1. I assume you meant either .999999999999999999 c or 99.9999999999999999% of c. The value you quoted is essentially 1%.

2. You keep giving the value of c in miles per second. By definition, c is exactly 299792458 m/s (that's meters per second, in case you wondered). If you do the math you'll see the value you give is actually slightly high. Anyone going just below that value (i.e., at the percentage you probably meant) would be exceding the speed of light.

3. No one can travel instantaneously, even at close to c. But anyone traveling that close to c will, in his or her own inertial frame, travel what we, sitting at home, would call 5 ly in far less than 5 years by the traveler's clock. In fact, the distance we call 5 ly would appear far smaller to our near lightspeed traveler. It's not instantaneous, but it is a really short time.

If you want, I'll do the math and give you the exact time and distance for the traveler, but for the moment I'll leave that as an exercise for your edification. The relevant formulas have been posted in this thread.

Needless to say, but I'll say it anyway to avoid confusing you, we at home would still see the traveler take about 5 years for that 5 ly journey.

As usual, RussT confuses two frames of reference. That in which the spaceship travels at 0.9...c, and that of the spaceship, and uses distance travelled in one with time elapses in another to arrive at billions of light years travelled nearly instantaneously.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

RussT, it would be really nice if you could write down the two fundamental postulates of Special Relativity, and tell us which, if any, you disagree with. Can you do this?

I admire your perseverance...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Eventually my head will work it's way though the brick wall that it is cuurently being banged against.

Maybe I should have said that I admire your optimism...

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Fortitude would be appropriate.

Grant Hutchison

Perhaps, but once this thread is locked it will form a record of our attempt to tease the "problem" out of RussT, so that in the future, if anyone else should try to discuss relativity with RussT they can easily discover this through the wonder of Google. We can never reclaim those lost hours of our lives, but at least we can save the effort of those that come after us.

I said it too.

Korvik, you claimed that astronomers confused the time the event happened with when it was observed. As you have failed to back this assertion up, I will assume that you accept that it was wrong, but have chosen to not do so in public.

I stopped feeling like I was persevering about 6 pages ago and started to think I'm just insane.

You know what they say is the definition of insanity. "To do the same thing over and over each time expecting a different result."

So here I go, just let me put on this straight jacket.

.
.
.
.

Ok, RussT please address what problem you have with my scenario in Post 219

All you have to do is read it and stop at the point you have a problem with.
Tell us the number of the step you think there is a problem at.
Then tell us what, in your eyes, is the problem. Show us any maths you think support your side.

Sorry NorthernBoy, didn't mean to exclude you from the game.

In the end it was one sided as Korvik snuck over to our team leaving us looking at an non existent opposition. It then got weird when Korvik tried to convince us that we where the other team.

Geeezzzzzzzzzzz.........I did "Exactly" what you asked!!!

I stopped at this point.

And even told you.....
I then told you and everyone, the problem...

Defining "Anything" at the "Singularity" is meaningless!!!

BUT, you don't understand "Singularities", so you assume my reference to the naked BB singualrity or the r=0 singualrity in a black hole, doesn't have anything to do with the "Singularity" built into SR...........That in my OP I said Einstein started with...........that is light OR SPACESHIPS in 'lights own frame of reference' is a "Singularity" division by 0.........which means any defining of 0 to Infinity is Meaningless!!!

SO, you "think" that your answer...
Somehow negates what I said..............it doesn't.....at all.........in fact, it shows you do NOT understand!

ETA: BTW..since you and others are so prone to correct me on these....in this statement of yours...It then got weird when Korvik tried to convince us that we where the other team.

Korjik, doesn't like his name mispelled, which I did too, although differenly than you, and you have consistently used "where", when you have meant 'were'.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

What kind of drugs are you on? Show me where in that scenario is there anything about a singularity? We aren't talking about a singularity.

No Einstein didn't put any observers in lights own reference frame since his model would not let any observer get to lights own reference frame.

I understand that you are confused. I understand that your problem with my scenario has nothing to do with my, or anyone else's, scenario.

I understand that you keep mixing parts of reference frames, hmmm tommac had this problem too, that produce garbage solutions. Thankfully it is due to you not understanding the formulas and/or not using them properly.

So in summary : your problem with my scenario is what happens at a singularity, which isn't even in my scenario. Got it! Your confused and refuse to understand that no where in that scenario, or any other scenario anyone here has been talking about, was there a mention of a singularity.

Hell, even in your scenarios of a super nova in another galaxy you never said anything about a singularity.

If you want to bring that into the discussion then fine. It would make things harder but as long as you don't pass through the event horizon there will be no problem in comparing clocks at the end of the test. We just have to work in a little GR into the mix.

you might as well complain that SR isn't correct because one of the observers spills coke into their clock thus it can't be compared to someone else's clock at a future point in time.

Who is trying to define anything in the rest frame of a photon? Please don't cherry pick/quote mine, as I don't think you'll find anyone here who believes that the rest frame of a photon is a valid inertial reference frame. Just to check.

Does anyone here think that the photon rest frame is a valid inertial reference frame?

Right, let's move on.

Please can you write down the two fundamental postulates of Special Relativity, and identify which, if any, you disagree with?

Not me!

ditto....

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

The inertial reference frame is that in which the object is at rest. For a photon, there is no such inertial reference frame, because a photon must travel at the invariant speed c in all inertial reference frames

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

I just looked at RussT's Post 387

Where he tries to claim he addressed my Post 217

but I see that in my reply in Post 388 I was confused because much like his reply in Post 402 he starts going off in tangents that have nothing to do with the actual scenario.

in Post 387 he stops on step #4 where I defined the distances between observers who where at rest with each other and his issue was that if they travelled at c, which
1 Isn't even in my scenario
2 Eistien says the observers can't even get to.
And
3 I didn't even have either observer move until step #9
that their paths would be curved
The problem is that he believes this curve would change the direction of the vector.

Now in Post 402 he stops at the same step #4 and complains about a singularity.

I'll assume that he's corrected his misunderstanding that a vector does not change its direction during acceleration and now he's grasping at straws.

For an analogy his complaints about the scenario is much like me complaining to a house painter that just finished painting my house that they didn't paint it white because I had a red apple for lunch. Then the when the painter asks why I don't think my house is white I say "look at the grass, it is clearly green!"....

I've heard of moving the goal posts but he's changing sports on different fields.

Why would the path of an accelerated object be curved due to GR? If an object is moving uniformly along a curved geodesic, then it is being accelerated and subject to GR. But if the accelerated object is out in space it would not move in a curved line due to any effect caused by GR in respect to its own acceleration.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Fortis, we have done this several times now........

Where did I use the term "Rest"......I didn't........I said "Lights own Frame"

Let's do it this way........

Everyone in this thread has agreed that when a SN goes boom in M31, that from "Earth's Rest Frame", it takes 2.5 million years travel time for those photons to travel that distance....

So, if a SN went boom in the Milky Way, from the Rest Frame of a scientist on his planet in M31, it would take 2.5 million years travel time for those photons to travel that distance to reach his detectors.......right?

SO, let's have a race......

Jump in and sit right next to that "Alien in the spaceship", and take off from as close to that SN as possible, that is safe, but on a line where the distance from the SN to M31 is the same for both.
ETA: Take off at the same time as the SN goes Boom, obviously, or not, which is why I added it

Use whatever form of constant speed/velocity/acceleration Einstein used in SR, and go say 80% the speed of light...

How long does it take you, in the ship, to get to M31?
How long does it take the light to get to M31 from Our frame..right, 2.5 million years.
How long does it take the light to get to M31 in 'lights own frame'?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I think it was a misunderstanding, due to the fact that accelerating objects have curved world lines in spacetime diagrams (I think).

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

I've read through the thread you've been quoting KenG from. It seems that this whole misunderstanding of yours is based on your fixation with proper lengths of null geodesics being zero. But it was only introduced to demonstrate that defining distance as the distance a photon travelled from emission to absorption is either zero (in it's own frame), or has many answers depending on frame of reference and distance convention used. It was never claimed to be a valid frame of reference, so why do you claim must be?

Significantly less than 2.5 millions years, due to length contraction of the distance travelled in the ship's frame, and due to the ship's time dilation in our frame.

Right.

That's not a valid frame for doing SR, but if you do the math it comes out at zero, the limiting case. The faster you go, the shorter the distant. The distance asymptotically approaches zero as you asymptotically approach c (relative to the object you're travelling between).

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

My understanding is that under acceleration the trajectory is straight in the spatial dimensions, but when you have a spacetime diagram, the line is curved due to acceleration (the t axis values increase non-linearly).

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

With all due respect, I didn't misunderstand anything. And I have not been confused or misunderstood anything in this thread either.

And it puzzles me as to why, after saying you read through that whole thread, you would say it was My Fixation. KenG was the one who wouldn't back off of Hammering that "Non-Valid Frame" as "Reallity" and absolutely insisted that photons do not travel known distances.


And, now he is doing the same thing in this thread.
Frequency shift of photons emitted by rotating objects

This might look right to you guys, BUT what is missing here is that when he uses "Coordinates", or as you have "Convention", as I have stated in this and that thread, it does NOT work for the Local Neighborhood...IE; what is the 'spacelike' VS "Timelike" of the Emission of photons from the Sun to the Absorption of those photons at our detectors? Alpha Centauri? M31?

When that thread started, I only jumped in because he was "Incorrectly" admonishing Jeff in a bullying fashion, IMHO, and because this...
Is just as blantantly absurd and silly now, as it was then, and always will be.

It is 100% "Fatally Flawed", and the more we went through that thread the more I realized, that in the Local Neighborhood, when mainstream is agreeing to those 'light travel times' across those known distances, that Relativity did NOT and Cannot determine.......that when you are agreeing to those....the things that Grant, Tim, You and I, and all of Humanity "Know".........that you are NOT even using Relativity!

That is just using the fact that light speed is Constant at 186,282.38 mps to be more precise for the "Meter" guy.

Here is a pure truth for ya'll.......IF it is NOT a "Valid Frame" then it CANNOT be used at all...........why.....because it is using a definition that does NOT even exist......period......100% confidence level

Sorry, but because the equations 'Blow UP" at 0/infinity Lorentz contraction or Time Dilation do NOT exist.

That is called a "Singularity"

AND, there is ONLY one solution to eliminating ALL singularities!

There can only be ONE!

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

It is impossible for an accelerated object to reach the singularity. So the singularity is only theoretical.

Time dilation does exist, and this has been proven by flying atomic clocks around the world.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

See RussT this is the confusion you are having
Rest = Own

My Rest Frame = My Own Frame
Light's Rest Frame = Light's Own Frame

I am always at rest to myself.
I am always in my own frame
my rest frame = my own frame.

Correct

Correct

Jump into what? Where did this "Alien in the spaceship" come from and why do we care?



"ETA:"? Read that sentence RussT as the rest of us do. Does this make seanse.

"Estimated Time of Arrival take off at the same time as the SN goes Boom, obviously, or not, which is why I added it"

Are you thinking faster then you are typing?

Sorry to be the grammar nazi here but that sentence does not make sense.

Do you mean something like
"Accelerate, when the super nova explodes, with a vector pointing at the other observer"

.8c is a messy number but here it goes

r = 1 / √ ( 1 - (v² / c²))
r = 1 / √ (1 - (.8*.8/1*1))
r = 1 / √ (1 - (.64/1))
r = 1 / √ .36
r = 1 / 0.6
r = 1.6666666

to an observer on Earth 3,125,000 years would pass during the ships journey and the ship would travel 2,500,000ly
to an observer on the ship 1,875,000 years would pass and the ship would travel 1,500,000ly

By our frame I'll assume you mean that of an observer on Earth. An observer on the space ship would see that light travel that distance in 1,500,000 years because, according to SR that is the distance an observer would measure that distance if they are accelerated in a vector in that direction.

IT DOESN'T MATTER! IT IS UNDEFINED AND HAS NO BEARING ON YOU COMPARING YOUR CLOCK TO SOMEONE ELSE'S

RussT Get this through your head. No observer ever travels at c. No one asks the question how long light takes to do anything in its own frame of reference because that is like asking "What does the number 5 taste like?" forgive me if there is anyone that has synesthesia where they actually do taste numbers but even people with synesthesia won't generally agree on what a number tastes like if they even have they type of synesthesia

SR allows you to get consistent results when comparing 2 clocks of 2 different observers. Those observers are not ever travelling at c. You are not comparing your clock to a photon's clock because a photon doesn't have a clock!



RussT how many times do we have to tell you this?!?!

Actually it would be

r = 1 / √ ( 1 - (V²/c²))
or
r = 1 / √ ( 1 - 1)
r = 1 / 0

divide anything by 1/0 and you get an undefined answer.
That or I'm not thinking of this right.

Sorry...I'm being anal. Either way RussT is confused.

That is my understanding too. IE it is the magnitude portion of a vector. RussT seems to think the curve is part of the direction of the vector.

but by your own definition we are only at .8c and I've shown in Post 417
that in Earth's frame it would be 3,125,000 years and in the ship's frame it would be 1,875,000 years.

No 'Blow UP' because no observer is travelling at c. Before you say anything light is not an observer!
Part of SR is inertia and momentum which won't let any observer get to c.