• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Tucker Carlson vs. the Metric System

If C is constant but time conges during acceleration between frames, the conclusion of relativity is space must change.

We know experimentally that time dilation is true. But within a frame the only way to measure C is with a time reference.

Two space ships accelerating away from each other. A third ship pules a laser towards each ship. Each ship will measure C. The ships are not at a constant velocity. On each ship under acceleration a second still seems like a second and the size of a room appears the same.

Under acceleration would two meter sticks be the same in both ships?

The procedure for measuring the meter is defined arbitrarily. The physical length of a meter is defined by a measurement with an uncertainty based on apparatus. .
 
If C is constant but time conges during acceleration between frames, the conclusion of relativity is space must change.
Yes. It is called Lorentz contraction.
We know experimentally that time dilation is true. But within a frame the only way to measure C is with a time reference.

Two space ships accelerating away from each other. A third ship pules a laser towards each ship. Each ship will measure C. The ships are not at a constant velocity. On each ship under acceleration a second still seems like a second and the size of a room appears the same.
The room size is more than 'appears the same' for those in the room. It is the same size in their reference frame regardless if they are stationary or moving with respect to some other ship. But the room will be shorter in the direction of travel as measured by someone in a different reference frame the ship is moving with respect to.
Under acceleration would two meter sticks be the same in both ships?
A meter stick will be the same for anyone in the same reference frame as the meter stick. For anyone in a reference frame moving with respect to the meter stick, the meter stick will be measured to be shorter if it is parallel to the direction of motion but as a meter if perpendicular to the direction of motion.
The procedure for measuring the meter is defined arbitrarily. The physical length of a meter is defined by a measurement with an uncertainty based on apparatus. .
The length of a meter is precise and by definition but how long a meter stick is measured to be is dependent on the particular stick and the accuracy and precision of the measurement device.
 
Yes. It is called Lorentz contraction.

The room size is more than 'appears the same' for those in the room. It is the same size in their reference frame regardless if they are stationary or moving with respect to some other ship. But the room will be shorter in the direction of travel as measured by someone in a different reference frame the ship is moving with respect to.
Under acceleration would two meter sticks be the same in both ships?
A meter stick will be the same for anyone in the same reference frame as the meter stick. For anyone in a reference frame moving with respect to the meter stick, the meter stick will be measured to be shorter if it is parallel to the direction of motion but as a meter if perpendicular to the direction of motion.
The procedure for measuring the meter is defined arbitrarily. The physical length of a meter is defined by a measurement with an uncertainty based on apparatus. .
The length of a meter is precise and by definition but how long a meter stick is measured to be is dependent on the particular stick and the accuracy and precision of the measurement device.

Shorter when measured between frames, but in two frames at constant velocities the meter will be the same physically. One acceleration ends and velocity is constant the ticks on clocks in booth frames will be the same, so the meter measurement will be the same.

Launch a spaceship to the moon. Magically transport a meter stick from Earth to the ship and it will match a meter stick on the ship.
 
Yes. It is called Lorentz contraction.

The room size is more than 'appears the same' for those in the room. It is the same size in their reference frame regardless if they are stationary or moving with respect to some other ship. But the room will be shorter in the direction of travel as measured by someone in a different reference frame the ship is moving with respect to.

A meter stick will be the same for anyone in the same reference frame as the meter stick. For anyone in a reference frame moving with respect to the meter stick, the meter stick will be measured to be shorter if it is parallel to the direction of motion but as a meter if perpendicular to the direction of motion.

The length of a meter is precise and by definition but how long a meter stick is measured to be is dependent on the particular stick and the accuracy and precision of the measurement device.

Shorter when measured between frames, but in two frames at constant velocities the meter will be the same physically. One acceleration ends and velocity is constant the ticks on clocks in booth frames will be the same, so the meter measurement will be the same.
The second will always be a second for someone in any given reference frame whether they are stationary, moving, or accelerating with respect to another reference frame. However, someone in one reference frame measuring the second in a reference frame moving with respect to them will see that second as longer.
Launch a spaceship to the moon. Magically transport a meter stick from Earth to the ship and it will match a meter stick on the ship.
Absolutely, once the meter stick is teleported to the spaceship, both the observer on the ship and on Earth will measure them as the same. The observer on the ship will measure them both as one meter (metre for the Brits) but the observer on Earth will measure them both as shorter than one meter but both at the same length (if they are both oriented to be parallel to the direction of travel).
 
It's an anchor point. The length of the metre and (to a lesser extent) the duration of the second are uncertain. c is NOT.

... and  Speed of Light explains how the 'anchor' point was determined. Please note that the metre and light speed are at the core of this determination leaving uncertainty about the the metre length to about one nanometer, largely because the decision to use an exact number for c is probably about 0.2-11 second from recent actual measurements of light speed.

In 1972, using the laser interferometer method and the new definitions, a group at the US National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado determined the speed of light in vacuum to be c = 299792456.2±1.1 m/s. As similar experiments found comparable results for c, the 15th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1975 recommended using the value 299792458 m/s for the speed of light.[150] .... They kept the 1967 definition of second, so the caesium hyperfine frequency would now determine both the second and the metre. To do this, they redefined the metre as: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.
 
It's an anchor point. The length of the metre and (to a lesser extent) the duration of the second are uncertain. c is NOT.

... and  Speed of Light explains how the 'anchor' point was determined. Please note that the metre and light speed are at the core of this determination leaving uncertainty about the the metre length to about one nanometer, largely because the decision to use an exact number for c is probably about 0.2-11 second from recent actual measurements of light speed.

In 1972, using the laser interferometer method and the new definitions, a group at the US National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado determined the speed of light in vacuum to be c = 299792456.2±1.1 m/s. As similar experiments found comparable results for c, the 15th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1975 recommended using the value 299792458 m/s for the speed of light.[150] .... They kept the 1967 definition of second, so the caesium hyperfine frequency would now determine both the second and the metre. To do this, they redefined the metre as: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.
The speed of light is what it is. How we describe that speed depends on how we define a unit of length and a time duration. If we wish to describe c in meters/second then the value for c we give will depend on how we define the meter and the second. If we adjust the length of the meter or the duration of a second then how we express c will change but light will still propagate at the same fixed speed. Double the length of the meter (creating a new-meter) and the value of how we express c will be halved even though it is still propagating at the same velocity. Personally, I like expressing c in furlongs per fortnight.
 
It's an anchor point. The length of the metre and (to a lesser extent) the duration of the second are uncertain. c is NOT.

... and  Speed of Light explains how the 'anchor' point was determined.
It wasn't 'determined'. It was decided upon. It was arbitrarily chosen and imposed by fiat; That this was done in such a way as to minimise the change in length of the metre was a mere courtesy.
Please note that the metre and light speed are at the core of this determination leaving uncertainty about the the metre length to about one nanometer, largely because the decision to use an exact number for c is probably about 0.2-11 second from recent actual measurements of light speed.
Light speed is not something you can measure. Uncertainty in the length of the metre is an unavoidable consequence of the difficulty in measuring its length to arbitrary precision. But those difficulties don't influence c at all.
In 1972, using the laser interferometer method and the new definitions, a group at the US National Bureau of Standards in Boulder, Colorado determined the speed of light in vacuum to be c = 299792456.2±1.1 m/s. As similar experiments found comparable results for c, the 15th General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1975 recommended using the value 299792458 m/s for the speed of light.[150] .... They kept the 1967 definition of second, so the caesium hyperfine frequency would now determine both the second and the metre. To do this, they redefined the metre as: "The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second.

Anything that happened in 1972 was rendered redundant by fiat in 1975.

Ancient history is interesting, but it's not relevant to this discussion, because it in no way affects the value of c, which remains arbitrary, precise, and immune to measurement errors and the limits of experimental design.

There is no conceivable measurement anyone can make that would change the value of c by one iota. It's value is fixed, precise, and perfectly accurate.

That the length of the metre has to vary to accommodate our ability to measure it, and/or our decision to fix c by fiat, matters not a whit.
 
The second will always be a second for someone in any given reference frame whether they are stationary, moving, or accelerating with respect to another reference frame. However, someone in one reference frame measuring the second in a reference frame moving with respect to them will see that second as longer.
Launch a spaceship to the moon. Magically transport a meter stick from Earth to the ship and it will match a meter stick on the ship.
Absolutely, once the meter stick is teleported to the spaceship, both the observer on the ship and on Earth will measure them as the same. The observer on the ship will measure them both as one meter (metre for the Brits) but the observer on Earth will measure them both as shorter than one meter but both at the same length (if they are both oriented to be parallel to the direction of travel).

It appears were are vigorously agreeing.
 
I could define the bank as the distance between my outstretched arms. and time number of grains of sand in an hour glass. Velocity is then banks/grains. A suitable conversion factor to m/s could be devised.

In the real world other than discrete counting there is no such thing as exact. You can define something anyway you like. When you go to demonstrate it there is an uncertainty.
 
I could define the bank as the distance between my outstretched arms. and time number of grains of sand in an hour glass. Velocity is then banks/grains. A suitable conversion factor to m/s could be devised.

In the real world other than discrete counting there is no such thing as exact. You can define something anyway you like. When you go to demonstrate it there is an uncertainty.

There's no uncertainty in c. None. It's set by fiat, so measurement is impossible. You can no more measure the value of c than you can measure the value of 5. It's not possible that you could perform a very precise and accurate count of five objects, and determine that 5 is in fact 5.0000000000001 - 5 is 5 exactly, by definition. In the same way, c is 299792458m.s-1 exactly, by definition. No measurement can change this. It's defined to be true.

Any uncertainty demonstrated in real world measurements is uncertainty in the length of a metre.
 
fromderinside: good job at inserting CSS into the VB4 table tags. TH -- table header cell, TD -- ordinary table cell, TR -- table row. TH="bgcolor: #EAECF0, align: center"

BIPM - About the BIPM -- Bureau International des Poids et Mesures -- International Bureau of Weights and Measures

 History of the metric system Nicolas de Condorcet was one of those who worked on the system during the French Revolution.
Condorcet is universally misquoted as saying that "the metric system is for all people for all time." His remarks were likely between 1790 and 1792. The names 'metre' and 'metre-system' i.e. 'metric system' were not yet defined. Condorcet actually said, "measurement of an eternal and perfectly spherical earth is a measurement for all people for all time." He did not know what if any units of length or other measure would be derived therefrom.
This universality was also behind the original metric-system definition of mass, and it is behind the recent redefinitions of SI units. For a long time, however, the meter and the (kilo)gram were defined with artifacts, since measurements of those artifacts were more accurate than the measurements in their original definitions.

For the meter, definition by artifact was ended in 1960, with the krypton-86 standard, and in 1983, the meter was redefined in terms of the second by fixing the speed of light in a vacuum.

For the kilogram, definition by artifact was only recently ended.

None of the other SI standards have ever been defined by artifact.
 
That the length of the metre has to vary to accommodate our ability to measure it, and/or our decision to fix c by fiat, matters not a whit.

I c, u c, we all c. Still c is not other than c c.

Arbitrary isn't quite descriptive of a number different from that found by experiment and measure by 0.2 units. It is convenient to have a whole number when all you have to do is change the length of the standard meter to permit the measured number to be an exact whole number. For me arbitrary would be to use 300,000,000 m/s similar to the original calculated number by just adjusting the standard meter a bit more.

Since taking the whole number which permits the least change the definition of second and meter length to accommodate (about almost no change in second since it was already a whole number relation with cesium* and one nanometer change in standard metre) seems anything but arbitrary or fiat decision. It was a majority position as the article suggests. Obviously there was accomodation to differences there as well.

U c.

* The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.
 
Last edited:
I always used 3x10^8, I suppose there are occasions when the approximation may not be good enough.

When I say arbitrary it is not C that is arbitrary. It is how we quantify it that is arbitrary. The mer and sconds are arbitray definitions at the end of a long history of the meter and second definitions.
 
Time is something universally used and experienced by most as are length and distance. The speed of light is hard to ascertain for many reasons. It's velocity changes in different environments we try to measure it and it's speed in space is beyond our access for measurement without extreme restrictive actions. Finally, light is emitted as a product of energy transactions which are beyond our ability to see or measure directly.
 
That the length of the metre has to vary to accommodate our ability to measure it, and/or our decision to fix c by fiat, matters not a whit.

I c, u c, we all c. Still c is not other than c c.

Arbitrary isn't quite descriptive of a number different from that found by experiment and measure by 0.2 units. It is convenient to have a whole number when all you have to do is change the length of the standard meter to permit the measured number to be an exact whole number. For me arbitrary would be to use 300,000,000 m/s similar to the original calculated number by just adjusting the standard meter a bit more.

Since taking the whole number which permits the least change the definition of second and meter length to accommodate (about almost no change in second since it was already a whole number relation with cesium* and one nanometer change in standard metre) seems anything but arbitrary or fiat decision. It was a majority position as the article suggests. Obviously there was accomodation to differences there as well.

U c.

* The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

OK, I give up. You can die wrong - I don't care anymore.
 
Time is something universally used and experienced by most as are length and distance. The speed of light is hard to ascertain for many reasons. It's velocity changes in different environments we try to measure it and it's speed in space is beyond our access for measurement without extreme restrictive actions. Finally, light is emitted as a product of energy transactions which are beyond our ability to see or measure directly.

c is the square root of the ratio between energy and mass. It's therefore the maximum possible velocity in space time, and as all objects with zero rest mass are constrained to travel between interactions at that speed, it is also, interestingly, the velocity of electromagnetic radiation propagating in a vacuum.

It's relationship to the speed of light transmission through non-vacuum media is completely unimportant.

You are deeply mistaken in conflating those things. c happens to ALSO be the speed of light in a vacuum; But that's not why it is what it is. You are living in the past.

Your options now are to accept that I am right, or to continue to be wrong. I no longer care which you choose.
 
All of the redefinitions have been done with the help of physics that was unknown at the time of the French Revolution, or at best poorly understood.

The meter was defined in 1960 using a spectral line's wavelength, and the second is now defined using a spectral line's frequency.

Spectral lines were first observed in the Sun's light by William Hyde Wollaston in 1802, and by the mid 19th cy., visible-light spectroscopy had become a well-established analytical-chemistry technique. Over the first half of the 20th cy., spectroscopy was extended across the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays.

The fixing of the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is justified by the great success of special relativity. It was developed to reconcile the conflict between Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian electrodynamics, two theories that were otherwise very successful. In summary, while Newtonian mechanics has no built-in fixed speed, Maxwellian electrodynamics does: c, the speed of electromagnetic waves. In 1905, Albert Einstein showed that Newtonian mechanics had to be modified to fit, and that this modification included c as a sort of cosmic speed limit. A massive object can get closer and closer to c, but it cannot reach c. AE's teacher Hermann Minkowski soon showed that special relativity implies that space and time are part of a combined entity, spacetime, an entity whose geometry gives c as a dividing line between spacelike and timelike intervals.

Special relativity has been abundantly tested, both directly and indirectly, with the only known departures from it being due to gravity. AE came up with answer to that also in 1915: general relativity. That has also been abundantly tested, and it has also been very successful so far.

The fixing of Planck's quantum constant, h, is likewise justified by the great success of quantum mechanics. It was developed in the first third of the twentieth century, and it has been enormously successful in accounting for the behavior of everything atom-sized and smaller. Like the sizes of atoms -- that is a consequence of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics was initially developed for Newtonian-limit speeds, but by the mid 20th cy., it was successfully extended to speeds approaching c in the form of quantum field theory. Part of that was quantum electrodynamics, the quantum-mechanical theory of electromagnetism and the first part of the Standard Model of elementary particle physics.

Temperature, however, was always universal. The Celsius scale started off with 0 and 100 being the freezing and boiling points of water. The existence of an absolute zero of temperature was already suspected for some decades around the time of the French Revolution, though its value was not well established until the middle of the 19th cy. The kinetic theory of gases had been speculated about since antiquity, though it was in the late 19th cy. that it received a firm foundation from statistical mechanics. According to stat mech, temperature is essentially how much random energy a system has. The temperature-to-energy conversion factor is Boltzmann's thermodynamic constant.

However, temperature continued to be defined in terms of phase changes of water. In 1948, the triple point of water was defined to be at 0.01 C, and in 1954, it was defined to be at 273.16 K, making 0 C = 273.15 K. In 2005, this was clarified to be for water with the Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water isotopic composition. But most recently, temperature was redefined in terms of energy by fixing Boltzmann's constant, something justified by the success of stat mech.
 
Time is something universally used and experienced by most as are length and distance. The speed of light is hard to ascertain for many reasons. It's velocity changes in different environments we try to measure it and it's speed in space is beyond our access for measurement without extreme restrictive actions. Finally, light is emitted as a product of energy transactions which are beyond our ability to see or measure directly.

c is the square root of the ratio between energy and mass. It's therefore the maximum possible velocity in space time, and as all objects with zero rest mass are constrained to travel between interactions at that speed, it is also, interestingly, the velocity of electromagnetic radiation propagating in a vacuum.

It's relationship to the speed of light transmission through non-vacuum media is completely unimportant.

You are deeply mistaken in conflating those things. c happens to ALSO be the speed of light in a vacuum; But that's not why it is what it is. You are living in the past.

Your options now are to accept that I am right, or to continue to be wrong. I no longer care which you choose.

Yes deeply. Where did you find your post moving equipment?

Burma shave!
 
QM models photons to electrons and electrons to photons. We do not directly measure photoemission or absorption but the models work in terms of design producing predicted results.

In an antenna current yields predicable energy in the radiation. When the radiation hits a photo detector the number of electrons produced by photons is predictable. Electrons in the antenna to radiated photon to electrons in the detector are predictable.

E = mc^2 is the atomic energy stored in binding forces not the kinetic energy of the mass. Energy in all cases and forms is proportional to a magnitude squared.

1/2 mv^2 kinetic energy
1/2 cv^2 energy stored in a capacitor

I'd have to look up the equation. When v << C we have Newtonian mechanics, energy is conserved. In the equation as v-> C relativistic mass goes to infinity as energy increases. A singularity in the equation.
 
Back
Top Bottom