Existence

Hi NoNukes, But the photon under discussion is not traveling in the same direction that the car is traveling. In fact it is traveling at a 90 angle relative to the travel of the car.So what makes the photon hit the detector which has moved 2 feet during the time it takes for the photon to travel the 4 feet across the car? But I do claim that the photon does not obey Newton's laws and the definition of an inertial frame if it hits the detector as you claim. If it does obey those laws it will not hit the detector. Your conclusions is what is nonsense.I am simply saying if the laws of Newton and the definition of an inertial frame and Einstein's postulate #2 is correct the photon which is emitted from a laser pen which is mounted at a 90 angle relative to the 0.5 c motion of the car can not hit a detector that is mounted at a 180 angle relative to the laser pen after the detector has moved 2 feet unless an unbalanced force is applied to the photon.If no unbalanced force is applied to the photon it will miss the detector whether in an enclosed or open car. From your source you quoted.

quote:

---

Inertia: An object moves at constant velocity unless acted upon by an external force.

---

This sentence immediately preceeds your quote. According to that if the photon is acted upon by an external force the reference frame in which the photon is, is not an inertial reference frame.So unless an unbalanced force is placed upon the direction the photon is traveling in the enclosed car what causes the photon to travel at a 26.5 angle relative to the point and direction the photon is traveling at when emitted? What else do you apply to cause the photon to travel at a 26.5 angle relative to the point and direction the photon is traveling at when emitted as per your assertion?If an unbalanced force does not change the direction of the photon what does cause it to hit the detector 2 feet from where the laser pen was pointed at the moment the photon was emitted?God Bless,

Hi Son, So you are in agreement with me that the photon travels at a 90 angle relative to the motion of the car.Wouldn't that be true in every inertial reference frame?Is that an inertial frame of reference where the photon can only go in the direction at c relative to the point it was emitted, the photon that is emitted will travel in a straight line from the point emitted and hit the side of the car 2 feet from where the laser pen was pointed at the moment the photon was emitted unless an unbalanced force is applied to the photon to change it's direction.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, My position is that if Einsteins two postulates and Newtons laws are correct the photon can not hit the detector in the car, unless an unbalanced force is applied to the photon.

| = laser pen
. = photon
> = direction of travel
! = photon emitted from laser pen
D = detector, blackboard

_______________>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|2 feet in distance|
P P P P P P P P P P
!
.
.
.
.
.
.
DDDDDDDDDDDD
________________>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

If the photon travels in a straight line in the direction it is emitted at the first P it will hit the first D.If the photon hits the last D the photon has to move two feet in the direction the car is traveling relative to the point the photon is emitted.That means that the photon would have to take on the motion of the emitter which is forbidden.The Salt Lake Flats is in Utah and the earths revolution would be less there than the equator. But I will use the Equator speed, of 1000 mph.It takes 4.066813452804019 nanoseconds for the proton to travel 4 feet, and for the car to travel 2 feet.The earth moves 1,818.028285941509 nanometers in the same time it takes the photon to travel the 4 feet across the car.So the track is traveling at constant speed of 1,818.028285941509 nanometers per second relative to the car.The car is traveling at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the tracks.So when you or anyone else tells me the car is at rest it is still moving at 0.5 c relative to the tracks. Why do you think it is summary time?You have not even addressed the OP yet, even though I mentioned it a couple of times.From Message 1

quote:

---

Is existence responsible for bringing into existence all that exists?

​

If not, then what is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

​

The Bible declares existence is responsible for bringing into existence all that exists.

​

I agree.

​

What say you?

​

If existence is not responsible for bringing into existence all that exists, then what is?

​

There is existence (all things exist) and the opposite of that is non-existence (no thing exists). There is no known mechanism whereby existence can begin to exist from non-existence.

​

Can anyone present a case for existence without it being brought about by existence?

---

God Bless,

Hi Boof, The car is not stationary. You can say it is at rest but you can't say it is stationary.The car is traveling at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the tracks.The tracks are traveling at a constant speed of 1,818.028285941509 nanometers per second relative to the car.So neither one is stationary.Everything is moving relative to something.God Bless,And welcome to EvC.

Hi crash, True.But relative to the photon the car will move 2 feet.God Bless,

Hi crash, How is the point at which the photon emitted in motion?What force is exerted upon the point in the space of the car to cause the point to move.The laser pen and the detector moves relative to that point.
The car moves relative to that point.But the point does not move.Now if you have some mechanism that can cause the point in space to move share it.God Bless,

Hi Stile,Long time no communication. But in the thought experiment the car on the Salt Lake Flats is traveling at 0.5 c relative to the tracks attached to the Salt Lake Flats.
This car is traveling in a vacuum. So it would be the same as outer space. I don't have any problem with what a balloon might or might not do.A balloon is not a photon traveling at c when it exits the emitter.You as well as others here think that a photon will react the same as physical objects we are familiar with but the fact is it does not.Eienstein's postulate #2 says:

quote:

---

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

The last part of that statement says the light is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.So if the photon is emitted from the laser pen through your sunroof it will go in the direction at which the laser pen is pointed at the speed of c.If it does not then Einstein was wrong.Was Einstein wrong or will the photon go in a straight line from the point it was emitted?Will the photon always remain above the car?If it does what unbalanced force causes the photon to travel at 0.5 c horzontally while traveling at c vertically in the direction the laser pen was pointed from the point emitted from the laser pen?God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, "Stationary" relative to what?God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, Thanks for the agreement I was beginning to believe you was right and I did not know what my Chief Architect program showed me when I drew straight lines. My point exactly.Now if Einstein was correct when he proposed postulate #2 which says:

quote:

---

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

If the photon emitted at that point in space goes in a straight line from that point in the direction the laser pen is pointed it can not hit a detector that has moved 2 feet relative to that point in space, unless some unbalanced force is applied to the photon.I am sure you will disagree as it seems when you entered the classroom to study you checked your mind at the door.You seem to have a sharp brilliant mind, so use it to think with. What part of relative to that point do you not understand?Doesn't that mean I am refering to the frame in which the point exists?Reference frames overlap all over the universe. Is the car moving at a constant speed of 0.5 c while declared to be at rest? Doesn't that mean that the point then is moving in the direction the car is moving at a constant speed of 0.5 c at 0.5 c?But you said that point could not move.Which is it?Does it move or not? Please clarify.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, Sure I understand.You checked your mind when you entered the classroom and never picked it up when you left the classroom. What causes the photon to move 2 feet relative to the motion of the car along the tracks.To do so declares that postulate #2 is false.Postulate #2 says:

quote:

---

2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

---

The photon has to travel independent of the state of the motion of the laser pen which is attached to the car as is the blackboard.There is no way the statement "independent of the state of motion of the emitting body" can be true if the photon does not go in a straight line from the point emitted across the car and miss the blackboard.Because relative to the point coordinates in space the photon was emitted the blackboard has moved 2 feet.You are on record as saying the point in space where the photon was emitted can not move.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, I thought all inertial reference frames were frames of reference that were in motion at a constant speed, relative to other frames of reference. I thought you could choose any reference frame to be at rest.I did not know you could declare them stationary and they would cease their motion at a constant speed.

quote:

---

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating

---

SourceIs all inertial frames in a state of constant motion in a straight line as stated in the above reference?If so which one can be stationary?Is there anything in the universe stationary?I believe that there is.I do understand that when you add "relative to" you can declare frames of reference at rest relative to other frames of reference. But declaring a frame of reference at rest does not make that frame of reference stationary, as it does not cease it's motion at a constant speed.Such as the laser pen is attached to the car and is stationary relative to the car.The blackboard is attached to the car and is stationary relative to the car.But under no circumstances I see, can you say the car can be stationary relative to the point the photon is emitted from the laser pen.The car is in motion at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the coordinant point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen.That coordinate point in space remains motionless in space regardless of what the car, the earth or anything else in the universe does.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, It does not need such a capability it just has a 3d module that can make all kinds of moving things.I can do a tour of a house I have drawn at any stage of the drawing whether it be footer, finish, or anything in between. I can also do a tour of the yard with all the landscaping. It is just a fun thing that can be used to show the client what their new home will look like when finished. I have stated over and over that the laser pen is mounted at a 90 angle to the motion of the car. That is the same as the tracks. So the photon would travel at a 90 angle relative to the tracks as well as the motion of the car.This would be the same regardless of the speed of motion the car was traveling at.Straight lines can be a straight line between any two points regardless of what direction they are going.But in this thought experiment I am specifically speaking of a photon being emitted from a laser pen at a coordinate point in the space of the car.That laser pen is pointed at a detector or blackboard which ever you want to call it on the opposite side of the car.If the car was moving at 0 speed relative to the tracks the photon would hit the detector every time the laser pen emitted the photon. The movement of the earth would be less than the width of a human hair in the time it takes for the photon to travel the 4 feet from the laser pen to the detector and thus would not effect the photon hitting the detector.When the car is accelerated to 0.5 c constant speed nothing has changed about the installation of the laser pen and the detector.The laser pen is pointed directly at the detector at all times.The problem arises when the photon is emitted from the end of the laser pen.If that photon travels in a straight line from the coordinate point the photon is emitted from the laser pen it will miss the detector.The only way the photon can hit the detector is for it to move 2 feet in the direction the car is traveling at 0.5 c as it takes that long for the photon to travel the 4 feet to the opposite side of the car.Since the car is traveling at 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point the laser pen emitted the photon it will miss the detector.You and others are trying to convince me that the photon will travel 2 feet in the direction of the motion of the car and hit the detector.How can that be reconciled with the statement "independent of the motion of the emitter"?Light must be propragated at c in a vacuum independent of the motion of the emitter.The photon can not add the forward motion of the car and move the 2 feet required for the photon to hit the detector without some force being applied to the photon.That is why in the cycle light clock I installed the tube to force the photon to travel the .5 meter distance the cycle traveled as the pulse traveled from the bottom mirror to the top mirror. That was the only way I could force the pulse to hit the top mirror.That is why I keep making the statement that the photon would have to have an unbalanced force applied to cause it to travel the 2 feet forward to hit the detector.Somebody mentioned bouncing the photon off a mirror.If we were to install a mirror between the two sides of the car that the photon would hit and change the direction of the photon, with proper placement of the mirror we could cause the photon to hit the detector.God Bless,

Hi Taq, The car is stationary relative to what?The car is traveling at a constant speed of 0.5 c relative to the tracks and the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen.When you declare the car's reference frame at rest the car does not stop its constant motion of 0.5 c speed relative to the tracks and the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen.So at no time is the car stationary. Even when the car is doing 0 mph relative to the tracks it is still doing 1000 mph relative to the center of the Earth. I never claimed anyone did.I did state and claim you are dismissing the last part of postulate #2."independent of the motion of the emitter".You are adding the forward motion of the emitter to the horozontal motion of the photon to cause it to strike the detector which is false.The photon can not add the forward motion of the car, emitter, or detector to its horozontal motion and postulate #2 be true.I am stating I believe postulate #2 to be true but you are declaring it to be false. But that is not a straight line in the direction the photon is traveling in when emitted from the laser pen. And that is precisely why the photon can not hit the detector after traveling 4 feet because the detector has moved 2 feet relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen. It doesn't.The only velocity realtive to the photon that matters is the car's constant motion at 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen.The photon moving in a straight line in the direction it was emitted from the laser pen will miss the detector.Now if I wanted to hit the detector every time the photon was emitted from the laser pen I would mount the laser pen at a 26.57 angle relative to the motion of the car.But then unless the car was in constant motion at 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen the photon would miss the detector.God Bless,

Hi Taq, I actually thought all inertial reference frames were in motion at a constant velocity relative to all other inertial reference frames.

quote:

---

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating

---

SourceDo you disagree with the above statement?That says all inertial reference frames are moving and nothing about one of them being stationary or being able to declared stationary and cause them to cease their constant straight line motion relative to one another. Where did I mention anything about the laser pen moving or not moving.I said the car is moving at a constant 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point the laser pen was at when the photon was emitted from the laser pen.That point does not move ever, as it is just a coordinate point in space. The inertial frame the laser pen is in attached to the car is moving at a constant 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.The coordinate point in space the photon was emitted is not moving in that inertial reference frame, and neither is the photon. The photon is traveling in an overlaping reference frame toward the opposite side of the car from which it was emitted from the laser pen as the car travels at a constant speed of 0.5 c. I thought I said the point of emission does not ever move.But that does not stop the car's traveling at a constant 0.5 c speed, relative to all other inertial reference frames.God Bless,

Hi NoNukes, What do you mean by the stationary frame? So the frame is not stationary just the objects in that frame is considered at rest to be stationary relative to that frame. Just chalk it up to my age, slow learning, and my questioning of everything.But I really don't have a problem with the laser pen, detector, seats or anything else that is attached to the car being at rest in the car's reference frame.I do have a problem with the coordinate point in space that the photon is emitted from the laser pen being at rest in the cars frame of reference.I also have a problem with the inertial reference frame the photon is traveling at a constant velocity of c being affected by the reference frame of the car. I understand that.But because we declare a frame of reference at rest does not change the fact that, the chosen frame is in motion at a constant speed relative to all other reference frames. To me my understanding of stationary is something that is not moving, nor is it capable of being moved or changed.The word stationary can not be applied to an inertial reference frame.By definition an inertial reference frame is a reference frame in motion at a constant speed relative to all other inertial reference frames. Is the car's inertial reference frame moving at a constant 0.5 c speed relative to all other inertial reference frames?Does the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen move at a constant 0.5 c speed with the car in it's reference frame relative to all other reference frames?If the coordinate point the photon was emitted from the laser pen moves with the car in its inertial reference frame at 0.5 c what is the mechanism that causes the coordinate point to move from it's original position? Agreed.The coordinate point in space the photon is emitted does not move.You did agree with that statement in Message 1175.The photon is moving at a constant speed of c in a horozontal direction relative to the motion of the car's inertial reference frames speed of 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames. How can it always be the same spacial distance from the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen if the car in its inertial reference frame maintaines it's constant speed of 0.5c relative to all other inertial reference frames.The only way that can happen is if the coordinate point in space moves at 0.5 c along with the inertinal reference frame of the car. But the car inertial reference frame does move at a constant 0.5 c relative to all other inertial reference frames.Therefore it moves at a constant 0.5 c relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen. The photon travels in a straight line in the direction it was emitted traveling in from the moment it left the laser pen. Well that is half way there.In the car's inertial reference frame that is in motion at a constant 0.5 c, the car moves away from the photon's inertial reference frame in which the photon is in motion at a constant speed of c.

quote:

---

All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another; they are not accelerating

---

You have made fun of me stating the photon had it's own inertial reference frame several times. Now I would like for you to explain how that can not be true according to the definition of inertial frames above.The car in its inertial reference frame is in motion at a constant 0.5 c.The photon is in an inertial reference frame in motion at a constant speed of c.Explain how they can be one reference frame.They are overlaping reference frames. Does that mean you would want to figure out how much the car would move in the amount of time it would take the missile to reach the car and make adjustments to where you aim by incorporating that information and thus you would aim where the car is going to be when the missile reaches the location of the car.Why would you not do the same thing with the laser pen in the car to hit the detector after it had moved 2 feet relative to the coordinate point in space the photon was emitted from the laser pen? Does that mean there is no such thing as a stationary object?If so why do you use stationary when refering to an inertial reference frame at rest? So why can I find all kinds of different views expressed in so many different books written by so many different authors?You say present them. I did and everyone I presented was immediatly labled a crank. So if you want to find other opinions than the ones you have been brainwashed with all you have to do is uncheck you mind at the school you attended and put it to use.God Bless,