You have to have 1 standard of distance, and 1 standard of time, otherwise anyone can make up their own BS and claim they are correct.
They are entitled to make their own standard of time, but they are not entitled to call that different standard the same thing as the set standard. They are not entitled to call their standard of time a second, because a second is already defined.
Likewise, they can not look at what I call a horse, and claim that is a pig. Outrageous!
Nobody would know what anyone was talking about if they all just called horses and pigs cows and chickens!
It’s a moot point of WHY they didn’t keep accurate time, the point is that they DIDN’T keep accurate time.
If a clock doesn’t keep accurate time when it travels at a high rate of speed, then find a different device that DOES keep accurate time.
Light speed is CONSTANT in space. Light travels a specific distance in a specific duration of time. If light travels 299,792,458 meter sticks, that is 1 second of duration of time.
No, A clock is used to keep accurate time. You can’t claim an inaccurate clock is correct just because that is your clock and that is what it reads.
Go get a cheap clock and set it to the standard Eastern Time, and then come back when your cat dies. Is the clock still ticking? Is it still reading Eastern Time? No? Then according to you, it’s your clock, and it’s accurate because that is what it reads. You see how silly that argument is? That is the exact same argument you are making when you claim your clock that reads 6 years to travel a 42 light year journey.
Your clock DID NOT keep accurate time. Deal with it!
Again, if light travels 299,792,458 meter sticks, that is 1 second.
I’ve already discussed these relativistic scenarios repeatedly. I can’t believe you can be so dense as to not follow the explanations, which is why I have to think you are deliberately distorting them.
There is NOTHING in relativity theory that holds an observer on a spaceship traveling toward a star measured to be 42 light years from the earth frame will claim that he traversed 42 light years in six years. Relativity theory does not say that AT ALL. That you impute such idiocy to the theory indicates either density or duplicity on your part.
I don’t need to post any quote, I will just restate it for you now.
Your claim that relativity theory says a traveler will measure a trip to a star 42 light years distant to take six years by his ship clock is WRONG. I’ve already explained, several times, WHY it is wrong. Here is the explanation again:
The star is measured to be 42 light years distant FROM THE EARTH FRAME. It is NOT measured to be 42 lights years distant FROM THE SHIP FRAME. Capice?
Time dilation — slowing of clocks — also entails LORENTZ LENGHT CONTRACTION, in the direction of the ship’s forward motion, as I have explained. The star is MUCH CLOSER in the ship frame, than it is in the earth rest frame — so close, as measured by the ship’s pilot, that it is only somewhat over six light years distant (assuming the ship is traveling very close to c).
In fact, length contraction is WHY less time elapses on the ship’s clock, than on the earth clock — the traveler has much less distance to travel as judged from the earth, and therefore it will take him less time to make the trip!
The upshot is that the clock measurement on the ship will ALWAYS SHOW that the ship is traveling at a SUBLUMINAL VELOCITY, and NEVER “42 lights years in six years,” LOL!
Next you are probably going to say, duh, BUT, BUT, the star really IS 42 light years away, blah blah blah, because it is measured to be such from earth. WRONG! Time and space are RELATIVE. The earth is NOT an absolute rest frame! Distance and simultaneity are relative concepts tied to reference frames, with no frame-independent fact of the matter about either.
I just explained it to you! That IS my quote! DEAL with what I just pointed out — that you forgot to factor in length contraction into your idiotic diatribe against SR!
Light years are not contracted. Saying a distance of 42 light years means light takes 42 years to travel the distance. There is no length contraction about it.
You are phyllo’s sockpuppet! I’m pretty sure there are no sockpuppets allowed on this forum.
The distance light travels is 42 light years. That distance is measured in meter sticks. Meter sticks are exactly 1 meter.
What are you trying to say, that it’s a different amount of meter sticks when you are on the ship? That light suddenly changes how many meter sticks it travels the journey because your clock f’d up?
It comes from the fact that the sweep hand on my clock is moving faster than the sweep hand on your clock.
Remember that we defined the word “second” to mean “the time it takes a sweep hand to move 6 degrees”. That means that the amount of time it takes for a sweep hand on any clock (including mine) to moves 6 degrees is by definition equal to 1 second. It doesn’t matter how fast the sweep hand is moving. The definition doesn’t care about that. Thus, the fact that the sweep hand on my clock is moving faster than yours is irrelevant. Since the sweep hand on my clock is moving faster than yours, a lot more seconds have passed from MY perspective than YOURS. In fact, my clock is showing that I am 300 years old. Time is relative after all, isn’t it? So who are you tell me that I’m wrong? The bottom line is that the amount of time necessary for a sweep hand to move 6 degrees is not the same everywhere. Thus, when John says “It took me 5 hours” and Mary says “It also took me 5 hours” you can’t really know, based on that information alone, whether they are talking about the same period of time or not.
The ship is NOT traveling 7 times faster than light. The distance is LENGTH CONTRACTED. Time and space are RELATIVE, and not ABSOLUTE. Transit times are ALWAYS subluminal in ALL frames. For light to be a constant c in all frames, DURATIONS and LENGTHS must change. That was Einstein’s central insight.
And this insight has been experimentally proven AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN!
JESUS CHRIST, yes meter sticks are shorter. It’s like you’ve never even heard of relativity theory yet presume to critique it! Are you seriously telling me you have never heard of LENGTH CONTRACTION before???
Saying “42 light years” is a distance, like saying 1 meter is a distance. A meter is exactly 1 meter, and 42 light years is exactly 42 light years. Length contraction is some BS in Einstein’s theory that has never been observed, because it’s a Band-Aid to make his theory work keeping the speed of light constant. It’s totally fabricated BS!
Your clock says 6 years to travel the distance of 42 light years. That means your speed was 7c, not .99c.
