You will never know as long as you keep saying this...
Yes, I have written B twice. Had you read it you would have known why and you would not have stated this again ...
Which has never been in question.
No we have not been over this in posts 50 and 51. You have been over it because you assume that I am claiming the speed of light is not constant in all frames.
Here is your problem:
NO! The principle of relativity tells us how the speed of light will ALWAYS be the same in different...
What is "they"?
You speak of "they" - more than one - two things distinguishable from each other .
Then you claim there is no distinction between them.
Start with a slice of pie that is 1/5 of the whole pie.
Cut it in half and tell me the resulting two pieces have no physically...
That would be true of all speed.
What is it about light that holds this relationship constant?
I think you are talking about a different issue here, simultaneously attributing time dilation and length contraction to A?
Space and Time do change, it is not just a perspective of inertial frames...
I'm glad you find it funny.
It is unfortunate you don't understand it.
You are quick to insult but slow to substantiate your arguments.
The fifth grade student told you 1/5 is discernible from 2/10 which is why you and I can even have this discussion - and therefore they are not identical...
Ask yourself the same question with respect to what you think is constant.
How can the dimensions Length/Time change and the Length /Time that is light speed not change?†
The Length/Time that is the motion we call light remains constant or the same quantitative value for all frames, by...
No, but thanks for the effort.
I have only one issue, the same issue, the speed of light changes between frames in motion.
It is always measured to be c, but as such must change with the change in dimensions that hold it constant.
Unfortunately, DaleSpam has managed to convince everyone I've...
When I take your premise as the criteria by which I am to evaluate the "=", my answer is obviously yes, as anything else would be arguing your premise which by definition (yours) is pointless.
So I asked a fifth grader to help me with fractions. I asked her to explain why
1/5 and 2/10 were not only expressions of equal quantitative value, but also
identical entities.
She said to tell you they are not identical. Identical is indiscernible - as we can
discern 1/5 from 2/10 they are...
Wholly word salad Batman...that's not even funny.
A property of a geometry of a continuum?
Representing a relationship?
It's OK to tell people the truth...we don't know why the speed of light is constant.
No one will blame you personally for this lack of knowledge.
Thanks for your help neopolitan
You are coming at my point from the other end of the argument.
As a postulate of SR, c is not open to question within the theory or convention.
The problem is that I am not questioning the constancy of c.
I am pointing out that as SR defines it, the constancy...
Think about why you are putting an equal sign between 1/5 and 2/10?
To quote Dr. John Baez "every equation is a half-truth: after all, if the two sides of the equation look different, why are we saying they're the same?"
There is an expression of equality in the ratios, or fractions or...
You are not listening.
Go back and read post #50, lines 14 and 15.
They state that c DOES NOT EQUAL x/t1
and c DOES NOT EQUAL x1/t
It is because c ≠ x1/t
and c ≠ x/t1
which is to say c ≠ BLength/ATime
and c ≠ ALength/BTime
that one can say
BLength ≠ ALength
BTime ≠ ATime
therefore...
From the beginning my assertion has stemmed from the fact that the constancy of the speed of light is empirical evidence.
As malawi-glenn said, "we can never prove the light speed to be constant."
Upon SR surviving falsification, the postulate is considered sound, but still not prove-able as...