Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[A-wal]

Mate! you are clearly talking of imagination, the tube does not contract when a train travels through it, the tube is the constant of light between two point sources.  Time dilation of the Caesium is a direct result between the train and the Earth and has no relevance to the tube. 

The constant speed of light in a vacuum also has nothing to do with the Caesium atom, it is unrelated in every sense.  

Cycles per second is exactly that, ten cycles a second or 100 cycles a second is irrelevant to the duration of a second.

In short if I was to put a light second of length between you and an object, the light second remains a light second whether you move or not.

The constant of light shows there is no time dilation or contraction. 

You really don't have the first clue do you. Every one of those statements is wrong and logically inconsistent.

 

This isn't hard to understand. Listen!

 

If the speed of light were not constant there'd be no need for length contraction and time dilation. You CANNOT use the consistency of the speed of light to show they don't occur because the consistency of the speed of light is how we know that they DO occur! lol

 

 

Do you agree up to this point:

From the station's frame of reference light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

It obviously can't. It obviously takes less than eight minutes from the trains frame of reference because the train is moving at half the speed of light and light moves at the speed of light past the train.

[xyz]

You really don't have the first clue do you. Every one of those statements is wrong and logically inconsistent.

 

This isn't hard to understand. Listen!

 

If the speed of light were not constant there'd be no need for length contraction and time dilation. You CANNOT use the consistency of the speed of light to show they don't occur because the consistency of the speed of light is how we know that they DO occur! lol

 

 

Do you agree up to this point:

From the station's frame of reference light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

It obviously can't. It obviously takes less than eight minutes from the trains frame of reference because the train is moving at half the speed of light and light moves at the speed of light past the train.

I have no idea of what you are trying to say, but I will just say that the speed of light is relative to the speed of the observer. 

[xyz]

You really don't have the first clue do you. Every one of those statements is wrong and logically inconsistent.

 

This isn't hard to understand. Listen!

 

If the speed of light were not constant there'd be no need for length contraction and time dilation. You CANNOT use the consistency of the speed of light to show they don't occur because the consistency of the speed of light is how we know that they DO occur! lol

 

 

Do you agree up to this point:

From the station's frame of reference light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

It obviously can't. It obviously takes less than eight minutes from the trains frame of reference because the train is moving at half the speed of light and light moves at the speed of light past the train.

I will say the speed of light is relative to the velocity of the observer.

[A-wal]

You have no idea what I'm trying to say? Okay, tell me where you get lost.

From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

This means that it takes light 8 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

It leaves station A and travels towards station B at half the speed of light, so the train takes light 16 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

The speed of light is the same as measured by somebody at the station as the speed of light as measured by somebody on the train.

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

Light must take less than eight minutes to travel between the from station A to station B from the perspective of somebody on the train because the train is moving towards station B and the speed of light moves past the train at the full speed of light. Follow?

 

I will say the speed of light is relative to the velocity of the observer.

So now you've changed your mind and you think the speed of light isn't constant? That means your simply ignoring the fact that we know that it is and therefore you're not even worth talking to. You can't ignore evidence just because you don't don't like its implications.

[xyz]

 

 

So now you've changed your mind and you think the speed of light isn't constant? That means your simply ignoring the fact that we know that it is and therefore you're not even worth talking to. You can't ignore evidence just because you don't don't like its implications.

No, the speed of light is constant in a relative ''stationary'' reference frame between two points, the two points create the reference frame, the variance you are discussing due to relative motion of an object is not quite the same.  The observer in motion travelling towards the light will measure less time it takes for the light to travel from the source to them because they are contracting the radius between them and the source while the distance between the point sources remains ''stationary''',

 

Now if we imagine my triangular diagram from earlier you have not accounted for the zero net differences of time it takes light to travel between the point sources of the ''stationary'' reference frame. I am using this ''stationary'' reference frame and the constant speed of light as the actual clock, the rate being constant and a perfect instrument for recording time. 

 

Time is a linearity with no curves  or spacing , a ''rod'', the light constant between two points being the ''rod'' in my example. 

 

The ''rod'' shows no contraction from A,B and C's perspective, because if there was a contraction, then the ''rod'' would turn ''blue'', but it doesn't. 

[A-wal]

No, the speed of light is constant in a relative ''stationary'' reference frame between two points, the two points create the reference frame, the variance you are discussing due to relative motion of an object is not quite the same.  The observer in motion travelling towards the light will measure less time it takes for the light to travel from the source to them because they are contracting the radius between them and the source while the distance between the point sources remains ''stationary''',

I'm not talking about the time it takes for the light to reach the train. I was very clear and then spelled out exactly what I meant with each step. The issue is the time light takes to travel from station A to station B from the perspective of the train that's moving between them.

 

Now if we imagine my triangular diagram from earlier you have not accounted for the zero net differences of time it takes light to travel between the point sources of the ''stationary'' reference frame. I am using this ''stationary'' reference frame and the constant speed of light as the actual clock, the rate being constant and a perfect instrument for recording time.

Of course it takes the same amount of time for light to travel between two points if you're only using one frame of reference. It takes a different amount of time in other frames of reference! As soon as you view it fro the perspective of an observer in motion relative to those points the time the light takes to travel from one point to the other has to change because the speed of light has to remain constant. The difference in the amount of time it takes means that the observer that's in motion relative triangle has to measure lengths in time or lengths in space differently than an observer that's at rest relative to the triangle. There's no way around this.

 

Time is a linearity with no curves  or spacing , a ''rod'', the light constant between two points being the ''rod'' in my example. 

 

The ''rod'' shows no contraction from A,B and C's perspective, because if there was a contraction, then the ''rod'' would turn ''blue'', but it doesn't. 

Wtf are you taking about about? :)

 

 

Stop trying to avoid the scenario that easily proves your deluded and backward view wrong and just answer the sodding question! Are you capable of understanding this situation?

 

From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

 

This means that it takes light 8 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

 

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

 

It leaves station A and travels towards station B at half the speed of light, so the train takes light 16 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

 

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

 

The speed of light is the same as measured by somebody at the station as the speed of light as measured by somebody on the train.

 

How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

 

Light must take less than eight minutes to travel between the from station A to station B from the perspective of somebody on the train because the train is moving towards station B and the speed of light moves past the train at the full speed of light.

[xyz]

I'm not talking about the time it takes for the light to reach the train. I was very clear and then spelled out exactly what I meant with each step. The issue is the time light takes to travel from station A to station B from the perspective of the train that's moving between them.

 

 

Of course it takes the same amount of time for light to travel between two points if you're only using one frame of reference. It takes a different amount of time in other frames of reference! As soon as you view it fro the perspective of an observer in motion relative to those points the time the light takes to travel from one point to the other has to change because the speed of light has to remain constant. The difference in the amount of time it takes means that the observer that's in motion relative triangle has to measure lengths in time or lengths in space differently than an observer that's at rest relative to the triangle. There's no way around this.

 

 

Wtf are you taking about about? :)

Stop trying to avoid the scenario that easily proves your deluded and backward view wrong and just answer the sodding question! Are you capable of understanding this situation?

 

From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.

This means that it takes light 8 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.

It leaves station A and travels towards station B at half the speed of light, so the train takes light 16 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.

The speed of light is the same as measured by somebody at the station as the speed of light as measured by somebody on the train.How can the light's journey possibly take the full eight minutes to move from station A to station B when the train is moving between the two stations at half the speed of light and the light is moving at the speed of light faster than the train?

Light must take less than eight minutes to travel between the from station A to station B from the perspective of somebody on the train because the train is moving towards station B and the speed of light moves past the train at the full speed of light.

you are not being totally objective,you are not considering that the clocks the rocket uses is broken to begin with because it is not constant.

[A-wal]

Er, what? :)

 

Okay, do you understand up to this point:

 

From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey.
This means that it takes light 8 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

The train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light.
The train leaves station A and travels towards station B at half the speed of light, so the train takes 16 minutes to make the journey from station A to station B on the watch of an observer who's at the station.

The speed of light is the same in all inertial frames so light moves past the moving train at the full speed of light despite the trains motion relative to the stations.
The speed of light is the same as measured by somebody at the station as the speed of light as measured by somebody on the train.

Edited July 18, 2016 by A-wal

[CraigD]

That's not the answer that I was expecting. :)

I made a mistake, not algebraic, but with translating the English language question into initial condition data – I was assuming the travel time between the 2 stations remained 8 minutes regardless of the traveler’s speed. It changes the results only a little, but it’s important to be exactly right, so I’ve corrected post #18 and post #22. The algebra is a little bit more complicated, but interestingly, the answer to your “traveler's watch is 6 minutes behind ... how fast did the train move?” question changes from an irrational number ([math]\frac{\sqrt{15}}{4} \dot= 0.968246[/math] c) to a rational one ([math]\frac{24}{25} = 0.96[/math] c).

 

This just happens to hit on another “nice round numbers” (that is, rational) solution for [math]v[/math] that give rational values for the [math]\sqrt{1-v^2}[/math] at the heart of the formula or time dilation and length contraction. Finding nice round number example points to a neat feature that hints at the simple geometric nature of these phenomena.

If you write the formula:

[math]\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{N}{D}\right)^2} = \frac{M}{D}[/math]

you can get:

[math]N^2 +M^2 = D^2[/math]

The solutions to this are Pythagorean triples. So in addition to the handy 0.6 and 0.8 we’ve used in example, we have 0.28, 0.96, 0.352, 0.936, 0.5376, 0.8432, 0.07584, 0.99712, 0.658944, 0.752192, 0.2063872, 0.9784704, and an infinite collection of rational numbers with more decimal digits.

 

I do not understand your maths sorry but I do understand your video link which I have watched lots of times before your link, but thank you anyway.

Zyx, I, and I think any science teacher would, have a strong concern with your statement that you understand the light clock example when you see it in a video, but can’t understand that it leads to the equation I wrote. I don’t think it’s possible to understand physics without being able to use it for very simple problems, nor to understand it without understanding simple geometry and basic arithmetic and algebra. If you can’t, given the 2 postulates of SR (which I gave in post #18) and the false paradox of the light clock example, I can’t accept that you understand SR, and don’t think any professional physicists of enthusiastic amateur would, either.

 

If you learn how to do this simple derivation, I suspect you’ll abandon the strange claims you’ve made in this long, argumentative thread, which I think you’re making because your understanding of physical reality is fundamentally, profoundly confused.

 

This sort of confusion is common – in my experience, perhaps half of the adults in countries with mandatory public education have it – and not a sign of mental deficiency, but rather a consequence of innumeracy. Fortunately, and again in my experience, innumeracy can be cured in any neurologically normal person over the age of about 10, following a lesson plan like that of a remedial math/introductory science class.

 

Before you can credibly challenge the foundations of mainstream present-day science, you must understand them. Before a good critically thinker will accept your claim that the foundations of mainstream science are wrong, you must demonstrate to them that you understand them. You’ve demonstrably not done the latter, nor, I’m nearly certain, the former. To do so, I recommend you become numerate.

[A-wal]

Thanks Craig. I'll try to understand exactly how you got to that answer tomorrow. I don't agree though that any mathematical ability is needed to understand this, although I suppose it depends on how loosely you define mathematical ability. You can demonstrate the relationship between relative velocity and time dilation/length contraction with simple deductive reasoning.

 

1. From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey from station A to station B.

 

2. A train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light, so light from station A passes the train from the station's frame of reference at half the speed of light and it takes the train 16 minutes to complete the journey from the station's frame.

 

3. Light from station A passes the train at the full speed from the train's frame of reference.

 

If you understand these three points xyz, I can very easily demonstrate that the measurements for length of time and length of space can't possibly be the same in both frames of reference.

[xyz]

Thanks Craig. I'll try to understand exactly how you got to that answer tomorrow. I don't agree though that any mathematical ability is needed to understand this, although I suppose it depends on how loosely you define mathematical ability. You can demonstrate the relationship between relative velocity and time dilation/length contraction with simple deductive reasoning.

 

1. From the station's frame of reference, light moves at the speed of light and takes eight minutes to make the journey from station A to station B.

 

2. A train moves from station A to station B at half the speed of light, so light from station A passes the train from the station's frame of reference at half the speed of light and it takes the train 16 minutes to complete the journey from the station's frame.

 

3. Light from station A passes the train at the full speed from the train's frame of reference.

 

If you understand these three points xyz, I can very easily demonstrate that the measurements for length of time and length of space can't possibly be the same in both frames of reference.

The problem is you keep saying the train travels at half the speed ,, in my example the train was travelling at the speed of light in which you said was impossible so changed the scenario, 

 

 

OK, can we change the train to a Photon? 

 

 

The Photon travels from A to B at c through a ''light'' tunnel. 

 

But yes of course I understand you statements. 

[xyz]

I made a mistake, not algebraic, but with translating the English language question into initial condition data – I was assuming the travel time between the 2 stations remained 8 minutes regardless of the traveler’s speed. It changes the results only a little, but it’s important to be exactly right, so I’ve corrected post #18 and post #22. The algebra is a little bit more complicated, but interestingly, the answer to your “traveler's watch is 6 minutes behind ... how fast did the train move?” question changes from an irrational number ([math]\frac{\sqrt{15}}{4} \dot= 0.968246[/math] c) to a rational one ([math]\frac{24}{25} = 0.96[/math] c).

 

This just happens to hit on another “nice round numbers” (that is, rational) solution for [math]v[/math] that give rational values for the [math]\sqrt{1-v^2}[/math] at the heart of the formula or time dilation and length contraction. Finding nice round number example points to a neat feature that hints at the simple geometric nature of these phenomena.

If you write the formula:

[math]\sqrt{1-\left(\frac{N}{D}\right)^2} = \frac{M}{D}[/math]

you can get:

[math]N^2 +M^2 = D^2[/math]

The solutions to this are Pythagorean triples. So in addition to the handy 0.6 and 0.8 we’ve used in example, we have 0.28, 0.96, 0.352, 0.936, 0.5376, 0.8432, 0.07584, 0.99712, 0.658944, 0.752192, 0.2063872, 0.9784704, and an infinite collection of rational numbers with more decimal digits.

 

Zyx, I, and I think any science teacher would, have a strong concern with your statement that you understand the light clock example when you see it in a video, but can’t understand that it leads to the equation I wrote. I don’t think it’s possible to understand physics without being able to use it for very simple problems, nor to understand it without understanding simple geometry and basic arithmetic and algebra. If you can’t, given the 2 postulates of SR (which I gave in post #18) and the false paradox of the light clock example, I can’t accept that you understand SR, and don’t think any professional physicists of enthusiastic amateur would, either.

 

If you learn how to do this simple derivation, I suspect you’ll abandon the strange claims you’ve made in this long, argumentative thread, which I think you’re making because your understanding of physical reality is fundamentally, profoundly confused.

 

This sort of confusion is common – in my experience, perhaps half of the adults in countries with mandatory public education have it – and not a sign of mental deficiency, but rather a consequence of innumeracy. Fortunately, and again in my experience, innumeracy can be cured in any neurologically normal person over the age of about 10, following a lesson plan like that of a remedial math/introductory science class.

 

Before you can credibly challenge the foundations of mainstream present-day science, you must understand them. Before a good critically thinker will accept your claim that the foundations of mainstream science are wrong, you must demonstrate to them that you understand them. You’ve demonstrably not done the latter, nor, I’m nearly certain, the former. To do so, I recommend you become numerate.

I understand +ve and -ve , 

 

e.g +ve=8 mins

 

-ve = 8 mins

 

net t difference = 0 

 

I could learn your maths with some some help 

[A-wal]

The problem is you keep saying the train travels at half the speed ,, in my example the train was travelling at the speed of light in which you said was impossible so changed the scenario,

No, the problem is that you want to ignore the scenario that proves your position wrong and focus on an impossible scenario that you mistakenly think supports your view.

 

OK, can we change the train to a Photon?

No we can't. Photons can't measure anything, for lots of reasons.

 

But yes of course I understand you statements. 

Right so you understand that an observer at the station would measure light moving at half the speed of light past the train ( because the train is moving at half the speed of light towards station B ) and you understand that an observer on the train would measure the light moving past them at the full speed of light.

 

Okay good. Now if the light takes 8 minutes from the station's frame and light moves past the moving train at the speed of light from from the train's frame then how can the light possibly take the full eight minutes to travel from station A to station B from the train's Frame?

 

If you really understood the previous three points you'd have to realise that the light takes less time to travel from station A to station B from the train's perspective than it takes from the station's perspective, because the train is moving towards the station and light is moving at the full speed of light faster than the train is from the perspective of an observer on the train.

 

Velocity is a measure of distance over time. The difference in the time that it takes for the light to reach station B from the train's perspective is called length contraction and time dilation. It's moving over less space and doing it in less time because that's the only possible way for the same thing to take different amounts of time from different perspectives (inertial frames of reference) to move between the same two points.

Edited July 18, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

No, the problem is that you want to ignore the scenario that proves your position wrong and focus on an impossible scenario that you mistakenly think supports your view.

 

No we can't. Photons can't measure anything, for lots of reasons.

 

Right so you understand that an observer at the station would measure light moving at half the speed of light past the train ( because the train is moving at half the speed of light towards station B ) and you understand that an observer on the train would measure the light moving past them at the full speed of light.

 

Okay good. Now if the light takes 8 minutes from the station's frame and light moves past the moving train at the speed of light from from the train's frame then how can the light possibly take the full eight minutes to travel from station A to station B from the train's Frame?

 

If you really understood the previous three points you'd have to realise that the light takes less time to travel from station A to station B from the train's perspective than it takes from the station's perspective, because the train is moving towards the station and light is moving at the full speed of light faster than the train is from the perspective of an observer on the train.

 

Velocity is a measure of distance over time. The difference in the time that it takes for the light to reach station B from the train's perspective is called length contraction and time dilation. It's moving over less space and doing it in less time because that's the only possible way for the same thing to take different amounts of time from different perspectives (inertial frames of reference) to move between the same two points.

I am sorry I really can't understand you or your points.  

 

 

If an observer is travelling towards the light at the speed of light , the relative measurement of the light travelling towards the observer would be c*2 , a bit like when two cars collide it is speed+speed=collisions speed = force. 

[A-wal]

No it wouldn't be c*2. It would be the speed of light. Light moves a c in every inertial frame. This has been established and is beyond doubt.

 

Which brings us back to this.

So now you've changed your mind and you think the speed of light isn't constant? That means your simply ignoring the fact that we know that it is and therefore you're not even worth talking to. You can't ignore evidence just because you don't don't like its implications.

You agreed before that the speed of light was constant and now you've changed your mind because you've finally realised that a constant speed of light leads to inconsistencies of length when comparing different frames of reference (length contraction and time dilation). You can't disregard proven facts because they don't fit with your view. That very obviously shows you to be beyond all doubt, utterly irrational and completely lacking any kind of 'objectivity'. Thanks for playing, please go away now.

Edited July 18, 2016 by A-wal

[CraigD]

Zyx, I, and I think any science teacher would, have a strong concern with your statement that you understand the light clock example when you see it in a video, but can’t understand that it leads to the equation I wrote. I don’t think it’s possible to understand physics without being able to use it for very simple problems, nor to understand it without understanding simple geometry and basic arithmetic and algebra. If you can’t, given the 2 postulates of SR (which I gave in post #18) and the false paradox of the light clock example, I can’t accept that you understand SR, and don’t think any professional physicists of enthusiastic amateur would, either.

 

If you learn how to do this simple derivation, I suspect you’ll abandon the strange claims you’ve made in this long, argumentative thread, which I think you’re making because your understanding of physical reality is fundamentally, profoundly confused.

 

This sort of confusion is common – in my experience, perhaps half of the adults in countries with mandatory public education have it – and not a sign of mental deficiency, but rather a consequence of innumeracy. Fortunately, and again in my experience, innumeracy can be cured in any neurologically normal person over the age of about 10, following a lesson plan like that of a remedial math/introductory science class.

 

Before you can credibly challenge the foundations of mainstream present-day science, you must understand them. Before a good critically thinker will accept your claim that the foundations of mainstream science are wrong, you must demonstrate to them that you understand them. You’ve demonstrably not done the latter, nor, I’m nearly certain, the former. To do so, I recommend you become numerate.

…

I could learn your maths with some some help

I’ll take this as an invitation to present a very terse course in the numeracy needed to derive Special Relativity’s time dilation and length contraction formulas. :)

 

Since this’ll take more effort than the usual, conversational forum post – being hasty, sloppy, and confusing in something like this is arguable worse than not attempting it at all - I’ll need a few days, but will post it as soon as I can.

 

In the meanwhile you made a statement that I think goes to the heart of, and clearly contradicts, the 2nd postulate of SR:

If an observer is travelling towards the light at the speed of light , the relative measurement of the light travelling towards the observer would be c*2 , a bit like when two cars collide it is speed+speed=collisions speed = force.

This is what most physicists believe from about 1670 through 1890 – that light behaved essentially like small bullets, cars, or what have you – what Newton would have called a corpuscular theory, and late 19th Century physicists would called a emission, or ballistic, theory, of light.

 

What the Michelson–Morley experiment, first performed in 1887, showed (though it took a decade or so for the mainsteam of physicists to fully accept it) was that light is not essentially like bullets and cars, but rather, that, from the perspective of our intuitive experience with objects like bullets and card, it’s profoundly weird.

 

The MM experiment is complicated, because it must work with the small (compared to the speed of light) speeds available to Earthly experimenters. M & M, and everyone who’s done it since, relied on the speed of the Earth in its orbit, which is only about 0.0001 c. It’s much easier to understand if we imagine it being performed by Type II+ civilization experimenter who can travel very fast – say 0.5 c – with ease. So here’s the experiment as these people might do it.

 

Take a speed-of-light measurer – essentially a pair of light detectors and a precise timer that compares when each detector detects light from whatever the gadget it pointed at, then simply divides the distance between the detectors by the arrival time of the light for the 2 detectors to give a speed (speed = distance/difference in time, remember).

 

Point it at a light source, such as star, go directly toward it at 0.5 c (in your handy type II civilization spaceship), and take a reading. Then go directly away from it and take a reading.

 

If you’re a 17th century physicist, you’d expect the 1st speed reading to be about 1.5 c, the second to be about 0.5 c.

 

What our Type II civ experimenter would find, and what M & M found (though with a much more complicated gadget capable of telling a speed of 1.0001 c from 0.9999 c) and what’s enshrined as the 2nd postulate of SR, is that both reading give the same 1 c. To a 17th century physicist – and to generations of science students for the past century or so – this would be/has been/is fairly mind-blowing.

 

Special Relativity can be viewed simply as an explanation of this unexpected, mind-blowing result. Many alternative explanations have been tried, but none have been as simple or successful in matching experimental results – which I think is fortunate, and beautiful, because SR is very simple, so simple a well-educated scholar from 5th Century Greece wouldn’t have much trouble picking it up.

 

The moment this made sense was, for me, and those generation of science students I mentioned, a wonderful “ah ha” moment, and one I hope you’ll experience soon, xyz.

[xyz]

No it wouldn't be c*2. It would be the speed of light. Light moves a c in every inertial frame. This has been established and is beyond doubt.

 

Which brings us back to this.

You agreed before that the speed of light was constant and now you've changed your mind because you've finally realised that a constant speed of light leads to inconsistencies of length when comparing different frames of reference (length contraction and time dilation). You can't disregard proven facts because they don't fit with your view. That very obviously shows you to be beyond all doubt, utterly irrational and completely lacking any kind of 'objectivity'. Thanks for playing, please go away now.

You certainly are good at twisting sentences and in no way do I feel my original thread question has been answered. 

 

According to science we see the train that arrived 8 minutes earlier, 8 minutes later, however my triangulation of points with a constant division of space and the speed of light shows this to be not true.  

 

Let us start over and try to keep this really simple.

 

 

We have 3 points in an equilateral triangle,  A,B and C. 

 

 

All clocks are set to synchronous 0t and the time will start when a photon travels from each point to one of the other points. 

 

 

Photon A leaves A to travel to B. 

 

 

Photon B leaves B to travel to C. 

 

 

Photon C leaves C to travel to A. 

 

A observes Photon A arriving at B in 8 minutes, 

 

B observes Photon B arriving at C in 8 minutes, 

 

C observes Photon A arriving at A in 8 minutes, 

 

 

The detectors on A , B and C receive and detect each  photon in 8 minutes. 

 

 

Do you disagree with any of that?

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by xyz