Wrong. It is impossible for an object to travel a velocity and maintain the original center sphere position.

It is exact, 60 MPH is 5280 ft/min, or 63360 in/min, or 88 ft/sec, or 1056 in/sec. How exact do you need it? I am allowed to use any unit I wish, correct? If you want to covert to a different unit, be my guest.

Distance is distance, and time is time. We already agreed on the length of a mile, and we already agreed on the duration of a second (unless they change it again like in the past).

So you stand by the concept that no object can ever move from their own point of view? "I am always the center of the universe" mentality, eh?

Yes.

__________________
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.

Wrong. That is exactly what SR says, that every inertial observer measures every photon moving at exactly c relative to them (i.e. as if they assumed they were stationary).

Do you not understand the light postulate of SR, or do you disagree with it?

__________________
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.

Not in SR they're not. Spatial and temporal separations (i.e. distances and times) between events are frame dependent. But what is invariant (i.e. the same in all frames) is the spacetime interval between events, which is like our intuitive concept of distance but includes the time dimension as well: hence the word 'spacetime'.

__________________
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.

So the standard definitions of distance and time don't apply to SR? So then light doesn't always travel ~186,000 miles per second.

Let me get this straight. SR uses the standard definitions of distance and time, and then changes the concept of those definitions to fit the theory?

The definitions are as standard as anything I've seen.

Yes, it does.

SR states that measures of distance and time are not absolute, but depend on the reference frame in which they are measured. The predictions of SR have been confirmed experimentally to extremely high degrees of accuracy.

What experiments have you done to confirm your idea that the Earth does not remain at the center of its light sphere? This has been contradicted experimentally over and over and over and over and over and over . . .

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

Distance and time are not dependent on frames.

Me traveling at .5 c means just that, that I traveled ~93,000 miles in one second. How could I possibly say that I am stationary, when I just told you that I am traveling the distance of 93,000 miles in the time interval of one second?

...and how would you know you are traveling at .5c unless you measured the distance you traveled for the previous second?

They are with SR.

.5 c relative to what?

Distance from what?

__________________
Let's put together the pieces of The Grand Puzzle . (website - now revised)

"Let's define another operator, Sz, which we won't pay any attention to."
"This transformation will automatically make zero equal zero."
"It may be true that zero equals zero -- and that is certainly an equality -- but I don't want to go into the details at this time."

Yeah, that's the problem.

Relative to the light you emit.

The starting point in space that you started the stop watch to measure the time.

We can set up a reference frame in which you just now, sitting at your computer, travelled ~93,000 miles in the last second. In that reference frame, you did get closer to light that left your position a second ago.

But, relative to you as you think about it now, in that last second, did you get any closer to light that left your position a second ago?

Both descriptions of this last second are correct, but only if we accept the details of SR. I recommend that you take a look at them, they are fascinating.

Measure of distance and time in SR is with rulers and clocks that are not moving relative to the person doing the measuring.

The first postulate of SR is that any one can make measurements with their rulers and clocks and get valid answers (i.e. they can all essentially assumed they are stationary). The second is that in doing so they will all measure the speed of light to be c (i.e. relative to themselves, as if they are stationary).

The motivation for the first postulate is as KenG has said, because that's how we want physics to work, we want to be able to use our own clocks and rulers to make valid measurements. The second is motivated by experimental failure to detect any difference in the speed of light in any measurement, using our own clocks and rulers; and by Maxwell's equations which show that electromagnetic waves (light) propagate at c without reference to a medium or frame of reference in which the waves are to propagate.

The only logical resolution of those postulates is that my meter ruler measures less than a meter long (using their ruler) to someone moving relatively to me in the direction of the ruler (length contraction) and that my clock runs slow to someone moving relative to me using their clock (time dilation). There is a third result which is a little harder to get your head around: that simultaneous events in one frame of reference aren't necessarily simultaneous in another.

__________________
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.

Depends what yo mean. A meter rule is always a meter long in a frame where it is not moving in the direction the ruler is moving: that is its proper length. But it is shorter in other frames. An ideal clock always ticks at one second per second in the frame in which it is not moving, but ticks slower in all other frames.

Velocity has no meaning without first specifying with respect to what, which means the same thing as choosing a frame. I am not moving relative to my desk right now, but I am moving relative to the moon.

__________________
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.

As others have pointed out, you need to say what these are relative to. And this is independent of SR. If you are sitting at your desk, you would say that you have travelled zero distance in the last minute and so your velocity is zero. But an observer on the sun (if such a thing were possible) would see you spinning around on the earth and the earth orbiting the sun.

So which is it: are you stationary or travelling at thousands of miles per hour?

The thing that SR adds to this is the observation that the speed of light remains constant regardless whether you consider yourself to be stationary or moving at some velocity. And that is true for each individual observer (or each frame of reference, to be more accurate). That then leads to the apparent changes in distance and time when observed from another frame.

But that is irrelevant to the fact that you must say what the distance and velocity are measured relative to.

Actually, you are wrong. A source of light moviing wrt an ARBITRARY reference frame is ALWAYS in the center of the light sphere emanating from it.

Here is the theoretical proof:

Del'^2E - (1/c^2)(@^2E/@t^2)=0
Del'^2B - (1/c^2)(@^2B/@t^2)=0

The above is the equation of a spherical wave.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro..._wave_equation

You need to apply the Lorentz transforms in order to get the wavefront shape in the arbitrary frame the light source is moving:

x'=\gamma(x-vt)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=\gamma(t-vx/c^2)

and you will get:

Del'^2E' - (1/c^2)(@^2E'/@t'^2)=0
Del'^2B' - (1/c^2)(@^2B'/@t^2)=0

The above is also an equation of a spherical wave.

(where

Del' = d/dx'^2 + d/dy^2 + d/dz^2 )


And here, you will find the experimental confirmation. As pointed out by others, you need to learn SR.

Yes they are. This has been demonstrated repeatedly by experiments over and over and over. I have pointed out such an experiment to you, and you have ignored it.

Because the distance between two points separated in time is relative. This has been known for hundreds of years, and has probably been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread.

Aren't advocates of ATM theories required to answer questions put to them?

Here is such a question: what is your evidence for the existence of absolute space?

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

And the empirical proof has already been linked in earlier (and ignored).

__________________
Principal Principle Offender

This is why I linked it again, maybe he reads it this time. :-)

That light travels at ~186,000 miles per second, IN A VACUUM.

A vacuum is a volume of space that contains no matter, correct?

Q1: How is the above relevant wrt to your misunderstandings of basic SR?

A1: That was an answer to a question posed to me. Do you not agree with the answer?

The answer given to you is correct. Still doesn't explain how it relates to your misunderstandings about basic relativity. How does it?

I gave the answer to a question. An answer was not given to me.

So, you gave one correct answer. Unfortunately you are getting everything else wrong (the light sphere frame invariance, the notions of relative speed, separation speed). So, you need to make an effort and learn.

Does a volume of space have dimensions?

Sure.

Q: How is this relevant to your basic misunderstandings?

Because we first need to establish the dimensions of the volume we are working in. So, do you agree that if the volume is spherically shaped, that it has a center point of that sphere?

Q: Did you understand the explanation I gave you at post 75? It explains away all your misconceptions.

If you don't understand basic physics, I recommend that you study the subject first. You're jumping the gun by proposing an ATM idea when you don't have a good grasp of mainstream physics.

Study SR. It's been suggested several times that you do so. Many of the points you're getting stuck on were taken care of by Einstein himself a century ago.

You would also do well to read the "Logical Fallacies" thread. It might help you avoid drawing incorrect inferences.

I don't agree with SR, so I don't have to use it to prove it wrong. Am I supposed to use the rantings of the theory I am trying to show is wrong, to prove my point?