though often tempted to encourage a dog to distinguish color I refuse to argue with him about it
    It's just the same Satanism as always -
    • separate the bottom from the top,
    • the left from the right,
    • the light from the dark, and
    • blame each for the sins of the other
    • - until they beg you to take charge.
    • -- but "you" have been observed --

The prospect of death weighs naught upon the purpose of life - James S Saint - 2009
obsrvr524
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4238
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2019 9:03 am

Re: Absolute Velocity

Postby Motor Daddy » Thu Sep 23, 2021 4:07 pm

obsrvr524 wrote:
The problem that I see is that you have no idea what relativity is about anyway so you are not actually proving anything whether you are right or not.


Still just flapping your lips. How about you show me the box in space having a velocity? Oh, wait, you can't do that, because your box never moves in space! LOL

You would show a box, with a light sphere contacting all the receivers at the same time, a circle in a box. That is all you know, and since your faith is strong, you're sticking to it! LOL
User avatar
Motor Daddy
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1692
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users