[QED]

Here's two rocketships racing eachother.
One fires a laser cannon at the other.
Does he have to aim straight at him to hit him, or does he need to fire to where the target will be after the time it takes the light to arrive?

The reason I'm asking is because I think it's indisputable that he has to lead on the target.
And that increases the light path length.
And this means if the earth is racing upwards at 15 trillion trillion times the speed of light, and you shine a flashlight across the room, the light would have a much longer path, and would in fact take a very long time to reach the other side of the room, because the other side of the room would be in a drastically different place in the galaxy by the time the light arrived.

In conclusion, I'm having serious difficulties with UA.

How is it that you find it indisputable? Is the light not also moving upward at the same speed as the rockets when it is fired? The horizontal speed is independent from the vertical.

[TomFoolery]

BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.

Count me in, I want to see that demonstration.

[QED]

BTW, it is very easy to demonstrate that things can move faster than the speed of light.

Count me in, I want to see that demonstration.

Imagine a water wave hitting a straight shoreline at some angle. The point where the water meets the shore will have a speed and will be moving along the shoreline, yes?

Now imagine a water wave that is almost parallel to the shore. That point will move faster.

There is a critical angle (dependent on the wave’s speed) where for angles smaller, that point will eclipse c.

Basic trig is all that is needed. Challenge: compute this critical angle as a function of the wave speed.

P.S. we call this the “phase” of the wave motion.

[QED]

Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.

Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.

[TomFoolery]

Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.

Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.

Oh my friend you disappoint me. 

I wondered if it was the lighthouse paradox though when you first mentioned it. I almost said "Yeah but you have to reddfine "thing" to be "A coincidence."

You could make it much simpler:

A light house flashes. Two observers, on opposite sides a hundred miles away, see the flash at exactly the same time.
The speed with which it got from one observer to the other is infinite.

Of course it's a joke because it's not that  a thing moved faster than the speed of light, it's that multiple things left an origin, traveled at no more than the speed of light and arrived at different destinations simultaneously.

But I will grant that if you want to call a coincidence a thing (which really aint fair since a coincidence cannot be had without multiple things) and when you say that some thing can move faster than the speed of light it naturally leads the reader to think of a thing.

But I guess it's along the lines of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it really fall?

[QED]

Another: have a big move across a transparent plate. Shine a light on the bug and put a screen below it. You will see the shadow move across the screen. Now move the screen very far away. The shadow will be moving faster.

Challenge: find the minimum distance between the bug and the screen such that the shadow moves at c. It will be a function of the bug’s walking speed.

Oh my friend you disappoint me. 

I wondered if it was the lighthouse paradox though when you first mentioned it. I almost said "Yeah but you have to reddfine "thing" to be "A coincidence."

You could make it much simpler:

A light house flashes. Two observers, on opposite sides a hundred miles away, see the flash at exactly the same time.
The speed with which it got from one observer to the other is infinite.

Of course it's a joke because it's not that  a thing moved faster than the speed of light, it's that multiple things left an origin, traveled at no more than the speed of light and arrived at different destinations simultaneously.

But I will grant that if you want to call a coincidence a thing (which really aint fair since a coincidence cannot be had without multiple things) and when you say that some thing can move faster than the speed of light it naturally leads the reader to think of a thing.

But I guess it's along the lines of if a tree falls in the forest and there's nobody there to hear it, did it really fall?

It is strange that you think a shadow is a coincidence. Not sure I get that. Please feel free to enlighten me (although unlike Buddhist koans, my examples can be demonstrated mathematically).

I am certainly not disappointed in you, and fully expect that those functions will soon be forthcoming.

[SeaCritique]

Your acknowledgement of zeteticism is inaccurate.

Interesting. Wiki page you linked to says Samuel Rowbotham used this method, measuring the water convexity, and from that concluded on a shape.
I wonder if he really had no initial theory.

The strength of zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory. Zeteticism removes preconceived notions and biases from the equation.

What does that even really mean?
I mean think about it. We always start with some theory which prompts us to do a specific experiment or observation. That doesn't  rule out the validity of the results of the experiment or the observation.
So I'm really not sure even what you're trying to claim.

I don't think I ever said that the scientific method necessarily rules out the validity of the results of the experiment or observation. Zeteticism is preferable because, when one develops an idea of what ought to happen without truly knowing what will happen, it might cloud one's ability to accurately assess the experiment or observation. It might, it might not. Zeteticism seems, to me, to help counter that possibility; but, clearly, the scientific method works in many instances.

But it is very interesting that you say that zeteticism lies in basing one's conclusions on experimentation and observation rather than on an initial theory.
I have seen so much where flat earthers are digging like wolves to try and contort observed reality into their initial theory.

So here's the catch: While Einstein may have been zetetic and measured light and found that it's velocities does not add up that way, Mr. Bishop hasn't.
He didn't read Einstein's book and suddenly realize that light doesn't add up that way, he had a theory that required light to not add up that way, and went and found some possible experiments -- or at least someone else's musings -- which allegedly confirmed the prior theory.

And I'm not even sure Einstein even measured whether the velocities of light add up like that.
And if Albert didn't measure, and Bishop didn't measure -- no experiments done -- then I'm having a hard time seeing it as zetetic for Dr. Bishop to zetetically state that light velocities don't add up that way.

Well, I suppose that'd be a question for Bishop. Note: observation alongside experimentation is the cornerstone of zeteticism. I'm noticing a lack of reference to observation in some of your statements.

But picture this:
There's two race cars going 50 meters a second. They are 300,000,000 meters apart, but going parallel. On a big flat earth.
One of them shoots a pulsed laser cannon at the other. Right at him.
The only problem is that the light takes a second to get there. And by the time it gets there, the target has moved ahead 50 meters.

But it's a laser so he's not out of bullets yet, he stars aiming further and further forward.
He finds that he has to aim over 50 meters ahead of where his target is, in order for the light to intersect the target.
Now, this distance is actually longer than 300,000,000 meters because it's traversing the long side of a right triangle that is 50 by 300,000,000 meters.

Does the path length of light really not add up like that?

Again, I think that'd be a question for Bishop. I'll admit that I'm not very familiar with light velocities or how they're supposed to add up.

[TomFoolery]

It is strange that you think a shadow is a coincidence. Not sure I get that. Please feel free to enlighten me (although unlike Buddhist koans, my examples can be demonstrated mathematically).

I am certainly not disappointed in you, and fully expect that those functions will soon be forthcoming.

My apologies. I was using the term in the technical sense, and assumed you had the background to know what I was talking about.

In Engineering, a coincidence is any time two things happen at the same time. That is to say, they coincide.

When a light flashes, and two different sectors of that light radiate out and reach their target at the same time, we say they coincide, or are coincident. 

And it's not always even used in parallel settings: Sometimes two Geiger-Muller  counter tubes are lined up and the signals are measured for coincidence - when a high speed particle smashes through one then through the other, the two signals coincide, and it is then believed that the direction of the particle is known. Even though the two signals coincided doesn't mean that it was pure chance that they happened around the same time because after all the same particle triggered them both -- so its not that random chance kind of coincidence - it's the kind of coincidence that just means they happened at the same time, or close enough for it to qualify for whatever special conditions were trying to be met (i.e. that the particle traveled in a straight line from one sensor tube to the other.)

So yes - if a light flashes and light waves go out in all directions and hit multiple targets at the same time you can't really say that anything was traveling faster than the speed of light.

If you change it slightly and say that the light hit target A slightly before target B, and try to say that the light went from target A to target B  faster than the speed of light, then you're silly because the light doesn't come from target A to target B -- it goes to both targets from the light source -- and it does not travel  faster than the speed of light.

Only by a contorted figurative wording can you say that a sweeping light beam sweeps faster than the speed of light.

Hopefully that makes a little more sense!

[QED]

I am aware of the definition of coincidence. Yet the two examples I provided do not make use of this definition. I agree that your example fails, but my two examples hold to demonstrate cases where objects move faster than c. Surely you must see this.

[TomFoolery]

I am aware of the definition of coincidence. Yet the two examples I provided do not make use of this definition. I agree that your example fails, but my two examples hold to demonstrate cases where objects move faster than c. Surely you must see this.

Oh I thought you were saying that the contact point of the wave hitting the shore was going faster than the speed of light, and that the bug's shadow was going faster than the speed of light.
And you're calling these two things objects.

But in fact, in the case of the bug, his shadow is not an object.
You might at least be able to say the light shining around the bug was an object, but that's not true either - it is an infinite number of light waves leaving a source and arriving at different destinations.
As the bug moves, light begins to shine in one area and stops shining in another area nearby -- but those were two beams of light, and two incidences that happened to coincide. But they were not the same object. A coincidence is not an object.

Same thing with the wave hitting the shore: No object is moving down the shore. The apparent contact point may be, but that is not an object.
The waves leaving the wave generator (whatever it was) are multiple paths of wave energy, traveling in different directions through different groups of water molecules, and arriving at different destinations.
When the wave hits the shore at point A and slightly later at point B, it is not an object moving, it is two incidences coinciding.

But nothing in your examples are moving faster than the speed of light.

[QED]

Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.

Plus, it is well known that phenomena in the universe are described using non local theories. Tachyons move faster than c, and the EPR paradox has been experimentally verified.

Einstein was just wrong. Many things obey causality, but not everything.

This issue with coincidences versus objects is just semantics.

[TomFoolery]

Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.

A shadow is an area in which a specific thing doesn't exist. How can the non-existence of something be an object? Never mind.

I must bow out of the discussion of whether a shadow and a location are objects because I would be trolling if I continued, and I've already been punished for expressing too much satire in the upper forums, even though the bulk of my posts were more serious than yours. 

[QED]

Well, I have to disagree with you there. A shadow and location are both objects.

A shadow is an area in which a specific thing doesn't exist. How can the non-existence of something be an object? Never mind.

I must bow out of the discussion of whether a shadow and a location are objects because I would be trolling if I continued, and I've already been punished for expressing too much satire in the upper forums, even though the bulk of my posts were more serious than yours. 

I understand your decision, and will thus not state any more comments which you would not have the benefit of responding to. Thank you for the discussion.

[retlaw]

Density not gravity.
Density trumps gravity so gravity is garbage.
If I through two balls out of a airplane they will both hit the earth at the same time but if one ball is a tennis ball and the other a iron ball and they hit water density will stop the tennis ball and the iron ball is gone bye bye.
Reason being density.
Hot air balloons rise because of density.
Apples fall from tree's because of density of the apple compared to the density of air.

[QED]

Density not gravity.
Density trumps gravity so gravity is garbage.
If I through two balls out of a airplane they will both hit the earth at the same time but if one ball is a tennis ball and the other a iron ball and they hit water density will stop the tennis ball and the iron ball is gone bye bye.
Reason being density.
Hot air balloons rise because of density.
Apples fall from tree's because of density of the apple compared to the density of air.

So denser things move down. Why though? Can you elaborate?

Also, I highly doubt both balls would land at the same time. Even if they were identical.

But in a vacuum, a feather and iron ball will fall at the same rate. Which is strange, because their densities are so different. Any thoughts?

[retlaw]

Gladly.
Density is related to the environment the objects are in.
Earths air (sky) is the environment in this case, then water and land.

Both balls are denser then air so both fall close to the same speed.
When they hit the water in a lake the water has a different density then the air so new laws apply.
Water density laws.
Tennis ball floats now but iron balls sink to the bottom of the lake.
Iron is much denser then water.
Then the iron ball hits the bottom of the lake and if it is soft mud or sand the iron ball being denser is heading father down till it hits its hard pack preventing it from going any further. It might take time wiggling down in the mud using currents but it will get there.
Gold miners follow this rule ever time in water ways.

There is a soil test that one can do to see how much clay, silt, sand and organic material you have.
Fill have a jar with your soil then top it with water, cap it shut and shake it for a bit then let it settle out.
Its density that separates the soil not gravity, other wise all materials will fall out of suspension at the same time not in layers.
Density trumps gravity so gravity doesn't exist.

Space isn't a vacuum. Space starts at 50 miles from earth to the ionosphere where the sun is.
But that is off topic.


 

[QED]

Gladly.
Density is related to the environment the objects are in.
Earths air (sky) is the environment in this case, then water and land.

Both balls are denser then air so both fall close to the same speed.
When they hit the water in a lake the water has a different density then the air so new laws apply.
Water density laws.
Tennis ball floats now but iron balls sink to the bottom of the lake.
Iron is much denser then water.
Then the iron ball hits the bottom of the lake and if it is soft mud or sand the iron ball being denser is heading father down till it hits its hard pack preventing it from going any further. It might take time wiggling down in the mud using currents but it will get there.
Gold miners follow this rule ever time in water ways.

There is a soil test that one can do to see how much clay, silt, sand and organic material you have.
Fill have a jar with your soil then top it with water, cap it shut and shake it for a bit then let it settle out.
Its density that separates the soil not gravity, other wise all materials will fall out of suspension at the same time not in layers.
Density trumps gravity so gravity doesn't exist.

Space isn't a vacuum. Space starts at 50 miles from earth to the ionosphere where the sun is.
But that is off topic.

Hmm, water density laws. What are those?

Why does density arrange itself so that objects with larger values like to sink down relative to objects with lower values? I still don’t understand the mechanism.

Maybe the mechanism is explained in these water laws?

Thanks for your help!

[retlaw]

Density laws.

 0.179 kg/m3 Helium density

1.225 kg/m3 air density

997 kg/m³ water density

7 874 kg/m³ density of iron

Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.

[QED]

Density laws.

 0.179 kg/m3 Helium density

1.225 kg/m3 air density

997 kg/m³ water density

7 874 kg/m³ density of iron

Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.

Hmm. Those aren’t density “laws,” those are just densities. Like, the values of them. Laws are rules that explain how things will behave.

Do you have laws to accompany those numbers?

If you do, I’d also love to hear about the displacement laws as well.

[retlaw]

Density laws.

 0.179 kg/m3 Helium density

1.225 kg/m3 air density

997 kg/m³ water density

7 874 kg/m³ density of iron

Then there are displacement laws that can win over density like the shape of air plane wings and ships bottoms.
These laws have learned how to over come density issues.

Hmm. Those aren’t density “laws,” those are just densities. Like, the values of them. Laws are rules that explain how things will behave.

Do you have laws to accompany those numbers?

If you do, I’d also love to hear about the displacement laws as well.

Correct, the law of what goes up and what goes down based on the density of the atmosphere. Those are laws because they can't change.
They are an absolute. Its the rule.

Displacement laws with airplane wings and boats are easy to find on google.
Like the shape of the wing is design to have more air flowing over one side then the other to create lift etc.