Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

# If i shine a torch out of a train

 Posts: 1,420 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PMPosted: 3 years agomoving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?
 Posts: 1,420 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PMPosted: 3 years agoWhy doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/3/2014 6:20:49 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.Because the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant.
 Posts: 20 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/5/2014 4:42:11 PMPosted: 3 years agoBecause the relative distance and time would have changed slightly to allow light to remain constant. The faster something moves, the shorter it gets in the direction of travel, and the faster time moves for it.Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand (Karl Marx).
 Posts: 294 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/5/2014 5:03:19 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/3/2014 6:20:49 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.Because the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant.This is not really an answer.Why is it supposedly constant in vacuum?
 Posts: 4,450 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?One answer is that m/s^2 is acceleration and not speed, but I'm assuming that's not what you meant.It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, you will measure it as travelling at 300km/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.1km/s.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter), so that while you measure it as 300.1km/s, someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300km/s.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.
 Posts: 3,781 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/5/2014 5:34:44 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?One answer is that m/s^2 is acceleration and not speed, but I'm assuming that's not what you meant.It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, you will measure it as travelling at 300km/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.1km/s.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter), so that while you measure it as 300.1km/s, someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300km/s.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.Deep.bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign! http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... - Running for president. http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president. May the best man win!
 Posts: 542 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/6/2014 5:23:46 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?(Btw Speed of light is 300,000,000 ms^-1.)What do you mean by "moving at 100ms^-1" ? How are you measuring your speed? How will you measure the speed of light?It is a postulate of physics that the laws of physics are independent of velocity. In practical terms what this means is that none of the laws of physics change if you travel at a different steady speed. This leads to the idea that there is no real difference between being moving (at a steady speed) and being stationary.So when you say "moving at 100ms^-1" that is the same as saying things are moving past me at 100ms^-1. Would you expect the speed of light to change just because something moves past you? Obviously not.The speed of light can be derived from Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism. Basically this means that the speed of light is as fixed as the laws of physics.You are essentially asking "Why are the laws of physics fixed?" I don't think anyone knows an answer to that.An observer who moves past you at 100 ms^-1 might be expected to see the light move at 300,000,000 ms^-1 + 100 ms^-1 but experiment has shown that this is not the case. For a detailed explanation of how two moving observers can measure the same light pulse move relative to themselves at 300,000,000 ms^-1 when they are moving relative to each other requires special relativity theory. Essentially this says that measurement of time and distance are not absolute but depend on relative speed eg a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock.Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
 Posts: 542 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/6/2014 6:28:31 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, ....This is an important point. How do we measure speed.....you will measure it as travelling at 300Mm/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.001Mm/s.This is an inference that cannot be directly measured.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter),...Only an external observer would see a change in time and distance. For you time and space do not change....so that while you measure it as 300.001Mm/s,You mean this is an inferred speed of light relative to objects moving relative to you. The direct measurement will be the speed of light.someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300Mm/s.Relative to themselves.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.But also in a very real sense the train is stationary.Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/6/2014 6:53:57 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/5/2014 5:03:19 PM, nummi wrote:At 1/3/2014 6:20:49 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.Because the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant.This is not really an answer.Why is it supposedly constant in vacuum?That is the answer. Light moves away at the speed of light because that speed is constant.Why is it constant is a different question. The answer to that question is we don't know.We do know enough to not need to say "supposedly". Science inherently leaves open the possibility of its statements being wrong. We don't have to say "supposedly F = MA" or "supposedly matter is made of atoms". Instead we simply say the speed of light is constant in a vacuum... it is understood that as our knowledge progresses this could change.
 Posts: 4,450 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/6/2014 6:08:30 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/6/2014 6:28:31 AM, chui wrote:At 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, ....This is an important point. How do we measure speed.The speed of light is pretty easy; you can look at discontinuities in orbits of Io, as Roemer did (and came bloody close), modern day you can measure round trip times with lasers and mirrors.....you will measure it as travelling at 300Mm/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.001Mm/s.This is an inference that cannot be directly measured.Which is why I said sort of.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter),...Only an external observer would see a change in time and distance. For you time and space do not change.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though....so that while you measure it as 300.001Mm/s,You mean this is an inferred speed of light relative to objects moving relative to you. The direct measurement will be the speed of light.Yes. Hence the "sort of".someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300Mm/s.Relative to themselves.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.But also in a very real sense the train is stationary.Well, yes. My main aim here was to try and boil down the complexity of the theory for the originating troll. I could have gone to the pure theoretical relativity (special or general), but I suspect the OP would have lost patience and started trying to pick fleas of me.
 Posts: 542 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 3:14:38 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/6/2014 6:08:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/6/2014 6:28:31 AM, chui wrote:At 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, ....This is an important point. How do we measure speed.The speed of light is pretty easy; you can look at discontinuities in orbits of Io, as Roemer did (and came bloody close), modern day you can measure round trip times with lasers and mirrors.....you will measure it as travelling at 300Mm/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.001Mm/s.This is an inference that cannot be directly measured.Which is why I said sort of.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter),...Only an external observer would see a change in time and distance. For you time and space do not change.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though....so that while you measure it as 300.001Mm/s,You mean this is an inferred speed of light relative to objects moving relative to you. The direct measurement will be the speed of light.Yes. Hence the "sort of".someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300Mm/s.Relative to themselves.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.But also in a very real sense the train is stationary.Well, yes. My main aim here was to try and boil down the complexity of the theory for the originating troll. I could have gone to the pure theoretical relativity (special or general), but I suspect the OP would have lost patience and started trying to pick fleas of me.A fair point. In that light I understand your initial post here.Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
 Posts: 4,450 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 3:16:45 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/7/2014 3:14:38 AM, chui wrote:At 1/6/2014 6:08:30 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/6/2014 6:28:31 AM, chui wrote:At 1/5/2014 5:18:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:41:48 PM, Installgentoo wrote:moving at 100m/s^2 why doesn't it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2?It does. Sort of.If we assume you are shining it out of the front of the train and you somehow measure it, ....This is an important point. How do we measure speed.The speed of light is pretty easy; you can look at discontinuities in orbits of Io, as Roemer did (and came bloody close), modern day you can measure round trip times with lasers and mirrors.....you will measure it as travelling at 300Mm/s, if you know you're travelling at 100m/s (224mph), that will work out as 300.001Mm/s.This is an inference that cannot be directly measured.Which is why I said sort of.However if you're travelling at this speed, time slows down very slightly (and distance gets a little shorter),...Only an external observer would see a change in time and distance. For you time and space do not change.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though....so that while you measure it as 300.001Mm/s,You mean this is an inferred speed of light relative to objects moving relative to you. The direct measurement will be the speed of light.Yes. Hence the "sort of".someone else that is standing still compared to you will measure it as 300Mm/s.Relative to themselves.Well, yes. This is really only a semantic error, though.It's all down to relative speeds of observers. Remember the train isn't moving at 100m/s, it is moving 100m/s plus the contribution of the rotation of the earth, and the orbit of the earth around the sun, and the sun around the galactive centre, and the relative motion of the galaxy to other galaxies.But also in a very real sense the train is stationary.Well, yes. My main aim here was to try and boil down the complexity of the theory for the originating troll. I could have gone to the pure theoretical relativity (special or general), but I suspect the OP would have lost patience and started trying to pick fleas of me.A fair point. In that light I understand your initial post here.I don't blame you. My pedantometer would have been twitching at my post too :)
 Posts: 294 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 3:53:08 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/6/2014 6:53:57 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/5/2014 5:03:19 PM, nummi wrote:At 1/3/2014 6:20:49 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.Because the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant.This is not really an answer.Why is it supposedly constant in vacuum?That is the answer. Light moves away at the speed of light because that speed is constant.No, that really is not the answer. Why is the speed constant? Answer that and you give the answer.The "answer" you gave is as good as "it's human nature" or "god made it" without really answering at all.Why is it constant is a different question. The answer to that question is we don't know.It's not a different question, as the answer to the question relies directly on this one.Why are you saying something as if absolutely true, if you do not even know how or why it is so, and in fact if you don't even know if it can be otherwise, that in truth it's not really constant at all? What are all the factors that influence the speed of light? You're as good as someone religious.This shows you are very credulous, you'd probably buy into any BS "proven" to be right by some "scientists". Without you really putting individual thought into any of it, simply parroting what they say. Seen very many like this.We do know enough to not need to say "supposedly". Science inherently leaves open the possibility of its statements being wrong. We don't have to say "supposedly F = MA" or "supposedly matter is made of atoms". Instead we simply say the speed of light is constant in a vacuum... it is understood that as our knowledge progresses this could change.What is that "enough"?We don't know enough. If we did, we would as well know why.I don't care what science leaves open or not, this here is about you and your "answers" that really don't answer anything.You said it as if it is absolutely true, even while is not known why, or whether it is true in the first place. If you don't know the reasons, you don't claim it with such certainty, because you don't know why! This attitude you exhibit is something that's usually found arguing with a religious person stuck in sky daddy's a\$\$.
 Posts: 4,450 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 5:44:12 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/7/2014 3:53:08 AM, nummi wrote:At 1/6/2014 6:53:57 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/5/2014 5:03:19 PM, nummi wrote:At 1/3/2014 6:20:49 AM, Floid wrote:At 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.Because the speed of light (in a vacuum) is constant.This is not really an answer.Why is it supposedly constant in vacuum?That is the answer. Light moves away at the speed of light because that speed is constant.No, that really is not the answer. Why is the speed constant? Answer that and you give the answer.The "answer" you gave is as good as "it's human nature" or "god made it" without really answering at all.Why is it constant is a different question. The answer to that question is we don't know.It's not a different question, as the answer to the question relies directly on this one.Why are you saying something as if absolutely true, if you do not even know how or why it is so, and in fact if you don't even know if it can be otherwise, that in truth it's not really constant at all? What are all the factors that influence the speed of light? You're as good as someone religious.This shows you are very credulous, you'd probably buy into any BS "proven" to be right by some "scientists". Without you really putting individual thought into any of it, simply parroting what they say. Seen very many like this.We do know enough to not need to say "supposedly". Science inherently leaves open the possibility of its statements being wrong. We don't have to say "supposedly F = MA" or "supposedly matter is made of atoms". Instead we simply say the speed of light is constant in a vacuum... it is understood that as our knowledge progresses this could change.What is that "enough"?We don't know enough. If we did, we would as well know why.I don't care what science leaves open or not, this here is about you and your "answers" that really don't answer anything.You said it as if it is absolutely true, even while is not known why, or whether it is true in the first place. If you don't know the reasons, you don't claim it with such certainty, because you don't know why! This attitude you exhibit is something that's usually found arguing with a religious person stuck in sky daddy's a\$\$.We no more know why the speed of light is constant than we do why the radius of a circle compared to its circumference is constant, or the fine structure constant is constant, or half lives of radioactivity mediated by the strong force are constant, or why the rest mass of a proton is constant, or the constant that relates the attractive force between object to the mass and distance of those objects is constant. We simply know by repeated objective testing that they are.The speed if light, as far as we can detect is constant, and the implications of such constancy have (some of which are described here) are validated and tested.The speed of light in a vacuum being constant is no more "explainable" yet as the ones above (although it is possible that such physical constants could 'pop out' as the result of any new theory of everything that may come out) and as such the demands to be able to demonstrate 'why' even when it can be demonstrated that the statement is correct.
 Posts: 751 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 7:09:54 AMPosted: 3 years agoThis shows you are very credulous, you'd probably buy into any BS "proven" to be right by some "scientists". Without you really putting individual thought into any of it, simply parroting what they say. Seen very many like this.You are right, I am but a mindless sheep. But I am ready to be your mindless sheep because you are obviously smarter than these so called "scientists". Here is a list of the experiments demonstrating special relativity.http://math.ucr.edu...By all means, tell us what is wrong with each...
 Posts: 3,859 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/7/2014 7:04:07 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/5/2014 4:42:11 PM, Zogen wrote:Because the relative distance and time would have changed slightly to allow light to remain constant. The faster something moves, the shorter it gets in the direction of travel, and the faster time moves for it.This answer is the only one I've seen that approaches that actual answer to your question.It's more helpful to explain that space and time are not fixed than to simply say that the speed of light is fixed (which is nonsensical). There's relativity at play here. So let's say that I am sitting at my computer here, not moving at all. A ray of light passes me at 186,000 m/s. At that instant you are running by me in the same direction, and you are in good shape and are able to run at 161,820 m/s (87% of c). Now your common sense would indicate that you will see the ray of light pass you "slowly" at the difference of those two speeds: 24,180 m/s. We all know that you will still see it pass you by at 186,000 m/s, and the "sensible" answer as to why isn't that light is magically fixed at 186,000 m/s, but that the space and time each of us are occupying is changing relative to our speed so that we experience different amounts of them - allowing us to get the same answers even though we are moving at much different speeds.The reason I picked 87% of c is because that is the precise speed at which you see exactly half the amount of distance and half the amount of time as somebody who is relatively stationary. Remember that as you move faster through space, you move slower through time (Twins Paradox). So you, moving at 87% c, will only experience half the amount of time in observation as I would. You will also only see light travel half as far. So, if I watch the light ray for one second and see it go 186,000 meters, you see the light ray for 93,000 meters in half a second.I don't comprehend this totally, it takes a long time to swallow it, but what you really need to know is that space and time are malleable and change as you move through them. The constant interval (that which you are seeking, which brings sense to the disorder) is achieved by taking the square root of [space squared minus time squared]. This "interval" is an aspect of the spacetime continuum as a whole, which nobody understands... all we know is that it gives rise to time and space (it's not simply time and space). The spacetime continuum is what controls your perception of reality - or one might say that the continuum is what your consciousness creates to give you the perception of reality ;)Beliefs in a nutshell: - The Ends never justify the Means. - Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity. - The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S. - Most people worship technology as a religion. - Computers will never become sentient.
 Posts: 5,269 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/9/2014 12:46:59 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/2/2014 6:42:31 PM, Installgentoo wrote:Why doesn't the light from it move at 300,000m/s^2+100m/s^2, I mean.People have referenced relativity - I'd just add that this observation, that light speed is not additive, like throwing a tennis ball from a train would be, that observation is really what led to the theory of relativity.This space for rent.
 Posts: 542 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/10/2014 5:50:29 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/7/2014 7:04:07 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:At 1/5/2014 4:42:11 PM, Zogen wrote:Because the relative distance and time would have changed slightly to allow light to remain constant. The faster something moves, the shorter it gets in the direction of travel, and the faster time moves for it.This answer is the only one I've seen that approaches that actual answer to your question.It's more helpful to explain that space and time are not fixed than to simply say that the speed of light is fixed (which is nonsensical). There's relativity at play here. So let's say that I am sitting at my computer here, not moving at all. A ray of light passes me at 186,000 m/s. At that instant you are running by me in the same direction, and you are in good shape and are able to run at 161,820 m/s (87% of c). Now your common sense would indicate that you will see the ray of light pass you "slowly" at the difference of those two speeds: 24,180 m/s. We all know that you will still see it pass you by at 186,000 m/s, and the "sensible" answer as to why isn't that light is magically fixed at 186,000 m/s, but that the space and time each of us are occupying is changing relative to our speed so that we experience different amounts of them - allowing us to get the same answers even though we are moving at much different speeds.The reason I picked 87% of c is because that is the precise speed at which you see exactly half the amount of distance and half the amount of time as somebody who is relatively stationary. Remember that as you move faster through space, you move slower through time (Twins Paradox). So you, moving at 87% c, will only experience half the amount of time in observation as I would. You will also only see light travel half as far. So, if I watch the light ray for one second and see it go 186,000 meters, you see the light ray for 93,000 meters in half a second.I don't comprehend this totally, it takes a long time to swallow it, but what you really need to know is that space and time are malleable and change as you move through them. The constant interval (that which you are seeking, which brings sense to the disorder) is achieved by taking the square root of [space squared minus time squared]. This "interval" is an aspect of the spacetime continuum as a whole, which nobody understands... all we know is that it gives rise to time and space (it's not simply time and space). The spacetime continuum is what controls your perception of reality - or one might say that the continuum is what your consciousness creates to give you the perception of reality ;)In general I agree with the above answer, but I feel it suggests that there is such a thing as absolute motion. ( Perhaps I am misreading it). If we consider the scenario from the point of view of the 'moving ' person we get at the heart of the twin paradox. The 'moving' person has every right to claim to be stationary. So everything that was said before is now reversed. It is R0b1 who is now moving. He moves through time slowly and measures contracted space, so he experiences half the time and sees light move a half distance.Let's hope "the truth is out there" cos there is bugger all round here.
 Posts: 3,859 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 1/10/2014 11:52:28 AMPosted: 3 years agoAt 1/10/2014 5:50:29 AM, chui wrote:At 1/7/2014 7:04:07 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:At 1/5/2014 4:42:11 PM, Zogen wrote:Because the relative distance and time would have changed slightly to allow light to remain constant. The faster something moves, the shorter it gets in the direction of travel, and the faster time moves for it.This answer is the only one I've seen that approaches that actual answer to your question.It's more helpful to explain that space and time are not fixed than to simply say that the speed of light is fixed (which is nonsensical). There's relativity at play here. So let's say that I am sitting at my computer here, not moving at all. A ray of light passes me at 186,000 m/s. At that instant you are running by me in the same direction, and you are in good shape and are able to run at 161,820 m/s (87% of c). Now your common sense would indicate that you will see the ray of light pass you "slowly" at the difference of those two speeds: 24,180 m/s. We all know that you will still see it pass you by at 186,000 m/s, and the "sensible" answer as to why isn't that light is magically fixed at 186,000 m/s, but that the space and time each of us are occupying is changing relative to our speed so that we experience different amounts of them - allowing us to get the same answers even though we are moving at much different speeds.The reason I picked 87% of c is because that is the precise speed at which you see exactly half the amount of distance and half the amount of time as somebody who is relatively stationary. Remember that as you move faster through space, you move slower through time (Twins Paradox). So you, moving at 87% c, will only experience half the amount of time in observation as I would. You will also only see light travel half as far. So, if I watch the light ray for one second and see it go 186,000 meters, you see the light ray for 93,000 meters in half a second.I don't comprehend this totally, it takes a long time to swallow it, but what you really need to know is that space and time are malleable and change as you move through them. The constant interval (that which you are seeking, which brings sense to the disorder) is achieved by taking the square root of [space squared minus time squared]. This "interval" is an aspect of the spacetime continuum as a whole, which nobody understands... all we know is that it gives rise to time and space (it's not simply time and space). The spacetime continuum is what controls your perception of reality - or one might say that the continuum is what your consciousness creates to give you the perception of reality ;)In general I agree with the above answer, but I feel it suggests that there is such a thing as absolute motion. ( Perhaps I am misreading it). If we consider the scenario from the point of view of the 'moving ' person we get at the heart of the twin paradox. The 'moving' person has every right to claim to be stationary. So everything that was said before is now reversed. It is R0b1 who is now moving. He moves through time slowly and measures contracted space, so he experiences half the time and sees light move a half distance.The absolute here is direction. I stated that the ray of light is traveling the same direction as you are running. That gives you an "absolute" speed of 87% c, and me an absolute speed of 0 c. If the ray of light were going the opposite direction, we would apply the relative changes to our experiences.Beliefs in a nutshell: - The Ends never justify the Means. - Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity. - The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S. - Most people worship technology as a religion. - Computers will never become sentient.
© 2017 Debate.org. All rights reserved.