The Underlying Problem With Some Science Is Interpretation.

[xyz]

There is no such thing as "gin clear light."  Light has a wavelength.  White light is a mix of wavelengths, easily decomposed back into its component wavelengths.  None of those wavelengths are "clear."

Really?   tell me what do you ''see'' between your eyes and screen ?  You see space right?

 

 

This space is without visible colour, it is ''gin-clear'', see through, right?  

 

 

White light is not the same as the gin-clear. 

 

I know white light is a said mixture of frequencies. 

 

Consider this, the wave-length of 400nm is shorter than wavelength 700nm, 700nm is shorter than the ''gin-clear''  .  

 

 

For light to red-shift, stretched, it would have to be ''blue'' to begin with.  

 

 

This is not the case, the light permeating through space that is visualised as this gin-clear, is at full stretch because there is no permeability of free space in respect to the magnitude of permeability needed to create visible wavelengths of light. 

Edited December 5, 2016 by xyz

[billvon]

Really?   tell me what do you ''see'' between your eyes and screen ?  You see space right?

 

I see nothing, since air is transparent.

 

>This space is without visible colour, it is ''gin-clear'', see through, right?  

The air is transparent, yes.  It is composed of dust, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide etc. 

 

>White light is not the same has the gin-clear. 

 

That is correct.  There is such a thing as white light.  There is such a thing as gin.  There is such a thing as transparent.  There is no such thing as gin clear light.

 

>Consider this, the wave-length of 400nm is shorter than wavelength 700nm

 

Correct.

 

>700nm is shorter than the ''gin-clear''  .  

 

A meaningless statement.  You might as well say 700nm is shorter than the heavy.

 

>For light to red-shift, stretched, it would have to be ''blue'' to begin with.  

 

Incorrect. Any EM radiation can be redshifted (i.e. wavelength made longer) or blueshifted (i.e. wavelength made shorter.)   The terms "redshift" and "blueshift" are used because the terms are useful to astronomers, and we tend to give things labels we can relate to directly.

 

>This is not the case, the light permeating through space that is visualised has this gin-clear, is at full stretch because there is no permeability of free

>space in respect to the magnitude of permeability needed to create visible wavelengths of light.

 

If you think free space has no permeability, you could use some brushup on your basic physics.  The permeability of free space is 1.25663706 × 10^-6 m kg s^-2 A^-2  - and this is a very important number to understand when you are discussing the propagation of EM waves through space (and their speed.)

[xyz]

I see nothing, since air is transparent.

 

>This space is without visible colour, it is ''gin-clear'', see through, right?  

The air is transparent, yes.  It is composed of dust, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide etc. 

 

>White light is not the same has the gin-clear. 

 

That is correct.  There is such a thing as white light.  There is such a thing as gin.  There is such a thing as transparent.  There is no such thing as gin clear light.

 

>Consider this, the wave-length of 400nm is shorter than wavelength 700nm

 

Correct.

 

>700nm is shorter than the ''gin-clear''  .  

 

A meaningless statement.  You might as well say 700nm is shorter than the heavy.

 

>For light to red-shift, stretched, it would have to be ''blue'' to begin with.  

 

Incorrect. Any EM radiation can be redshifted (i.e. wavelength made longer) or blueshifted (i.e. wavelength made shorter.)   The terms "redshift" and "blueshift" are used because the terms are useful to astronomers, and we tend to give things labels we can relate to directly.

 

>This is not the case, the light permeating through space that is visualised has this gin-clear, is at full stretch because there is no permeability of free

>space in respect to the magnitude of permeability needed to create visible wavelengths of light.

 

If you think free space has no permeability, you could use some brushup on your basic physics.  The permeability of free space is 1.25663706 × 10^-6 m kg s^-2 A^-2  - and this is a very important number to understand when you are discussing the propagation of EM waves through space (and their speed.)

Please try to understand and ''see'' past the subjective. 

 

You admit that the air is transparent, yes it is, it allows light to pass through with very little resistance, there is no visible wavelengths of between 400nm-700nm in the space between your eyes and object. 

 

 

OK, so do you recognise that the space in front of you between eye and object is not opaque ?  You can see through this space, the space in no way obstructs your line of sight , the line of sight is direct to the object, the space is clear of obstruction, the space is more clear than gin, gin reflects light the space does not?

[A-wal]

I'm not ignoring counter arguments. :) I'm ignoring arguments that have no relevance to relativity because they're what's known as 'not even wrong'.

You didn't even specify a frame of reference for the question of how fast the distance decreases and at a speed that low any differences observed by the two car frames would be practically non-existent.

I'm not interested in the discussion of a model that's inconsistent with a constant velocity of light because that model would be inconsistent with reality.

We need a model that uses a constant velocity of light so that's the one I'm using.

 

added- notice no use of a road, relative to either observer it is them that is stationary and it is the other that is moving. 

Well at least you understand Galilean relativity, that you can view any inertial object as stationary. That's a start.

 

Yes of course I understand unless I can't read correctly.

So you can see that with C being light...

From A's perspective C moves past themselves at c and still from A's perspective, C moves past B at 0.5c.

From B's perspective C moves past A at 1.5c and moves past themselves at c.

That's time dilation and length contraction right there, that's all it is. From A's perspective the light passes A at c and passes B 0.5c but from B's perspective the same light passes A at 1.5c and passes B at c.

[xyz]

 

You didn't even specify a frame of reference for the question of how fast the distance decreases and at a speed that low any differences observed by the two car frames would be practically non-existent.

I didn't specify any reference frame because one is simply not needed or exists when considering that it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.  

 

However I have considered your approach on this forum, apologies but you seem to be narcissistic and try to force your opinion, not listening to others opinions or even correctly answering their questions and points. It seems a bit all about ''me'' with you replies. 

 

 

 

The answer to the earlier scenario I provided is 60 mph.   Relative to either car the other car that is really travelling at 30mph is relatively travelling at 60mph. The distance contracts at 60 mph. 

 

 

Now if you change the scenario, we change the speeds of the cars to  c, the distance contracts at 2c.  

 

 

Do you get  it?

[A-wal]

I didn't specify any reference frame because one is simply not needed or exists when considering that it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.

You have three observers all in motion relative to each other so there's three reference frames. The answer depends on which frame you want to use. If the two outside observers are moving at 30mph in opposite directions in the fame of the middle object then from the frame either object on the outside, the object on the other side has to moving at less than 60mph.

 

However I have considered your approach on this forum, apologies but you seem to be narcissistic and try to force your opinion, not listening to others opinions or even correctly answering their questions and points. It seems a bit all about ''me'' with you replies.

Because it's not my opinion, its established facts based on a constant speed of light and supported by evidence. You want to think your views are right but thy're not even wrong, they're completely invalid and it's frustrating as hell that you not only can't comprehend but think you know better. You're the one being a narcissist!

 

The answer to the earlier scenario I provided is 60 mph.   Relative to either car the other car that is really travelling at 30mph is relatively travelling at 60mph. The distance contracts at 60 mph.

It's not 'really' traveling at any speed. Its only velocity is relative and it varies according to reference frame and velocities don;t add up that way. The result of two combined velocities is always less than the sum of the two. 30mph + 30mph = less than 60mph. That's the only way that the speed of light can be constant relative to all inertial observers. At this kind of speed the difference is very small so it will be a tiny bit under 60mph.

 

Now if you change the scenario, we change the speeds of the cars to  c, the distance contracts at 2c.

No object can move at c relative to another object. For example if the two outside observers are both moving towards the middle one at 0.6c in their own frames then they're moving towards each other at 0.8c in the frame of the middle object. At this speed the difference is a lot larger because it's closer to c. I hope I remembered those numbers right, 0.6c + 0.6c = 0.8c. If not it's the basic premise that matters.

 

Do you get  it?

Obviously. The question is do you?

Edited December 5, 2016 by A-wal

[billvon]

You admit that the air is transparent, yes it is, it allows light to pass through with very little resistance, there is no visible wavelengths of between 400nm-700nm in the space between your eyes and object. 

Incorrect.  I am looking at the screen.  Some of what I see is blue; that blue is from photons with a wavelength of about 400nm traveling from the screen to my eye.  Some of what I see is red; that red is from photons with a wavelength of about 700nm traveling from the screen to my eye.  These are visible wavelengths between my eyes and the object.

 

Other photons from the screen go in different directions.  If they do not strike my eye, I do not see them.  They might strike someone else's eye, in which case that other person might see them.  They might strike the wall, in which case they might be reflected or absorbed.

 

In other words, there are visible wavelengths in the space between my eyes and the object.  I can see the ones that strike my eye.

 

 

 

OK, so do you recognise that the space in front of you between eye and object is not opaque ?  You can see through this space, the space in no way obstructs your line of sight , the line of sight is direct to the object, the space is clear of obstruction, the space is more clear than gin, gin reflects light the space does not?

Not sure what your obsession with gin is, but the air in here is transparent, yes.

 

I am still waiting to see what any of this has to do with relativistic time contraction.  Are you going to make some comparison to that, or have you just switched topics without telling anyone?

[exchemist]

I didn't specify any reference frame because one is simply not needed or exists when considering that it is impossible to tell which observer is moving.  

 

However I have considered your approach on this forum, apologies but you seem to be narcissistic and try to force your opinion, not listening to others opinions or even correctly answering their questions and points. It seems a bit all about ''me'' with you replies. 

 

 

 

The answer to the earlier scenario I provided is 60 mph.   Relative to either car the other car that is really travelling at 30mph is relatively travelling at 60mph. The distance contracts at 60 mph. 

 

 

Now if you change the scenario, we change the speeds of the cars to  c, the distance contracts at 2c.  

 

 

Do you get  it?

You've just confirmed, again, that you don't. 

 

Experiment shows that you get the wrong answer if you try to do what you are doing for objects moving relative to one another at speeds that are significant fractions of the speed of light. That is the entry point for learning about relativity, which apparently you have missed.

Edited December 5, 2016 by exchemist

[billvon]

 

Now if you change the scenario, we change the speeds of the cars to  c, the distance contracts at 2c.  

No, it doesn't.  It still contracts at C.  You will never observe anything going faster than light, no matter what tricks you play with speed.

[xyz]

No, it doesn't.  It still contracts at C.  You will never observe anything going faster than light, no matter what tricks you play with speed.

I am talking relativistic speeds. I know c is the limit. Your are not thinking.

 

 

You travel down a motorway at 70 mph , your journey to Bob takes 1 hour .

 

Bob decides to meet you , and he also travels at 70 mph ,

 

 

They both set out at 8am to make the one hour journey.

 

 

Can you tell me what time they meet?

[billvon]

I am talking relativistic speeds. I know c is the limit. Your are not thinking.

You travel down a motorway at 70 mph , your journey to Bob takes 1 hour .

Bob decides to meet you , and he also travels at 70 mph ,They both set out at 8am to make the one hour journey.

Can you tell me what time they meet?

Ignoring time contraction (which is not noticeable at these speeds) 8:30am.

 

Now here is a question for you.  You set out to see Bob from your home, and drive for 1 second at 200,000 kilometers a second as measured by Bob, who is waiting on his porch for you to drive by.  Bob's house is 200,000 kilometers from your home.  How long before you see Bob?  And what will your speedometer show?

[xyz]

Incorrect.  I am looking at the screen.  Some of what I see is blue; that blue is from photons with a wavelength of about 400nm traveling from the screen to my eye.  Some of what I see is red; that red is from photons with a wavelength of about 700nm traveling from the screen to my eye.  These are visible wavelengths between my eyes and the object.

 

Other photons from the screen go in different directions.  If they do not strike my eye, I do not see them.  They might strike someone else's eye, in which case that other person might see them.  They might strike the wall, in which case they might be reflected or absorbed.

 

In other words, there are visible wavelengths in the space between my eyes and the object.  I can see the ones that strike my eye.

 

 

 

Not sure what your obsession with gin is, but the air in here is transparent, yes.

 

I am still waiting to see what any of this has to do with relativistic time contraction.  Are you going to make some comparison to that, or have you just switched topics without telling anyone?

I am still on subject, I need you to think and ''see'' what I am discussing.  You are not really thinking but replying with the education and present information you were subjected too.   It would not be a good discussion to just say no that's incorrect because wiki says so. 

 

Let me take it really slow, lets not try and rush to a conclusion. 

 

Firstly we both must reach an agreement and be sure we understand the definition of subjective and objective. 

 

subjective

səbˈdʒɛktɪv/

adjective

 

1. 1.

   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

    

    

   objective

   əbˈdʒɛktɪv/

   adjective

    

   1. 1.

      (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

       

       

       

      You have just told me that you see blue and red wavelengths passing through the air, I suggest that is subjective of you, the air is clear , the space is clear, there is no colour of air or free space.  I suggest that you see colour in its exact location, provable by measurement with a tape measure. 

       

      Your personal feelings of your subjective education are not allowing you to think clearly.   Originally you said you see nothing in the space, contradicting your now answer. 

      Which one is it, do you see nothing in the space or do you see colour?

       

      Take note that I can not see photons or wavelengths or colour in the space  before my eyes, that is objective, I say what I see. 

       

      You have just said on par with you could see radio waves with your eyes. The waves are invisible. 

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

[xyz]

Ignoring time contraction (which is not noticeable at these speeds) 8:30am.

 

Now here is a question for you.  You set out to see Bob from your home, and drive for 1 second at 200,000 kilometers a second as measured by Bob, who is waiting on his porch for you to drive by.  Bob's house is 200,000 kilometers from your home.  How long before you see Bob?  And what will your speedometer show?

I will not ignore your question, but it is important to firstly finish my question .  I know you are using roughly light speed with your question. 

 

 

 

Yes they meet at 8.30am. Correct and good so far. 

 

 

So if Bob does not set off on his journey and awaits for you to arrive, BOb see's you approaching him at 70 mph , do you agree?

 

and vice versus?

Edited December 6, 2016 by xyz

[xyz]

''Now here is a question for you.  You set out to see Bob from your home, and drive for 1 second at 200,000 kilometers a second as measured by Bob, who is waiting on his porch for you to drive by.  Bob's house is 200,000 kilometers from your home.  How long before you see Bob?  And what will your speedometer show?''

 

 

speedometer shows 200,000km a second

 

 

It takes 1 second to get to Bob, 

 

 

But you see Bob instantly because of the clear line of sight. 

 

added- Ask yourself this - 

 

 

Waiting for a Photon to arrive to see or living inside a Photon seeing  all the visual information contained within a Photon in a singularity  picture whole simultaneously.

 

added- Imagine the smallest of mass-less particle, but also imagine the largest mass-less particle, a whole visual universe relative to emr magnitude over distance in a spherical emr field. 

 

 

p.s relative to an infinite space, the light spheres are tiny little particles. 

Edited December 6, 2016 by xyz

[CraigD]

''Now here is a question for you. You set out to see Bob from your home, and drive for 1 second at 200,000 kilometers a second as measured by Bob, who is waiting on his porch for you to drive by. Bob's house is 200,000 kilometers from your home. How long before you see Bob? And what will your speedometer show?'

 

speedometer shows 200,000km a second

:thumbs_up This claim is consistent with the theory of Special Relativity.

 

 

It takes 1 second to get to Bob,

:thumbs_do According to SR, which has been experimentally confirmed, it would take you about 0.745 seconds ([math]\sqrt{1-\left( \frac{200000000}{299792458} \right)^2}[/math]) to get to Bob.

 

 

But you see Bob instantly because of the clear line of sight.

:thumbs_do :thumbs_do This claim is inconsistent with any theory that holds that the speed of light is finite.

 

There’s a lot of interesting history on the question of whether the speed of light is finite or infinite, but it’s of historic interest only, because the speed of light was definitively shown to be finite, and measured (to within about 25% of the modern value) by the end of the 18th Century.

 

Wikipedia “speed of light:history” section has a summary of this history.

[billvon]

''Now here is a question for you.  You set out to see Bob from your home, and drive for 1 second at 200,000 kilometers a second as measured by Bob, who is waiting on his porch for you to drive by.  Bob's house is 200,000 kilometers from your home.  How long before you see Bob?  And what will your speedometer show?''

 

 

speedometer shows 200,000km a second

 

Incorrect.  Your speedometer shows 260,000km a second due to time contraction.

 

 

 

It takes 1 second to get to Bob

Incorrect.  You measure .75 seconds due to time contraction.  Only Bob measures 1 second - and he must be in a place where he can accurately observe that time.

 

 

 

But you see Bob instantly because of the clear line of sight.

Incorrect.  You can see Bob only after the light from an event hits your eyes.  Indeed, the only way that you can see both the start and end points accurately is if you are at a point equidistant between both of them.  If not, your observations will be incorrect due to the finite time it takes light to reach your eyes.

 

 

 

added- Ask yourself this - Waiting for a Photon to arrive to see or living inside a Photon seeing  all the visual information contained within a Photon in a singularity  picture whole simultaneously.

You cannot see anything from our universe from "inside a photon" since time does not pass inside a photon relative to our universe.  Time contraction is infinite.

Edited December 6, 2016 by billvon

[OceanBreeze]

Incorrect.  Your speedometer shows 260,000km a second due to time contraction.

 

 

 

No, the speedometer is in the moving frame of reference and will measure a contracted distance and a dilated time. But the relative velocity measured in the moving frame must agree with the relative velocity measured in the rest frame. In this case, the stationary observer measures a relative velocity of 200,000 km/s and the moving observer must agree on that velocity.

 Since the moving observer measures an elapsed time of 0.745 seconds, his measured distance must be (200,000km/s x 0.745 s) = 149,000 km If his speedometer showed 260,000 km/s he would not experience any length contraction, and that cannot be.

 

See this reference.