View Full Version : Why relativity is wrong
Please see:
http://wespe4.tripod.com/
(15K - requires flash)
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
EDIT AFTER 115 REPLIES:
OK I WAS WRONG. THIS DOES NOT REFUTE RELATIVITY.
DO NOT READ THE REST OF THE THREAD IF YOU DON'T WANT TO
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
lvlastermind
May21-04, 01:14 AM
*cough* BOGUS *cough*
franznietzsche
May21-04, 01:30 AM
Dear god, the same average! That addresses neither the principle of relativity nor the constancy of the speed of light for all observers! It must disprove relativity!
To your credit, it seems like you managed to disprove relativity ithout demonstrating any knowledge of what it is!!!
*ahem*
You've got way too much free time thats not spent on actually knowing what you're contesting...like physics...
The author of the animation seems not to have tried very hard.
Did he consider an astronaut that wasn't between his two clocks? Did he consider the addition of a third clock? What about moving clocks?
(And I'll ignore the author's observation that the astronauts have the same value simultaneously is wrong, because that can be patched up by using continuous signals instead of discrete ones)
russ_watters
May21-04, 07:44 AM
What about moving clocks? Without any moving clocks, it doesn't even have anything to do with Relativity, does it?
wespe, I guess you simply posted this in the wrong section. Go to "General Discussion" --> "Science Jokes"
Ok, here's an extra explanation for you:
All the astronauts - on the line between the stationary clocks - will calculate the same average value, simultaneously, whether they are stationary, moving with a constant speed, or even accelerating. Therefore, there can be no mutual time dilation. (Just imagine two rows of synchronized clocks passing by). And the relativity of simultaneity is likewise a paradox. With this setup I have shown that it is possible to define absolute time and simultaneity, and with a little thinking you can figure out absolute space too.
Thank you for your time,
wespe - anonymous
wespe answer me this one question:
How does your model demonstrate absolute simultaneity in Einsteinian relativty as opposed to just demonstarting absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity?
By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 01:33 PM
By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.
No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!
You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.
No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!
You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.
I can't refute a theory by demonstrating a contradictory theory? I'm proposing an experiment like in the demonstration. Do you disagree with galilean prediction of this experiment? That is, the calculated average values, will act like absolute clocks, for all astronauts no matter what their speed is.
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 01:43 PM
I can't refute a theory by demonstrating a contradictory theory?
What do you mean by "demonstrate"?
If you mean "demonstrate mathematically" or "demonstrate with an animated graphic" or "demonstrate in a thought experiment", then no, you can't refute a theory that way. The only way to refute a theory is with a real experiment.
Now where has the real experiment been done which refutes special relativity?
By "just" demonstrating absolute simultaneity in Galliean relatvity, I'm refuting Einsteinan relativity, because they are exclusive.
Yes they're mutually exclusive, but if you formulate an experiment which is solely based on the assumptions of one theory, your thought experiment can never hope to refute a theory which is mutually exclusive.
Now if you designed the same though experiment based on the assumtpions of general relativty, guess what happens? You find that simulatenity fails at distance!
What do you mean by "demonstrate"?
If you mean "demonstrate mathematically" or "demonstrate with an animated graphic" or "demonstrate in a thought experiment", then no, you can't refute a theory that way. The only way to refute a theory is with a real experiment.
Now where has the real experiment been done which refutes special relativity?
This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this? Ok then, let's do the experiment, but wait I can't go to space. But I am able to predict the result, by logic. We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right? Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right? So we're done. I see no logical way for any other result, unless you claim they see different images.
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 02:05 PM
This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this? Ok then, let's do the experiment, but wait I can't go to space.
OK, fine. But there are plenty of real experiments that can be done (in particle accelerators, for instance) to test relativity, and so far it has passed every one.
But I am able to predict the result, by logic.
That means nothing. We can predict the results of relativity "by logic", too. This just gets back to what I was saying before: You can't refute a theory with anything other than real data from a real experiment.
We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?
What is an "absolute clock"?
Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right? So we're done.
No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.
We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?
Not "absolute" clocks, by which I assume you mean clocks that any observer will agree are always in synch. What we can agree upon is that the stationary astronauts will all agree that the average values will relate to the clock times by (T1 + T2 - L/c)/2, where L is the distance between the clocks (measured in the stationary frame) and T1 and T2 are the clock times at the same instant as measured in the stationary frame. So what?
Then, a moving astronaut, just as he passes by a stationary astonaut, will see the same images and thus calculate the same average value, right?
If a moving astronaut passes by a stationary astronaut at just the time that certain images arrive from the two clocks, then of course both astronauts will agree on what the average value of those images is. But so what? The moving astronaut will certainly not agree that this "average" represents time as measured by his moving clocks! The moving astronaut will also not agree that the stationary astronauts get the same average value at the same time.
So we're done. I see no logical way for any other result, unless you claim they see different images.
Not quite. The issue is when each observer sees those images and how does the calculated average relate to the real time. Stationary observers think that they all see the same average at the same time; the moving astronaut disagrees.
You animation just assumes the viewpoint of the stationary astronauts--even for the moving one. :smile:
kurious
May21-04, 02:55 PM
There is no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong.Many people think that this is being said because of the problem with the universe starting out as a single point -
a problem that Hawking and Penrose pointed out.But factors other than relativistic considerations may stop a singularity from forming- for example if there are lots of charges of the same sign floating around in the universe without charges of the opposite sign to cancel them, then the mutual repulsion of the charges could stop a singularity from forming.I'm not saying this is the right explanation, just using it as an example.
No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.
I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory. Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames. But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 03:02 PM
I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory.
Yes, the reasoning by transitivity you presented is valid.
No, it does not imply that two events that are simultaneous in one frame are necessarily simultaneous in another.
Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames.
It still isn't possible to refute SR with this, because you aren't taking any real data!
But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..
What is the paradox?
This is *the* experiment to refute it. Do you know of any real experiment which looks like this?
I've found another thought experiment that gives us absolute time: The astronauts are meeting at a point, they adjust their wristwatches and they start their space journeys. And here's the key move: when the astronauts look at their watches (Swiss watches) at a given time t_o, they will all read the same time t_p (p stands for personal). This is an absolute time frame!
Physics is so easy, one must just think clearly, and now give me that damn Nobel.
russ_watters
May21-04, 03:26 PM
Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames. It has been possible, through Relativity, to synchronize distant clocks in different frames for quite some time. The GPS system depends on this very phenomenon.
wespe, the point here is that your thought experiment doesn't say anything relevant to Relativity. Passing a signal back and forth between two clocks separated by distance but stationary relative to each other doesn't deal with any relativistic effects.
To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving and the observers must be carrying clocks with them. Then, only by using Relativty would you be able to synchronize the clocks and reconcile the observations.
What is the paradox?
I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 03:37 PM
I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.
Take the weekend off, it's not worth your sanity! :wink:
geistkiesel
May21-04, 09:19 PM
We all agree that, for the stationary astronauts, the average values are like absolute clocks, right?
Not "absolute" clocks, by which I assume you mean clocks that any observer will agree are always in synch. What we can agree upon is that the stationary astronauts will all agree that the average values will relate to the clock times by (T1 + T2 - L/c)/2, where L is the distance between the clocks (measured in the stationary frame) and T1 and T2 are the clock times at the same instant as measured in the stationary frame. So what?
If a moving astronaut passes by a stationary astronaut at just the time that certain images arrive from the two clocks, then of course both astronauts will agree on what the average value of those images is. But so what? The moving astronaut will certainly not agree that this "average" represents time as measured by his moving clocks! The moving astronaut will also not agree that the stationary astronauts get the same average value at the same time.
Not quite. The issue is when each observer sees those images and how does the calculated average relate to the real time. Stationary observers think that they all see the same average at the same time; the moving astronaut disagrees.
You animation just assumes the viewpoint of the stationary astronauts--even for the moving one. :smile:
It appears there is some confusion. Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?
If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?
Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree? :smile:
geistkiesel
May21-04, 09:34 PM
There is no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong.Many people think that this is being said because of the problem with the universe starting out as a single point -
a problem that Hawking and Penrose pointed out.But factors other than relativistic considerations may stop a singularity from forming- for example if there are lots of charges of the same sign floating around in the universe without charges of the opposite sign to cancel them, then the mutual repulsion of the charges could stop a singularity from forming.I'm not saying this is the right explanation, just using it as an example.
The words "no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong" is an inclusive statement defining the limitations of your deliefs. If reason to believe otherwise exists what are the consequences to contradicted belief systems?
For instance if the 'loss of simultaneity' construct, derived from fundamental postulates of relativity theory is proved fatally flawed would this be a "reason" to believe relativity theory is wrong?
Lost Simultaneity discovered after lengthy exclusion from laws of physics by flawed relativity theory. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel)
geistkiesel
May21-04, 10:01 PM
Quote:
No, we're not done, becasue what you have presented is not an experiment. You simply wrote Galilean relativity into the source code, and when we run the animation--surprise surprise--we get the Galiean result. If I had the time or inclination, I could write a graphic that reproduces the special relativistic result. What would that prove? Nothing.
Tom Mattson what does the link below prove to you?
I understand what you mean, but that's not the case here. Consider: "If event A is simultaneous with B, and C is with D, and A is with C, then B must be simultaneous with D". That's logic, not some theory. Until now, it was not possible to refute SR with this, because you couldn't find a way to synchronize distant clocks in different frames. But now the paradox is obvious (to me). I hope someone has that time and inclination..
Okay, if the loss of simultaneity of events construct, derived from fundamenal postulates of relativity theory is fatally flawed, what consequences does this have on proponents of relativity theory?
Caveat emptor -
Lost Simultaneity discovered after erroneous exclusion by flawed relativity theory (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/)
It appears there is some confusion.
Of course there is, that's the whole point.
Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?
Both, actually. They are related.
If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?
It's not clear what you are describing. I assume you mean that a light at the midpoint between the two reflectors is flicked on? I would assume that all observers would see two "pulses" of light: one going towards each reflector. Or do you mean something else?
Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree?
You'll need to describe your thought experiment more carefully.
ok guys, I promised I'd clear this up (like anyone cares).
First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse.
Although I can't work out the exact math, I still think relativity effects are indeed nullified. If we analyze from the moving astronaut's frame: 1-Length contraction: this scales the distances equally in both directions, average would be same. 2-Time dilation: this causes both clocks to run slower equally, same here. 3-Relativity of Simultaneity:This causes a shift in both clock values, same (remember my setup already had an offset). So I don't think any of these will change the average for the moving astronaut.
Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument.
Thank you.
russ_watters
May23-04, 06:13 PM
First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse. If you place your clock in a moving spacecraft, synchronized by your method next to a standard atomic clock, the times shown by the two clocks would diverge: they would not keep time at the same rate. The effects of relativity still show up.
Adjusting a clock to tick at a different rate, however you do it, does not affect the rate of the passage of time.
energia
May23-04, 06:24 PM
Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument.
Thank you.
huh?
this is a classic strawman argument - and in the end he withdraws his argument
how does this prove why relativity is wrong?
am i missing something? :confused:
I thought case closed, but I can't ignore the replies. So, to really clear this up:
suppose I synchronize two clocks carried by two stationary astronauts, then syncronize two clocks carried by co-moving astonauts (if my method had worked for them too). Then suppose stationary and moving astonauts meet eachother:
....S1.....S2....
....M1.....M2.... ->v
and Einstein's two lightenings strike. According to relativity of simultaneity, these two events cannot be simultaneous in both frames. But we have synchronized them, and they all read the same value (if my method had worked for all), so the two lightenings would be simultaneous in both frames, invalidating relativity of simultaneity. I hope it's clear.
edit: what's a strawman argument? I hope not some kind of mental illness :smile:
suppose I synchronize two clocks carried by two stationary astronauts, then syncronize two clocks carried by co-moving astonauts (if my method had worked for them too).
But your method doesn't work for the moving frame. As the moving astronaut goes by, he notes the images he sees and calculates the average per your method. While the stationary astronaut would agree that this average is OK for time keeping purposes, the moving astronaut would not: he compares it to the clock he carries--the average is way off and gets worse each time he checks.
But your method doesn't work for the moving frame. As the moving astronaut goes by, he notes the images he sees and calculates the average per your method. While the stationary astronaut would agree that this average is OK for time keeping purposes, the moving astronaut would not: he compares it to the clock he carries--the average is way off and gets worse each time he checks.
I know that it doesn't work for the moving frame. I said if it worked. And if it did work, the average wouldn't get worse each time he checked. Even if it did, if we synchronized just at the moment the lightenings stroke, it would still invalidate rel.of.sim. But I have withdrawn so I am not claiming anymore that it would work for moving frames.
phew. lol.
russ_watters
May24-04, 01:02 AM
I know that it doesn't work for the moving frame.... But I have withdrawn so I am not claiming anymore that it would work for moving frames. Ok.... so your thought experiment then has nothing at all to do with Relativity. Kudos for admitting it doesn't work though.
Ok.... so your thought experiment then has nothing at all to do with Relativity. Kudos for admitting it doesn't work though.
No, "your thought experiment then has nothing at all to do with Relativity", this is not true. There's a clock and a moving astrounaut, so relativity effects apply, so it has "something to do with relativity". And the values shown in the animation are all correct, even for the moving astronaut. Problem, which you fail to see, is that a second co-moving astronaut would not get the same values simultaneously in his frame with the other co-moving astronaut. This was omitted in the animation, it was implied [that a second moving astronaut would get same values simultaneously]. That was my mistake. OK?
... To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving..
From this, I suspect that you missed the moving astronaut at the end of the animation. So, did you think "everything is stationary, this has nothing to do with relativity"?
DrChinese
May24-04, 09:31 AM
edit: what's a strawman argument? I hope not some kind of mental illness :smile:
A strawman argument is the weak representation of your opponent's argument, followed by your refuting that weak argument. You need to refute your opponent's best argument.
russ_watters
May24-04, 12:01 PM
From this, I suspect that you missed the moving astronaut at the end of the animation. So, did you think "everything is stationary, this has nothing to do with relativity"? Except that you just said it doesn't work for moving frames. Or are you saying it works unless the astronaut has a clock with him to check if it works? That's like closing your eyes and saying the world isn't there anymore.
Except that you just said it doesn't work for moving frames. Or are you saying it works unless the astronaut has a clock with him to check if it works? That's like closing your eyes and saying the world isn't there anymore.
Russ, are you trying to drive me insane? :tongue2: If it did work, the moving astronauts wouldn't even need a clock, they could use the average value as a clock. I thought it would work and I laid my argument. That was then. Now, I changed my mind. So what else do you want. :cry:
Edit:
As an example, if I said "here's a bird. If it can fly, relativity is wrong. ..then.. OK, it can't fly, relativity is not wrong", you would be rightful to say it's irrelevant, because relativity would not be disproved even if the bird could fly. I hope you understand that's not the case here. We cool? :wink:
franznietzsche
May24-04, 05:51 PM
I've found another thought experiment that gives us absolute time: The astronauts are meeting at a point, they adjust their wristwatches and they start their space journeys. And here's the key move: when the astronauts look at their watches (Swiss watches) at a given time t_o, they will all read the same time t_p (p stands for personal). This is an absolute time frame!
Physics is so easy, one must just think clearly, and now give me that damn Nobel.
I'm going to hope that was a joke...
Assuming it wasn't.. here i go...
First: you enver specified if the astronauts are traveling at the same speed or not.
Second:If they are not, then they are in completely seperate frames of reference and your conclusion is erroneously based at best. So no.
Third: if they are travleing at the same velocity, relativity would predict that they would remain synchronized (provided their velocities were always equal, including during acceleration). So there is no conflict there.
And thats all i have to say about that.
franznietzsche
May24-04, 05:59 PM
The words "no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong" is an inclusive statement defining the limitations of your deliefs. If reason to believe otherwise exists what are the consequences to contradicted belief systems?
For instance if the 'loss of simultaneity' construct, derived from fundamental postulates of relativity theory is proved fatally flawed would this be a "reason" to believe relativity theory is wrong?
Lost Simultaneity discovered after lengthy exclusion from laws of physics by flawed relativity theory. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel)
Unless you disprove the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, and/or the relativity principle you cannot wholly invalidate relativity as it proceeds entirely from those statements. otherwise the best you could show is that relativity is unknowingly based on some other false assumption, much as newton's physics was based on the idea of absolute space and time, ideas invalidated by the logical combination of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity principle. So your best bet to invalidate relativity is to find other assumptions, a prioris, in the derivation and show those to be wrong, that would bring the house of cards down. attacking the predictions so viciously as many people do is pointless because they simply want to restore the ideas of absolute time and space without even addressing the constancy of the speed of light or the relativity principle, you must invalidate something within the theory, rather than try to use the old model to invalidate its predictions.
geistkiesel
May24-04, 06:48 PM
No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!
You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.
So, Tom you want contradictory evidence? I took Einsten's model re simultaneity as published in his book "Relativity" and came to the conclusion that the concept of 'relative simultaneity' or 'loss of simultaneiity' is a bogus concept.
So Caveat Emptor as I challenge the forum to break this one apart. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
So, Tom you want contradictory evidence? I took Einsten's model re simultaneity as published in his book "Relativity" and came to the conclusion that the concept of 'relative simultaneity' or 'loss of simultaneiity' is a bogus concept.
So Caveat Emptor as I challenge the forum to break this one apart. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Hardly a challenge there. Whereas Einstein starts with two events simultaneous in one frame and then shows that they cannot be simultaneous as viewed from a moving frame, how does your version of the gedanken experiment begin? Let's see:
"Just as a moving observer arrives at the midpoint of two light sources each emit a pulse of light, later verified by a stationary observer to have arrived at the midpoint at the same time. Assigning the time base for this event, at the instant the pulses were emitted the stationary and moving platform are collocated at the midpoint of the pulses at a common base time t0 = 0."
All your first sentence can mean is: Observers in the stationary frame observe the moving observer to pass the midpoint at the exact time that the two pulses are emitted--as viewed in the stationary frame. Your second sentence just repeats the illusion that everyone agrees that the pulses were emitted simultaneously and that a unique time can be assigned to those two emissions valid in all frames. Not off to a good start!
What you can do is have the moving observer synchronize his clock with the clock of a stationary observer at the midpoint. Is that what you are trying to do?
Then you go on:
"Later, at t1, the moving observer detects the pulse from B at a position collocated with a stationary detector that also records the B pulse (See the blue figure above). Later, at t2 the A pulse from behind is detected simultaneously by the moving observer and a collocated stationary observer."
Ah... but you neglect to mention who is measuring t1 and t2. Or do you just assume that the moving observer (using his own clock) and the stationary observers measure the same times t1 and t2? Things are getting murkier!
But you go on:
"Assigning the events as the emission of the pulses, the detection of the B and A pulse, and the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1, each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames."
Now things are really clouding up. Somehow all observers detected the coincidence of light pulse B and the moving observer at time t1 (whose time? who cares at this point?) but now that light pulse arrives at the midpoint at time 2t1. Huh?
And then, careening out of control now, you claim that the pulses are not only emitted simultaneously (in all frames, mind you), but are also detected by both the moving and stationary observers simultaneously.
And round and round you go, merely assuming what you presumably are trying to prove. Need I go on?
geistkiesel
May24-04, 11:08 PM
Hardly a challenge there. Whereas Einstein starts with two events simultaneous in one frame and then shows that they cannot be simultaneous as viewed from a moving frame, how does your version of the gedanken experiment begin? Let's see:
"Just as a moving observer arrives at the midpoint of two light sources each emit a pulse of light, later verified by a stationary observer to have arrived at the midpoint at the same time. Assigning the time base for this event, at the instant the pulses were emitted the stationary and moving platform are collocated at the midpoint of the pulses at a common base time t0 = 0."
All your first sentence can mean is: Observers in the stationary frame observe the moving observer to pass the midpoint at the exact time that the two pulses are emitted--as viewed in the stationary frame. Your second sentence just repeats the illusion that everyone agrees that the pulses were emitted simultaneously and that a unique time can be assigned to those two emissions valid in all frames. Not off to a good start!
try this link again, maybe it will sink in. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
If you read "Relativity" page 25-27 does not Einstein makes the point that just because the lights are detected at different instances that this is suffiicient to invoke the 'loss of simultaneity consequences" upon humanity? Cannot the moving ovservers test to see if they are moving, which would offer one explantion for the difference in the way the pulses are detected? DUH!
Actually nobody observed the event of the simultaneous pulses. Rather than confining our thinking to Einstein's retricitions let us look at this universally. The pulses came on simultaneously. You, sir, are talking about clocks and observers as if they are able to modify the reality of the simultaneous emitted pulses. The illusion is the appication of RT to rational thought that corrupts physical laws. The events occured at the same instant, Thee is no dt to measure, even if clocks were relevant.
What you can do is have the moving observer synchronize his clock with the clock of a stationary observer at the midpoint. Is that what you are trying to do?
No, I would have said so had that been my intention. Evrybody just starts counting at zero. But since you ask, there is a common base time of t = 0 when everybody starts counting, or do you want to corrupt this fact also? Please advise.
Then you go on:
"Later, at t1, the moving observer detects the pulse from B at a position collocated with a stationary detector that also records the B pulse (See the blue figure above). Later, at t2 the A pulse from behind is detected simultaneously by the moving observer and a collocated stationary observer."
Ah... but you neglect to mention who is measuring t1 and t2. Or do you just assume that the moving observer (using his own clock) and the stationary observers measure the same times t1 and t2? Things are getting murkier!
Lets say both are measuring t1 and t2.
AH, I see you are getting there though reluctantly as you struggle to avoid the anticipated end. Who said anything about clocks? The measureing devices on the stationary platform are collocated with the detectors on the moving platform as it passes. Each observer notices the other's observation that occurred at the same instant. Was this a corruption of the hypothetical? No, just string a series of small mirrors along the path and when the light strikes one it will strike both. Maybe some electronics gear and light sensitve receptors, OK? You may righteously call this cheating, but it is still good physics.
It seems you are trying to negate the collocated measurements because you anticipate this will crumble RT? I sppose if you made everybody as ignorant as possible you could invoke any wildy scheming theory that has no physical meaning, implication or reality. This is clear isn't it? Did you mean that if we remove the collocated measuring devices you get to keep RT? Wow, what a concept?
But you go on:
"Assigning the events as the emission of the pulses, the detection of the B and A pulse, and the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1, each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames."
Now things are really clouding up. Somehow all observers detected the coincidence of light pulse B and the moving observer at time t1 (whose time? who cares at this point?) but now that light pulse arrives at the midpoint at time 2t1. Huh?
Whose time did the light reach the point it was collected? It occured at the same time to both moving and stationary detectors. Whatever timing method used each observer knows the measurements were simultaneous with the other observer. The clocks don't matter at this point, do they? Ok, I'll give a little as a show of congeniality. The moving t1 and the stationary t1 are both recorded at the measuring point and each instantly transfers his time reading to the other, lets say in a time system using x-ray size wavelengths for message resolution purposes.
If you read where I asssumed the pulses would meet at the midpoint for both observers, there is the test intrinsic to the analysis that alllows this as a valid conclusion.
And then, careening out of control now, you claim that the pulses are not only emitted simultaneously (in all frames, mind you), but are also detected by both the moving and stationary observers simultaneously.
And round and round you go, merely assuming what you presumably are trying to prove. Need I go on?
Yes, everybody has their detectors placed such that both will record the A and B light simultaneously.
Tho not quite. I recognize that the moving observer does not have a detector at the midpoint of the statioanry frame, well unless the train is long enough and the observer has detectors on the train to measure the simultaneous arrival of the pulses in both frames. If this were the case how do you wiggle out? It really isn't all that difficult to grasp, unless of course, one's mental faculties have been corrupted by the acceptance of the insanity of RT.
What is wrong? We put measuring devices along the path of the moving platform and made measuremnts when the pulses arrived. If nothing else each measurment is simultaneous with the other frame's measurement. Cannot we hypothecize extremely small mirrored reflectors a few wave lengths in area placed within a few wavelengths of each other? If you are going round and round, get a hold of yourself man. The original experimental conditions have not been altered, mthe expeiment is as pure and virignal as when Ak conjured it .up, smoking who knows what. The stationary measurement does not affect thje moving measurements and vice versa. Likewise the mesurement by any entity, consious or inert, does not alter the physical reality that the pulses were turned on simultaneously in the same universe. This ain't quntum mechanics. Does that narrow it down sufficiently for you? Ah, I get it. If they use RT the observers get to perceive a universe of their very own and this is your promise toi them, isn't it? Why didn't I see that?
Your problem is your edginess in wanting to jump right in with RT and start poluting the physical reality of the pulses emitting at the same instant.
Here is the insanity of RT: The simultaneous emission, that physical realty, no a mathematical construct, of the pulses cannot be altered by any theory, which is a simply mental construct some times offered by the most brillaint of men, some times offered by the most stupid. In the case of RT, well there are just too many of you to be other than a bit cynical, though positive in my outlook as I am, by nature, I predict that the darkness you find yourself immersed will be flooded with a bursting brilliant gleaming light which is but just simple, but firm and quick, jerk away.
So calculate, impose RT constraints, the light pulses were simulataneous in the universe and that you cannot alter. I apologize for having to say this to you, an adult, I mean.
So, appaently you got lost, took a wrong turn and discovered yourself in the theory development forum or are you just 'down here' slumming, checking on us exiled mortals? Hmmm, I get bumped from answering your inane posts earlier, but you get to scout around at leisure: trenurial privileges?. This is Amerca in the 3rd Millenium isn't it? Why do not you just crawl back . . .
geistkiesel
May24-04, 11:35 PM
Unless you disprove the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, and/or the relativity principle you cannot wholly invalidate relativity as it proceeds entirely from those statements. otherwise the best you could show is that relativity is unknowingly based on some other false assumption, much as newton's physics was based on the idea of absolute space and time, ideas invalidated by the logical combination of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity principle. So your best bet to invalidate relativity is to find other assumptions, a prioris, in the derivation and show those to be wrong, that would bring the house of cards down. attacking the predictions so viciously as many people do is pointless because they simply want to restore the ideas of absolute time and space without even addressing the constancy of the speed of light or the relativity principle, you must invalidate something within the theory, rather than try to use the old model to invalidate its predictions.
My only intention is to discuss the inpolications of a faulty "simultaneity' consequence derived from the postulates of RT. The simultaneity conundrum has been disposed with, save the technical requirement of straining those reluctant to see the light by these posts. Why do you offer me advice on how " . . .to invalidate relativity . . ."? Do you have something to offer in this discussion of a technical matter, or are going to confine yourself as the unsolicited advisor for my 'ad campaign'. If someone wants to invoke concepts of absolte time and space, they are free to do so. These are mere concepts ingrained in insane people. Rational nethods are generally ill powered to overcome such inertia. There is also the deep and ingrained lack of scientific integrity that has been replaced by a science by the numbers "of believers".
The constancy of the speed of light is a myth as deeply imbedded not in the scientific consciousness, but in an ersatz scientific mentality. As proof, who discusses this subject matter with an arms length try at objectivity? Look at Doc Al's post answering my own. The man is intentionally belligerent and intimidating, snide insulting and much, much holier than I, by personality. I guess it pays the bills, huh? RT will take care of itself, aided pehaps as simultaneity sonsequences are seen to dissolve.
Michelson and Morely found a wave shift 1/20 of the "predictred" shift assuming the finding of an ether. Contrary to the fraudulent and criiminal statements of some leading "scientists' who, to this day, casually use the "null finding" in discussing MM. The eclipse expeiments post WWI that made Al famous overnight was another fraud perpetrated, this time by Eddington (didn't he get a Nobel?) and corrected, by few, including yourself, on this forrum. Dayton Miller gets slandered by the pompous and egotisitic prevailing mainliners who also corroborated the MM experiments.
Thank you for your reply.
geistkiesel
May25-04, 01:11 AM
Quote:
It appears there is some confusion.
Responding is Doc Al]
Of course there is, that's the whole point.
eistkiesl answers:
Why do you insist on continuouslly speaking out of context. Your belligerent manner is not necessary, but it is obfuscating as everbody is expecting an analysis. You are too engrossed in kicking my butt therefore leave out crtitical elements of your theses.
Quote:
Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?
Quote=Doc Al comments:]
Both, actually. They are related.
please explain the relation.
quote:
If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?
It's not clear what you are describing. I assume you mean that a light at the midpoint between the two reflectors is flicked on? I would assume that all observers would see two "pulses" of light: one going towards each reflector. Or do you mean something else?
Boy you got me there. Here I was assuming everyone reading had an understanding that a pulse of light would expand as a sphere and that no observer would see "two pulses". In fact they would only see a very small cross section of he expanding sphere. You see, Doc Al when a radiating sphere expands in 3pi directions there remains but one wave front. Hard to believe? Well that's the way it is. I suppose you might consider directly opposite sides of the expanding wave front as 'two pulses' for the purposes of winning argumebnts and such. Hey, I am not going to quibble about that.
So you were correct, I did mean something other than two pulses, that you assjume all observers would see as 'two pulses'.
So,now that the thought experiment is described more carefully, do you have any further comment to make regarding this unexpected nature of the 'single pulse scenario' of light, expanding as an EM sphere with its invariant midpoint located uniquely in the universe? My apologies for creating the illusion and disturbing your sensibilities, and I assume other relativity theorists and the scientifically uninitiated, illuding that 'two pulses' of light were eimitted, where in fact there was but a single pulse..
I humbly apologize to the readers for this gross scientific oversight and any unintended confusion resulting therefrom...
Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree?
You need to describe your thouhjy experiment more carefully.
geistkiesel responds:
I made a point that measurement alone is insufficient to alter physical events. Your response is cryptic. If the astronauts measurements are the issue as well as the physical events, them why do you not explain yourself? The answer is obvious. You do not go where you are unfamiliar, with the exception that you very deliberaely strew the path before the reader with contempt and barely hidden ridicule. LIke the relativity theory you profess, the theory being nothing but a mere mental wart on the minds of otherwise scientifically intended human beings, I see little value in your post here. If you are unable to explain it to us, then ask questions with other than rhetoricallly expected responses, otherwise I suggest you remove yourself from the thread.
Here is the thought experiment, use it fot your best purposes.
Here again is the liink I assembled describing reality that you find so impenetrable (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
:
geistkiesel
May25-04, 01:29 AM
I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.
If I were you I would quit arguing relativity theory and trying to overcome clock phobias. Develop your own train of thouight, which is presently corrupted with an innocent desire to tell it alll. Why not ry to formulate a theory consistent with the parts you find objectionable discard the gristle? Most here that oppose you do so not for scintific reasons, but for the sheer fact that they want the RT to survive - this is their business! . Few if any exhibit scientific curiosity, if you know what I mean? Cruriosity, and an objective frame of mind.
Consider the end point. The RTists are going suffer embarrassment, sooner or later. They opt for later, which is either the conscious or unconsious motivaion for them to break your legs and kick you while your down.
So here is the gedubnjen link again for you. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) There is something here that you haven't seen that will be helpful.
geistkiesel
May25-04, 01:44 AM
It has been possible, through Relativity, to synchronize distant clocks in different frames for quite some time. The GPS system depends on this very phenomenon.
wespe, the point here is that your thought experiment doesn't say anything relevant to Relativity. Passing a signal back and forth between two clocks separated by distance but stationary relative to each other doesn't deal with any relativistic effects.
To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving and the observers must be carrying clocks with them. Then, only by using Relativty would you be able to synchronize the clocks and reconcile the observations.
Not so.
Clocks are irrelevant to the physics of the matter. Take an event on two sides of the universe occurring this instant, like simultaneous exploding supernovae. Here we are in our stationary platform. Is there any mesurement, thought, theoretical construct, postulate or event that can change the reality of the event? Just answer no. Th exploding supernovae are simultaneously exploding in the uiniverse. The only way that one or the other can be consideed to have eruopted frist is to apply some theoretiacl construct and just corropt the reality of the event. This is apure psychological manipulation. One light puilse does nopt turn into two pulses jsut because one of he observers is moving. Can we measure the event? So what, what changes by the null informaion? No we cannot, only theoretically. Does the lack of a measuremnt affect the physics? No it does not.
Lets us put simultaneity to rest wih a warm glass of link milk. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Integral
May25-04, 03:20 AM
Not so.
Clocks are irrelevant to the physics of the matter. Take an event on two sides of the universe occurring this instant, like simultaneous exploding supernovae. Here we are in our stationary platform. Is there any mesurement, thought, theoretical construct, postulate or event that can change the reality of the event? Just answer no. Th exploding supernovae are simultaneously exploding in the uiniverse. The only way that one or the other can be consideed to have eruopted frist is to apply some theoretiacl construct and just corropt the reality of the event. This is apure psychological manipulation. One light puilse does nopt turn into two pulses jsut because one of he observers is moving. Can we measure the event? So what, what changes by the null informaion? No we cannot, only theoretically. Does the lack of a measuremnt affect the physics? No it does not.
Lets us put simultaneity to rest wih a warm glass of link milk. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
What does this have to do with Relativity? Do you think that relativity somehow states that simultaneous events do not happen? All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.
It appears to me that you have some major misconceptions about the entire idea of Relativity, what it is for and what it means.
DrChinese
May25-04, 09:49 AM
The constancy of the speed of light is a myth as deeply imbedded not in the scientific consciousness, but in an ersatz scientific mentality. As proof, who discusses this subject matter with an arms length try at objectivity?
... Contrary to the fraudulent and criiminal statements of some leading "scientists' who, to this day, casually use the "null finding" in discussing MM.
That the speed of light is measured to be a constant by all observers is not in question. Is it? Because you say it is a myth, while it can be tested by anyone any day of the week. No matter which way you move, or aim your apparatus, you always get the same value: c. So while you are busy accusing others of "criminal" actions, it appears you are merely pig-headed in your ignorance of the facts.
Take the time to study SR, and then discuss that theory. Or perform your own version of MM, and report your findings - which will still be consistent with a null result for the ether.
TillEulenspiegel
May25-04, 03:47 PM
Hiya Dr.C........I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.
DrChinese
May25-04, 05:24 PM
Hiya Dr.C........I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.
It's better than watching Survivor...
geistkiesel
May25-04, 08:42 PM
What does this have to do with Relativity? Do you think that relativity somehow states that simultaneous events do not happen? All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.
It appears to me that you have some major misconceptions about the entire idea of Relativity, what it is for and what it means.
My posts are directed at the "simultaneity" question that Einstein say we must discard. What are my misconceptions about this?
All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.
If you want to voluntarily place yourself in a state of ignorance that is your business. I just find it objectionable when the ignorance is passed along in the disguise of "knowledge".
Two simultaneous events in a stationary frame, to simplify the description, are simultaneous throughout the universe. Someone in a moving frame can always determine the simultaneous nature of the oiginal event. In Einstein's example "Relativity" pages 25-27 he concludes the "loss of simultaneity" on a superficial examination of a gedunken where two light sources separated at their midpoint are flashed on just as a moving train passes the midpoint heading to B.
Einstein's analysis was incompetent. The moving observer, when properly applying analysis can learn the total history of the wave front activity.
Check out the simple story here. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
geistkiesel
May25-04, 08:55 PM
That the speed of light is measured to be a constant by all observers is not in question. Is it? Because you say it is a myth, while it can be tested by anyone any day of the week. No matter which way you move, or aim your apparatus, you always get the same value: c. So while you are busy accusing others of "criminal" actions, it appears you are merely pig-headed in your ignorance of the facts.
Take the time to study SR, and then discuss that theory. Or perform your own version of MM, and report your findings - which will still be consistent with a null result for the ether.
You have falen into your own trap. I referred to the Michelson-Morley experiments being referred to "criminally" as a "null" event. You read up on it sir, as I have already done so. Was the MM result "NULL" or was the result ~1/20 of that merely "expected" from the standard model then used? Did Dayton Miller confrim MM? or was DM also "NULL"? DM found a consistent wave shift and neither yourself or your colleagues or all your self-satidified smugness going to replace the truth of the past. Was the "eclipse experiments" post WWI confirmation of relativity theory, or were the results fraudulently published? Its on the net, read up on it.
You say that everyday you get the same result? of what? Your post left no trail to the truth, rather we see just another echo of your mispent scientific education.
You mad a statement of fact. Where I come from one is tasked with proving it. I suggest you do just that, or stay off the thread.
here is my "proof" if your anger doesn't blind you. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files)
geistkiesel
May25-04, 08:57 PM
It's better than watching Survivor...
Yeah, I wonder who it is going to be . . .
geistkiesel
May26-04, 05:04 AM
Hiya Dr.C........I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.
This should be hillarious to you. I assume from your comment that you understand the essence of he thread. Laugh at this one.
A moving platform is on the plane passing through the midpoint of two light sources and perpendicular to the surfaces of the expanding wave fronts of two pulses emitted atsimultaneously in the stationary frame. Now under the condition that the moving platform will arrive at the midpoint at the same time the wave fronts of the expanding spheres arrive, how can the moving platform observers make ANY rational conclusion that the lights were not pulsed on simultaneously?
We might as well make this a three space ship gedunken. One ship is moving on the plane through the midpoint perpendicular to the direction of the wave fronts. Two other ships are moving parallel to the wave fronts equidistant from the midpoint but in opposite directions. All three ships are moving at the same velocity and all three are always equidistant from the midpoint in their frame as well as the stationary frame.
Who gets to claim the pulses were not pulsed on simultaneously, A, B, or C, , especially after a stationary observer also withnessed the event of the simultaneous arrival of the wave fronts, the three space ships and the horrible collision marking this final simultaneous event? :devil:
Was the MM result "NULL" or was the result ~1/20 of that merely "expected" from the standard model then used? Did Dayton Miller confrim MM?
If 1/20 is within the experimental error of the setup, then yes, the MM result was "NULL". I've found this table (http://www.isds.duke.edu/computing/S/Snotes/node138.html), though am looking for a better online reference. (in particular, one that matches up the numerical data with the precise experimentation)
In any case, for each run, there is significant variation in the data; for example, in the first experiment, the range in the observations in the initial 10 runs is 330, a whopping 36% of the average (913), while in the after data the range is 240, 27% of the average (905). There is simply no way that such large error in observations could confirm a 5% difference as being nonnull.
here is my "proof" if your anger doesn't blind you.
each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames.
You know, it's pretty easy to prove Relativity (or anything else) wrong when your initial assumption is that Relativity is wrong.
And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like
The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.
russ_watters
May26-04, 07:26 AM
And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. How could I miss that one? That's a real gem.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 07:38 AM
If 1/20 is within the experimental error of the setup, then yes, the MM result was "NULL". I've found this table (http://www.isds.duke.edu/computing/S/Snotes/node138.html), though am looking for a better online reference. (in particular, one that matches up the numerical data with the precise experimentation)
In any case, for each run, there is significant variation in the data; for example, in the first experiment, the range in the observations in the initial 10 runs is 330, a whopping 36% of the average (913), while in the after data the range is 240, 27% of the average (905). There is simply no way that such large error in observations could confirm a 5% difference as being nonnull.
No the claim was the result was 1/20 of the predicted value. The null results imply No shift within experimenal error.
Integral
May26-04, 07:52 AM
My posts are directed at the "simultaneity" question that Einstein say we must discard. What are my misconceptions about this?
If I read your post correctly you seem to be saying that Relativity prohibits simultaneous events.
This of course is total nonsense. Do you wish to reword that post so that it says what you mean?
Integral
May26-04, 07:57 AM
No the claim was the result was 1/20 of the predicted value. The null results imply No shift within experimental error
Null can be used in many different ways, to say that the EXPERIMENT had a null result is simply to say that if failed to detect the predicted variation. i.e. It could not measure the velocity of earth through the "aether", thus verifying that the speed of light did not depend on the direction of the earths motion.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 08:07 AM
You know, it's pretty easy to prove Relativity (or anything else) wrong when your initial assumption is that Relativity is wrong.
And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like
My thesis in this tread and others is focused on the question of the loss of simultaneity as offered by Einstein as a necessarily resulting from the postulates of relativity theory.
My link that is open to all for scrutiny and comment (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) mentions nothing about any intial assumption that relativity is wrong. You haven't been following the thread, certainly not my posts. I don't follow your statenment about proving something wrong being easy if he initial assumption is that it is wrong.
If you truly want to contribute to the conversation why not make some specific finding of a fault in the conclusions of my link. The pages are original. I am having the time of my life watching adults defend a theory as if they were defending Mother America herself. No one, I mean no one has found any fault with the link. which concludes that simultaneity of an event in one frame of reference is simultaneous in another, any and all others frames. If this proves relativity is wrong so be it, if it does not prove relativity is wrong so be it. So be it I thinks a wrinkle or two are showing in the unpressed fabric f relativity theory, but this is just an opinion.
What affect does a proof that an event simultaneous in one frame is simultaneous in all frames have on relativity theory? I am not a professional (this means paid) relativity theorist, so I care not a sou. If I were a professional relativity theorist, by now I would be making some serious effort in gathering sufficient assets to cover my professional funeral expenses.
I'll take the crackpot insult as one of the mildest directed at myself anf others who dare challenge the mainliners who laughingly are showing their collective paranoia and lack of scientific competence be responding as you have.
You cannot see yourself as someone driven by the sheer weight of convictions can you?
All those who have received anything of scienific value, one way or the other, in the four corners of the post quoted and discussed here raise your hand.
If you want to undermine my thesis regarding simultaneity I suggest you review the link above, which I fear it is, above your ability to comprehend, that is.
A prize to the first of you naming the author of the aphorism::"Enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I do thank you for your comments.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 08:23 AM
If I read your post correctly you seem to be saying that Relativity prohibits simultaneous events.
This of course is total nonsense. Do you wish to reword that post so that it says what you mean?
You have not been reading the posts correctly. The link I reder to is a proof that events simultaneous in one frame are simultabneous in allframes. Or even without regard to simultaneity, just events in general, no event can be altered by the application of any theory or calculation. Any observer in a moving frame of reference that in any manner determines that an event simultaneous in a stationary frame, or any other frame is not simultaneous in his frame does so with tools contrary to the natural laws of physics.
Proof: An event simultaneous in one frame is simultaneous in all frames. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Is this clear enough for you, or do I sense that you are trying to avoid the obvious by frowning the brow and describing my posts as unclear? I know how you operate and your ability to "talk the talk of physics". There isn't anything I have posted that should honestly make you wince in confusion. Are you just putting on an act and posturing in front pf your colleagues in some kind of a defensive measure?
Face the truth man. Someone along the line fed you one and you weren't about to question someone in authority, like your graduate advisor, and hence your securty in the business, were you?
geistkiesel
May26-04, 08:31 AM
Null can be used in many different ways, to say that the EXPERIMENT had a null result is simply to say that if failed to detect the predicted variation. i.e. It could not measure the velocity of earth through the "aether", thus verifying that the speed of light did not depend on the direction of the earths motion.
Now you're dodging bullets. Are yousaying that the use of the word "null" is ambiguous? I claimed the experimentors, Michelson-Morley found a wave length shift 1/20 of what the predicited shift would be for the earth moving through the aether. Why are you so obstinently trying to confuse the issue.
Again, the result did not fail to measure the velocity of the earth through the "aether" it found that the the motion through the "aether" was 1/20 of what they predicted it should be. Is this so confounding and confusing to you? Why don't you discuss the matter wih one of he mentors. Maybe they can give some assistance that will clear matters up? You cannot possibly be this far out of line of what the expeiment did or didn't do, what is going on here?
DrChinese
May26-04, 10:48 AM
You have falen into your own trap. I referred to the Michelson-Morley experiments being referred to "criminally" as a "null" event.
...
You say that everyday you get the same result? of what? Your post left no trail to the truth, rather we see just another echo of your mispent scientific education.
You mad a statement of fact. Where I come from one is tasked with proving it. I suggest you do just that, or stay off the thread.
here is my "proof" if your anger doesn't blind you. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files)
We need to agree on a base starting point. You say (at the referenced link):
"Any theory purporting to alter, or negate, or change by a ‘perception’ rational, the simultaneous measurements of the events are to infect natural physical law by an irrational corruption constituting scientific fraud. Anyone believing in the postulates and implications of relativity theory has negated their rational thinking processes. Physical law, though corrupted by mathematical abstractions veiled as legitimate descriptions of physical processes, is eternal – theories come and go, their ignorant predictions exposed by the gusting aethereal wind. "
Talk about hot air, and saying nothing. Let's agree or disagree on something specific: SR states that all observers will measure the speed of light to be c. Agree or disagree that this prediction of "irrational" SR is in fact born out in experiments? It's a simple question, can you please answer it? If the answer is disagree, can you please state under what specific circumstances a test of the speed of light yields a value different than c?
DrChinese
May26-04, 11:00 AM
My thesis in this tread and others is focused on the question of the loss of simultaneity as offered by Einstein as a necessarily resulting from the postulates of relativity theory.
...
I do thank you for your comments.
How about discussing something the rest of us agree means something. As has been stated previously, Einstein's comments are merely a general discussion of the theory and you are not actually attacking the formalism of SR with your statements.
If you can convince yourself you can measure or define events as being simultaneous, that is fine with me. As a practical matter, we find this necessary frequently. As far as I know, there is nothing in SR that actually addresses this. But I don't think you can demonstrate that all observers will judge events spatially separated as simultaneous without making assumptions that render the conclusion meaningless. For instance - is simultaneous defined as occurring at the same absolute time? Or is it occurring at an agreed upon difference in times from "now"? I.E. My definition of simultaneous may well be quite different than yours.
P.S. You need a new book too, p. 25-27 of your "Relativity" book must be totally worn out by now.
try this link again, maybe it will sink in. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Nope, that's the same tired, incoherent, circular argument as always.
If you read "Relativity" page 25-27 does not Einstein makes the point that just because the lights are detected at different instances that this is suffiicient to invoke the 'loss of simultaneity consequences" upon humanity?
I suggest reading it one more time. What Einstein does is start with stationary observers seeing two simultaneous events. Then, using the postulates of relativity, he deduces that moving observers must disagree. Unlike you, he doesn't just assume that simultaneity is observer-independent.
Cannot the moving ovservers test to see if they are moving, which would offer one explantion for the difference in the way the pulses are detected?
Not only can the moving observers measure their relative motion, they can also decide for themselves when they detect the pulses.
Actually nobody observed the event of the simultaneous pulses. Rather than confining our thinking to Einstein's retricitions let us look at this universally. The pulses came on simultaneously.
There you go again, simply assuming what you should be demonstrating!
You, sir, are talking about clocks and observers as if they are able to modify the reality of the simultaneous emitted pulses. The illusion is the appication of RT to rational thought that corrupts physical laws. The events occured at the same instant, Thee is no dt to measure, even if clocks were relevant.
Just repeating your mantra "the events occured at the same instant" doesn't make it so. Since the events in question are not collocated, what makes you think they are simultaneous? A consistent way of tracking time would help. (On this planet, we have clocks.)
No, I would have said so had that been my intention. Evrybody just starts counting at zero. But since you ask, there is a common base time of t = 0 when everybody starts counting, or do you want to corrupt this fact also? Please advise.
I advise you to get serious. Unless you tell the moving observer when to starting counting, your statement is meaningless. Now, what could be agreed upon, without any fancy clocks or synchronization, is that two observers can choose to set their clocks to zero at the precise instant that they pass each other. Too unambiguous for you?
Lets say both are measuring t1 and t2.
AH, I see you are getting there though reluctantly as you struggle to avoid the anticipated end. Who said anything about clocks?
Interesting... both observers measure the time of two events... but they don't use clocks! Simply brilliant! :rofl:
The measureing devices on the stationary platform are collocated with the detectors on the moving platform as it passes. Each observer notices the other's observation that occurred at the same instant.
Same instant as what? I think we're getting at the root of your confusion. Just because the pulses are detected by both stationary and moving observers at the same time (since they are collocated) does not mean that the two observers measure the same time! (Unless you have them reset their clocks with each measurement! :smile: )
Was this a corruption of the hypothetical? No, just string a series of small mirrors along the path and when the light strikes one it will strike both. Maybe some electronics gear and light sensitve receptors, OK? You may righteously call this cheating, but it is still good physics.
I just call it an illustration of your serious misunderstanding of what simultaneity means. No one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest.
It seems you are trying to negate the collocated measurements because you anticipate this will crumble RT? I sppose if you made everybody as ignorant as possible you could invoke any wildy scheming theory that has no physical meaning, implication or reality. This is clear isn't it? Did you mean that if we remove the collocated measuring devices you get to keep RT? Wow, what a concept?
Again, no one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest. You've missed the entire point.
Whose time did the light reach the point it was collected? It occured at the same time to both moving and stationary detectors. Whatever timing method used each observer knows the measurements were simultaneous with the other observer.
Does the pulse for event t1 arrive at the collocated stationary and moving observers simultaneously? Yes! (It's a space-time coincidence.) Do the two observers agree on the time it arrives on their clocks? Of course not!
The clocks don't matter at this point, do they? Ok, I'll give a little as a show of congeniality. The moving t1 and the stationary t1 are both recorded at the measuring point and each instantly transfers his time reading to the other, lets say in a time system using x-ray size wavelengths for message resolution purposes.
Of course clocks matter! That is, if you care to compare one event (t1, say) with another (t2, say). If you want to make a statement about whether an observer measures two non-collocated events (that is, events occuring at different points in space-time) to be at the same time, you must compare clock readings, or equivalently, create some signalling scheme. (Based upon real physics, of course.)
fbsthreads
May26-04, 03:23 PM
Proof: An event simultaneous in one frame is simultaneous in all frames. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
do you get money every time someone clicks that link, because you've posted it many times in this thread.
Considering with simultataneous events....
Suppose that cell phone technology gets real good over the next 10 years so that one can generate 100GHz microwave transmitions from small compact transmitters no more then the size of a small cell phone. Now assume that one sets up an array of say 10,000 microspopic microwave transmitters' antennas around the circumference of a metalic disc with a 1 ft diameter with a reciever at the center of the disc . The transmitters transmit microwaves at a frequency of 100 GHz through a disc to the receiver at the center of the disc. Now the wave length of the microwave tranmission is 0.00984 ft. 1 ft divided by 0.00984ft is how many wave cycles fit in the diameter of the 1ft disc, which happens to be 101.6260162601626 wave cycles. Now if we set each transmitter to transmit at plus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its right, and minus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its left; then a spiral pattern will be formed by the sum of 10,000 transmitters waveforms. The spiral will have the illusion of spinning one 360 degree revolution every cycle. Now, since the transmitters are all transmitting at 100GHz, the spiral will appear to spin at a rate of 1 revolution 100,000,000,000th of a second. Since microwaves are traveling across the diameter of the disc at the speed of light, and the circumference of the disc is (pi)(diameter), and since the number of cycles that reside within the disc's diameter is 101.6260162601626, thus the velocity of a point on the spiral at the outermost circumference of the disc, would appear to be (pi)(101.6260162601626)c, that is approximately 319.1056910569106 times the speed of light! The question is, does time dilation play a role in this particular case? That is, would the spiral be spiralling back in time?
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
russ_watters
May26-04, 04:01 PM
Now you're dodging bullets. Are yousaying that the use of the word "null" is ambiguous? I claimed the experimentors, Michelson-Morley found a wave length shift 1/20 of what the predicited shift would be for the earth moving through the aether. Why are you so obstinently trying to confuse the issue. Its ambiguous because you are trying so hard to make it ambiguous. Just averaging all the results and coming up with 1/20 of predicted doesn't even give you half of what you need to interpret the results. At the very least, you need the standard deviation: if its 1/20 +- 1/10, then that means the experiment found nothing at all.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 06:31 PM
We need to agree on a base starting point. You say (at the referenced link):
"Any theory purporting to alter, or negate, or change by a ‘perception’ rational, the simultaneous measurements of the events are to infect natural physical law by an irrational corruption constituting scientific fraud. Anyone believing in the postulates and implications of relativity theory has negated their rational thinking processes. Physical law, though corrupted by mathematical abstractions veiled as legitimate descriptions of physical processes, is eternal – theories come and go, their ignorant predictions exposed by the gusting aethereal wind. "
Talk about hot air, and saying nothing. Let's agree or disagree on something specific: SR states that all observers will measure the speed of light to be c. Agree or disagree that this prediction of "irrational" SR is in fact born out in experiments? It's a simple question, can you please answer it? If the answer is disagree, can you please state under what specific circumstances a test of the speed of light yields a value different than c?
OK let you and I start over OK? I've been obnoxious, a state that comes and goes depending on the heat of the situation.
I agree that SR says all observers will measure c as the speed of light.I cannot agree unambiguously that all measurements support this finding. I mention the Michelson-Morley experiments, followed by Dayton Miller's experiments, and "not shown": by the famous "eclipse experiments" fllowing WWI. I know you may make reference other experiments claimed to substantiate the postulates oF SR. This is not the debate in directly front of us. We focus first on AE's derivation of the consequences of SR, which according to AE as stated clearly in his book "Relativity" lead to the conclusion that events simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another. This and only this is the focus my effort hee in these postings.
Perhaps if I amend the above that you quote to link the, " . . . believing in the postulates etc . . " to the preceding sentence, that this would take some sting from the inferences.
The link I refer to, my effort, proves, that AE's simultaneity consequences, as defined by AE and echoed by the industry, are patently flawed. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
If the simultaneity consequences are indeed flawed, totally that is, and the derivation of these consequences are a necessary conclusion, or implication of SR, or follows logically from SR, then SR is flawed by the reasonong that SR generated a faulty "loss of simultaneity consequence".
Whether the reality of the experiments you refer to, and even mine MM, Dayton Miller etc. are asserted as the "only" truth of the physical matter then there nothing I can do about that, except to say, that by the indirect means of 'the proof' that the simultaneity consequences of SR are faulty as proved in the link, then other than an SR rational must be used to explain the 'apparent measurenment of the speed of light being c'. The 'c' is not proved or disproved by holding up our respective lists of experimental evidence, the 'c' is proved or not by the conclusion of the analysis in the link.
It seems to be a difficult situation to communicate, but I see in the literature that the loss of simultaneity consequences is invariably disguised in the rhetoric of "what the observer in X frame observes, or perceives " as if only the observer's perception is under discussion rather than the physics of the matter. I see a huge gap in the language and therefore the conclusions drawn from those echoing AE's simultaneity consequences.
Simply said, I read "perceptions of the human observer' is equated with 'physical law' in the sense that a hallucination may be claimed equated with physical law.
A simultaneous event once concluded cannot be altered by perception or theory, do you not agree?
According to the book "Laser Propulsion" produced by Unitel NW Inc.,
www.unitel-aerospace.com, a prime government contracting Aerospace
R&D Firm, the rate at which time passes in hyperspace compared to
Minkowski space, the space we live in, can be a ratio of 70 hours in
hyperspace to 253 years in Minkowski space(real space). Time in
hyperspace is measured in imaginary units, and 1 imaginary second in
hyperspace-time corresponds to 31,682.82857142857 seconds in real
space-time. According to Lorents transformations, the rate at which
the spiral(in previous post) edge travels through time, is
-0.0009738928534425216 imaginary seconds back in time, for every
second of transmission by the large number of 100GHz transmitters
around the circumference of the 1 ft diameter metal waveguide disc.
This translates into -30.855680322558822 seconds in reals space-time
for every second of transmission by the large number of 100GHz
transmitters around the circumference of the 1 ft diameter metal
waveguide disc with reciever in the disc's center. What do you think?
Want to take a ride?
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
geistkiesel
May26-04, 07:07 PM
How about discussing something the rest of us agree means something. As has been stated previously, Einstein's comments are merely a general discussion of the theory and you are not actually attacking the formalism of SR with your statements.
You are correct. I am attacking only the formalism of the consequences flowing from SR that conclude that events simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in another. In the link the situations of 'simultaneous' are clearly defined. In the stationary frame two lights are pulsed on at the same instant. In this and other threads on the subject (see "Why Relativity is Wrong" in the "Relativity Forum where myself and Doc Al go at it head to head especially the concluding posts) I have strived to be consistent.
If you can convince yourself you can measure or define events as being simultaneous, that is fine with me. As a practical matter, we find this necessary frequently. As far as I know, there is nothing in SR that actually addresses this. But I don't think you can demonstrate that all observers will judge events spatially separated as simultaneous without making assumptions that render the conclusion meaningless. For instance - is simultaneous defined as occurring at the same absolute time? Or is it occurring at an agreed upon difference in times from "now"? I.E. My definition of simultaneous may well be quite different than yours.
I mean it like the link defines it. Said another way two simultaneously exploding supernovae, in a the stationary frame, each erruption on the opposite sides of the universe, are simultaneous to all frames whether any observer is aware of the event or not.
I amm saying that physical events are not perception defined. The events occur and perhaps an observer makes measurments inclding some time analysis of "when " the event occured and how it occured, but the physical event is not functionally related to any human perception as a parameter of the event.
P.S. You need a new book too, p. 25-27 of your "Relativity" book must be totally worn out by now.
Are you suggesting that time has altered the perceptions of Professor Einstein? You are going to have to start that that thread.
Also, see my response to your other most recent post addressed to myself.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 07:54 PM
Nope, that's the same tired, incoherent, circular argument as always.
I suggest reading it one more time. What Einstein does is start with stationary observers seeing two simultaneous events. Then, using the postulates of relativity, he deduces that moving observers must disagree. Unlike you, he doesn't just assume that simultaneity is observer-independent.
I do not start with that assumption. I start with the observer questioning whether the reception of the pulsed lights came from a simultaneous event, or if the pulses were emitted at different times.
Not only can the moving observers measure their relative motion, they can also decide for themselves when they detect the pulses.
There you go again, simply assuming what you should be demonstrating!
Just repeating your mantra "the events occured at the same instant" doesn't make it so. Since the events in question are not collocated, what makes you think they are simultaneous? A consistent way of tracking time would help. (On this planet, we have clocks.)
I advise you to get serious. Unless you tell the moving observer when to starting counting, your statement is meaningless. Now, what could be agreed upon, without any fancy clocks or synchronization, is that two observers can choose to set their clocks to zero at the precise instant that they pass each other. Too unambiguous for you?
Interesting... both observers measure the time of two events... but they don't use clocks! Simply brilliant! :rofl:
The events of the pulses being simultaneous int he stationary frame is a given condition of the hypothetical. When the moving observer passes the midpoint he starts his clock at zero, as does the stationary observer. Likewise, I've added recording gear along the path of the moving platform that detects the lights from both sources simultaneous with the recording on the moving platform. No clocks are needed here to define simultaneous.
If you and I bump into each other in the street, do we need clocks to determine that the 'bump' was simultabeous for both of us?
Same instant as what? I think we're getting at the root of your confusion. Just because the pulses are detected by both stationary and moving observers at the same time (since they are collocated) does not mean that the two observers measure the same time! (Unless you have them reset their clocks with each measurement! :smile: )
I responded in another post that with the simultaneous measurement of the arrival of the llight from A and B, each observer passes their 'clock time' to the other. This might be interesting for some purposes but is irrelevant here.
I just call it an illustration of your serious misunderstanding of what simultaneity means. No one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest.
Again, no one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest. You've missed the entire point.
Well, the measurements of Einstein example weren'y collocated until I laid down some measuring gear in the middle of the night. But what can this possibley have to do with whether the pulses are simultaneous in another frame or not?
Does the pulse for event t1 arrive at the collocated stationary and moving observers simultaneously? Yes! (It's a space-time coincidence.) Do the two observers agree on the time it arrives on their clocks? Of course not!
So what if their clocks disagree?Or if the observers agree. The agreement is totally irrelevant tot he simultaneity question. If one clock measues 10, the other 9 the times are equivalent regardless of what the clocks say. And the clocks and observers have no input into the physics of the event. They observers are just trying to ferret out the sequence of events.
Of course clocks matter! That is, if you care to compare one event (t1, say) with another (t2, say). If you want to make a statement about whether an observer measures two non-collocated events (that is, events occuring at different points in space-time) to be at the same time, you must compare clock readings, or equivalently, create some signalling scheme. (Based upon real physics, of course.)
The moving observer can determine for himself if the lights pulsed on simultaneously in his frame.
You can solve the problem as you see fit. I say the moving observer, using his own clocks, his own t1 and t2 and velocity wrt stationary frame can determine if the lights were pulsed on simultaneously in the moving frame. The speed of light is consistently c in his frame I will grant you.The link proves the moving observer can determine whether the event of the light pulses were simultaneous or not. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) Apparently it is beyond your reach, or willingness to understand.
Tkae this hypothetical: A return to an earlier problkem where a moving platform arrives at the midpoit of two pulsed light measured in the stationary frame. As I remember you insisted he moving obe=server would always see the pulses as no occuring at the same time in his frame. Let uis add a mirrored twin of the moving observer you insisted would not see the pulses as simultaneous coming at you observer from the B light pulse side. Do each of the observers determine the pulses to be at different times? If so then each determines that differenmt lights were pulsed on first, right? Who wins?
Or are we merely talking about the "perceptions" of the observers?
Add a third moving observer approacj=hing the midpoint on he plane perpendicular topt he appraoching wave fronts passing through the stationary midpoiint. All three observers are equidistant from the midpoint in the stationary frame at all times. Which light gets pulsed on first for which observer? By the time they figure this one out the light pulses and the three observers will all have met simultaneously at the midpoint giving final, if not ahorrible resolution to the ultimate event question of this problem.
geistkiesel
May26-04, 10:31 PM
But I don't think you can demonstrate that all observers will judge events spatially separated as simultaneous without making assumptions that render the conclusion meaningless. For instance - is simultaneous defined as occurring at the same absolute time? Or is it occurring at an agreed upon difference in times from "now"? I.E. My definition of simultaneous may well be quite different than yours.
I can see that you are truly making an effort to get to the essence of this, which I appreciate moe than what shows. I've responded to this post already, but see that this addendum might be helpful.
If a stationary observer determines an event to be simultaneous, where the event is the occurance of two single events such as our pulsing light sources, then all frames should also determine the same.
1st, I point to your statement " . . .that all observers will judge events . . . " and ask the all too simple question: Are the physics of events observer dependent? No, I say, the events, such as simultaneous or nonsimultaneous events need no observer input to give the event "completion" or "closure" . Only when we make an attempt to understand the sequence of events, for instance do obsevers require some information in order to come to a conclusion.
If events in stationary and moving frames were universally simultaneous then the observer making a conklusin to the contrary would be in error. If events simultaneous in one and not simultaneous in another was a univesally accurate statement observers could still not alter the reality. I am asking you to ask yourself, are we discussing 'the observer' here as a participant in the physical process of simultaneity of events? A quick draw denial of this might obscure a reality that this is indeed what we are discussing. From my pespective the language used by those in opposition to the offered thesis seems to infer be just that, especially that language of Doc Al.
What assumptions could I make that would make the conclusion meaningless?
I haven't denied the postulate regarding the constancy of the measurement of c as the speed of light, even though I may have some personal reservations about the claim. I have, without expressly stating the matter, that the physics in all inertial frames will provide the same answer. Using this the time of fliight of wave fronts to arrive at the midpoint of the moving wave fronts is the same for each wave front. I also made the observation that once two wave fronts are existing in the universe the midpoint of the wave fronts is invariant, spatially. This sounds very much like an 'absolute location in space, and if it is does it get discarded by a theory that denies the reality? Are midpoints of colliding wave fronts invariant? It seems to me that if they were not then the velocity of one or both the wave fronts would have to vary, otherwise how would you accout for a drifting midpoint?.
Are the events simultaneously ocuring in the same absolute time? Perform a gedunken with me. Two exploding supenovae located on opposite sides of the universe erupt simultaneously in a stationary frame. Does the fact that we cannot measure any aspect of the eruption have any bearing on the simultaneity of the event? Does out ignorance negate the simultaneous nature of the event? Would this be an example of 'absolute time'?
We do not have to "agree" on anything to conclude the operation of an event.Our pereptions may require some language that eleminates ambiguity, but this is only fr our convenience. Is there anything ambiguous about the statement at the same time in a stationary frame, event though we both would be hard pressed to find such an entity. We use the everyday language that a stationary observer wrt to any identifiable spot on the planet sufficiently defines a 'stationary observer' though I expect Doc Al or somene else will glom onto this as "see, there is no such thing as a stationaruy observer". However, in the train and stationary platform problems under discussion there is no intrinsic ambiguity in recognizing the complex motion of the surface of the planet at all times.
If you see an ambiguity if defining "at the same time" then show it, but the mere speculatuion of the mere possibility that we could be ambiguous doesn't substitute for an actual ambiguity.
DrChinese
May26-04, 11:39 PM
OK let you and I start over OK? I've been obnoxious, a state that comes and goes depending on the heat of the situation.
I agree that SR says all observers will measure c as the speed of light.I cannot agree unambiguously that all measurements support this finding. I mention the Michelson-Morley experiments, followed by Dayton Miller's experiments, and "not shown": by the famous "eclipse experiments" fllowing WWI. I know you may make reference other experiments claimed to substantiate the postulates oF SR. This is not the debate in directly front of us. We focus first on AE's derivation of the consequences of SR, which according to AE as stated clearly in his book "Relativity" lead to the conclusion that events simultaneous in one frame of reference are not simultaneous in another. This and only this is the focus my effort hee in these postings.
Perhaps if I amend the above that you quote to link the, " . . . believing in the postulates etc . . " to the preceding sentence, that this would take some sting from the inferences.
The link I refer to, my effort, proves, that AE's simultaneity consequences, as defined by AE and echoed by the industry, are patently flawed. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
If the simultaneity consequences are indeed flawed, totally that is, and the derivation of these consequences are a necessary conclusion, or implication of SR, or follows logically from SR, then SR is flawed by the reasonong that SR generated a faulty "loss of simultaneity consequence".
Whether the reality of the experiments you refer to, and even mine MM, Dayton Miller etc. are asserted as the "only" truth of the physical matter then there nothing I can do about that, except to say, that by the indirect means of 'the proof' that the simultaneity consequences of SR are faulty as proved in the link, then other than an SR rational must be used to explain the 'apparent measurenment of the speed of light being c'. The 'c' is not proved or disproved by holding up our respective lists of experimental evidence, the 'c' is proved or not by the conclusion of the analysis in the link.
It seems to be a difficult situation to communicate, but I see in the literature that the loss of simultaneity consequences is invariably disguised in the rhetoric of "what the observer in X frame observes, or perceives " as if only the observer's perception is under discussion rather than the physics of the matter. I see a huge gap in the language and therefore the conclusions drawn from those echoing AE's simultaneity consequences.
Simply said, I read "perceptions of the human observer' is equated with 'physical law' in the sense that a hallucination may be claimed equated with physical law.
A simultaneous event once concluded cannot be altered by perception or theory, do you not agree?
Thank you. Even if you are right and AE is wrong, there is no reason not to discuss these matters without calling other scientists names.
Second, I seriously have a problem with the term simultaneous. Everyone thinks the same thing when we are discussing events on Earth which are easily synchronized.
But your example of the exploding supernovae is problematic to me.
a) Is there a clock that we all agree upon? One which we have somehow synchronized for all observers?
b) What about distances? Do we all agree upon the locations of the events we call simultaneous? And if so, how do we agree without measuring elapsed time using the same clocks mentioned in a).
c) In other words, I fear that we cannot, in fact, develop a good definition of simultaneous without reference to absolute time and space. And therefore, we must assume something which should not be assumed.
In other words, a reasonable observer concludes that an event seen locally at time T2 which occurred at a point D1 distance away must have occurred at "absolute" time T1 - found classically by T1=T2-(D1/c) - for purposes or determining whether it is simultaneous with another event.
However, now relativity comes into play, due to the relative velocity of the observers. In fact, the above classical formula violates SR. Further, SR claims there is no preferred reference frame. Therefore it is not possible to get all observers to agree on the sequence of events. As I understand your position, there is in fact a way to adjust the calculations so all observers agree.
Do I state your position correctly? In other words, space-like separated observers can rationally communicate so that positions and velocities can be agreed upon.
geistkiesel
May27-04, 03:07 AM
Thank you. Even if you are right and AE is wrong, there is no reason not to discuss these matters without calling other scientists names.
Second, I seriously have a problem with the term simultaneous. Everyone thinks the same thing when we are discussing events on Earth which are easily synchronized.
But your example of the exploding supernovae is problematic to me.
a) Is there a clock that we all agree upon? One which we have somehow synchronized for all observers?
I mean simultaneous conceptually, like this: right at this instant two supernovae erupt. Period. The eruptions are simultaneous. We don't need clocks to grasp the simultaneous nature of the eruption. We do need measuring devices to determine arrival times of light waves and particles and any other measurement of physically measurable entities to back analyze, to determine when and if some event occured and even if the event was simultaneous, but to assume at the get go that simultaneous events in stationary platforms are not simultaneous in a moving platform is theoretically premature and physically not justified.
We must distinguish between a physically simultaneous event, the supernovae and measuring the event as simultaneous. I have assumed throughout that the postulates of relativity that lead to the determiination of the theoretical construct that what is simultaneous in one frame, the supernovae, is not simultaneous in another is not necessarily a construct defining a physical event, or process, rather it is a construct that purports to define mesurements of data related to the event under scrutiny and the implications of that data however acquired and anlyzed using the current theoretical constructs. All of this done not to determine the physical nature of yhe event but to determine a perception of the event. The difference in the two cases is not a subtle one.
Let us assume that everyone agrees that it is the measurements that are under examination, not the event itself. Okay, the postulates of SR determine that our measurements will conclude that under certain circumstances (measured from moving frames for instance) the event was not simultaneous and hence we then make the next logical assignment that the event itself was not simultaneous, and that it is not just the perceptions of the event that are the end point of all the analytic effort. This is how I see the postulates operating as I have been discussing them. We are not interested in organizing our perceptions of the events, we want to know whether the event was simultaneous, and to hell with whatever our mere perceptions happen to be.
.
b) What about distances? Do we all agree upon the locations of the events we call simultaneous? And if so, how do we agree without measuring elapsed time using the same clocks mentioned in a).
I think you may have asked a question not relevant if we are focusing on the issue of simultaneity of events. I on exmple in my link I have strewn along the path of the moving frame some measuring gear that does what the gear on the platform does. the detection of light pulses in both frames are simultabneous, conceptually, measuring the since the platform passed the "midpoint" will show up differently on a system where clocks dilate in moving frames. Lets us say that ten years after the platform passes through the midpoint and both clocks are zeroed and the pulses aer detected simultaneously at frame nmeasured times and that neither knows of the others presence or the fact that measurements were made. The observers meet and in the discussion they both conclude that they are talking about the same set of events. The observers notice times increments between measurments are different but a video camera catches them making their obsevation simultaneously. They correlate the data and conclude that the event was simultanous in both frames using the simpleminded technique in the 'link'. However, the moving platform observer does not need the information provided by the stationary observer as he can determine for himslef whether the event was simultanous from, 1) his measured velocity passing the midpoint, 2) the delta time from the midpoint to the instants of measuring the two pulses, one from the front, the other from the rear and 3) the speed of light being c. See the link on how he does this.
c) In other words, I fear that we cannot, in fact, develop a good definition of simultaneous without reference to absolute time and space. And therefore, we must assume something which should not be assumed.
In other words, a reasonable observer concludes that an event seen locally at time T2 which occurred at a point D1 distance away must have occurred at "absolute" time T1 - found classically by T1=T2-(D1/c) - for purposes or determining whether it is simultaneous with another event.
However, now relativity comes into play, due to the relative velocity of the observers. In fact, the above classical formula violates SR. Further, SR claims there is no preferred reference frame. Therefore it is not possible to get all observers to agree on the sequence of events. As I understand your position, there is in fact a way to adjust the calculations so all observers agree.
Reference to absolute space and time: For the case of two moving wave fronts existing in the universe, do you agree that all observers in all platforms will determine the location of one and only one midpoint of those expanding EM spheres? and that everyone will determine the exact same location of that midpoint? The midpoint cannot drift unless the wave fronts drift, which would mean that the wave front velocity is variant,which would mean tha 'c' varies. Do you want to do this?
There can be only one collision of the wave fronts at the same place and time, universally.
I conclude for the purposes of this duiscussion that we have found a satisfactory absolute space.
Regardless of clock rates in all the possible moving frames, each will predict the exact moment the expanding EM spheres collide at the absolutely only place in the sum totality of the universe where they could collide, and each will predict the same absolute instant when those wave fronts meet, what ever natural and influence their clocks happen to be subject to, assuming of course they make the correct assumptions about their clock rates. This latter condition is a technology issue, not an issue in the physics of the problem.
DrChinese]Do I state your position correctly? In other words, space-like separated observers can rationally communicate so that positions and velocities can be agreed upon.
Within the limits if the current technology of the itime frame under consideration, yes. There are only the obvious physical limitations to their comparing positions and velocties. Space-like separated observers may do what you say, but the communiation isn't necessary to determine the simultaneity of events in the sense that such communication is absolutely necessary to determine whether an event was simultaneous in the interested observer's frame of reference. Any observer-observer communications would function as a calibration of equipment, or a test of additional parameters in the methods used to perform the analysis, meaning as a check on the integrity of any 'theory development' processes, which is the defined limiting purpose of this forum is it not?
geistkiesel
May27-04, 03:15 AM
do you get money every time someone clicks that link, because you've posted it many times in this thread.
Talk to the administration for mailing instructions if you want to send money. I am involved in in serious personal war agansit poverty. Do you find the reference obsjectionable? Are your sensibilities piqued? have you been insulted?
Just what is your problem? Does it have anything to do with physics, or are have I just truned you against myself by my nature, my way, my doing things the way I want to do them, the way I choose to do them, the way your mother told you not to do them? Go do something to yourself . . .
I do not start with that assumption. I start with the observer questioning whether the reception of the pulsed lights came from a simultaneous event, or if the pulses were emitted at different times.
You explicitly declare that the pulses are emitted simultaneously for all observers--as if that is some physical law you are invoking.
Not only can the moving observers measure their relative motion, they can also decide for themselves when they detect the pulses.
Absolutely!
The events of the pulses being simultaneous int he stationary frame is a given condition of the hypothetical.
Agreed.
When the moving observer passes the midpoint he starts his clock at zero, as does the stationary observer.
This is ambiguous. Allow me to restate it: At the precise moment that the moving observer passes by the midpoint he asks the stationary observer posted there "What does your clock read?". The moving observer then sets his clock to match. No problem there. Likewise, I've added recording gear along the path of the moving platform that detects the lights from both sources simultaneous with the recording on the moving platform. No clocks are needed here to define simultaneous.
If you and I bump into each other in the street, do we need clocks to determine that the 'bump' was simultabeous for both of us?
That "bump" is a single event. Both observers (you and I) can measure the time that the event occured. We, of course, may get different answers, since we are moving with respect to each other. But, and this is key, this is not an example of simultaneity! Simultaneity refers to the time order of two events (or more) as measured by a single observer (or his frame).
So what if their clocks disagree?Or if the observers agree. The agreement is totally irrelevant tot he simultaneity question. If one clock measues 10, the other 9 the times are equivalent regardless of what the clocks say. And the clocks and observers have no input into the physics of the event. They observers are just trying to ferret out the sequence of events.
Again, you are treating clock readings as if they were just an artifact of human perception. Not so! The time measured by the clocks is real, physical time. If your clock says an hour passed then you are really an hour older. This is not an illusion. (You could have spent that hour roasting a chicken or watching reruns of your favorite sit-com.)
If two observers in relative motion observe two events, then each will record the time of the event according to their own clocks. This is real physics! To meaningfully say that these events are simultaneous (or not) requires you to define which reference frame is making the measurements. (And also how the various observers in that frame have synchronized their clocks.)
The moving observer can determine for himself if the lights pulsed on simultaneously in his frame.
Yes, you say that, but you don't mean it! :smile: When his clocks and real physics say they were not pulsed at the same time, you just brush those inconvenient facts aside, attributing them to some error in perception.
Tkae this hypothetical: A return to an earlier problkem where a moving platform arrives at the midpoit of two pulsed light measured in the stationary frame. As I remember you insisted he moving obe=server would always see the pulses as no occuring at the same time in his frame. Let uis add a mirrored twin of the moving observer you insisted would not see the pulses as simultaneous coming at you observer from the B light pulse side. Do each of the observers determine the pulses to be at different times? If so then each determines that differenmt lights were pulsed on first, right? Who wins?
Again you assume that simultaneity is some objective fact independent of who makes the observations. The answer is: No one wins! Simultaneity is relative to the observing frame. That's the point.
DrChinese
May27-04, 09:09 AM
I mean simultaneous conceptually, like this: right at this instant two supernovae erupt. Period. The eruptions are simultaneous. We don't need clocks to grasp the simultaneous nature of the eruption. We do need measuring devices to determine arrival times of light waves and particles and any other measurement of physically measurable entities to back analyze, to determine when and if some event occured and even if the event was simultaneous, but to assume at the get go that simultaneous events in stationary platforms are not simultaneous in a moving platform is theoretically premature and physically not justified.
We must distinguish between a physically simultaneous event, the supernovae and measuring the event as simultaneous. I have assumed throughout that the postulates of relativity that lead to the determiination of the theoretical construct that what is simultaneous in one frame, the supernovae, is not simultaneous in another is not necessarily a construct defining a physical event, or process, rather it is a construct that purports to define mesurements of data related to the event under scrutiny and the implications of that data however acquired and anlyzed using the current theoretical constructs. All of this done not to determine the physical nature of yhe event but to determine a perception of the event. The difference in the two cases is not a subtle one.
Let us assume that everyone agrees that it is the measurements that are under examination, not the event itself. Okay, the postulates of SR determine that our measurements will conclude that under certain circumstances (measured from moving frames for instance) the event was not simultaneous and hence we then make the next logical assignment that the event itself was not simultaneous, and that it is not just the perceptions of the event that are the end point of all the analytic effort. This is how I see the postulates operating as I have been discussing them. We are not interested in organizing our perceptions of the events, we want to know whether the event was simultaneous, and to hell with whatever our mere perceptions happen to be.
Here is the first point of departure for us. I agree there is a difference between the observation of 2 space-like separated events and the events themselves. I.e. what you call the physical event and the perception of the event. You clearly place the physical event above the perception of the event, while I tend to see it the other way around.
In other words, "all we know is the results of experiments". That is the base point of SR - and of QM as well. Instead of trying to assert the physical existence of something which many consider to be in doubt, consider the measurement/observation/perception as fundamental and describe that.
So from my perspective, the question is the observation of 2 events. What is simultaneous is the receipt of photons of light from the distant sources. Clearly, that does not make the physical events simultaneous in any sense.
Now, suppose, we have 2 observers, moving with respect to each other. Their paths intersect at precisely the moment that photons from 2 supernovae arrrive. In my opinion, SR predicts that both observers will acknowledge the simultaneous observation of the supernovae. Do you agree a) that SR predicts this, and b) that this "simultaneous observation" will be the result?
DrChinese
May27-04, 10:51 AM
Reference to absolute space and time: For the case of two moving wave fronts existing in the universe, do you agree that all observers in all platforms will determine the location of one and only one midpoint of those expanding EM spheres? and that everyone will determine the exact same location of that midpoint? The midpoint cannot drift unless the wave fronts drift, which would mean that the wave front velocity is variant,which would mean tha 'c' varies. Do you want to do this?
There can be only one collision of the wave fronts at the same place and time, universally.
I conclude for the purposes of this duiscussion that we have found a satisfactory absolute space.
A. I don't see how any observer can draw any source position information from a photon received at a detection device. The most that can be determined is perhaps direction (i.e. it came from where the telescope is aimed) and perhaps relative velocity (i.e. between the source and observer, if there is a shift in the frequency of a known spectra line).
So, no, I do not agree that all observers will agree on the location of the midpoint of the 2 wave front sources. In fact, no one will have any clue as to the location of the midpoint from this information.
B. I am also not following your reference to the "midpoint of the 2 expanding EM spheres". I am not familiar with the analogy you are making, and how it relates to our examples. Are the spheres associated with the light from the 2 supernovae in your example? And how does the midpoint fit into this?
EDITED TO ADD to B.: I revisited a thread you started a few days ago, and I believe you are stating that the midpoint is where our observers are being positioned. So in your example, the supernovae are seen simultaneously by co-located observers equidistant to both. Is that correct?
geistkiesel
May27-04, 10:03 PM
A. I don't see how any observer can draw any source position information from a photon received at a detection device. The most that can be determined is perhaps direction (i.e. it came from where the telescope is aimed) and perhaps relative velocity (i.e. between the source and observer, if there is a shift in the frequency of a known spectra line).
So, no, I do not agree that all observers will agree on the location of the midpoint of the 2 wave front sources. In fact, no one will have any clue as to the location of the midpoint from this information.
B. I am also not following your reference to the "midpoint of the 2 expanding EM spheres". I am not familiar with the analogy you are making, and how it relates to our examples. Are the spheres associated with the light from the 2 supernovae in your example? And how does the midpoint fit into this?
EDITED TO ADD to B.: I revisited a thread you started a few days ago, and I believe you are stating that the midpoint is where our observers are being positioned. So in your example, the supernovae are seen simultaneously by co-located observers equidistant to both. Is that correct?
The statement regarding the midpoint of expanding EM spheres was intended to demonstrate the existenxcce of an absolute space. Only instances of situations where information of moving light sources is known etc would there be practical application. Whether human observers agree or not, two moving wave fronts have one and only one midpoint whether your observers detect it or not, whether your observers agree or not. Your obsession with satisfying observer's perceptions keeps you expansion potential at minimum. The light from my supernovae example went whizzing by. The supernovae located at opposite sides pf the universe exploded as you were reading the words. No human will ever detect the moving wave fronts and no human being will ever give a sou about the collision point. The point attempted to be made is that there is one anf only one midpoint of colliding EM spheres, be they supenovae or signal pulses from orbiting sattelites.
Relativity theory using any derivation of RT postulates that conclude in the simultaneity description that what is simultaneous in one framwe is not simultaneous in another is an error function. Einstein and any others who maintain the lost simultaneity scam are the ones that are lost.
geistkiesel
May27-04, 10:13 PM
Here is the first point of departure for us. I agree there is a difference between the observation of 2 space-like separated events and the events themselves. I.e. what you call the physical event and the perception of the event. You clearly place the physical event above the perception of the event, while I tend to see it the other way around.
In other words, "all we know is the results of experiments". That is the base point of SR - and of QM as well. Instead of trying to assert the physical existence of something which many consider to be in doubt, consider the measurement/observation/perception as fundamental and describe that.
So from my perspective, the question is the observation of 2 events. What is simultaneous is the receipt of photons of light from the distant sources. Clearly, that does not make the physical events simultaneous in any sense.
Now, suppose, we have 2 observers, moving with respect to each other. Their paths intersect at precisely the moment that photons from 2 supernovae arrrive. In my opinion, SR predicts that both observers will acknowledge the simultaneous observation of the supernovae. Do you agree a) that SR predicts this, and b) that this "simultaneous observation" will be the result?
Before and after your two observer pulse detection, the third observer, who receives the light pulse from one, then the other source perceives what? That the light pulses weren't simultaneously emitted? Isn't this what SR predicts? If it does then SR is just another lying theoretical perception scammer..
How does one tell if two events are simultaneous?
geistkiesel
May27-04, 10:33 PM
You explicitly declare that the pulses are emitted simultaneously for all observers--as if that is some physical law you are invoking.
Absolutely!
Agreed.
This is ambiguous. Allow me to restate it: At the precise moment that the moving observer passes by the midpoint he asks the stationary observer posted there "What does your clock read?". The moving observer then sets his clock to match. No problem there.
That "bump" is a single event. Both observers (you and I) can measure the time that the event occured. We, of course, may get different answers, since we are moving with respect to each other. But, and this is key, this is not an example of simultaneity! Simultaneity refers to the time order of two events (or more) as measured by a single observer (or his frame).
Again, you are treating clock readings as if they were just an artifact of human perception. Not so! The time measured by the clocks is real, physical time. If your clock says an hour passed then you are really an hour older. This is not an illusion. (You could have spent that hour roasting a chicken or watching reruns of your favorite sit-com.)
If two observers in relative motion observe two events, then each will record the time of the event according to their own clocks. This is real physics! To meaningfully say that these events are simultaneous (or not) requires you to define which reference frame is making the measurements. (And also how the various observers in that frame have synchronized their clocks.)
Yes, you say that, but you don't mean it! :smile: When his clocks and real physics say they were not pulsed at the same time, you just brush those inconvenient facts aside, attributing them to some error in perception.
Again you assume that simultaneity is some objective fact independent of who makes the observations. The answer is: No one wins! Simultaneity is relative to the observing frame. That's the point.
You have proved my point. Yes simultaneity is an objective fact. You are saying the rea;ity is what the observer perceives. I say the reality is independent of what obsevers perceive. If the lights were pulsed on in a stationary frame simultaneously, then the approaching twins both determining a different light pulsed on first are both stating a law of physics truism. The third observer approaching the midpoibnt and arriving there wih the frist two observers has been on a plane perpendcular to the moving wave fronts so that the approaching wave fronts have always been equidistant from him detects what?
The world out there sir is real, and for you, it ain't what you think.
geistkiesel
May28-04, 03:55 AM
This is ambiguous. Allow me to restate it: At the precise moment that the moving observer passes by the midpoint he asks the stationary observer posted there "What does your clock read?". The moving observer then sets his clock to match. No problem there.
That "bump" is a single event. Both observers (you and I) can measure the time that the event occured. We, of course, may get different answers, since we are moving with respect to each other. But, and this is key, this is not an example of simultaneity! Simultaneity refers to the time order of two events (or more) as measured by a single observer (or his frame).
You are correct. Our cousins (who I failed to mention) accross the street bumped into each other the same instant we did in our mutual frames. Each of us were moving at different velicities, the bumps, however were simultaneous to all four, as referenced to the stationary street, likewiae to or bumping nephews around the corner who, we cannot see.
You may have difficulty seeing the physics of the matter, but any theoretical model used as an analytic tool in manipulating measurements, time etc. and coordinating perceptions is totally irrelevant to the truth of the physical event, a physical reality, other than a perception, other than the mere conclusion of measurers and thereticians. The moon exists along with Venus right now, simultaneously to where they are, and when they are, like now, now, now, now . . . . whether you perceive the reality of this or not.
DrChinese
May28-04, 10:31 AM
The statement regarding the midpoint of expanding EM spheres was intended to demonstrate the existenxcce of an absolute space. Only instances of situations where information of moving light sources is known etc would there be practical application. Whether human observers agree or not, two moving wave fronts have one and only one midpoint whether your observers detect it or not, whether your observers agree or not. Your obsession with satisfying observer's perceptions keeps you expansion potential at minimum. The light from my supernovae example went whizzing by. The supernovae located at opposite sides pf the universe exploded as you were reading the words. No human will ever detect the moving wave fronts and no human being will ever give a sou about the collision point. The point attempted to be made is that there is one anf only one midpoint of colliding EM spheres, be they supenovae or signal pulses from orbiting sattelites.
Relativity theory using any derivation of RT postulates that conclude in the simultaneity description that what is simultaneous in one framwe is not simultaneous in another is an error function. Einstein and any others who maintain the lost simultaneity scam are the ones that are lost.
First of all. your statement about the "one and only one midpoint" of 2 expanding spheres is factually incorrect. Spacetime is curved (GR), and even in QM alone there is no such point. Even if it were true - which it is not - what would the significance be of such a point? I am still missing the entire line of reasoning related to this.
Second, you are making a logic error when you assume there is an absolute space and then use this to attempt to disprove SR (this tautology has been pointed out to you previously by others).
And third, my "obsession with observers" is firmly grounded in the philosophy of an objective science. So don't expect that I will see your criticism as such.
You didn't address it, so I assume you are now in agreement with my A. point: that an observer cannot determine the source point of photons detected.
DrChinese
May28-04, 10:43 AM
Before and after your two observer pulse detection, the third observer, who receives the light pulse from one, then the other source perceives what? That the light pulses weren't simultaneously emitted? Isn't this what SR predicts? If it does then SR is just another lying theoretical perception scammer..
I keep trying to get us talking about the same thing, and you keep changing the lingo. For now, let's skip pulses and third observers. I have asked specific questions so we can agree about the examples we are discussing, so I repeat (2 supernovae photon sources, 2 co-located observers in relative motion):
So from my perspective, the question is the observation of 2 events. What is simultaneous is the receipt of photons of light from the distant sources. Clearly, that does not make the physical events simultaneous in any sense.
Now, suppose, we have 2 observers, moving with respect to each other. Their paths intersect at precisely the moment that photons from 2 supernovae arrrive. In my opinion, SR predicts that both observers will acknowledge the simultaneous observation of the supernovae. Do you agree a) that SR predicts this, and b) that this "simultaneous observation" will be the result?
geistkiesel
May28-04, 04:29 PM
How does one tell if two events are simultaneous?A stationary observers triggers two light sources equidistant from M. The light pulses arrive at M simultaneously. Hence the lights were pulsed on simultaneously.
If the only measurement of an observer is the simultaneous arrival of light pulses at some point M, then the only thing that may be concluded is that M is the midpoint between two wave frionts, with nothing said about the location or sequence of pulses of the sources.
If two or more events are simultaneous in time, whereever located, the event are simultaneous [though some claim SR may provide a different perception of the events being simultaneous or not depending on the observers frame - moving or not.
If you haven't been following this thread the discussion point revolves around the perceptions of observers being different for obserservers in different frames. It has claimed that SR says what is simultaneous for an observer in a stationary frame is different [or may be different] than that perceived by a moving observer, or from my position I distinguish between perceptions and physical events.
geistkiesel
May28-04, 04:55 PM
First of all. your statement about the "one and only one midpoint" of 2 expanding spheres is factually incorrect. Spacetime is curved (GR), and even in QM alone there is no such point. Even if it were true - which it is not - what would the significance be of such a point? I am still missing the entire line of reasoning related to this.
You use a theory to disprove the fact of the invariant midpoint of two wave fronts. That doesn't convince me, especially when I see the shaky legs Sr is on regarding simultaneity.
Second, you are making a logic error when you assume there is an absolute space and then use this to attempt to disprove SR (this tautology has been pointed out to you previously by others).
I do not assume as absolute space. You are misquoting me or misstating me, or I wrote poorly. I attempted to make the point that the invariance of midpoints of moving wave fronts provides a mechanism of determining an absolute space, or locations in space in general, trillions to the trilion power of such points. If the "midpoint theory" happens to conicide with physical fact, then what is the tautology of using this against SR? I probably stepped over the line a time or two , but my point has been primarily focussed on the question of simultaneity as expressed by SR. If the midpoint theory is true then nothing need be said regarding SR, it is just one of those instances where res ipsa loquitor.
And third, my "obsession with observers" is firmly grounded in the philosophy of an objective science. So don't expect that I will see your criticism as such.
The "firmness" of your [the SR theoretical industry's] grounding in objective science is at issue, it is the issue. You are being forgetfull of the thread we are involved in. You are familiar with the cousin of thii point seen in the debates of QM where some have argued, 'the wave function collapses when measured by a conscious being'? Talk about observational egotism!
You didn't address it, so I assume you are now in agreement with my A. point: that an observer cannot determine the source point of photons detected.
If that is the only infromation available then the source of the photon is unknown and effectively unknowable, almost reaching the state of nonlocality.
geistkiesel
May28-04, 05:01 PM
Doc Al I - used a statement you made when I posted a reply to DrChinese and also referred to a thread, "The question of simultaneity" in the "Relativity Forum" authored by Icky. You and I were participants in that thread..
geistkiesel
You have proved my point. Yes simultaneity is an objective fact. You are saying the rea;ity is what the observer perceives. I say the reality is independent of what obsevers perceive.
So let me get this straight. You're basically saying: "Reality" is whatever you declare it to be, regardless of observations, measurements, etc.
Sorry, but that's a perfect definition of fantasy, not reality. Physics is concerned with what one can: measure, observe, experience, test.
If you haven't been following this thread the discussion point revolves around the perceptions of observers being different for obserservers in different frames. It has claimed that SR says what is simultaneous for an observer in a stationary frame is different [or may be different] than that perceived by a moving observer, or from my position I distinguish between perceptions and physical events.
The thing is, Einstein gives an operational definition of terms. For example, there are procedures that can physically performed to identify something that SR calls "simultaneity in a given reference frame". SR's conclusions are certainly physicially meaningful, though you may disagree with the words chosen for them (such as "simultaneous").
The problem I'm having with your ideas is that there doesn't seem to be any way to actually determine whether two things are simultaneous; you describe it as if it is something one just knows.
DrChinese
May28-04, 08:17 PM
A stationary observers triggers two light sources equidistant from M. The light pulses arrive at M simultaneously. Hence the lights were pulsed on simultaneously.
If the only measurement of an observer is the simultaneous arrival of light pulses at some point M, then the only thing that may be concluded is that M is the midpoint between two wave frionts, with nothing said about the location or sequence of pulses of the sources.
geistkiesel,
It is getting frustrating because the words mean something entirely different to you than to others. For example, the statements you made above do not define a "midpoint" under any type of spacetime that I am familiar with - classical or Einsteinian. This is why I keep trying to pin down a specific example to discuss. If you do not want to discuss a specific example that we can all understand, please say so.
2 spheres in 3 space intersect at zero, one or an infinite number of points, depending on their relative size and position. This is true whether or not the spheres are equal in size. In your example above, you mention a point M which is equidistant from two photon sources. There are an infinite number of such points in classical 3 space.
Questions:
a) Is the observer in your example located at M?
b) And is M intended to represent a point equidistant from the photon sources, with distance to iM set as a minimum?
c) What significance is the point M to determining whether SR is a good theory?
d) How does an observer at M determine the distance to the photon sources is equal?
e) Why do you refer to the light sources as pulses? Is there is significance to this language? Is there some reason not to use the term "photons" so we know what you are referring to specifically?
-DrC
DrChinese
May28-04, 08:33 PM
I do not assume as absolute space. You are misquoting me or misstating me, or I wrote poorly.
Well, you said:
"The statement regarding the midpoint of expanding EM spheres was intended to demonstrate the existenxcce of an absolute space."
-and-
"Reference to absolute space and time: For the case of two moving wave fronts existing in the universe, do you agree that all observers in all platforms will determine the location of one and only one midpoint of those expanding EM spheres? and that everyone will determine the exact same location of that midpoint? The midpoint cannot drift unless the wave fronts drift, which would mean that the wave front velocity is variant,which would mean tha 'c' varies. Do you want to do this?
There can be only one collision of the wave fronts at the same place and time, universally.
I conclude for the purposes of this duiscussion that we have found a satisfactory absolute space."
So perhaps you can see my confusion. I don't know of any experiment which has ever indicated an absolute reference frame. There are plenty that are done every day in which local coordinates are used. So I am trying to determine what role - if any - absolute space figures into your critique of SR. Is it critical to your example(s)? If not, fine, that will make our discussion simpler.
geistkiesel
May28-04, 10:03 PM
Well, you said:
"The statement regarding the midpoint of expanding EM spheres was intended to demonstrate the existenxcce of an absolute space."
-and-
"Reference to absolute space and time: For the case of two moving wave fronts existing in the universe, do you agree that all observers in all platforms will determine the location of one and only one midpoint of those expanding EM spheres? and that everyone will determine the exact same location of that midpoint? The midpoint cannot drift unless the wave fronts drift, which would mean that the wave front velocity is variant,which would mean tha 'c' varies. Do you want to do this?
There can be only one collision of the wave fronts at the same place and time, universally.
I conclude for the purposes of this duiscussion that we have found a satisfactory absolute space."
So perhaps you can see my confusion. I don't know of any experiment which has ever indicated an absolute reference frame. There are plenty that are done every day in which local coordinates are used. So I am trying to determine what role - if any - absolute space figures into your critique of SR. Is it critical to your example(s)? If not, fine, that will make our discussion simpler.
Good question DrChinese. I was merely answering the claim that there is no "absolute space", by constructing a space that is absolute, theoretically speaking. Consider the number of "midpoints" that dot the universe. The difficulty in mesurement is moe a problem in engineering. Other than in my links I haven't pressed the issue, and even in the links, the issue wasn't discussed in those terms you've just amplified.
Take a look at the links. I think you will find that the moving observer can make all the calculations using his own frame of reference in order to determine if the pulsed light sequences were simultaneous to him, he only just crossing the midpoint of the stationary frame. when the lights pulsed. The examples of the moving observers all meeting at the midpoint differs from one of my link hypotheiticals that used AE's example in the dog eared relativity book.So I'll get a new copy.
geistkiesel
May28-04, 10:50 PM
geistkiesel,
It is getting frustrating because the words mean something entirely different to you than to others. For example, the statements you made above do not define a "midpoint" under any type of spacetime that I am familiar with - classical or Einsteinian. This is why I keep trying to pin down a specific example to discuss. If you do not want to discuss a specific example that we can all understand, please say so.
2 spheres in 3 space intersect at zero, one or an infinite number of points, depending on their relative size and position. This is true whether or not the spheres are equal in size. In your example above, you mention a point M which is equidistant from two photon sources. There are an infinite number of such points in classical 3 space.
Questions:
a) Is the observer in your example located at M?
b) And is M intended to represent a point equidistant from the photon sources, with distance to iM set as a minimum?
c) What significance is the point M to determining whether SR is a good theory?
d) How does an observer at M determine the distance to the photon sources is equal?
e) Why do you refer to the light sources as pulses? Is there is significance to this language? Is there some reason not to use the term "photons" so we know what you are referring to specifically?
-DrC
A. I am constructing a theoretical midpoint that is invariant, that is all. Any two wave fronts, wherever located and unrelated to the technical or reasonable ability to measure the situation have a midpoint that is invariant. If the concept is new to you, well then join the club, becaue it is new to me also, but coneptually and physically the description should hold. Do you see a flaw? Applying the description to our hypotheticals is reasonable. Look at my links again , I make much of this in cocnstructing the method for determining whether the photons were emtited simultaneosly.
B. If I understand you yes. The midpoint can be of the type we have been discussing in our hypotheticals, or on the grander scale of simultaneously or even nonsimultaneously errupting supernovae. Liike I mentioned, an expanding wave front chugging along for a million years has a huge number of midpoints between itself and all the other wave fronts in the universe. When a new pulse (photon) comes along, for any reason, another midpoint between the new wave front and the ancient is established.
C. In the hypotheticals we have been discussing, the midpoint is everything. For instance I argued in a previous thread to someone claiming one of the lights had to be pulsed on earlier than the other that he could be correct up to a point. Without any information locating a source, then the wave front is all that matters and that wave fronts could have been pulsed on at any time. I have not expressly used the used the term 'absolute space' in any argument that I recall, and only offered the concept here that under the conditions that the construct of the 'midpoint system' is an effective absolute space, then if SR denies the concept of absolute space SR would would be defective for that reson, right? You and I are debating an issue. You make a statement, any statement, denying the physical reality of 'absolute space'. I take this as meaning you are jusifying SR or something of which I am completely ignorant, but at least I was able to blunt the claim of any making the habitual claim of the lack of an ' absolute sapce' . OK I may have been in the dark, but so what? If one of an infinite number of inebriated Peruvian llamas suddenly handed us a single piece of paper with all the issues laid to rest with all the ambiguities, would you deny using the llama paper, just because it came from a llama?, an inebriated llama at that? or would the truth of the matter be sufficient?
D. Without some information other than the detection of the photons all the observer can determine is the point of collision, that we have been referring to as the "midpoint", can only be determined with certainty as the midpoint of the oncoming wave front originating from the sources wherever located.
In a hypothetical where the moving ovserver passes he midpoint just as the light sources are pulsed on and subsequently measuring the oncoming light then the light from the rear the observer can determine if the "midpoint" he crossed is the midpoint of the sources (because that is a given,) of light, but his information is restricted to the midpoint of the colliding wave fronts. Do you follow what I am saying? The moving observer, knowing his velocity and the fact he zeroed his timer when crossing the midpoint can determine if the subsequent pulses (photons) were emitted simultaneously, this moving observer can only do this with respect to (analysis of) the wave fronts of the emitted lights, each wave front moving at equal velocities and each wave front is located equidistant from the midpoint from the instant the pulses (photons) were turned on.
e. No there isn't any reason I cannot use 'photon' in place of 'pulse'. Was this terminology that confusing?
geistkiesel
May28-04, 11:07 PM
So let me get this straight. You're basically saying: "Reality" is whatever you declare it to be, regardless of observations, measurements, etc.
Sorry, but that's a perfect definition of fantasy, not reality. Physics is concerned with what one can: measure, observe, experience, test.
No, you are missing the point. A simultaneous event say in a stationary frame is physically simultaneous everywhere in the universe, and if your perceptions, weighted as they are by some theory that says you can perceive something different and that 'different' is claimed as a physical reality then you are accepting fantasy as reality.
And since you are here take a look at this link for a sense of the value of measurement I place on events.Click here for the value of measuement. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Two moving observers are approaching the mid point of two pulses of light emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame. One post argued that each of them using SR determines that the light behind them was turned on first. This was offeered to me for what reason I am unable to determine, but giving each observer a piece of theoretically fabircated nonsense, contrary to the stationary reality in the stationay frame such as I just decribed is silly.
Let me guess, you are going to respond that no, it is I who am silly right?, or something like this? right?
Your post doesn't have a lot of simultaneity concepts vis a vis SR, if any, are you just jumping in here for the fun if it, or did you just intend to distract the thread by some stupid inference assigned to me that I never made?
geistkiesel
May28-04, 11:16 PM
The thing is, Einstein gives an operational definition of terms. For example, there are procedures that can physically performed to identify something that SR calls "simultaneity in a given reference frame". SR's conclusions are certainly physicially meaningful, though you may disagree with the words chosen for them (such as "simultaneous").
The problem I'm having with your ideas is that there doesn't seem to be any way to actually determine whether two things are simultaneous; you describe it as if it is something one just knows.
I don't see how you could have missed the link I have been placing here and there if you have been following this thread as you say.
Let me make it trivially easy for you to determine if two events are simultaneous, where some have informed me SR says it can't be done.
Click here for the information you are having difficulty with. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
geistkiesel
May29-04, 01:18 AM
DrChinese - I found this example of a discussion on simultaneity on the internet. Do you agree with the conclusions and analysis? Explain. It is a faily simple hypothetical.
Do you agree with the conclusion this link? (http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfadd/1160/Ch27SpRl/Simlt.html)
Gelsamel Epsilon
May29-04, 02:12 AM
Is it just me? or does anyone actually get what those clock shooting out pictures at a constant rate which astronuats see which they then average off ( which is obvious without demonstration they'd be equal) are supposed to prove.
I'm not really sure what ur on about, but i suggest redoing that animation and starting the astronaut being to one of the sides and not in the middle :-/
cuz if hes in the middle of course he will see the light at the same time but if hes on the sides he will see 1 first before the other.
Also the astronauts on the side r seeing like 29 and 30 when the one of the other side is seeing 20 and 39 or wut ever, but they r different even though avged off they may be the same they r still differerent.
i hope at least some people understand me..
Gelsamel Epsilon
May29-04, 02:36 AM
O = supernova
-> = Light
X = Person
. = space
= = 2 light beams ( just to make this more understandable)
.......................................X "do de do de do".....................
A)O-------->............................................ <-----------O
...................X "oh wow a super nova".........X..." I can see a supernova"
.......................................X "wow 2 super nova at the same time!!!".........
B)O-------------------------><----------------------------O
...................X "wow that was cool"................X..."that is a cool supernova"
.......................................X "that was 2 cool supernova"
C)O-----------<========================>------------O
...................X "whoa another 1!!!"................X..."hey look another supernova"
.......................................X "no they both happened at the same time"
D)O==========================================O
...................X ...............................................X.. .......................
"The Super nova on this side happend first"..........."No the super nova on this side happened first"
Am i right in showing that diagram thingy ( if you can even read it)
geistkiesel
May29-04, 04:03 AM
Is it just me? or does anyone actually get what those clock shooting out pictures at a constant rate which astronuats see which they then average off ( which is obvious without demonstration they'd be equal) are supposed to prove.
I'm not really sure what ur on about, but i suggest redoing that animation and starting the astronaut being to one of the sides and not in the middle :-/
cuz if hes in the middle of course he will see the light at the same time but if hes on the sides he will see 1 first before the other.
Also the astronauts on the side r seeing like 29 and 30 when the one of the other side is seeing 20 and 39 or wut ever, but they r different even though avged off they may be the same they r still differerent.
i hope at least some people understand me..
If you would describe the animation and the parameters of the problem as you see it, it may clear things up. I didn't get it. This is not to say you haven't gor valid point, I just didn't get it.
geistkiesel
May29-04, 04:16 AM
O = supernova
-> = Light
X = Person
. = space
= = 2 light beams ( just to make this more understandable)
.......................................X "do de do de do".....................
A)O-------->............................................ <-----------O
...................X "oh wow a super nova".........X..." I can see a supernova"
.......................................X "wow 2 super nova at the same time!!!".........
B)O-------------------------><----------------------------O
...................X "wow that was cool"................X..."that is a cool supernova"
.......................................X "that was 2 cool supernova"
C)O-----------<========================>------------O
...................X "whoa another 1!!!"................X..."hey look another supernova"
.......................................X "no they both happened at the same time"
D)O==========================================O
...................X ...............................................X.. .......................
"The Super nova on this side happend first"..........."No the super nova on this side happened first"
Am i right in showing that diagram thingy ( if you can even read it)
I assume the reference to supenovae is directed at the references in some of the previous posts. If so, what are you saying? I detect some cynicism and poking fun at the reference to the supenovae, which is fair game as far as I am concerned but other than that I do not read a specific message. For my part I ws making the point that two light, excuse me photon sources, simultaneosuly generated from opposite sides of the universe, whether measured or not, would be simultaneous as a physical event by any observer.
I do not wish to make an error in characterizing your post, but if you are making an attempt to trivialize the model you missed the inference that nobody is seriously ever going to make any try at measuing exploding supenovae located at opposite ends of the universe. Had this been the inference DrChinses and for sure Doc Al would have jumped all over it. Is my assesment correct, or what?
In any event welcome to the forum.
geistkiesel
May29-04, 04:41 AM
DrChinese it just occured to me that there is a void in our discussion that needs some attention. For the most part I have been respoding to SR theorists and those supporting the the SR doctrine. Most, if not llopf your latest questions are directed, to a large extent at my concepts and how they fit into SR as criticism or objections. I may be over simlifying here but bear with me.
I introduced an analytic system that I structured and is an original piece, as far as I know, that describes a method of determining whether events simultaneous in one frame can be determined as simultaneous in another. I have not seen any serious criticism that specifically attacks any specific aspect of the model, good bad or indifferent. As the examples used in the model have all been described as showing the inability of determining simultaneity of events in different frames and as I have found a number of exceptions I claim the flaw is intrinsic in SR regardless of all the supportiing material I have seen in these posts intended to elucidate the contrary. If you want to provide something unambiguously specific of my thesis for serious criticism, there is a best way to go about it, directly.
There is nothing particlularly complex with the method used and flaws should be easily discoverable, if existing.
Can you find any flaws in this model? (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Gelsamel Epsilon
May29-04, 05:25 AM
Well uhh i didn't really read any of the posts exept for the first page, i was just saying by what i understood from that animation his error was to start off with only 1 astronuat and with him being in the middle :-/
Because if he is in the middle he would obviously see the events happen at the same time.
Then he put the other 2 in after the light had reached both sides.
if i had flash or wut ever i would make an animation and show you what i mean.
Geistkiesel, hi.
I never claimed I'm an expert and I just want to say this: I don't support this anymore so I stopped posting after a point. But I see that your argument is basically the same. On one of your pages, you say: "We don't even need moving platforms to run the experiment once the stationary event recordings are located". This was the same assumption I made (and now abandoned). If this is true, relativity of simultaneity is wrong, because they are basically opposite claims. But to prove the assumption, you need to go faster than light and relativity evades by prohibiting FTL travel. Now, as you are reading this, I imagine you have an objection but I wasn't there to clarify. Although I hate it when someone presents a different example and not focus on my example, I have to do it now, bear with me please. Suppose an alien claims that events in your kitchen are not simultaneous with events in your bedroom. He says your kitchen is lagging 5 minutes in time. To check this: you leave your bedroom and enter your kitchen, nothing happens, but supposedly you have travelled 5 minutes back in time. You exit the kitchen and go back to your bedroom. If the alien was right, you should find there a duplicate of yourself 5 minutes ago. But here's the catch: the alien sets another rule: you cannot travel from your bedroom to your kitchen under 5 minutes. Therefore you cannot disprove the alien's claim. It's kind of circular. But suppose you could go FTL and verify that assumption. Then you have trouble explaining how the midpoint observer on the moving platform measures speed of lights coming from both directions the same. It all boils down to constancy of speed of light, so maybe MMX was flawed. Please excuse my english.
I don't see how you could have missed the link
I haven't; I've now read it three times.
Let me make it trivially easy for you to determine if two events are simultaneous, where some have informed me SR says it can't be done.
If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.
So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.
More later, but I'm basically going to be bringing up the same objections others have. And BTW, the link you keep linking to me starts with the assumption that simultaneity in one frame means simultaneity in all frames; could you please link to what you feel is the proof of this statement?
DrChinese
May29-04, 02:53 PM
A. I am constructing a theoretical midpoint that is invariant, that is all. Any two wave fronts, wherever located and unrelated to the technical or reasonable ability to measure the situation have a midpoint that is invariant. If the concept is new to you, well then join the club, becaue it is new to me also, but coneptually and physically the description should hold. Do you see a flaw? Applying the description to our hypotheticals is reasonable. Look at my links again , I make much of this in cocnstructing the method for determining whether the photons were emtited simultaneosly.
B. If I understand you yes. The midpoint can be of the type we have been discussing in our hypotheticals, or on the grander scale of simultaneously or even nonsimultaneously errupting supernovae. Liike I mentioned, an expanding wave front chugging along for a million years has a huge number of midpoints between itself and all the other wave fronts in the universe. When a new pulse (photon) comes along, for any reason, another midpoint between the new wave front and the ancient is established.
C. In the hypotheticals we have been discussing, the midpoint is everything. For instance I argued in a previous thread to someone claiming one of the lights had to be pulsed on earlier than the other that he could be correct up to a point. Without any information locating a source, then the wave front is all that matters and that wave fronts could have been pulsed on at any time. I have not expressly used the used the term 'absolute space' in any argument that I recall, and only offered the concept here that under the conditions that the construct of the 'midpoint system' is an effective absolute space, then if SR denies the concept of absolute space SR would would be defective for that reson, right? You and I are debating an issue. You make a statement, any statement, denying the physical reality of 'absolute space'. I take this as meaning you are jusifying SR or something of which I am completely ignorant, but at least I was able to blunt the claim of any making the habitual claim of the lack of an ' absolute sapce' . OK I may have been in the dark, but so what? If one of an infinite number of inebriated Peruvian llamas suddenly handed us a single piece of paper with all the issues laid to rest with all the ambiguities, would you deny using the llama paper, just because it came from a llama?, an inebriated llama at that? or would the truth of the matter be sufficient?
D. Without some information other than the detection of the photons all the observer can determine is the point of collision, that we have been referring to as the "midpoint", can only be determined with certainty as the midpoint of the oncoming wave front originating from the sources wherever located.
In a hypothetical where the moving ovserver passes he midpoint just as the light sources are pulsed on and subsequently measuring the oncoming light then the light from the rear the observer can determine if the "midpoint" he crossed is the midpoint of the sources (because that is a given,) of light, but his information is restricted to the midpoint of the colliding wave fronts. Do you follow what I am saying? The moving observer, knowing his velocity and the fact he zeroed his timer when crossing the midpoint can determine if the subsequent pulses (photons) were emitted simultaneously, this moving observer can only do this with respect to (analysis of) the wave fronts of the emitted lights, each wave front moving at equal velocities and each wave front is located equidistant from the midpoint from the instant the pulses (photons) were turned on.
e. No there isn't any reason I cannot use 'photon' in place of 'pulse'. Was this terminology that confusing?
A. This is new to me. What are you talking about? How do 2 photons sources have a single midpoint which is equidistant from both? You also tried to explain this in D. and I have no idea what you are getting at. There are an infinite number of locations that meet the criteria you describe. And what is special about this point?
B. Midpoints. New and ancient. What are you talking about? Why do you talk about wavefronts and pulses instead of photons? Is there some purpose to this language?
C. More midpoints, pulse and waves. Of what? And you again say that midpoints define an absolute space ("the construct of the 'midpoint system' is an effective absolute space"). In Cartesian geometry, the "midpoint" of 2 points has location relative to the other 2 points, and does not gain any "absolute" status due to being the midpoint. So how do you go from relative positions to absolute positions?
D. You mention that an observer knows his velocity. How? An observer can know their velocity only relative to some other object, which in turns has a relative velocity to other objects. If you are walking down the street at 3 mph, that is not your absolute velocity.
E. Yes, it is a problem to use language which is not specific because it is impossible to discuss the subject intelligently. You use midpoint, pulses, and wavefronts. If you were trying to somehow use one of Einstein's train examples, you would note he is much more specific as to what the positions A, B and M represents, and specificly uses the term "light" to specify we are talking about EM radiation. Light or photon, same thing.
StargateX1
May29-04, 03:13 PM
Oh please! We already proved relativity a long time ago. What are you trying to do, win a nobel prize?
DrChinese
May29-04, 04:03 PM
DrChinese it just occured to me that there is a void in our discussion that needs some attention. For the most part I have been respoding to SR theorists and those supporting the the SR doctrine. Most, if not llopf your latest questions are directed, to a large extent at my concepts and how they fit into SR as criticism or objections. I may be over simlifying here but bear with me.
I introduced an analytic system that I structured and is an original piece, as far as I know, that describes a method of determining whether events simultaneous in one frame can be determined as simultaneous in another. ...
There is nothing particlularly complex with the method used and flaws should be easily discoverable, if existing.
Can you find any flaws in this model? (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Your example is hard to understand. It is very similar to the one by Einstein quoted by Martin Miller HERE. (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html) I am not sure if yours is intended to provide a different perspective than this one or not. At any rate, that one has been torn to death in the other thread To summarize its conclusion:
"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."
I agree with this statement. This is the realtivity of simultaneity, in Einstein's words. I see nothing in your example that contradicts this. All observers will not agree on the time (possible simultaneity) of specific events unless they are first given information as to reference frame to measure against. Seems pretty simeple to me. Where's the beef?
loseyourname
May29-04, 04:26 PM
If wespe ever reads through this again, I'd like to point out that you still haven't dealt with the fact that if you place an astronaut anywhere other than between the two clocks, his readings will not agree with an astronaut's who is between the clocks.
To the rest of you, there seems to be a very basic semantic error that is causing all of this misunderstanding. Geistkiesel is speaking of time as if time itself is an absolute frame of reference, but that is speaking as if time is something tangible. Time cannot be seen; time is only a medium that we move through. The central idea of relativity, the thread that binds SR and GR, is that all objects are moving at the speed of light. It isn't just the maximum speed; it is the only speed. But this speed must be parcelled out through each of four dimensions. Therefore, the faster an object moves through space, the slower it must move through time, with the speed of light being the upper barrier at which all movement through the temporal dimension ceases.
The point to this being that simultaneous events will occur simultaneously, but they will still occur at different times depending on who is watching. The prescient bit of info here is that these different times occur simultaneously. I have to admit that our language is ill-equipped to deal with this reality, and it seems inconsistent in that I am essentially saying that different times occur at the same time, but it is important to distinguish between a single moment and movement through time. If one clock says that it is 10:23 and another says that it is 10:22, they can do so simultaneously even if they are both correct, because their movement through time is not taking place at the same speed.
I admit that I am having difficulty following what I just typed myself, and again, I don't think the english language is well-equipped to express these ideas adequately, so feel free to ask for clarification on any point.
If wespe ever reads through this again, I'd like to point out that you still haven't dealt with the fact that if you place an astronaut anywhere other than between the two clocks, his readings will not agree with an astronaut's who is between the clocks.
Lol, here we go again. Yes, what you are saying is correct. But it is irrelevant. I did not say readings would agree if astronauts are not between the clocks. What I presented is a valid method for synchronizing clocks. It works, provided that: the two clocks and the astronauts are all stationary wrt each other, and the astronauts are on the line between the clocks. Beauty of it is that the two clocks need not be synchronized at the beginning, and you don't have to know the speed of light, and you don't have to measure the distances between clocks or astronauts. It works. It can also be used to synchronize any number of clocks in 3D space. Imagine two astronauts standing next to the two clocks. They synchronize their own clocks and then they replace those clocks with their own! [Then continue with the next two pairs of clocks]. Simple and useful. No need to resort to slow transport method or something else.
(please no more posts asking what if clocks move, what if astronauts not between, etc. Lol)
edit: If some of you think that my method is unimportant and it shouldn't be a problem to synchronize two stationary clocks, I'm interested in how this can be done. For example if you just reset two co-located clocks and send one of them to a distant place, they would be out of synch since you accelerated one of them due to relativity effects. If you send a signal from one clock to a distant one, you need to know the speed of light and the distance. If you send a signal from a midpoint to reset two distant clocks, you first have to measure and find the midpoint. I'm no expert, please correct me if I'm wrong.
loseyourname
May29-04, 06:15 PM
If that is all you're saying, wespe, I can't see how that refutes, or even has anything to do with relativity. Synchronizing two clocks isn't the issue; the rate at which each clock moves through time is. The thing is that if one clock is moving at an extremely high speed (that is, a statistically significant fraction of the speed of light), then the time it reads will change at a slower pace that of a clock that is not moving at such a high speed. This effect has been verified simply by placing one atomic clock on a high-speed train and leaving another stationary and observing the different in the rates they read. With this taken into consideration, your example is null when one clock is moving very fast, as one clock will not be reading each second as the other clock is. One clock will read 1 as the other reads 20, but then it will read 2 as the other reads 18, 3 as the other reads 16, 4 as the other reads 14, etc. (if one moves at exactly twice the rate of the other). In this case, the averages will be the same, but so what? You can clearly see that his does not mean the clocks are then moving through time at the same pace. Can you see how the average read by someone between the clocks is not relevant and why so many people just laughed you off at the start of the thread?
If that is all you're saying, wespe,
Yes, that is all I am saying now. I have now edited my first post.
loseyourname
May29-04, 06:52 PM
Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?
*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*
Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?
*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*
Surely if his theory is correct, then he would find this no problem!..he could alter all of 'OUR' clocks and we would be answering to different questions..in another thread somewhere. :biggrin:
Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?
*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*
yeah, "How I failed to refute relativity"
Surely if his theory is correct, then he would find this no problem!..he could alter all of 'OUR' clocks and we would be answering to different questions..in another thread somewhere. :biggrin:
you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)
you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)
Many have tried to swim against the Tide of the Sea of Relativity, but they all end up on the same shores, Time after Time! :smile:
You can get a good speed up by going with the Flow, I somehow think even if you could swim 'faster than the flow', you would still end up on the shore of Relativity, more than likely in another Universe. And there you would get another chance to tell everyone there how you believe in other Universe's..or life elsewhere in the Cosmos! :approve:
DrChinese
May29-04, 07:27 PM
you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)
So true... :D
geistkiesel
May29-04, 10:50 PM
Many have tried to swim against the Tide of the Sea of Relativity, but they all end up on the same shores, Time after Time! :smile:
You can get a good speed up by going with the Flow, I somehow think even if you could swim 'faster than the flow', you would still end up on the shore of Relativity, more than likely in another Universe. And there you would get another chance to tell everyone there how you believe in other Universe's..or life elsewhere in the Cosmos! :approve:
It is posts such this one that amplifies a point I have been making.
A metaphorical poem without a scintilla of scieitific reasoning, or even relativity reasoning is supposed to capture our imaginations and to ponder the ease of mind one can achieve by just believing in the postulates of some theory. Neither Olias, or any other 'soldier of relativity' has shown any but the slightest inklings of interest in engaging in 'hypothetical objective discourse. Instead we see a united front of SR theorists joined at the hip in denying any suggestion of error in the theory. RT that is.
All participants, whether offering posts to this tread or are observing from afar an unambiguous constatnt is the historical fact that no theory lasts forever. Most of those involved here have some how developed a thinking train that allows them to conclude that the knowledge enjoyed by mankind is the resultant of a sum of past aquired knowledge through some natural evolutionay process. To these, now are the times of the 'highest sum'. The errors of the past have been corrected and we are now, basically home.
The postulates of RT are dropped like soothing elixers designed to entice the wanderer to return to the prevailing majority, or as you Olias would say, "go with the flow'.
You can ignore the fact that there is a demonstrated exception to the dictates of relativistic simultaneity appearing in this thread. This exception is seen in many difereing forms. It is see in the link (http://frontiernet.net/~geidstkiesel/index_files)
that has not been directly attacked, analyzed, considered or discussed with any rational means. All of this in the face of the claimed unambiguous nature of the truth of RT/SR , and the overwhelming experimental results supporting these concepts such as the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence of frames, the shrinking of mass in the direction of motion and simultabneity there remains the reluctance to scrutinize discuss the matter rationally. Go with the flow, seems to the operable argument of the day, doesn't it?
The relativistic application of SR leading to the simultaneity state you perceive as a pure "perception" or psychological frame of mind is such that the negation of an unbambiguous physical event is substituted for by a rejection of the rational concept of observed simultaneity. The physical reality of the simultaneous activity of two events, in a stationary frame for inistance, can be altered by the mere perceptions of persons moving in other inertial frames. Your perceptions are everything. As strongly and energetically you deny even the merest hypothetical suggestion of RT erroor, you cannot engage in substantial objective dialogue have the light of contradcition begin to smolder, so even in information exchange mechanisms like this forum the formulation of truth becomes an organized raising of the drawbridge.
OK so you get to perceive your world as you choose, as yours is the final theory, the ultimate, the past now completely and finally corrected, everything cast in the hardest of stainless steel theoretically imaginable and you have expressed, to my perception a disturbing fear of learning. You have your options and metaphorical prose ain't gettin the jopb done. There is a crack in your dike and Hans, fed up with whimsical scientific mediocrity has pulled his thumb form the hole in disgust..
geistkiesel
May29-04, 11:14 PM
Geistkiesel, hi.
I never claimed I'm an expert and I just want to say this: I don't support this anymore so I stopped posting after a point. But I see that your argument is basically the same. On one of your pages, you say: "We don't even need moving platforms to run the experiment once the stationary event recordings are located". This was the same assumption I made (and now abandoned). If this is true, relativity of simultaneity is wrong, because they are basically opposite claims. But to prove the assumption, you need to go faster than light and relativity evades by prohibiting FTL travel. Now, as you are reading this, I imagine you have an objection but I wasn't there to clarify. Although I hate it when someone presents a different example and not focus on my example, I have to do it now, bear with me please. Suppose an alien claims that events in your kitchen are not simultaneous with events in your bedroom. He says your kitchen is lagging 5 minutes in time. To check this: you leave your bedroom and enter your kitchen, nothing happens, but supposedly you have travelled 5 minutes back in time. You exit the kitchen and go back to your bedroom. If the alien was right, you should find there a duplicate of yourself 5 minutes ago. But here's the catch: the alien sets another rule: you cannot travel from your bedroom to your kitchen under 5 minutes. Therefore you cannot disprove the alien's claim. It's kind of circular. But suppose you could go FTL and verify that assumption. Then you have trouble explaining how the midpoint observer on the moving platform measures speed of lights coming from both directions the same. It all boils down to constancy of speed of light, so maybe MMX was flawed. Please excuse my english.
I see your point, but consider the following. Assume for th esake of argument that the link I posted is an example of violations of that simultabeity principle supossedly demanded by RT. If the simultaneity concept is proved flawed then we must examine whether the reasoning leading to the flaw is rationally consistent, or f the postulates offerred as the demanding force have been erroneously constructed. In either event to assume that RT remains 'untouched' and is therefore logically coherent as an argument against the flawed system is logically erroneus and unnaccetable. The hypothetical of placing the measuring equipment and performing the expeiment without a moving frame should not necessarily be discarded. There is no need to go faster than light, though this is not so rigid that theorists discard the concept out of hand, but I see no need to exceed c in order to perform the static experiment, the result of which is trivially obvious.
The question then regarding your alien story is are the events not simultaneous because the alien claimed it? Not scientifically sufficient is it? The further claim that passage to the kitchen must be greater than 5 minutes is either a statement of physical truth or a subeterfuge to prevent your even attempting verification. You are correct the SR argument is circular and sophomoric, but it isn't rational.
geistkiesel
May29-04, 11:42 PM
I haven't; I've now read it three times.
If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.
So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.
You have the link for your perusal and scrutiny. What kind of rational value can be placed on your statement, "If you realy have done so [proved some errors in RT]" Do you have to offer your analytic result with an "If you are correct"? Are you able to demionstrate the error? Then prove what you said that my proof claims 0=1.
What is the scientific value of your personal confidence being equated as a rational opposition to my thesis as if I claimed 1=2? Are those reviewing this thread supposed to nod in silent agreement just because the famous Hurkyl is confident in a particular theoretical belief.
More later, but I'm basically going to be bringing up the same objections others have. And BTW, the link you keep linking to me starts with the assumption that simultaneity in one frame means simultaneity in all frames; could you please link to what you feel is the proof of this statement?
I do not recall the assumption you just referred to. I did say that moving observers were going to perform an analysis before jumping to the knee jerk simultaneioty consequences following the mere arrival of two light pulses at different times.
What objections others brought up? You warn us of intended repetition in the future? ... that RT is a properr theory because someone showed it to you in a book, or a lot of books?
You can at the vey best use an SR theory argument using flawed posutlates and a rationally skewered logic.
I will offer you a challenge I have offered several times to 'anti-SR soldiers' like yourself; write up your "disproof" analytically. That is, choose coordinate systems and actually give the exact space and time coordinates of each event, in each relevant reference frame.
None have ever taken up this challenge; I imagine because most of them never bothered to learn enough about special relativity to do so. It's too bad because it makes obvious just about every conceptual mistake people have about SR.
Anyways, an example.
In the "stationary" reference frame, two (stationary) supernovae are located at x-coordinates -c * 1s and c * 1s. (one light second to the left and right of the origin, respectively) The supernovae started at time 0s in the stationary reference frame. More succinctly, we say that these events occured at space-time coordinates (-c * 1s, 0) and (c * 1s, 0).
Consider another reference frame moving to the right at 0.6c with respect to the stationary frame, and that the origins of the frames coincide. According to the Lorentz transformations, in the moving frame, the supernovae events occur at space-time coordinates (-c * 1.25s, .75s) and (c * 1.25s, -.75s). In particular, they occur at different coordinate-times in this reference frame. Speaking relativistically, the events are not simultaneous in this frame.
What kind of rational value can be placed on your statement
You accuse everyone who doesn't reject SR of merely being indoctrinated, and don't seem willing to accept that they might actually have rational justification for not rejecting SR. I attempted to show one such rational justification for immediately rejecting any suggestion that the logic of SR is flawed.
(I put emphasis on "logic" because there's a vast difference between suggesting the logic is flawed and between suggesting SR doesn't describe the "real world")
I'm certainly willing to go through the proof, if you're serious about following it. The sketch of the proof goes as follows, and will be done with only one spatial dimension for simplicity (unless you insist otherwise):
I will define the universe to be the Euclidean plane.
I will define what "inertial reference frame" means.
I will show that if an object travels at the speed of light in one inertial reference frame, it does so in all inertial reference frames.
(Thus, I have constructed a model of SR)
I will select two events that, in one reference frame, have the same time coordinate (and thus are simultaneous).
I will select another reference frame that, in this model, will have a time difference of 1 between these two events.
I will then apply your hypothesis that, in SR, if events are simultaneous in one frame they are simultaneous in all frames, and thus the time difference between the two events is 0.
Thus, 0 = 1.
geistkiesel
May30-04, 12:13 AM
Oh please! We already proved relativity a long time ago. What are you trying to do, win a nobel prize?
Do you have a problem with this? Do you think anyone whoever did win the prize didn't want to win it?
What is your scientific argument here, that I do not seem modest enough for your standards, therefore SR wins and I lose? So, you think this thread is in the class of potential Noble awards, do you? Very interesting.
geistkiesel
May30-04, 12:40 AM
I will offer you a challenge I have offered several times to 'anti-SR soldiers' like yourself; write up your "disproof" analytically. That is, choose coordinate systems and actually give the exact space and time coordinates of each event, in each relevant reference frame.
None have ever taken up this challenge; I imagine because most of them never bothered to learn enough about special relativity to do so. It's too bad because it makes obvious just about every conceptual mistake people have about SR.
Anyways, an example.
In the "stationary" reference frame, two (stationary) supernovae are located at x-coordinates -c * 1s and c * 1s. (one light second to the left and right of the origin, respectively) The supernovae started at time 0s in the stationary reference frame. More succinctly, we say that these events occured at space-time coordinates (-c * 1s, 0) and (c * 1s, 0).
Consider another reference frame moving to the right at 0.6c with respect to the stationary frame, and that the origins of the frames coincide. According to the Lorentz transformations, in the moving frame, the supernovae events occur at space-time coordinates (-c * 1.25s, .75s) and (c * 1.25s, -.75s). In particular, they occur at different coordinate-times in this reference frame. Speaking relativistically, the events are not simultaneous in this frame.
How many events were there? One or two? How do you determine the positions and times? I assume the moving observer at the midpoint arrives simultaneously at the midpoint just as the photons from the supernovae reach this point. OK you have a Lorentz thjeory to moderate the observations. However, all you have proved is that Loentz mathematics gives the results it does.
Would it unfairly alter the hypothetical by having stationary and moving observers located at the points when the supernovae erupted and they were shorlty evaporated? Each moving observer passes the stationary observer at the instant the explosions occur. I assume Lorentz contraction mathematics will provide the same calculations you presented. If you are correct in the statement that "Speaking relativistically, the events aren't simultaneous . . ." just what do you mean? Thirty observers moving, thirty observers stationary, how many events are there?
Did I read your mathematics correctly? The moving frame has the otherwise simultaneous events separated by 1.50 seconds in the moving frame? Which value of start time is asigned to which event? It depends on the direction of motion of the observer? Or What?
geistkiesel
May30-04, 12:49 AM
You accuse everyone who doesn't reject SR of merely being indoctrinated, and don't seem willing to accept that they might actually have rational justification for not rejecting SR. I attempted to show one such rational justification for immediately rejecting any suggestion that the logic of SR is flawed.
(I put emphasis on "logic" because there's a vast difference between suggesting the logic is flawed and between suggesting SR doesn't describe the "real world")
I'm certainly willing to go through the proof, if you're serious about following it. The sketch of the proof goes as follows, and will be done with only one spatial dimension for simplicity (unless you insist otherwise):
I will define the universe to be the Euclidean plane.
I will define what "inertial reference frame" means.
I will show that if an object travels at the speed of light in one inertial reference frame, it does so in all inertial reference frames.
(Thus, I have constructed a model of SR)
I will select two events that, in one reference frame, have the same time coordinate (and thus are simultaneous).
I will select another reference frame that, in this model, will have a time difference of 1 between these two events.
I will then apply your hypothesis that, in SR, if events are simultaneous in one frame they are simultaneous in all frames, and thus the time difference between the two events is 0.
Thus, 0 = 1.
Good. I would appreciate a 'complete' description of the physical construction of your hypothetical.
How many events were there? One or two?
Depends on what you're counting; there's at least two events under consideration, supernova A and supernova B.
How do you determine the positions and times?
I selected position and time for each event in the "stationary" reference frame. After fully specifying the "moving" frame, I applied the Lorentz transformations to compute the position and time that would be computed for each supernova in the "moving" frame.
I assume the moving observer at the midpoint arrives simultaneously at the midpoint just as the photons from the supernovae reach this point.
I have not introduced the photons; the "stationary" observer is at the midpoint between the two events. According to the "stationary" reference frame, the "moving" observer passed the "stationary" observer simultaneously with the two supernovae. Both observers consider their meeting as time 0.
If we add the photons, we will find that the "stationary" observer will intercept the photons from each event at time 1s, according to his reference frame. The "moving" observer, according to his reference frame, will intercept one photon at time .5s and one at time 2s.
However, all you have proved is that Loentz mathematics gives the results it does.
SR uses the Lorentz transformations to transform one reference frame to another, so I have also proevd that SR gives those results.
Would it unfairly alter the hypothetical by having stationary and moving observers located at the points when the supernovae erupted and they were shorlty evaporated?
Nope. The net effect would just be a translation of the coordinates.
Speaking relativistically, the events aren't simultaneous . . ." just what do you mean?
I object to the omission of "in this frame". :tongue: When I say "The events aren't simultaneous in this frame", I mean that, in this frame, the events occured at different time coordinates. This statement applies to any number of events greater than 1.
Good. I would appreciate a 'complete' description of the physical construction of your hypothetical.
Why? Physical reality has nothing to do with logical consistency.
But in any case, a physical construction of one of Einstein's inertial reference frames maybe useful to demonstrate, so this is how it works:
Pick an inertial observer to be the "master timekeeper". Any other clock that is stationary to the master timekeeper can be synchronized in a number of ways; the simplest to describe would be:
Send a signal to the master timekeeper. Upon receiving the signal, the master timekeeper will immediately transmit to you the time on his clock.
With your clock you can measure the elapsed time, and thus figure out the time time delay for transmission in this frame (half the elapsed time). Thus, you can adjust the time received from the master timekeeper to find the correct time for "now" and set your clock.
In this way, any collection of clocks that are stationary with respect to each other can be synchronized according to an inertial reference frame. This means that, in this frame, all clocks will read the same time simultaneously.
Then, the (coordinate) time of any event according to this frame is given by the reading of the clock that happens to be located at the event as it occurs.
You can ignore the fact that there is a demonstrated exception to the dictates of relativistic simultaneity appearing in this thread. This exception is seen in many difereing forms. It is see in the link (http://frontiernet.net/~geidstkiesel/index_files)
that has not been directly attacked, analyzed, considered or discussed with any rational means.
Now this is getting funny! I've personally ripped apart this very link--your so-called "analytical system" several times! And I am by no means the only one to have done so. (Anyone interested can just do a search on your posts--and read the responses. It's all there.)
Your modus operandi is to just ingore any criticism--and then just keep reposting that same silly link.
Of course, any discussion of your "analytical system" that makes use of accepted (experimentally and theoretically) facts of modern physics--or questions the logic of your assumptions--you discount as "irrational". You have boxed yourself into a logical corner, geistkiesel. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
DrChinese
May30-04, 11:32 AM
Now this is getting funny! I've personally ripped apart this very link--your so-called "analytical system" several times! And I am by no means the only one to have done so. (Anyone interested can just do a search on your posts--and read the responses. It's all there.)
Your modus operandi is to just ingore any criticism--and then just keep reposting that same silly link.
Of course, any discussion of your "analytical system" that makes use of accepted (experimentally and theoretically) facts of modern physics--or questions the logic of your assumptions--you discount as "irrational". You have boxed yourself into a logical corner, geistkiesel. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
Perhaps geistkiesel is one of those who likes to see his hit counter increment. I guess I fell into the trap, thinking there would be some actual intelligent discussion go on in the debate. But as you correctly point out, this thread is going in circles. And it appears to me that geistkiesel is moving in circles intentionally.
geistkiesel, while the rest of the world is using SR & GR for our GPS tracking, you can operate in a world in which ALL events occur simultaneously. After all, if everyone sets their watch to the same time and then they remove the battery out of the watch... LOL.
Thanks for the link, the information relayed is this:The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Open the frontiernet.net home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.
Is this some sort of metaphorical response to my post?
The 'poem' I created at the spur of the moment, not meant to be anything other than a response to a poster.
If you follow a lot of my posts elsewhere, I do not conform to the 'whole' of SR + GR or QT, QED..String or MT, I have a understanding somewhere in the 'open-ground', that each theory seems to provide.
But the work of Einstein, Born and Pauli are my least problamatic in Theoretical Understanding, so I walk upon their ground more often than others.
I see your point, but consider the following. Assume for th esake of argument that the link I posted is an example of violations of that simultabeity principle supossedly demanded by RT. If the simultaneity concept is proved flawed then we must examine whether the reasoning leading to the flaw is rationally consistent, or f the postulates offerred as the demanding force have been erroneously constructed. In either event to assume that RT remains 'untouched' and is therefore logically coherent as an argument against the flawed system is logically erroneus and unnaccetable. The hypothetical of placing the measuring equipment and performing the expeiment without a moving frame should not necessarily be discarded. There is no need to go faster than light, though this is not so rigid that theorists discard the concept out of hand, but I see no need to exceed c in order to perform the static experiment, the result of which is trivially obvious.
The question then regarding your alien story is are the events not simultaneous because the alien claimed it? Not scientifically sufficient is it? The further claim that passage to the kitchen must be greater than 5 minutes is either a statement of physical truth or a subeterfuge to prevent your even attempting verification. You are correct the SR argument is circular and sophomoric, but it isn't rational.
Geistkiesel,
For the reason I mentioned, I don't think you can find an example that disproves the simultaneity principle, because it seems circular.
Let's do assume that both events are really simultaneous in both frames (for the experiment at http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html). M' sees the two lightenings at different times. Relativity explains this by saying lightenings did not stike simultaneously in his frame. But we are assuming they did. So, how will we explain that M' measures the speed of light the same in both directions? (Note that: speed of light is independent of its source, M' was at the midpoint of locations where the lights were emitted and M' considers himself stationary.)
We could say that even if he is not aware, M' was in fact moving. Thus the speed of light was not the same in both directions (it was c+v, c-v). Yet he measures them the same. This is possible, because there is no measuring one way light speed, it is always measured by timing round-trip of light, +v -v cancels each other. (if you try to measure one way speed by using two synchronized clocks and timing the passage of a light ray between them, it is still no good, because all synchronization methods rely on light speed being the same in both directions, including my method. If it is not, the result of the synchronization method will cancel the effect of +v -v.)
So we can explain everything like this, as seen by the stationary observer. Relativity can also explain everything too, as seen by the moving observer. Problem is, we need the stationary observer to explain what is really happening, relativity doesn't need it. It may not be rational, but it looks more practical. And the measurements are not merely an illusion, because everything seems dependent on speed of light, even mechanical processes, so what you measure is what you get.
In my opinion, the only way to disprove relativity is to find a method to measure one way light speed (a method which of course doesn't rely on light speed to synchronize clocks). Even if this can be found, we have to look at the actual measurements of speed of light for different directions in a moving frame. Then we can conclude if relativity is flawed and circular or if that's really how nature works.
Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.
PS. I think I have adressed your questions about the alien story by what I said above.
edit: please also see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
geistkiesel
May31-04, 08:14 AM
Geistkiesel,
For the reason I mentioned, I don't think you can find an example that disproves the simultaneity principle, because it seems circular.
Let's do assume that both events are really simultaneous in both frames (for the experiment at http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html). M' sees the two lightenings at different times. Relativity explains this by saying lightenings did not stike simultaneously in his frame. But we are assuming they did. So, how will we explain that M' measures the speed of light the same in both directions? (Note that: speed of light is independent of its source, M' was at the midpoint of locations where the lights were emitted and M' considers himself stationary.)
OK maybe SR predicits this but see the fallacy. The moving observer sees two photons of light consecutive in time. She can conclude a number of possibilities. That she was at the midpoint of the light sources as she crossed the midpoint measured from the stationry observer, or that one light preceded the other, See my link for the straight-forward proof of this. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) and which light it was.
The most basic of common sense does not restrict the moving observer to conclude only the lack of simultaneity. Blue/red analysis of the photons measured indicates the observer is moving wrt the sources of the light if you assume the light photons are identical when emitted, plus the stipulated fact of her crossing the midpoint when he light were emitted in the stationary frame.. Unless we define the moving observer as a total science gumball she can evaluate a number of possibilities.
We could say that even if he is not aware, M' was in fact moving. Thus the speed of light was not the same in both directions (it was c+v, c-v). Yet he measures them the same. This is possible, because there is no measuring one way light speed, it is always measured by timing round-trip of light, +v -v cancels each other. (if you try to measure one way speed by using two synchronized clocks and timing the passage of a light ray between them, it is still no good, because all synchronization methods rely on light speed being the same in both directions, including my method. If it is not, the result of the synchronization method will cancel the effect of +v -v.)
There is no synchronnization of clocks necessary here. The moving observer times the dt between t1 and t2 in her moving frame, period.
So we can explain everything like this, as seen by the stationary observer. Relativity can also explain everything too, as seen by the moving observer. Problem is, we need the stationary observer to explain what is really happening, relativity doesn't need it. It may not be rational, but it looks more practical. And the measurements are not merely an illusion, because everything seems dependent on speed of light, even mechanical processes, so what you measure is what you get.
I trust you aren't saying the moving observer knows nothing of her crossing the midpoint at t = 0, in her moving frame? Otherwise the problem is ambiguous.
What is wrong with assuming the speed of light is constant in all moving frames as measured in that moving frame? Whether she is moving or not she will always measure c constant. The moving observer you call M' arrives with the incoming light the same instant the stationary observer also measures the oncomig light, say at t1 measured in the moving frame, which is different than the stationary mesured time of t1 (we assume). The two observers need not swap information for the moving observer to determine the simultaeity of the emitted photon events. Similarly for the light from the rear, the moving observer knows her velocity wrt the stationary frame, right, let's say v = 1? and during t = dt = t2 - t1 = 1 for the time between the arrival of the 2nd photon at t2 we equate the times for the arrival of the photon 2t1 + 1 = v(dt) = 1, where here we assume the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. We equate the distance as 2t1 + 1 = 1 or rearranging, t1 = (c - 1)/2. A calculation where the measured t1 = (c - 1)/2 means the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame and that our assumption was correct. Variations from the measured t1 will show which light preceded the other.
In my opinion, the only way to disprove relativity is to find a method to measure one way light speed (a method which of course doesn't rely on light speed to synchronize clocks). Even if this can be found, we have to look at the actual measurements of speed of light for different directions in a moving frame. Then we can conclude if relativity is flawed and circular or if that's really how nature works.
Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.
Place 100 light detectors 10 km apart, approximately, and zero the optical distance distance of each leg. over a 90 degree angle. by monitoring any deviations from the optical path equivalence as the earth rotates and moves around the sun,etc. temperature and other non light speed perturbations can be statistically accounted for. Each measurement is one way. What is wrong with this experiment? carried over 5 years say?
The above is an exception to your postultion that there is only one way to disprove SR. One does not have to disprove SR to disprove it. One has to merely find an exception to the derivation of the simultaneity consequences predicted by the application of the fundmental postulates of SR. The logic applying in reverse will take care of itself. You surrendered to the SRists prematurely.
PS. I think I have adressed your questions about the alien story by what I said above.
edit: please also see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
[/QUOTE]
I did not see any contradiciton in your 'Baez' link of the short analysis that derived the t1 = (c - 1)/2 expression (also seen in my link above),except of course, the implication that any variation from predictions of SR are wrong, period.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 08:28 AM
I haven't; I've now read it three times.
If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.
So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.
So where is the theorem that "adjusts" my proof?
I also see that it is the SRists claiming 1 = 2. I guess that the truth of the matter is in the perception of the perceiver, right? Physical law is inconsequential. All observers see a simultaneous event in the stationary frame as nonsimultaneous in their moving frame? A million different frames all adjusting the simutaneous event measured in the stationary frame as not simultaneous in the moving frames. Think of the consequences of this kind of ratioanle offered in court rooms where the "one who did it" claims that everybody is off base because he was in a movng fame and did not perceive that he in fact did it.
Hurkyl can appear as the "one who did it"'s expert witness.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 08:37 AM
Your example is hard to understand. It is very similar to the one by Einstein quoted by Martin Miller HERE. (http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html) I am not sure if yours is intended to provide a different perspective than this one or not. At any rate, that one has been torn to death in the other thread To summarize its conclusion:
"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."
I agree with this statement. This is the realtivity of simultaneity, in Einstein's words. I see nothing in your example that contradicts this. All observers will not agree on the time (possible simultaneity) of specific events unless they are first given information as to reference frame to measure against. Seems pretty simeple to me. Where's the beef?
If you are saying that the moving observer has no information of when she passed he midpoint or some other infromaion there is nothing the moving observer can conclude about simulaneity., the problem is ambiguous.
So you do not like my link? You have not pointed to any specific fallacy with any specificity that would allow me to rationally respond to your criticism in this post of yours above.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 08:58 AM
Nope, that's the same tired, incoherent, circular argument as always.
I suggest reading it one more time. What Einstein does is start with stationary observers seeing two simultaneous events. Then, using the postulates of relativity, he deduces that moving observers must disagree. Unlike you, he doesn't just assume that simultaneity is observer-independent.
I disagree regarding Einstein's using relativity theory to disprove simultaneity. It is the fact that the moving platform detects first the oncoming light , then the light from the rear that AE uses to show why simultaneity, in the instance used, must be discarded. Read it agani. The observer need not conclude the emission of the photons was not simultaneous by the mere fact of detecting the photons at different times. The moving observer may ask first, "If I am moving what do my mesurements mean? perhaps I am moving such that the emission of the lights was simultaneous in both my moving frame and the frame of a stationary observer."
Read it again Mac Al, AE used the example in a simplistic manner. My link discusses this completely. Can you find a specific flaw?
geistkiesel
May31-04, 09:07 AM
Well, you said:
"The statement regarding the midpoint of expanding EM spheres was intended to demonstrate the existenxcce of an absolute space."
-and-
"Reference to absolute space and time: For the case of two moving wave fronts existing in the universe, do you agree that all observers in all platforms will determine the location of one and only one midpoint of those expanding EM spheres? and that everyone will determine the exact same location of that midpoint? The midpoint cannot drift unless the wave fronts drift, which would mean that the wave front velocity is variant,which would mean tha 'c' varies. Do you want to do this?
Let me revise my statement above. Observers can only observe the point or points along a line connecting two photons on a collision course. If the photons are observed at a point M simultabneously then M is the midpoint of the photons when there was, the first instance of two photons.
I was thinking erroneously as an observer watching the motion of the photons from afar, which cannot be accomplished.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 09:25 AM
Depends on what you're counting; there's at least two events under consideration, supernova A and supernova B.
I selected position and time for each event in the "stationary" reference frame. After fully specifying the "moving" frame, I applied the Lorentz transformations to compute the position and time that would be computed for each supernova in the "moving" frame.
I have not introduced the photons; the "stationary" observer is at the midpoint between the two events. According to the "stationary" reference frame, the "moving" observer passed the "stationary" observer simultaneously with the two supernovae. Both observers consider their meeting as time 0.
If we add the photons, we will find that the "stationary" observer will intercept the photons from each event at time 1s, according to his reference frame. The "moving" observer, according to his reference frame, will intercept one photon at time .5s and one at time 2s.
You have contradicted yourself. You said the moving observer arrived at M simultaneously with both photons. How then can the moving obsever intercept the moving photons at different times in his frame? Are you saying that after the moving observer arrives at M the same instant as the photons that he then calculates the arrival at different times, contrary to his observation?
What do you mean "if we add the photons"?
SR uses the Lorentz transformations to transform one reference frame to another, so I have also proevd that SR gives those results.
See the above. You haven't proved it to me.
It is the fact that the moving platform detects first the oncoming light , then the light from the rear that AE uses to show why simultaneity, in the instance used, must be discarded. Read it agani. The observer need not conclude the emission of the photons was not simultaneous by the mere fact of detecting the photons at different times.
:rofl: Still without a clue, eh? If the lights were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame at the moment the moving observer passed the midpoint, then the moving observer would of course detect the arrival of the two pulses simultaneously. But even you admit that he doesn't.
Read it again Mac Al, AE used the example in a simplistic manner.
I am well aware of Einstein's argument, geistclownsel. And do let us know when you've corrected your link.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 09:44 AM
If wespe ever reads through this again, I'd like to point out that you still haven't dealt with the fact that if you place an astronaut anywhere other than between the two clocks, his readings will not agree with an astronaut's who is between the clocks.
To the rest of you, there seems to be a very basic semantic error that is causing all of this misunderstanding. Geistkiesel is speaking of time as if time itself is an absolute frame of reference, but that is speaking as if time is something tangible. Time cannot be seen; time is only a medium that we move through. The central idea of relativity, the thread that binds SR and GR, is that all objects are moving at the speed of light. It isn't just the maximum speed; it is the only speed. But this speed must be parcelled out through each of four dimensions. Therefore, the faster an object moves through space, the slower it must move through time, with the speed of light being the upper barrier at which all movement through the temporal dimension ceases.
The point to this being that simultaneous events will occur simultaneously, but they will still occur at different times depending on who is watching. The prescient bit of info here is that these different times occur simultaneously. I have to admit that our language is ill-equipped to deal with this reality, and it seems inconsistent in that I am essentially saying that different times occur at the same time, but it is important to distinguish between a single moment and movement through time. If one clock says that it is 10:23 and another says that it is 10:22, they can do so simultaneously even if they are both correct, because their movement through time is not taking place at the same speed.
I admit that I am having difficulty following what I just typed myself, and again, I don't think the english language is well-equipped to express these ideas adequately, so feel free to ask for clarification on any point.
No. I do not claim time is absolute. I assume that clocks dilate in time according to their motion, velocity. An arrival at a point simultaneously with two colliding photons can only be altered so as to arrive not simultaneously, by a calculation after the event. Clocks are irrelevant when measuring a single event. You are correct if you equate simultaneity with one point in time for one event, the simultaneous arrival of the two photons. Yet you say the physics is different "depending on who is watching".
The zero point of all observers occurs when arriving at the same instant as the photons. Where does the instant in time, instant for all moving frames, at t = 0 become t > 0 for the simultaneously arriving photons?
The difficulty you indicate to explain the problem is insurmountable in the English language. Does the mathematical language usurp the verbal description of simultaneity? I suppose it does if one applies a theorem that effectively redefines an observed instant to be two instances in time. This reminds me of an erstwhile quantum mechanical assertion that observation by the human observer is the instance of the "wave collapse" of the quantum particle in motion. If you are not looking at the moon it isn't there.
You have contradicted yourself. You said the moving observer arrived at M simultaneously with both photons.
Learn to read, geistkiesel. Hurkyl said no such thing.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 10:00 AM
:rofl: Still without a clue, eh? If the lights were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame at the moment the moving observer passed the midpoint, then the moving observer would of course detect the arrival of the two pulses simultaneously. But even you admit that he doesn't.
I am well aware of Einstein's argument, geistclownsel. And do let us know when you've corrected your link.
No, if the moving observer passed the stationary midpoint of the light photon emission as he passed the midpoint he would see, first the oncoming light, then the light from the rear. He simply need not conclude that the photons were emitted at different times. The moving obsever could ask what conditions are such that the lights were emitted simultaneously in a stationary frame that I, the moving observer, merely detected the oncoming light before the light from the rear was detected LATER".
For the sake of argument, your arguments would apply to a stationary observer with two detectors both in a line conecting the photon sources closer to the B source. The closest detector measures the light from A first. Then an even closer detector to the oncoming light photon is set up after the arrival from the forward source, to detect the photon coming from the rear.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 10:16 AM
Now this is getting funny! I've personally ripped apart this very link--your so-called "analytical system" several times! And I am by no means the only one to have done so. (Anyone interested can just do a search on your posts--and read the responses. It's all there.)
Your modus operandi is to just ingore any criticism--and then just keep reposting that same silly link.
Of course, any discussion of your "analytical system" that makes use of accepted (experimentally and theoretically) facts of modern physics--or questions the logic of your assumptions--you discount as "irrational". You have boxed yourself into a logical corner, geistkiesel. Don't expect to be taken seriously.
Quote:
quoting Geistkiesel It is the fact that the moving platform detects first the oncoming light , then the light from the rear that AE uses to show why simultaneity, in the instance used, must be discarded. Read it agani. The observer need not conclude the emission of the photons was not simultaneous by the mere fact of detecting the photons at different times.
Still without a clue, eh? If the lights were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame at the moment the moving observer passed the midpoint, then the moving observer would of course detect the arrival of the two pulses simultaneously. But even you admit that he doesn't.
Wrong and a conscious effort to make a claim exactly opposite to that stated immediately above. I have been screaming the very opposite of what you just stated. You are either sufereing from memory proglblems or you have jsut consciously made a false claim that deliberately mistates anything I have stated in all my posts on this thread or any other thread.
Quote:
Read it again Mac Al, AE used the example in a simplistic manner.
I am well aware of Einstein's argument, geistclownsel. And do let us know when you've corrected your link.
I am beginning to doubt your honesty in the claims in your posts. I am sure that some will not take me seriously for any number of reasons , but how about taking seriously those who, erroneously or consciously, grossly misstates claims like yours above?
geistkiesel
May31-04, 10:26 AM
As a post mortem to your reference of "link" discussing the Einstein simultaneity well it is the same used by Einstein in his book "Relativity". The mere fact that the moving observer saw the light from the oncoming photon before he saw the one approaching from the rear is all that is used to show why we must give up the concept of simultanity. This is grossly incompetent physics. The moving observer need not assume ONLY that the photons were emitted at different times.
I think that you know this very well. He may test to see if the photons were emitted simultaneously. My link proves this and you know it. You are posturing in defeat. The honest man would admit he is worng, or at lest fall on hus sword. It is getting to be embarrassing to see sucjh utter deparvity in your posts. I am sorry for you and any embarrassment my posts have caused you.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 10:36 AM
Thanks for the link, the information relayed is this:The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.
I test my links before posting. Here is one corrected (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) xcuse any errors in past refer3ence that may be confusing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please try the following:
If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
Open the frontiernet.net home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.
Geistkiesel said
Is this some sort of metaphorical response to my post?
The 'poem' I created at the spur of the moment, not meant to be anything other than a response to a poster.
If you follow a lot of my posts elsewhere, I do not conform to the 'whole' of SR + GR or QT, QED..String or MT, I have a understanding somewhere in the 'open-ground', that each theory seems to provide.
But the work of Einstein, Born and Pauli are my least problamatic in Theoretical Understanding, so I walk upon their ground more often than others.
I see no science claims in both of your posts.
In the "stationary" reference frame:
Supernova A occurs at (-1s * c, 0)
Supernova B occurs at (0, 1s * c)
The two observers meet at (0, 0)
"Stationary" observer detects photons from A and B at (0, 1s)
"Moving" observer detects photon from A at (1.5s * c, 2.5s)
"Moving" observer detects photon from B at (0.375s * c, 0.625s)
In the "moving" reference frame:
Supernova A occurs at (-1.25s * c, 0.75s)
Supernova B occurs at (1.25s * c, -0.75s)
The two observers meet at (0, 0)
"Stationary" observer detects photons from A and B at (-0.75s * c, 1.25s)
"Moving" observer detects photon from A at (0, 2s)
"Moving" observer detects photon from B at (0, 0.5s)
Timeline, in the stationary reference frame:
0s: Both supernovae erupt, both observers meet
0.625s: Moving observer detects photon from B.
1s: Stationary observer detects photons from A and B.
2.5s: Moving observer detects photon from A.
Timeline, in the moving reference frame:
-0.75s: Supernova B erupts
0s: Both observers meet
0.5s: Moving observer detects photon from B
0.75s: Supernova A erupts
1.25s: Stationary observer detects photons from A and B
2s: Moving observer detects photon from A
The locations of the supernovae in the "stationary" reference frame were selected, as was the fact the two observers meet at (0, 0) in both frames, and that, in the stationary frame, the moving observer is going to the right with a velocity of 0.6c. The rest were computed from these starting assumptions.
Geistkiesel, we have a problem.. There seems to be a language barrier between us (possibly on my side, I'm not native english speaker). I'm having difficulty understanding you, and I may not be able to express myself clearly. Therefore this discussion will probably be fruitless if we continue...Please see below...
OK maybe SR predicits this but see the fallacy.
"predicts this".. What did you refer to with "this"?
The moving observer sees two photons of light consecutive in time. She can conclude a number of possibilities.
OK, I'm with you up to this point.
That she was at the midpoint of the light sources as she crossed the midpoint measured from the stationry observer, or
How is this is one of the possible conclusions? This was already a given in the experiment setup.
or that one light preceded the other,
Again, it's not clear what you mean here. "One light preceded the other" is the observation. How is this one of the possible conclusions?
See my link for the straight-forward proof of this. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/) and which light it was.
I don't understand what you mean by "which light it was". I checked the link once more. That looks like the same experiment I gave the link for, with added stationary observers. I followed you until "the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1". Where did that 2t1 come from? I'm already lost. Would you consider creating a clearer version of the page? Could you list the events in time order, like "t0=A emits light", "t1=O receives light from A" etc?
The most basic of common sense does not restrict the moving observer to conclude only the lack of simultaneity. Blue/red analysis of the photons measured indicates the observer is moving wrt the sources of the light if you assume the light photons are identical when emitted,
As far as I was informed, there is no blue/red shift for a single photon. However, if the light source is continuously emiiting photons, there is blue/red shift, but then they are not single events, and you can already tell there is a movement but it is mutual. I think a lightening is supposed to represent a single event.
plus the stipulated fact of her crossing the midpoint when he light were emitted in the stationary frame.. Unless we define the moving observer as a total science gumball she can evaluate a number of possibilities.
I have no clue what you are saying here....
There is no synchronnization of clocks necessary here. The moving observer times the dt between t1 and t2 in her moving frame, period.
I can't make sense out of this, since I failed to understand your version of the experiment. How can you not need synchronized clocks to measure one way speed of light?
I trust you aren't saying the moving observer knows nothing of her crossing the midpoint at t = 0, in her moving frame? Otherwise the problem is ambiguous.
Yes the moving observer knows her crossing the midpoint. That's the experiment setup. There is no issue here.
What is wrong with assuming the speed of light is constant in all moving frames as measured in that moving frame? Whether she is moving or not she will always measure c constant.
I'm surprised you don't see a problem there. Replace the light signals with bullets. Do you not see the speeds should be measured as c+v c-v relative to the moving observer? Moving observer measures the speed relative to herself, not relative to the stationary frame.
The moving observer you call M' arrives with the incoming light the same instant the stationary observer also measures the oncomig light..
I can't make any sense of this... This cannot be the description of the experiment in my link. I'm sorry.
Place 100 light detectors 10 km apart, approximately, and zero the optical distance distance of each leg. over a 90 degree angle. by monitoring any deviations from the optical path equivalence as the earth rotates and moves around the sun,etc. temperature and other non light speed perturbations can be statistically accounted for. Each measurement is one way. What is wrong with this experiment? carried over 5 years say?
What is being measured here or how is this measuring one way speed of light?
The above is an exception to your postultion that there is only one way to disprove SR. One does not have to disprove SR to disprove it. One has to merely find an exception to the derivation of the simultaneity consequences predicted by the application of the fundmental postulates of SR. The logic applying in reverse will take care of itself. You surrendered to the SRists prematurely. I did not see any contradiciton in your 'Baez' link of the short analysis that derived the t1 = (c - 1)/2 expression (also seen in my link above),except of course, the implication that any variation from predictions of SR are wrong, period.
Geistkiesel, if you want to continue like this, I'm willing to give it a try. But if you are not willing, just ignore this reply and we go our own ways... no problem.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 04:55 PM
Geistkiesel, we have a problem.. There seems to be a language barrier between us (possibly on my side, I'm not native english speaker). I'm having difficulty understanding you, and I may not be able to express myself clearly. Therefore this discussion will probably be fruitless if we continue...Please see below...
"predicts this".. What did you refer to with "this"?
predicts what SR predicts. Nothing moe, nothing less.
OK, I'm with you up to this point.
How is this is one of the possible conclusions? This was already a given in the experiment setup.
Again, it's not clear what you mean here. "One light preceded the other" is the observation. How is this one of the possible conclusions?
I am saying that the detection of the light first from the front, then the rear has a number of conclusions one may infer other than the two measurments being restricted only to the conclusion that the emitted photons were not simultaneous. If the moving platform had no information of its own motion then the moving observer may, never the less, infer more than that the photons were emitted in sequence, or said another way, were not emitted simultaneously. The moving observer thinking himself stationary can consider that he is closer to the source in front of him than from the source to the rear of him. He need not automaticvally determine the photons were not emitted simultaneously. This is the stationary aspect of the 'moving frame question' we discussed earlier.
I don't understand what you mean by "which light it was". I checked the link once more. That looks like the same experiment I gave the link for, with added stationary observers. I followed you until "the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1". Where did that 2t1 come from? I'm already lost. Would you consider creating a clearer version of the page? Could you list the events in
I guess that the midpoint should have been stated as the midpoint measured between the position at +t1 and earlier at -t1. like "t0=A emits light", "t1=O receives light from A" etc?
The sequence is: t0 = o the mutual time the moving platform passed the midpoint M of the photon sources and the time of simultabeous emission of the photons from both sources. t1 is t0 + t1 = t1, the time of measuring the first photon from the front. t2 the tiem t0 = t2 = t2 the time of mesuring the 2nd photon from the rear.
I made an assumption, (to be tested later) that when the 1st photon arrived at the moving frame at t1, the time of transit between the midpoint M and the arrival of the 1st photon, that the moving platform had in fact passed through the midpoint of the moving sources and photons. This would place the photon arriving later from the rear at a position to the left of the midpoint at -(1)xt1. The second photon was measured at t2 and I assumed for convenience that dt = t2 - t1 = 1. Now then, the time of flight of the second photon to the point determined by t2 is (2t1)x(v) + (dt)x(1). (x is the mathematical symbol for 'times') Since both dt and v = 1, conveniently, we may set the distance between the second photon at the time of arrival of the first photon at 2t1 +1 to the left of the point determined by t2. (remember we have tenmporarily assumed the midpoint where the moving platform zeroed his clock was the midpoint of the emitted photons). The distance the 2nd photon must travel in the time t2 - t1 = 1, is (1)x(c) or the distance 2t1 +1 = 1xc = c and therefore after rearranging the expression we get, t1 = (c - 1)/2 = k. As t1 was a measured quantity, a comparison with k will determine if the photons were emitted simultaneously from sources located equidistant from the midpoint where the moving platform zeroed his clock as we assumed. For a finding that t1 = k, the assumption will prove correct. Otherwise one or the other sources was turned on first. Here the given condition was the stationary M, coincident with the moving M' was the midpoint of the sources of light emitted simultaneously. Hence for t1 = k, this is confirmed.
As far as I was informed, there is no blue/red shift for a single photon. However, if the light source is continuously emiiting photons, there is blue/red shift, but then they are not single events, and you can already tell there is a movement but it is mutual. I think a lightening is supposed to represent a single event.
As an after thought, a series of coded photon pulses can be used to keep a running track of the sources, but this is outside or given conditions.
I agree otherwise, but noting the wavelength of both photons a blue./red shift determination can be accomplished. Consider the hypothetical varying slightly. The light sources are attached at both extreme ends of the moving platform coincident with the sources located in the stationary frame. Then to the moving frame a bleu/red analysis indicates the soures are attached to the moving paltform and both photon wavelength are identical, but the stationary frame will see a non-null blue/red shift determination from sources attached to the moving platform.
I have no clue what you are saying here....
I can't make sense out of this, since I failed to understand your version of the experiment. How can you not need synchronized clocks to measure one way speed of light?
From the moving platform, with dilated clocks, this platform determes the t1 = k value. t1 is tested for equality with k. The moving observer having assumed that M ws the midpoint of the two photons, measured strictly in the moving frame, the t1, measured against the constant k, will detemine simultaneity of the emitted photons with respect to the moving platform. The stationary t1, will be a different number than the measured t1' in the moving frame because the clock speed is assumed to have slowed in the moving frame consistent with SR theory, correct? Under the conditions of what is given, that is the passing of the moving frame through the midpoint when the photons were emitted , the clocks are arbitrarily set at t0 = 0 in all frames. Hence, knowing the velocity of the moving frame as v =1 everything seen strictly from the moving platforms observation, the t1' = k derived above is the t1' of the moving platform. If at anytime the stationary observer and the moving observer comares their respective t1 and t1' both will recognize that moving platform t1' is a number less than the number measured by the stationary observer. Then the clocks can be synchronized, but for what purpose? Simultaneity of the emitted photons has already been established independently by both observers.
I had to sever this post in two parts because of the length.
geistkiesel
May31-04, 05:03 PM
Wespe,this is the continuation of my previous poss in responding to your last post.
First, I am not sure of any need to measure the speed of light as all observers can look up the value in a table of physical constants .The speed of light is assumed to be c in both frames, which is fundamenmtally consistent with SR postultes, is it not? When t1 is determined in the moving frame the observer their uses c = 299xxxkm/sec in calculating k, as does the stationary observer. t1, however is a different number on the output channels of the respective clocks, but the lack of clock synchronization between frames is totally unnecessay for the analysis of the problem..
I endeavor for you to see that the derivation ot t1 = k requires no clock synchronization with the stationary frame. The clock 'synchronization' can be striclty limited to giving the moving platform a reference to the instant of passing through the midpoint at M and only this. The moving platform can either 'zero' the clocks physically (in both frames, neither observer knowing of the other's measurement or even existence) or merely note the current reading in the output channels of the moving clock.
Wespe, I am ready willing and able to discuss this matter until it is resolved. Your use of the English language would shame many who claim English as a first language. I don't feel particlualry shamed, but I am very aware that you are able to understand my corriupted English as well as expressing yourself more than adequately in English. You need not offer any disclaimers or apologies for the form or content of any of your posts. Were I in you shoes, I would even feel a bit smug and pomous of my grasp of a foreign language to the high level that you exhibit, but then our own unique and self imposed limits of personal modesty are not a barrier to understanding each other's posts. It is the subject matter of the thread that provides the difficulty not the mutial use of the English language. This being the case as I see it, there is only the SR problem of simultaeity that we need concern ourselves with. I am not in any particlular hurry to rush the conclusion of this problem to some hasty and unambiguous end.
Please, if any of the above has not been clearly understood by the slightest amount do not cut the questions off with an assumtpion that myself or others, will find your questions as trivial or unimportant. I mean this in every sense of the word. Any, the slightest misunderstanding I beg you to bring to my attention. I will assume the same from yourself.
geistkiesel
geistkiesel
May31-04, 10:35 PM
Wespe,
I am making a guess that you will understand the old adage that applies to the current SR theorists in a way that you might discover some familiarity with.
"Alles kunst ist umsonst wen ein Angel das zündloch prünst"
Anon :wink: :wink:
Wespe,
I am making a guess that you will understand the old adage that applies to the current SR theorists in a way that you might discover some familiarity with.
"Alles kunst ist umsonst wen ein Angel das zündloch prünst"
Anon :wink: :wink:
Geistkiesel, hi.
Google translation: "All art is in vain whom fishing rod the zuendloch pruenst". The last part is bad so I couldn't even get your joke. :(
Actually, at the moment I was trying to decipher your long reply. I suggest that we first focus on clarifying the experiment. All other issues can wait. My reply is in order, but I'm a bit slow with math and I have some other matters to take care of, so there will be some delay.
To avoid any confusion, I'm planning to label some events and rename some variables, if you don't mind. Then we need the equations for both observers, equations for all measured times and lengths, and then we may even find some nice round numbers to plug into the equations. I will post my reply when it's ready. I hope this is OK with you.
geistkiesel
Jun1-04, 01:37 AM
Geistkiesel, hi.
Google translation: "All art is in vain whom fishing rod the zuendloch pruenst". The last part is bad so I couldn't even get your joke. :(
Actually, at the moment I was trying to decipher your long reply. I suggest that we first focus on clarifying the experiment. All other issues can wait. My reply is in order, but I'm a bit slow with math and I have some other matters to take care of, so there will be some delay.
To avoid any confusion, I'm planning to label some events and rename some variables, if you don't mind. Then we need the equations for both observers, equations for all measured times and lengths, and then we may even find some nice round numbers to plug into the equations. I will post my reply when it's ready. I hope this is OK with you.
Sounds good to me. The adage: All skill is in vain when an Angel ______ on your flintlock.
How about one experiment at a time to thoroughly wring it out? If I may suggest the one we were supposedly discussing. This is Einstein's example in huis book "Relativity". The famous moving train. Just as the midpoint M' of the train coincides with the M of the stationary frame and midpoint of two light sources located at A and B (A behind B in front) the sources emit a photon. M sees the light from B first and then from A later. AE claims that because of the different arrival times of the photons the moving observer thinks the pulses were emitted at different times, period.
What ever seems easiest to you, or hardest for that matter, we'll do it.
Geistkiesel.. here's my primitive attempt.. it turns out I'm really bad with math. My final result is that photons were not emitted simultaneously in moving frame. I suspect your analysis omits the time dilation effect, but I'm not sure if I'm doing this properly.. let me know..
..............M->v
A.....d.....O.....d.....B
t=0, O and M coincide and reset clocks, A emits PhotonA (EventPA) , B emits PhotonB (EventPB)
EventMB: M detects PhotonB
EventOD: O detects PhotonA and PhotonB
EventMA: M detects PhotonA
// For O:
xO = 0
xM = v*t
xPA = -d+c*t
xPB = d-c*t
EventPA: xPA = -d => tPA = 0
EventPB: xPB = d => tPB = 0
EventMB: xM = xPB => tMB = d/(c+v)
EventOD: xPA = xPB = 0 => tOD = d/c
EventMA: xM = xPA => tMA = d/(c-v)
// For M:
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Length contraction => d' = d/gamma
Time dilation=> tMA'-tMB' = (tMA-tMB)/gamma
xM' = 0
xO' = -v*t'
xPA' = -c*tMA'+c*t'
xPB' = c*tMB'-c*t'
EventPA: xPA' = -d' => tPA' = tMA'-(d'/c)
EventPB: xPB' = d' => tPB' = tMB'-(d'/c)
EventOD: xPA' = xPB => tOD' = (tMA'+tMB')/2
xPA' = xO' => tOD' = c*tMA'/(c+v)
xPB' = xO' => tOD' = c*tMB'/(c-v)
=> tMA' = (c+v)/(c-v)*tMB'
//say c=3, v=1.5, d=9
//For O:
tPA = tPB = 0
tMB = d/(c+v) = 2
tOD = d/c = 3
tMA = d/(c-v) = 6
Event order:
tPA=tPB= 0 < tMB=2 < tOD=3 < tMA=6
//For M:
gamma=1.16
Length contraction => d' = d/gamma = 7.76
Time dilation=> tMA'-tMB'= tMA-tMB/gamma = 3.45
tMA'=(c+v)/(c-v)*tMB'=3.tMB'
tMB'=1.725
tMA'=5.175
tOD'=(tMA'+tMB')/2=3.45
d'/c=2.59
tPA'=tMA'-2.59=2.585
tPB'=tMB'-2.59=-0.865
Event order:
tPB'=-0.865 < tMB'=1.725 < tPA'=2.585 < tOD'=3.45 < tMA'=5.175
geistkiesel
Jun3-04, 11:01 AM
Geistkiesel.. here's my primitive attempt.. it turns out I'm really bad with math. My final result is that photons were not emitted simultaneously in moving frame. I suspect your analysis omits the time dilation effect, but I'm not sure if I'm doing this properly.. let me know..
..............M->v
A.....d.....O.....d.....B
t=0, O and M coincide and reset clocks, A emits PhotonA (EventPA) , B emits PhotonB (EventPB)
EventMB: M detects PhotonB
EventOD: O detects PhotonA and PhotonB
EventMA: M detects PhotonA
// For O:
xO = 0
xM = v*t
xPA = -d+c*t
xPB = d-c*t
EventPA: xPA = -d => tPA = 0
EventPB: xPB = d => tPB = 0
EventMB: xM = xPB => tMB = d/(c+v)
EventOD: xPA = xPB = 0 => tOD = d/c
EventMA: xM = xPA => tMA = d/(c-v)
// For M:
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Length contraction => d' = d/gamma
Time dilation=> tMA'-tMB' = (tMA-tMB)/gamma
xM' = 0
xO' = -v*t'
xPA' = -c*tMA'+c*t'
xPB' = c*tMB'-c*t'
EventPA: xPA' = -d' => tPA' = tMA'-(d'/c)
EventPB: xPB' = d' => tPB' = tMB'-(d'/c)
EventOD: xPA' = xPB => tOD' = (tMA'+tMB')/2
xPA' = xO' => tOD' = c*tMA'/(c+v)
xPB' = xO' => tOD' = c*tMB'/(c-v)
=> tMA' = (c+v)/(c-v)*tMB'
//say c=3, v=1.5, d=9
//For O:
tPA = tPB = 0
tMB = d/(c+v) = 2
tOD = d/c = 3
tMA = d/(c-v) = 6
Event order:
tPA=tPB= 0 < tMB=2 < tOD=3 < tMA=6
//For M:
gamma=1.16
Length contraction => d' = d/gamma = 7.76
Time dilation=> tMA'-tMB'= tMA-tMB/gamma = 3.45
tMA'=(c+v)/(c-v)*tMB'=3.tMB'
tMB'=1.725
tMA'=5.175
tOD'=(tMA'+tMB')/2=3.45
d'/c=2.59
tPA'=tMA'-2.59=2.585
tPB'=tMB'-2.59=-0.865
Event order:
tPB'=-0.865 < tMB'=1.725 < tPA'=2.585 < tOD'=3.45 < tMA'=5.175
I am sure you are doing it properly but there may be an inherent flaw due to your use of time dilation which you are assuming. Here is the argument that explains the flaw, if any flaw exists.
If the omission of the photons were in fact simultaneous, with emphasis on if, then SR is in error. Therefore, in testing the truth of the matter we must start at some point that does not infer SR and at the same time does not deny SR, yet the analysis must still be physically correct.
I have just posted the following in response to doctordick who rejected my 'link analysis', get this, because it is "simple minded". This is the sum total of his analysis. It may be simple minded, which I gleefully confess, but see if the following makes sense to you. I only suggest that you are of a frame of mind that is purely objective before inserting 'objections' from preconceived ideas regarding SR. The objections are satisfied. I have the same mental aberrations as anyone though I can still maintain an 'open mind' when reading and analyzing theories and ideas that conflict even grossly with my own. I retain the objections rising from the subconscious as background noise until finishing absorbing the ideas in front of me. Someimes I surrender, some times I take no prisoners, which is the case here as there are too many prisoners to take.
As peviously submitted
You have misread the sequence of events. I shall be very careful here in describing what is occurring.
The numbers in the figure can apply to moving or stationary fames with ‘dilation corrections’ appropriately inferred.
Midpoint coordinates of emitted photons are invariant as photon speed is not source or frame dependent. Midpoint coordinates of expanding light spheres are invariant from the instance of emission of the photons. Therefore, any statements, derivations or conclusions drawn from experimental results, and/or theoretical constructs or postulates, denying the reality or concept of absolute space, meaning invariance in the spatial coordinates of events, must be discarded.
[Wespe I add here: The motion of the observer can be determined with respect to the invariant coordinates of the emitted photon source. The mirrors are moving, not with respect to the photons such that we add and subtract c and v, rather the mirrors move with respect to the coordinates of the photon source]
Photons and mirrors converge to predictable coordinates. In the moving frame the left photon and mirror converge before the right photon and mirror converge. Photons and observer converge simultaneously in all frames. The Δt of emission-to-convergence is greater in moving frames due to the greater photon distance traveled.
The observers’ perceptions cannot be determined until the convergence of the photons, hence all determine that the reflections were not simultaneous in the moving frame, but the emissions were simultaneous. The dilations of moving clocks can be explained, partially at least, due to the extended distance traveled during emission and convergence times.
Michelson-Morley experimental results were not null. An aether drift induced wave shift of 1/20 of that predicted was subsequently confirmed by Dayton Miller.
geistkiesel
Jun3-04, 11:48 AM
Wespe - please accept m apologies. The xample in my reply to yours was different than our agreed example which you properly analyzed. However, as the subject matter is consistent whatever value thee is in my reply is still relevant to your analysis as the postulates of SR imposing the time dilation contraints must be modified on a fundamental level.
Let me epeat the basic argument based on a physical assumption that the speed of light is constant from whatever frame measured [which may have some mdification due also].
If two photons are emitted in opposite directions or a short burst of photons expand as a sphere we see that the midpoint is invriant as:
<- P ->
<- P ->
<- P ->
with t moving down and distance along the horizontal. The only way the midpoint P can vary is if the speed of one of the photons varies, or if the relative speed of both photons vary. If hee were a photon speed variation then the instantaneous location of P would shift. Of course thee could not be in reverse time implications rather there would result a dri8ft of the measured midpoint. In an experiment with spatial dimensions in the order we have been discussing only the measured postions of the photons can be compared as a test of theory, which is what my derivation of t1 in our chosen experiment was or t1 = (c - 1)/2 = k, for a velocity of the moving platform v =1 and the distance traveled between dt = t2 - t1 = 1 where v and dt are convenient and arbitrary.
In my analysis, and correct me if I am in error, I assumed the invariance of the midpoint M of the moving photons throughout the analysis, hence the times and distances were measured from an absolute position coincidental with the midpoint of the sources at the instant the photons were emitted. The irony of the situation here is that the physical location of M measured does drift with respect to the stationary platform as the platform moves (the earth's rotationsal and solor orbit motion) with respect to the absolute position of the midpoint defined by the emitted photons.
Michelson-Morley experimental results were not null. An aether drift induced wave shift of 1/20 of that predicted was subsequently confirmed by Dayton Miller.
In the middle of this page (http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html) (section II, "Repetitions of the MMX") there is a table with experimental results of Michelson-Morley type experiments. The last one in the table (by Joos, performed in 1930!) gave a result of 1/350 of the expected shift.
The missing piece of information here is the experimental error. A shift of 1/10 would be enough to declare SR correct (or rather, to declare wrong the alternative way of computing the expected shift) if the expected error is of the same size. Basically, you have two theories, one predicting 350, one predicting 0, and the result turns out to be 1+-1. I think that settles things in favor of SR.
I am sure you are doing it properly but there may be an inherent flaw due to your use of time dilation which you are assuming. Here is the argument that explains the flaw, if any flaw exists.
If the omission of the photons were in fact simultaneous, with emphasis on if, then SR is in error. Therefore, in testing the truth of the matter we must start at some point that does not infer SR and at the same time does not deny SR, yet the analysis must still be physically correct.
I have just posted the following in response to doctordick who rejected my 'link analysis', get this, because it is "simple minded". This is the sum total of his analysis. It may be simple minded, which I gleefully confess, but see if the following makes sense to you. I only suggest that you are of a frame of mind that is purely objective before inserting 'objections' from preconceived ideas regarding SR. The objections are satisfied. I have the same mental aberrations as anyone though I can still maintain an 'open mind' when reading and analyzing theories and ideas that conflict even grossly with my own. I retain the objections rising from the subconscious as background noise until finishing absorbing the ideas in front of me. Someimes I surrender, some times I take no prisoners, which is the case here as there are too many prisoners to take.
As peviously submitted
You have misread the sequence of events. I shall be very careful here in describing what is occurring.
The numbers in the figure can apply to moving or stationary fames with ‘dilation corrections’ appropriately inferred.
Midpoint coordinates of emitted photons are invariant as photon speed is not source or frame dependent. Midpoint coordinates of expanding light spheres are invariant from the instance of emission of the photons. Therefore, any statements, derivations or conclusions drawn from experimental results, and/or theoretical constructs or postulates, denying the reality or concept of absolute space, meaning invariance in the spatial coordinates of events, must be discarded.
[Wespe I add here: The motion of the observer can be determined with respect to the invariant coordinates of the emitted photon source. The mirrors are moving, not with respect to the photons such that we add and subtract c and v, rather the mirrors move with respect to the coordinates of the photon source]
Photons and mirrors converge to predictable coordinates. In the moving frame the left photon and mirror converge before the right photon and mirror converge. Photons and observer converge simultaneously in all frames. The Δt of emission-to-convergence is greater in moving frames due to the greater photon distance traveled.
The observers’ perceptions cannot be determined until the convergence of the photons, hence all determine that the reflections were not simultaneous in the moving frame, but the emissions were simultaneous. The dilations of moving clocks can be explained, partially at least, due to the extended distance traveled during emission and convergence times.
Michelson-Morley experimental results were not null. An aether drift induced wave shift of 1/20 of that predicted was subsequently confirmed by Dayton Miller.
Geistkiesel,
Well, I am not sure if I did the analysis properly. I may have also made a mathematical mistake somewhere. But I did not assume anything except the given setup conditions, plus the SR effects. Then, the general equations of motion forced the outcome as I calculated.
I think you are suggesting that we remove time dilation and length contraction effects from the analysis. OK, I will try that and see. But, my guess is, the main problem is "constancy of speed of light in all frames". The photons cannot be simultaneously emitted in all frames, mathematically, if speed of light is to be constant in all frames. Your reply mentions about MMX result being not null. So are you suggesting that we remove constant light speed assumtion from the analysis too? Anyway, if you remember my post about one way light speed, you know that I don't dismiss the (c+v)(c-v) possibility. So I'll try that, too. (there is a discussion going on currently about one way light speed (OWLS) on sci.physics.relativity newsgroup, SR experts don't deny OWLS hasn't been measured and it is an unproven postulate).
Well I have to go now. I'm having trouble finding spare time for this discussion, so I may not always be able post a reply promptly.
geistkiesel
Jun3-04, 08:55 PM
Geistkiesel,
Well, I am not sure if I did the analysis properly. I may have also made a mathematical mistake somewhere. But I did not assume anything except the given setup conditions, plus the SR effects. Then, the general equations of motion forced the outcome as I calculated.
I think you are suggesting that we remove time dilation and length contraction effects from the analysis. OK, I will try that and see. But, my guess is, the main problem is "constancy of speed of light in all frames". The photons cannot be simultaneously emitted in all frames, mathematically, if speed of light is to be constant in all frames. Your reply mentions about MMX result being not null. So are you suggesting that we remove constant light speed assumtion from the analysis too? Anyway, if you remember my post about one way light speed, you know that I don't dismiss the (c+v)(c-v) possibility. So I'll try that, too. (there is a discussion going on currently about one way light speed (OWLS) on sci.physics.relativity newsgroup, SR experts don't deny OWLS hasn't been measured and it is an unproven postulate).
Well I have to go now. I'm having trouble finding spare time for this discussion, so I may not always be able post a reply promptly.
Draw a picture of the events as they happen without any reference to moving or statioanry frames. We have the two sources. We have M we have he point to the right where the B photon reaches moving platform at B' and the point where the photon fom A reaches the moving platform at A'. We ask, what are we trying to determine? I asked, Does he scenario just described prove the moving observers determine the photons left A and B simultaneously or otherwise?
First I notice that a platform coming from the opposite direction as a mirrored representation is going to get the opposote "relativity" based answer as her twin. A third platform moving perpendicular and equal distant from M as the twins must be at some point along the line joining A and B when a photon is met also is aimed at the midpoint..
If we carefull point a million observers to reach the midpoint M from a million different directions (and say a million experimental arrangements) those crossing M with the arriival of the photons will, if relativity is correct, all get different answers for the calculated photon emissions, except for the observers heading to the midpoint a a plane perpendiclular to, and centered at, M. These all calculate the same emission times. Remember, in all cases we are using relativity theory to make any calculation, therefore our experimental arrangement is not designed to prove anything regarding raltivity or the consequential loss of simultaneoty. Therefore using relativity theory proves nothing other than a claimed discovery of a scenaio consistent with relativity theory. A fix crap game up to here.
OK let us see. The marked coordiantes of A and B, M and the points B' and A' where B and A photons are detected. Laying along this path we mark locations on the stationay platform at each place the train observer detected photons and the midpoint. You can even insert two clocks at all points and label them S and M, where the M clocks are clicking at a relativity rate of 1/2 that of the S clocks. We were clever enough to have our stationary detectors located at the same spatial locations throughout. There is no need to make any calculations to determine whether the emitted photons are physically sequential in the moving frame. We know they are physically simultaneous in the stationary frame. We have a moving clocks coincidental spatially with the stationary clocks at A and B. Each singular event at A and B therefore is, by definition simultaneous, such as the instant the photons were emitted. SO if one B' clock concidental with B stationary clock reads 9, then the moving clock A' at A also reads 9, and the fact that the stationary clocks both read 10 means what regarding simultaneity?
If you calculated that the photons were emitted at different times in the moving frame, then how do you explain the fact that both of your clocks read he same value, yet your calculations concluded otherwise. Where did you assume it was necessary to calculate the time the photons were emitted? Likewise, if you are on the moving platform where the laws of physics are the same as the stationary frame how do you explain that the laws of physics in one frame gives a grossly different conclusion as the moving frame? This is not within the definition of the physical equivalence of inertial frames, is it within your defintion? Still, even with the measured clocks having the same reading on the moving platform, under what theoretical imperative must you adjust the already dilated clocks to give the nonsimultaneous emission of the photons? iF the platforms are unique within themselves what is the necessity, if any, of recognizing the very existence of other frames in order to determine if the photons are simultaneously emitted? If you were on the moving paltform would you need any nonmoving platform data in order to make a calculation on your platform? What if every one on the moving platform were the twntieth generation of the oiginal crew without a scrap of paper even suggesting relativity theory and all physics problems were void of relativity content but f = ma in the moving frame differing in calculatied results from the stationary calculation by a time fiunction that is lorentz biased?
Are we calculating or observing? If both, then why do measurements, even with time slowing, differ from your calculated version? What does, "perceive the events to be nonsimultaneous" mean? Is this difeent from emasuring the events? Does it mean simply that the clock difference of the two frames define nonsimultaneity?
Remember, there was no direct observtion that the photons were not emitted simultaneously. WE must compare clocks to infer the fact, but using the moving clocks, is unambiguous that we infer the photons were emitted ast the same time in the moving frame.
Wespe, unless you see the unconditional necessity of using lorentz mathematics to determine the perception, I say the problem went away. I read Einstein. He uses the trivial fact of the different times that the A and B photons arrived as sufficient to discard concepts of simultaneity. But again AE didn't refer to the mere possibility that both emission times can be observed by all frames, hence the contradiciton.. Nor did AE bring up the possibility that the different times of photon arrival does not imply a conclusion of nonsimultaneity as the observers could reason that they were moving and having a picture of the arrangements consider the possibility the photons were emitted simultaneously.
:devil:
I don't want to continue this discussion for it will be a waste of time. I spent many hours on that analysis. Simply put: if you are midpoint of two light sources, and if they emit light at the same time according to your clock, and if light speed is constant, you will detect the lights at the same time. If you don't detect them at the same time, that means either 1- the distances were not the same, 2- light speed was not constant, 3- they didn't emit the light at the same time. I'm not even sure which one of these is your claim. I see no other possibility if x=vt. (And if you are moving towards one of the light sources, you cannot possibly measure light speed the same in both directions, that would correspond to #2 above. And if you measure them the same, either #1 or #3 must be true. AE says it's #3)
Take care.
geistkiesel
Jun3-04, 09:37 PM
Geistkiesel,
Well, I am not sure if I did the analysis properly. I may have also made a mathematical mistake somewhere. But I did not assume anything except the given setup conditions, plus the SR effects. Then, the general equations of motion forced the outcome as I calculated.
Wespe,
An Intwoah Tivleep pounced upon me just I published the previous post. I fought and struggled, but was powerless against the overwhelming force, and in the end, my defenses spent and shattered I surrendered to the Intwoah Tivleep. With a shaky moral hand, I did, with a reasonbly proper plethora of regret and angst, of course, force myself to post you the following:
Let us say two conspiring and devious physicists Wes Devfizz and Geis Devfizz conduct an experiment giving the relativity industry the opportunity to reproduce the Einstein gedunken:
The two scoundrels set the stage by first calculating the same difference in time for the emission of two photons and actually emit the photons such that the times are such that the moving observers will perceive the photons were emitted simultaneously. Now the times of arrival are such that the moving frame should calculate the photons were emitted simultaneously, right? And the genius of SR will discover this situation, right? Are the moving frame relativitists going to get to perceive a correct answer from their perspective? We ask them how their theory can provide such a horendously and grossly incorrect answer, a deviation from physical reality, such that one event is made into two events? The strongest and most committed of the RTs will say that as to their perception the photons were emitted at the same time and that's just how it is down at the relativity factory. Then, we show them the secret clocks we had hidden that gave the actual moving and stationary clock readings equating the A' and B' readings in the moving frame and the A and B readings in the stationary frames. A - A' = B - B' > 0 for A' = B'.
We should be standing at some safe distance removed when we ask the RTs "the question": howd ja splainal dis? (Translated: How do you explain all this, coming from AE, "you know, the name yas got tooed on yers theeree der"?)
The problem Wespe ain't a simultaneity problem. It is a problem with relativity theorists who demand the right to perceive the universe in any way they choose. They are teaching this stuff to our children in public and private schools you know?
:devil:
OK :devil: from me to you too. I don't care. What the hell, I'm anonymous here.
OK. So what you are saying is: "after we show the secret clocks to the moving observer, he should be convinced that the lights were emitted at the same time". But according to those secret clocks, moving observer should have measured light speed as c+v and c-v too, right? So he should be convinced about that too, or should he trust his own measurements? (I already told you that his measurement of light speed was not one-way, but in fact two-way, so it is possible that c+v and c-v was real and cancelled each other.) Just tell what is your claim about the light speed measurements.
geistkiesel
Jun3-04, 09:59 PM
I don't want to continue this discussion for it will be a waste of time. I spent many hours on that analysis. Simply put: if you are midpoint of two light sources, and if they emit light at the same time according to your clock, and if light speed is constant, you will detect the lights at the same time. If you don't detect them at the same time, that means either 1- the distances were not the same, 2- light speed was not constant, 3- they didn't emit the light at the same time. I'm not even sure which one of these is your claim. I see no other possibility if x=vt. (And if you are moving towards one of the light sources, you cannot possibly measure light speed the same in both directions, that would correspond to #2 above. And if you measure them the same, either #1 or #3 must be true. AE says it's #3)
Take care.
I wont let you quit yet. Now we have it all settled.
A. You are at the midpoint when the lights are emitted. You detect the light from B before it reaches M and then you detect the light from A after it has passed M. You can't possibly detect the lights from the sources if you are moving and located at the the midpoint when the lights turn on. You see the lights in sequence first B, you are closer because you are both heading to each other, then A, as A has to catch up from behind.
B. You forgot one. Let us say your train is really long and you have sycnchronized clocks A' and B' that secretly measure the emitted photons from A and B simultaneously and the stationary frame also measures the emitted photonas simultaneously and the coordinates of the A and A' pair, and the B and B' pair of clocks are < 10^-12m of each other, and even if A' = B' < A = B and these A' and B' clock outputs are consistent with SR time slowing theory, what, if any corrections to your post do you make now that you've seen the moving and stationary platform data? :devil:
I wont let you quit yet. Now we have it all settled.
A. You are at the midpoint when the lights are emitted. You detect the light from B before it reaches M and then you detect the light from A after it has passed M. You can't possibly detect the lights from the sources if you are moving and located at the the midpoint when the lights turn on. You see the lights in sequence first B, you are closer because you are both heading to each other, then A, as A has to catch up from behind.
So how do you explain moving observer measures light speed from behind and ahead the same, if the light is trying to catch up from behind
B. You forgot one. Let us say your train is really long and you have sycnchronized clocks A' and B' that secretly measure the emitted photons from A and B simultaneously and the stationary frame also measures the emitted photonas simultaneously and the coordinates of the A and A' pair, and the B and B' pair of clocks are < 10^-12m of each other, and even if A' = B' < A = B and these A' and B' clock outputs are consistent with SR time slowing theory, what, if any corrections to your post do you make now that you've seen the moving and stationary platform data? :devil:
Do you understand that: When A' B' clocks are synchronized with a light signal from M', they will not look synchronized in the stationary frame. Or if you snychronize them with a light signal from M, they won't look synchronized in the moving frame. In fact that's the whole point. It's like reverse of this experiment. Time slowing is not sufficient to explain this experiment because both clocks would slow down equally, but the synchronization causes a shift in clocks.
edit: Look what you have done to me. I am defending relativity in my own "why relativity is wrong" thread. I'm going offline now.
The two scoundrels set the stage by first calculating the same difference in time for the emission of two photons and actually emit the photons such that the times are such that the moving observers will perceive the photons were emitted simultaneously.
Okay. Tell me, how far apart are your two lights? According to the Devfizz's clocks, when was each light lit? Pick a moving observer and describe his motion relative to the lamps. How does the moving observer calculate the photons were emitted simultaneously?
I could give a scenario, but the Devfizz's will have lit the lights at different times, according to their clocks.
one event is made into two events?
If two lights are being activated, it's two events (unless they happened to be at the same place at the same time). Even if they occured simultaneously, and even if time is absolute, why would you think it should be described as a single event?
geistkiesel
Jun4-04, 07:30 AM
So how do you explain moving observer measures light speed from behind and ahead the same, if the light is trying to catch up from behind
The moving observers and the staionary are making use of the physical fact that the speed of light in their respective frame is constant at 300,000km/sec. There is no measurement of the soeed of light. Everybody knows what the speed of light is. The observers are recording when the light is recorded in their frame.
Do you understand that: When A' B' clocks are synchronized with a light signal from M', they will not look synchronized in the stationary frame.
yes.
Or if you snychronize them with a light signal from M, they won't look synchronized in the moving frame
Yes.
In fact that's the whole point. It's like reverse of this experiment. Time slowing is not sufficient to explain this experiment because both clocks would slow down equally, but the synchronization causes a shift in clocks.
SO what? And why sycnchronize clocks, especially the way you are trying to do? See below.
edit: Look what you have done to me. I am defending relativity in my own "why relativity is wrong" thread. I'm going offline now.
This is soon to change. Read very closely and do not look for ways to jump out of the box I am stuffing you into, not just yet. See below, OK?
Wespe, you are so close to seeing it. It does not matter if the clocks in both the frames are synchronized to each other. The question is whether the moving observer will predict, or calculate or perceive that the emitted photons were were simultaneously emitted. Did the A' precede the B' emission, or did B' precede A'. And this is all. Can you see this? You asked some questions above. What is the pourpose of those questions? Why is the answer necessary?
Why are you so obsessed with synchronizing the clocks? or measuring the speed of light? Who needs iit and for what purpose?
Even without any reference to any stationary or other frame of reference the moving observer is asked a question: Do you perceive the photons were emitted at the same instant in the moving frame?, or if you prefer, "emitted simultaneously in your frame"? The moving platform had carefully synchronized its clocks in the stationary frame then slowly accelerated to the constant speed it was moviing when the midpoint of the moving platform passed the midpoint of the sources at M on the stationary frame just as the sources emitted a photon simultaneously at A and B.So what if the moving clocks do not give the same output as the stationary clocks? Why is this importatnt to you? And what does this have to do with determining whether the photons A and B were emitted at the same time as perceived by the moving platform?
There is absolutely no reason for the moving platform to receive some synchrionizing signal friom the stationary platform, especially as M' passes therough M. This isn't an issue relevant to detemining simultaneity.
If you want to include the question that even if the photons were turned on simultaneously in the moving frame does the moving frame observer still have the imperative to determine that the time of emission of the photons be identical to that seen in the stationary frame? If so then you might be suggeing that the stationary clocks say "photons leave A and B at 12:00 noon", while the moving platform clocks say "photons leave A and B at 11:00 A.M." . If this is he case what do you say if the moving platform had clocks in the extreme forward and exreme rear position of the train such that at exactly the iinstant the photons left A and B the moving clocks recorded the same event at that same instant.
What I mean is that assume there is an observer at the front and rear of the train reading the clocks as well as observers at the A and B locations on the stationary platform. Also, let us add that each observer pair at each end of the train and stationary platforms saw directly that the other made the same measurement at the same instant, which is a different meaning than saying "the clocks read the same". No this is not what "at the same instant" means. Each observer can determine the photon left the source because the moving observer saw the photon leave at the same instant the stationary observer saw the photon leave.They aren't asking each other to synchronize clocks to tell anyone "what time it was that the simultaneious event occured" They could do this but why?
.
Ok we will add that the observers at each end swaps his ckock reading with the observer in the oher frame who is right there. The stationary observers sends clock readings of 10, at both ends, the moving observers send clock readings of 9 at both ends. Later, when the forward and rearward observers compare data, they see that their moving platform clocks read the same time. In other words the photons were measured to have been emitted at the same time in the moving frame.
These observers also note that the stationary observers sent the same clock readings to both moving observers at each end of the train. The moving observers both received a "12:00 PM" and the stationaray observes both received an 11:00 AM" at both ends. These observers say to each other "It sure looks like the photons were emitted simultaneously doesn't it.?" , "Yes" each replied.
These two obsercvers then apprioach the O' observer who made calculations based on whatever he uses to determine if the photons are to be perceived as having been emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Naturally, he finds that the photons were not emitted simultaneously. He uses an algorithm wespe might use which is striclty obedient to SR dictates. He finds no simultaneity. Then the clock observers show their measurements to the Observer who made the calculations? What is he going to say when the measuremnets from his frame shows a different result than that he had just calculated using SR theory?
As the train observer in the middle of the train at M' when M' and M shared identical coordinates at the same instant, then the photons were emitted. The observer at M' did not know of the measuremnts made at both ends of his rather long train. SR tells us that the O' observer should determine that the B light went on before the A light. And so the O' observer so dutifyully determines. y=using hisSR algorithyms.
The moving observers and the staionary are making use of the physical fact that the speed of light in
their respective frame is constant at 300,000km/sec. There is no measurement of the soeed of light. Everybody knows what the
speed of light is. The observers are recording when the light is recorded in their frame.
"Everybody knows this, no need to measure". How very unscientific of you. You should in fact be objecting to the constancy of
speed of light. Everything else in SR has derived from this assumption. Clock slowing, length shortening, relative
simultaneity, all made up just to satisfy the assumption! Yet, surprisingly, you want to keep the assumption, but you object
to the results. Do you care to check what happens if you write simple x=vt equations and solve them? You get the SR results,
all this just because of that assumption. [/QUOTE]
SO what? And why sycnchronize clocks, especially the way you are trying to do? See below.
Why? Because, to determine simultaneity of two events, you need either: 1-A midpoint observer, or 2-synchronized clocks. For
#1, you must also assume that light speed is constant in both directions, because the observer will use light to see the
events. For #2, you don't need the assumption, but you already used the assumption to synchronize clocks in the first place!
Say, something happened here at 5 o'clock, and something else happened there at 5 o'clock. Did they really happen at the same
time, or were the clocks in different time zones or something? You must make sure the clocks were synchronized, and that
again involves light signals.
Same is true for measuring speed. Say, I will throw a ball and I want to measure its speed. I can either: 1-read my clock,
throw the ball, ball bounces off a wall, I read my clock again, I divide the distance by the difference of readings. Or, 2-
synchronize two distant clocks, throw the ball, divide the distance by the difference in clock readings. Again, for #1, I
have to assume the constant speed of the ball in both directions. For #2, I need to make sure the clocks were synchronized,
which involves light signals. Please tell me you understand...
This is soon to change. Read very closely and do not look for ways to jump out of the box I am stuffing
you into, not just yet. See below, OK?
OK
Wespe, you are so close to seeing it. It does not matter if the clocks in both the frames are synchronized
to each other. The question is whether the moving observer will predict, or calculate or perceive that the emitted photons
were were simultaneously emitted. Did the A' precede the B' emission, or did B' precede A'. And this is all. Can you see
this? You asked some questions above. What is the pourpose of those questions? Why is the answer necessary?
You cannot perceive simultaneity if the events occur at different places. You can only see lights coming from those events.
And then you can make calculations, and then you conclude. To make those calculations, you need to know: 1-Your clock
readings of seeing the events, 2-The speed of light in both directions, 3- The distance to the events. Then, using x=vt, you
can know exactly where the light signals were, as a function your time. Then, you calculate what your clock was showing when
the events occured. Are they equal? Events were simultaneous. Are they not equal, events were not simultaneous. Simple as
that. Why you not trying to check the simple x=vt calculations? Am I wasting my time here?
Why are you so obsessed with synchronizing the clocks? or measuring the speed of light? Who needs iit and
for what purpose?
Please see above.
Even without any reference to any stationary or other frame of reference the moving observer is asked a
question: Do you perceive the photons were emitted at the same instant in the moving frame?, or if you prefer, "emitted
simultaneously in your frame"?
As I said above, you don't perceive the events themselves or their simultaneity. You only see the light coming form them, and
when you see them depends on distance to the events, and the speed of light in both directions.
The moving platform had carefully synchronized its clocks in the stationary frame then slowly accelerated to the constant speed.it was moviing when the midpoint of the moving platform passed the midpoint of the sources at M on the stationary frame jus as the sources emitted a photon simultaneously at A and B.So what if the moving clocks do not give the same output as the stationary clocks? Why is this importatnt to you? And what does this have to do with determining whether the photons A and B were emitted at the same time as perceived by the moving platform?
You can't avoid using light speed. This is a kind of slow transport. But the clocks won't remain synhcronized once you accelerate. How do you assume they remain synchronized? Suppose you push the train from its back to accelarate it. Your push will propagate at the speed of light, causing a delay, which in turn casues the clocks to go out of synch (due to time dilation). Suppose you push the train from the back and pull from the front at the same time. To do this at the same time, you must first have synchronized clocks, with a light signal, so you already assumed speed of light was constant in both directions.
For the rest of your post, I will reply when you consider my points above.
Geistkiesel,if:
you don't see the importance of synchronizing clocks
you don't understand why you can't sychronize clocks without light speed
you don't see a reason to measure speed
you don't see 300.000km/s is two-way-light-speed, not one-way-light-speed
you won't make any calculations as simple as x=vt
you must be making some wrong assumptions or a logical error somewhere which I can't pinpoint because I don't understand what you're saying and I don't want to waste any more time trying
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 12:28 AM
The experiment
Clocks are positioned at A, M and B in a stationary inertial frame and at A’, M’ and B’ in an inertial frame moving along the AB line. M is the midpoint of photon sources located at A and B. When A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B, the clocks are set to zero and photons are emitted from A and B.
The experimental results
The subject photons emitted simultaneously in all frames.
Conclusion
Special relativity is based on the postulates that the laws of physics and the measured speed of light are inertial frame independent. The concept of simultaneity variance is derived from the postulates of special relativity. The laws of physics are universally consistent, therefore the measured speed of light is frame dependent.
Geistkiesel
June 2004
Geistkiesel. Chill out.
What you are saying is what any normal person would think. Yes, they gave each other high fives. No problem. Events occuring at the same place is not an issue, nobody disagrees with their simultaneity. Still, that doesn't connect the back and front ends of the train, according to SR. Get this: When seen from the embankement, the back end of the train is living in the past, and the front end of the train is living in the future. That's how SR claims the events did not occur at the same time. Bull****, right? We will just make corrections. Problem is, you can't. According to SR, when seen from the train, the opposite is also true. It's mutual !!! Which calculation will you consider correct? Is it embankement's, because it is "stationary"? SR says there is no way to determine this, both are real and true. But, if one-way-light-speed is not the same in both directions as SR postulates, we can determine which calculation was false. In fact, the calculations would change and become consistent. (though time dilation and length contraction remain intact). Aether and absolute time would come back. That's what I want, if the reality is so. But without such proof, you can't accomplish much by discussions.
Whatever, man. Take care.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 02:49 AM
Geistkiesel. Chill out.
What you are saying is what any normal person would think. Yes, they gave each other high fives. No problem. Events occuring at the same place is not an issue, nobody disagrees with their simultaneity. Still, that doesn't connect the back and front ends of the train, according to SR. Get this: When seen from the embankement, the back end of the train is living in the past, and the front end of the train is living in the future. That's how SR claims the events did not occur at the same time. Bull****, right? We will just make corrections. Problem is, you can't. According to SR, when seen from the train, the opposite is also true. It's mutual !!! Which calculation will you consider correct? Is it embankement's, because it is "stationary"? SR says there is no way to determine this, both are real and true. But, if one-way-light-speed is not the same in both directions as SR postulates, we can determine which calculation was false. In fact, the calculations would change and become consistent. (though time dilation and length contraction remain intact). Aether and absolute time would come back. That's what I want, if the reality is so. But without such proof, you can't accomplish much by discussions.
Whatever, man. Take care.
I edited the last post. Check out the proper vesion. My suggestion is you learn to remove robotic thinking tendencies.
Geistkiesel
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 07:51 AM
Do you think M will receive photons from A and B at the same time? And will M' receive photons from A' and B' at the same time? Or will M detect A first then B, and M' detect B' first then A'? Which one?
M will receive the A and B photons simultaneously. I don't care when M' receives he photons. The question is whether the photons were emitted simultaneously or not, in the moving frame. The photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously. If M' makes a calculation that results in his determination that the photons were not emitted simultaneously the calculation is flawed. Why flawed you may ask? Because the photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously. Read the expeiment. Of course M' wont receive the photons at the same time, he is moving into and away from the oncoming photons. The question can apply to moving ants or moving photons.
The question is not when M' receives the photons, the question is not whether the photons are perceived as being emitted simultaneously, in the moving frame. The questin is whether the photons were actually emitted in the moving frame at the same time and whether this fact can betdetermined by M'. M' can look at the expeimental results..
If calculations indicate the photons were emitted at diffeent times in the moving frames, then the calculations corrupted the physical reality as indicated by the experimental results.
Do not ever say to me that, "SR says that . . . ", you will be wasting your breath. I wont be listening to you. Do you understand?
Question Wespe: When were the photons emitted in the moving frame? Assume for the sake iof argument that the moving frame is the only frame in the universe.
Specifically, what time were the clock readings at the instant the photons were emitted?
The A' clock was reading what time when the photon from A was emitted?
The B' clock was reading what time when the photon from B was emitted?
Answer these questions, period.
You started this thread, do you want me to finish it for you or can you finish what you started yourself?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 08:08 AM
After having been accelerated @ one g for one minute along the line AB photons are emitted from A and B. Will the observer at M, the midpoint between A and B, receive he photons at the same time? What does SR say about this?
The experiment
Clocks are positioned at A, M and B in a stationary inertial frame and at A’, M’ and B’ in an inertial frame moving along the AB line. M is the midpoint of photon sources located at A and B. When A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B, the clocks are set to zero and photons are emitted from A and B.
As usual, you merely assume that there is a single instant when "A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B".
Setting the clocks to zero just makes them laughably unsynchronized.
The experimental results
The subject photons emitted simultaneously in all frames.
Consider how silly this statement is, given the conditions of your "experiment". It's like saying to everyone in the world "When you wake up this morning, set your clocks to 6:00 am", and then concluding "Look everybody, I've just proven that everyone wakes up at exactly the same time!".
geistkiesel, don't you find it ironic that even wespe, who started this thread trying to expose a flaw in relativity, has ripped apart your circular arguments?
(When I say "even wespe", I don't mean that as an insult to wespe. I'm just pointing out the irony. wespe is doing a excellent job!)
M will receive the A and B photons simultaneously. I don't care when M' receives he photons. The question is whether the photons were emitted simultaneously or not, in the moving frame. The photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously. If M' makes a calculation that results in his determination that the photons were not emitted simultaneously the calculation is flawed. Why flawed you may ask? Because the photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously. Read the expeiment. Of course M' wont receive the photons at the same time, he is moving into and away from the oncoming photons. The question can apply to moving ants or moving photons.
The question is not when M' receives the photons, the question is not whether the photons are perceived as being emitted simultaneously, in the moving frame. The questin is whether the photons were actually emitted in the moving frame at the same time and whether this fact can betdetermined by M'. M' can look at the expeimental results..
If calculations indicate the photons were emitted at diffeent times in the moving frames, then the calculations corrupted the physical reality as indicated by the experimental results.
Do not ever say to me that, "SR says that . . . ", you will be wasting your breath. I wont be listening to you. Do you understand?
Question Wespe: When were the photons emitted in the moving frame? Assume for the sake iof argument that the moving frame is the only frame in the universe.
Specifically, what time were the clock readings at the instant the photons were emitted?
The A' clock was reading what time when the photon from A was emitted?
The B' clock was reading what time when the photon from B was emitted?
Answer these questions, period.
You started this thread, do you want me to finish it for you or can you finish what you started yourself?
Well, the answers depend on what theory you want to use. But only a real experiment can decide what is true. You don't want to hear SR predictions so what theory should I use?
OK, since you now think speed of light is not constant, let's say it is c+v and c-v relative to M'. Then, of course, we are saying that the stationary frame is stationary relative to aether. Now, should we consider length contraction? Because, when length of the moving train is shortened, A' and B' will not meet A and B at the same time. We could use a longer train to compansate, but what if length contraction is mutual? Calculations should agree for both frames. What will we assume about time dilation?
Without these, I can't make any calculations, and I won't just assume things like you do. You should really decide on your version of a theory and get your own answers. As far as I know, lorentz ether theory (LET) is most compatible with c+v c-v. But its predictions are generally the same as SR, so you won't want to hear that either. I'm sorry.
After having been accelerated @ one g for one minute along the line AB photons are emitted from A and B. Will the observer at M, the midpoint between A and B, receive he photons at the same time? What does SR say about this?
I don't claim to be an expert, but SR says (lol) that (I think), the scenario is symmetric so the results will be symmetric. Neither M nor M' will receive A/B and A'/B' photons at the same time (or they will both do, it may depend on distance and velocity, we need to calculate). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
After having been accelerated @ one g for one minute along the line AB photons are emitted from A and B. Will the observer at M, the midpoint between A and B, receive he photons at the same time? What does SR say about this?
This is poorly specified; one couldn't even answer this experiment... using classical mechanics. Furthermore there are all sorts of relativity issues that make it even worse in SR.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 11:41 AM
Well, the answers depend on what theory you want to use. But only a real experiment can decide what is true. You don't want to hear SR predictions so what theory should I use?
OK, since you now think speed of light is not constant, let's say it is c+v and c-v relative to M'. Then, of course, we are saying that the stationary frame is stationary relative to aether. Now, should we consider length contraction? Because, when length of the moving train is shortened, A' and B' will not meet A and B at the same time. We could use a longer train to compansate, but what if length contraction is mutual? Calculations should agree for both frames. What will we assume about time dilation?
Without these, I can't make any calculations, and I won't just assume things like you do. You should really decide on your version of a theory and get your own answers. As far as I know, lorentz ether theory (LET) is most compatible with c+v c-v. But its predictions are generally the same as SR, so you won't want to hear that either. I'm sorry.
Wespe:, get a hold of yourself. Do you see in the post that theere were clocks at A=A', B=B' and M=M' that were set to 0 when photons were emitted? Do you see this above in the post yoyu are answering??
Now you answered , or were trying to snawer another question.
What time do the clocks indicate that the photons were emitted?
To get the correct answer you must supply the correct number, just one number.
Where was A', B' and M' when the photons were emitted?
Hint:The experimental given was that A'=A, B'=B and M'=M at the very instant the photons were emitted. These locations are exact. Further hint: If your answer is other than A'=A, B'=B M'=M then your answer is wrong and you fail the course.
Why do you want to say A' was not at A and that B' was not at B?
You probably want to say that M' was not at M also, don't you?
You recognize, don't you that it is given that these locations were identical , colocated, at the same place, together, on top of each other the same when the photons were emitted?
Do you recognize this?
Why do you want to change the data? Looking for a theory you say? Why not try to use the laws of physics?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 12:27 PM
As usual, you merely assume that there is a single instant when "A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B".
Setting the clocks to zero just makes them laughably unsynchronized.
Consider how silly this statement is, given the conditions of your "experiment". It's like saying to everyone in the world "When you wake up this morning, set your clocks to 6:00 am", and then concluding "Look everybody, I've just proven that everyone wakes up at exactly the same time!".
geistkiesel, don't you find it ironic that even wespe, who started this thread trying to expose a flaw in relativity, has ripped apart your circular arguments?
(When I say "even wespe", I don't mean that as an insult to wespe. I'm just pointing out the irony. wespe is doing a excellent job!)
Come Mac Al , look at the given. The experiment is set up like it is.
The values are given. [
The train is long enough that A'=A and B'=B and M' = M at the instant the photons are emitted @ t = 0 for all the clocks, six in all.This is the given time for the emission of the photons..
This is a given do you understand? I have modified the starting conditions of the gedunken, do you understand? So whatever the frame contractions or clock slowing parameters you want to invoke to time events after the photons are emitted go right on with your 'physics'.
I never saw a response to the post where I told you that either your memory was pathologically impaired or you were dishonest. Do you have any comment?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 01:10 PM
I don't claim to be an expert, but SR says (lol) that (I think), the scenario is symmetric so the results will be symmetric. Neither M nor M' will receive A/B and A'/B' photons at the same time (or they will both do, it may depend on distance and velocity, we need to calculate). Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
This is the same problem we have been discussing/
Just as a check lets us see if we are working on the same problem.
SR says that events that are simultaneous in one frame are not simultaneous in a movung frame.(this OK?)
At least under the conditions of our current gedunken, which was Einstein's train gedunke?
.
BTW Mac Al is rooting for you to win something..
The train is long enough that A'=A and B'=B and M' = M at the instant the photons are emitted @ t = 0 for all the clocks
In which frame are you asserting this?
A and A' can certainly agree the photon from A was emitted at t = 0.
Similarly, B and B' can agree the photon from B was emitted at t = 0.
Every other combination cannot simply be observed; it has to be determined via some means. e.g. how does M' know what time the photon was emitted from A, since his clock wasn't there when it happened?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 01:34 PM
This is poorly specified; one couldn't even answer this experiment... using classical mechanics. Furthermore there are all sorts of relativity issues that make it even worse in SR.
Hurkyl; I merely wanted to give a platform some velocity and have photons emitted at both ends of the moving platform, which is the experimental arrangement under discussion. This could very well be the moving platform used in the current gedunken. The thread (the current state of the thread) is a relativity question specifically intrinsic to SR theory.
This is the latest experimental arrangement posted earlier and is the arrangement to which I am responding (below). Notice Doc Al has a problem wih the zeoring of the clocks being a phony scynchronization of clocks. This is not intended or implied. The zero state only marks when the emision of the photons occured when all six clocks were located: A'=A, B'=B and M'=M. Its a long train and what ever shrunken state the train is in, is not my concern as the locations of the clocks are simultaneusly colocated when the photons left A and B, which is the question to be determined, which is:
are events simultaneous in a stationry frame simultaneous in moving frames?.
What is being skewed is the fact that the crucial events, the time the photons were emitted, is identical in both frames. This is an experimental given!!
What we are talking about.
[QUOTE=Geistkiesel]The experiment
Clocks are positioned at A, M and B in a stationary inertial frame and at A’, M’ and B’ in an inertial frame moving along the AB line. M is the midpoint of photon sources located at A and B. When A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B, the clocks are set to zero and photons are emitted from A and B.
The experimental results
The subject photons emitted simultaneously in all frames.
Conclusion
Special relativity is based on the postulates that the laws of physics and the measured speed of light are inertial frame independent. The concept of simultaneity variance is derived from the postulates of special relativity. The laws of physics are universally consistent, therefore the measured speed of light is frame dependent.
Geistkiesel
June 2004[/QUOTE
Geistkiesel,
According to SR, length contraction is mutual. Therefore, according to SR, your setup is impossible. A cannot meet A' at the same time as B meets B'. You can't make things possible by saying they are experimental given.
As I understand, you have no grasp of SR, neither of scientific methods. Therefore I will not discuss further with you. I don't want you to post anymore to this thread, if you will respect my request. Create a new thread for yourself please. To admins: I would like this thread locked please, if possible.
Notice Doc Al has a problem wih the zeoring of the clocks being a phony scynchronization of clocks.
That is true; either A and B will not be synchronized in the "stationary" frame, or A' and B' will not be synchronized in the "moving" frame, or both.
Anyways, let me bring up some of my points again:
A and A' happen to be there when the photon from A is emitted, thus they can set their clocks to zero when that happens.
B and B' happen to be there when the photon from B is emitted, thus they can set their clocks to zero when that happens.
Question: How do M and M' know to set their clocks to zero?
Question: Suppose we did not assume a priori that the photons were emitted "simultaneously"; how can we tell from the results of the experiment whether or not the emission was "simultaneous"?
Question: How would one go about determining the relationship between clocks A and B? What about clocks A' and B'?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 02:23 PM
Geistkiesel, just a friendly advice, your attitude is immature and you won't get answers like that. Not much longer even from me.
Clocks at A,A',B,B' indicate 0, since you reset them. While A/A' and B/B' are synchonized pairs at that instant, As and Bs are not synchronized with each other, due to length contraction. And the pairs won't remain synchronized due to time dilation. Clocks at M and M' looks uncertain. You can't make them know and reset instantly when the photons were emitted. They can reset when they meet, but that time is not evident yet.
Remember that we don't know how to send information instantly, so you must consider finite speed of light while sending information in a realistic experiment.
What information are you trying to send and to whom? and why? Please be specific.
All six clocks were synchronized in a stationary frame. The clocks at A', B' and M' remain synchronized during a gentle. very slow acceleration . When the moving frame reaches our experimental velocity the clocks are still synchronized with respect to each other on the moving frame. When one clock say '10' all the clocks say '10'. Let the clocks speed up, slow down whatever, as lomg as the moving clocks all keeping the same time in the moving frame.
OK, the moving frame shrunk. However, we have adjusted the position of the clocks such that when M'=M, then A'=A and B'=B. This is true even if we leave the clocks bolted into place, stop the moving train, and discover, lo and behold, says SR, the distance A'B'> AB, OK?
A was at A' at a time. And B was at B' a time. That doesn't mean A was at A' at the same time when B was at B'. What I just said doesn't mean they were not the same, it meant you cannot automatically assume they are the same. You also can't make things possible by saying "it is given in the experiment".
You are wrong, we designed the train such that A'B' = AB when the train velocty was v = 1. This is more of an engineering problem. We are using the best physicists in the universe, "Texas A&M Aggies".
Sure I can. I make some SR calculations and determine the moving frame will shrink when reaching the velocity used in the experiment, say v = 1. Also, we can very easily rig the experiment such that when M'=M then our caefully placed clocks are at B'=B and A'=A and the moving train triggers the photons leaving A and B at the same time. The A'B' distance is physically equivalent to AB. The starting times ar equivalent as we set them sio. We could very well have simply noted the times of all the clocks when M'=M, A'=A and B'=B and sorted out an agreed starting time, but setting the clocks to zero is easier and removes ambiguities.
That means you are not really seeking an answer and my time is wasted.
You can quit anytime you choose. If you are unable to grasp what is just written above, then maybe you had better quit, because there isn't anything conceptually complex. I keep seeing that you are making every effort to invoke SR, which is OK, but you aen't getting the starting conditions proper.
To summarize: A'B' = AB when v(A'B') = 1. t0(A'=A) = t0(M'=M) = t0(B'=B).
All calculations are perormed after the B and A photons are detected on the moving frame. So whatever the clocks speeds are, we know that all the clocks read '0' when the photons are emitted. If you still insist at this time, right now, that t0(A'=A) is not equal to t0(B'=B), you will never see it, and you can "do lunch" with Doc Al.
I am still not sure what you are trying to calculate?
Will you be as specific as you are able?
Ae you rying to determine an event time or what?
If you are trying to change the starting times of the photons forget it. If you want to change an experimental fact and assume that t0(A'=A) is not equal to t0(B'=B), or if you are trying to calculate what the t0(A'=A) and t0(B'=B) are, then you are wasting both our times. We designed the experiemtn to assure ourselves that the photn starting times were identical at both ends of the train. Technically difficult and expensive as hell, but reasonable achievable.
t0(A'=A) = t0(B'=B) expresses an instant in time, and this is all that these expressions indicate.
The clocks at A', B' and M' remain synchronized during a gentle. When the moving frame reaches our experimental velocity the clocks are still synchronized with respect to each other on the moving frame.
Why would one think that?
my take on this is you're trying to work the theory backwards-to-forwards, defining an outcome then working your way towards the "set-up"
the problem with your set-up is set-up thus, there is no WAY to arrive at the outcome. and starting from the outcome there is no WAY you can produce a logical backtract of processes to get to the beginning.
saying "that's just the way it is" doesn't make it right.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 02:40 PM
As usual, you merely assume that there is a single instant when "A’ = A, M’ = M and B’ = B".
Setting the clocks to zero just makes them laughably unsynchronized.
Who said this synchronized the clocks? You did not me. Is this what is so laughable?
Consider how silly this statement is, given the conditions of your "experiment". It's like saying to everyone in the world "When you wake up this morning, set your clocks to 6:00 am", and then concluding "Look everybody, I've just proven that everyone wakes up at exactly the same time!".
If everybody did in fact wake up at the same instant, the your statement would be true. Here we merely set the clocks to zero when A'=A, B'=B and M'=M, which is the instant the photons were emitted. Why do you make such inane arguments as you have just posted? We are triggering photo emission times, not creating a universal 'wake up call'.
geistkiesel, don't you find it ironic that even wespe, who started this thread trying to expose a flaw in relativity, has ripped apart your circular arguments?
(When I say "even wespe", I don't mean that as an insult to wespe. I'm just pointing out the irony. wespe is doing a excellent job!)
If you are like Rush Limbaugh and have 'half your brain tied behind your back' I suggest you release that other half of your thinking power, you need both brain cells for this one.
Sure, you didn't mean an insult with your "even wespe" statement, this was just characteristically instinctive, wasn't it?
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 04:11 PM
Considering with simultataneous events....
Suppose that cell phone technology gets real good over the next 10 years so that one can generate 100GHz microwave transmitions from small compact transmitters no more then the size of a small cell phone. Now assume that one sets up an array of say 10,000 microspopic microwave transmitters' antennas around the circumference of a metalic disc with a 1 ft diameter with a reciever at the center of the disc . The transmitters transmit microwaves at a frequency of 100 GHz through a disc to the receiver at the center of the disc. Now the wave length of the microwave tranmission is 0.00984 ft. 1 ft divided by 0.00984ft is how many wave cycles fit in the diameter of the 1ft disc, which happens to be 101.6260162601626 wave cycles. Now if we set each transmitter to transmit at plus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its right, and minus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its left; then a spiral pattern will be formed by the sum of 10,000 transmitters waveforms. The spiral will have the illusion of spinning one 360 degree revolution every cycle. Now, since the transmitters are all transmitting at 100GHz, the spiral will appear to spin at a rate of 1 revolution 100,000,000,000th of a second. Since microwaves are traveling across the diameter of the disc at the speed of light, and the circumference of the disc is (pi)(diameter), and since the number of cycles that reside within the disc's diameter is 101.6260162601626, thus the velocity of a point on the spiral at the outermost circumference of the disc, would appear to be (pi)(101.6260162601626)c, that is approximately 319.1056910569106 times the speed of light! The question is, does time dilation play a role in this particular case? That is, would the spiral be spiralling back in time?
Inquisitively,
Edwin G. Schasteen
Assuming the truth of Special Relativity, time dilation would not be tied to your huge factor multiplying c, necessarily.. If I read your experiment correctly you are describing 'phase velocity" which is not 'signal carrying' and hence time dilation is not functionally related to these waves.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 04:16 PM
Okay. Tell me, how far apart are your two lights? According to the Devfizz's clocks, when was each light lit? Pick a moving observer and describe his motion relative to the lamps. How does the moving observer calculate the photons were emitted simultaneously?
I could give a scenario, but the Devfizz's will have lit the lights at different times, according to their clocks.
If two lights are being activated, it's two events (unless they happened to be at the same place at the same time). Even if they occured simultaneously, and even if time is absolute, why would you think it should be described as a single event?
I was merely suggesting, probably poorly, that we emit the light in the stationary frame such they reach an observer moving towards one and away from the other such that the photons reach the moving observer at the same time. We emit the lights nonsimultaneously.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 05:39 PM
So how do you explain moving observer measures light speed from behind and ahead the same, if the light is trying to catch up from behind
I would locate a SR Theorist, yourself, say, and you, uisng the posulated fact that the speed of light is constant in all frames would measure the postulated prediction.
Do you understand that: When A' B' clocks are synchronized with a light signal from M', they will not look synchronized in the stationary frame. Or if you snychronize them with a light signal from M, they won't look synchronized in the moving frame. In fact that's the whole point. It's like reverse of this experiment. Time slowing is not sufficient to explain this experiment because both clocks would slow down equally, but the synchronization causes a shift in clocks.
I am not synchronizing clocks as you suggest. Long before the experiment gets going the moving frame places the clocks at A' and B' and M' and synchronizes these clocksonly to that frame.. A'B' > AB when both frames are statioanary, because we anticipate shrinking when we get going.. We slowly accelerate the moving frame to v(A'B' = AB) = 1 from the calculaions of our scienitfic team. In any event once the moviing frame is moving at the proper velocity when A'=A, B' = B and M' = M, the six clocks are set to zero by a mechanical switch. We have never made any attempt to synchronize the stationary and moving clocks with respect toi each other. Everybody knows he clocks slow down. Everyone is a SR Theory expert. We have stationary teams and moving frame teams. Thank you, you are correct, the moving frame clocks slow down equally.
Only when A' = A , B' - B , M' = M are the clocks set to zero by mechanical devices appropriately located at the three locations. This is not intended for any thing more than a convenience, such that the start times are known in both frames when the photons are emitted.
AS I stated in another post, this informaion ios not provided tot he moving observers until after they have deternined whether or not the photons were emitted simultaeously in both frames.
edit: Look what you have done to me. I am defending relativity in my own "why relativity is wrong" thread. I'm going offline now.
No I didn't do this to you, it was all arranged by a cycnical conspiracy of SR theorists. I am here to help you sir, trust me. You are doing a remarkably tenacious job.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 05:48 PM
That is true; either A and B will not be synchronized in the "stationary" frame, or A' and B' will not be synchronized in the "moving" frame, or both.
Anyways, let me bring up some of my points again:
A and A' happen to be there when the photon from A is emitted, thus they can set their clocks to zero when that happens.
B and B' happen to be there when the photon from B is emitted, thus they can set their clocks to zero when that happens.
Question: How do M and M' know to set their clocks to zero?
All the clocks can be triggered by a mechanical switch when A' =A, B' = B and M' = M. Human switches ae elativiely unreliable.
Question: Suppose we did not assume a priori that the photons were emitted "simultaneously"; how can we tell from the results of the experiment whether or not the emission was "simultaneous"?
My infamous and undiscussed link has short description of the process. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Question: How would one go about determining the relationship between clocks A and B? What about clocks A' and B'?[/QUOTE]
All this is done is the stationary frame before he experiment. Locate the midpoints M and M' and synchronize the clocks within their respective frames. Set A'B' > AB based on the calculated pediction of shrinking such that v(A'B' = AB) = 1 when the moving frame is moving.
G, will you continue to do this to yourself? Why do you care what happens if some train goes very fast? Are you seeking attention? Everybody kind of does, no shame in that. Do you want a nobel prize? Sure, but this is not the way. You know, I have been doing what you are doing now. Powered by my ignorance, I would come up with faulty arguments and expect people to devote their time to prove me wrong. I now feel guilty for what I did and I now understand why I was treated badly or ignored. Maybe we shoud quit doing this and start asking questions and reading and learning. I will probably change my nickname to start with a clean slate now, so this is my last advice to you. Forget these experiments, first shape up your discussing abilities. I found good advice here:
http://www.ephilosopher.com/Sections-article36-page1.html
Take care.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 07:13 PM
G, will you continue to do this to yourself? Why do you care what happens if some train goes very fast? Are you seeking attention? Everybody kind of does, no shame in that. Do you want a nobel prize? Sure, but this is not the way. You know, I have been doing what you are doing now. Powered by my ignorance, I would come up with faulty arguments and expect people to devote their time to prove me wrong. I now feel guilty for what I did and I now understand why I was treated badly or ignored. Maybe we shoud quit doing this and start asking questions and reading and learning. I will probably change my nickname to start with a clean slate now, so this is my last advice to you. Forget these experiments, first shape up your discussing abilities. I found good advice here:
http://www.ephilosopher.com/Sections-article36-page1.html
Take care.
Feeling guilty because you are wrong? get a grip wespe, who isn't? Treated badly? people who hold their beliefs strongly will more often than not treat you badly when you try to undermine their belief systems, even though you might not define what you are doing as undermining.
Start a clean slate and change your name? Come on wespe, you haven't got anything to hide. Hey, Doc Al is on your side, cheer up!. You aren't thinking of going into engineering are you? If so, you had better change your name. Talk about being the town laughing stock.
All the clocks can be triggered by a mechanical switch when A' =A, B' = B and M' = M. Human switches ae elativiely unreliable.
Ok. So, as the experimenter, how do we check that the switch at A was triggered at the "same time" as the switch at M and as the switch at B?
My infamous and undiscussed link has short description of the process.
I don't see an undiscussed link; we've told you multiple times you have a problem at the very start of your analysis, which you've ignored. Recall your infamous quote:
"However, before we even begin to consider relativity constraints we make note of the unambiguous physical reality of the simultaneous measurements."
where you make clear that you deny relativity before you even consider it.
In order to simplify the situation, let's consider a single moving observer who passes by A, receives photons, then passes by B.
The moving observer records this sequence of events, not necessarily in this order:
A passed by me at time w. A had a velocity of v.
B passed by me at time x. B had a velocity of v.
I received a photon from A at time y.
I received a photon from B at time z.
Give me a formula that tells me whether or not A and B emitted photons simultaneously.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 10:34 PM
Ok. So, as the experimenter, how do we check that the switch at A was triggered at the "same time" as the switch at M and as the switch at B?
The time of emission is sent to M when when the photons wee emitted. M is the midpoint of A and B therefore the time of flight of the message and photon is identical as the speed of light is identical for both photons and signals. To keep a running track of the clocks you can have the clock signals sent to M on a continuous basis checking every cycle to assure that t(A) = t(B), Another way is to run he experiment a few millions time until a confidence level based on repeatability of the paameters can be assured.
I don't see an undiscussed link; we've told you multiple times you have a problem at the very start of your analysis, which you've ignored. Recall your infamous quote:
"However, before we even begin to consider relativity constraints we make note of the unambiguous physical reality of the simultaneous measurements."
where you make clear that you deny relativity before you even consider it.
The missing link. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)
Hurkyl, you have been so thorough up to to now. The measurements were of the arrival of the A and B photons on the moving frame that were simultaneously recorded in the moving and stationary platforms. This is not an assumption of an ivariance of simultabneity that contradicts SR. Right?
In order to simplify the situation, let's consider a single moving observer who passes by A, receives photons, then passes by B.
The moving observer records this sequence of events, not necessarily in this order:
A passed by me at time w. A had a velocity of v.
B passed by me at time x. B had a velocity of v.
I received a photon from A at time y.
I received a photon from B at time z.
Give me a formula that tells me whether or not A and B emitted photons simultaneously.
You seemed to have switched frames. Was this ifor a reason? Not to worry, there is no problem either way.
The distance between A and B is vw - vy, which is the extra distance the farthest photon must travel in reaching the observer. So, when the B and A photon arrive at I, we assign t the value y - z. The distance the farthest photon travels is simply tc.
We start by assuming the photons were emitted simultaneously.
The extra distance for the A photon to travel to I is vw - vx.. Therefore we equate (vw - vx) = tc, where t = y -z or tc = (vw - vx). Just let v = 1 for convenience and we have the expression t = (w - x)/c. If we have measured w and x correctly then t should equate as the expression says. If t is less than the calculated value the the photon left A first, If t is greater than the expression the photon left A after B.
If the observer is moving and we assert SR postulates of time dilation we simply use the moving clock, as the speed of light is constant in the moving frame and we are only interested in determining differences anyway. If the observer is stationary he uses the stationary clock and makes straight forward calculations. Even if there were a time and space shrinking this mthod of calculation can deternmine whether the photons were emitted simultaneously.
I know you only asked if simultaneity was preserved, but you get the bonus of knowing which photon was emitted first if they were not emitted simultaneously.
geistkiesel
Jun5-04, 11:16 PM
In which frame are you asserting this?
A and A' can certainly agree the photon from A was emitted at t = 0.
Similarly, B and B' can agree the photon from B was emitted at t = 0.
Every other combination cannot simply be observed; it has to be determined via some means. e.g. how does M' know what time the photon was emitted from A, since his clock wasn't there when it happened?
I want to insert a summary here of where I am going with this.
Everything I have added to the experiment is to determine whether we can find a contradiction between experiment and SR theory such that any contradiction will be unambiguously clear.
Therefore I put clocks at A,B,M,A',B',M' and then perfectly made the experimental condition reasonably and physically performable. This is why I had 10000 runs on placing the clocks such that the condition, A=A', B=B' and M=M' is repeatable with a high degree of confidence and an effective experimental error of 0.
Our hired team of SR theorists calculated the time dilation and physical shrinking, for an expected velocity of v = 1, that could be repeatably achieved such that the experimental error in reaching v = 1 is measurably 0.
The acceleration parameters calculated by our mechanical physics group were tested until we were able to get one velocity expectation that was effectiively invariant -- repeatably invariant. We called this v = 1.
The test and instrument engineering firm developed a switch such that as the moving platform passed (A=A', B=B' and M=M') three events occured. The two clocks at each position immediately were set to zero and left to their own timing frequency. This was only for convenience. We could have simply read the current time from each clock and stored it somewhere.
The Physics calibration group synchronized the clocks in each frame such that the expected time of each clock could be determined with equal resolution for an error effectively 0; by reading any of the clocks. Or t(A) = t(M) = T(B) since we triggger each clock to zero by the switch set by the moving platform. Each clock's function does not depend on any other clock for any reason. Of course t(A') = t(M') = T(B') even after slow accleration to v = 1, which was verified. By the same mechanism each clock on the moving platform is dependent on no other clock.
The third event triggered at the same time is the emission of the photons at A and B.
As we ran and reran the experiment we were able to repeat without fail the experiment where, when A = A' and B = B' and M = M', then t(A = A') = 0, t(B = B') = 0, and t(M = M') =0. We refer to this primary test condition as: all clocks are set to zero at the same instant. With the newer version of clocks we are able to maintain an uninterrrupted ticking of an unperturbed twin clock.at each station. The clocks are intra-frame synchronized (calibrated) to any significant figure required, This means we have to edit our primary test condition by adding the current times are recorded along with the zero instant.
Why all of this elaboration? When the photon from B arrives at the moving platform at t(Pb) and the photon arrives from A at t(Pa), does not SR theory predict the events of the photon emissions from A and B were not simultaneous in the moving frame? If this is true, then the experimental results are unambiguously contradictory. The photons were not only measured to be emitted simultaneously there was the slam dunk guaranteed and pedictable experimental result that the photons from A and B were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.
This being the case, then it is unavoidable that we recognize that SR theory is not describing a physical event with any correlated or uncorrelated consistency. The fact that experimental results unambiguoulsy prove physical simultaneity does not necessarily disprove SR theory, unless, SR theory is confined exclusively predicting physical conditions and/or events.
SR Prediciton: First one photon was emitted, then another photon was emitted from the sources at A and B in the stationary frame. The event described in the previous sentence is a physical event. This same event was observed in the moving frame though directly contradictory. If the assertion of SR theory is physically and intrinsically exclusive, then SR theory must be revised, if possible, or discarded otherwise. If my understanding that SR theory is exclusive, and confined to the prediction of physical events is correct, then SR theory must be discarded.
It is my position that the burden is on SR theory to accurately predict physical events. The postulates of SR theory that ultimately demand the loss of simultaneity are either singularly or collectively false. To maintain SR postulates invariantly is to maintain the falsehood of simultaneity loss. :cool: :cool:
The distance between A and B is [vw - vx], which is the extra distance the farthest photon must travel in reaching the observer.
I take it you're only considering the case when both photons came from the same direction, then? (I.E. you are not considering the case when the actual sequence of events goes something like "Pass A, see photon A, see photon B, pass B")
(P.S. I'm not faulting you for doing this; it is a fairly messy task to account properly for all the possibilities)
So the criterion for simultaneous emission, according to the moving observer, is that:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
Note that I think you have one of the sides reversed; if the moving observer passed A before B, then he should expect to get B's photon first if emission was simultaneous, making both sides positive. (And similarly if B was passed before A)
As an aside, this is a nifty equation, because it renders calculation of time dilation irrelevant; any sort of dilation of times cancels out!
So let's remember this criterion and go back into the stationary frame. We have an experimental setup consisting of two stationary lamps, A and B. We watch a moving observer pass by both lamps with velocity v, and then, by some means, we trigger A and B simultaneously.
Notice that, in particular, this corresponds to the previous setup; the moving observer will pass A, then pass B, then get B's photon, then get A's photon. Thus, let us compute the times these occur.
For simplicity, the stationary observer sets his clock to 0 when the moving observer passes A. Let's suppose A was at position 0, and B was at position p.
Then, the moving observer passes B at time p / v.
Let's trigger the lamps at time 2p/v. The moving observer is at position 2p when this happens...
Thus, it takes time p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him, and time 2p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him.
So we have the following: In our frame,
He passes A at time 0.
He passes B at time p/v.
He receives the photon from B at time 2p/v + p/(c-v)
He receives the photon from A at time 2p/v + 2p/(c-v)
Remembering from our aside that dilation is irrelevant for the criterion that the moving observer computes the emission to be simultaneous. Let's substitute the times into the equation:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
yielding
c * ((2p/v + 2p/(c-v)) - (2p/v + p/(c-v))) = v ((p/v) - 0)
simplifying...
c * p / (c-v) = p
cancel out p...
c / (c - v) = 1
et cetera...
c = c - v
v = 0
Since the observer is moving, this equation clearly cannot hold, thus we conclude the moving observer does not compute that A and B were activated simultaneously.
Let's run some actual numbers.
Suppose your setup is 10m long. In the lab frame, all 6 (identical) clocks are stationary and set to 0.
A' is at the left end, M' is in the middle, and B' is at the right end.
Suppose that A', M', and B' are all accelerated in exactly the same way to a velocity of 1 m/s. In this moving frame, the clock readings are no longer synchronous; B' > M' > A'. In particular, according to the moving frame, when A' reads 0, M' reads 5.56 * 10^-17 seconds, and B' reads 1.11 * 10^-16 seconds.
Note that the descrepancy is less than a millionth of a nanosecond. The differnce between B' and A' is less than a millionth of the frequency of a Cs-133 atom. Hardly a surprise it should go unnoticed. Heck, NIST's clock is only accurate to about one part in 10^15, still not enough to detect the difference.
uhhh
if they're all accelerated the same way (i'm assuming you mean same direction and rate of accel) why are they not synchro anymore?
If they gave the same readings at the same time in the lab frame...
And they all underwent the exact same acceleration in the lab frame...
Then they still give the same readings at the same time in the lab frame.
But that is no reason to think they give the same readings at the same time in the moving frame, unless you've already assumed simultaneity is absolute.
but why should you think that it isn't the same in the first place.
if all variables for the clocks are the same then how can the result be different
the only answer is there's some external effect happening that we haven't thought of
if all variables for the clocks are the same then how can the result be different
They can't.
But, according to SR, there are very few frames where all of the variables are the same. The lab frame is one of them, (and thus the readings in the lab frame would remain synchronized)
In most other inertial frames, the readings were not synchronized before the acceleration began, and they remain unsynchronized when the acceleration finished.
And if you actually want to consider the accelerated frames of A', M', and B', it turns out that the fact that A' is accelerating towards B', but B' is accelerating away from A' is important; it's the temporal analog of centrifugal force.
And if you actually want to consider the accelerated frames of A', M', and B', it turns out that the fact that A' is accelerating towards B', but B' is accelerating away from A' is important; it's the temporal analog of centrifugal force.
i don't think that makes a difference. they're both accelerating away from their starting positions at the same rate, it wouldn't matter what direction they were going in.
Well, the general result is that in accelerated frames, observations of clocks are affected by more than just time dilation. In particular, if you're accelerating towards a clock, you perceive it running faster, and if you're accelerating away from a clock, you perceive it running slower (/stopped/backwards).
So in A''s accelerated frame, B' will run fast. However, in B''s accelerated frame, A' will run slow.
sounds like doppler effect, not time dilation
you're intercepting the photons that say what time it is faster than a person who is stationary
you
1:00--------59----------58----------57-----------56----------55---------54-------53(o) <-- clock
guy
guy stays still and waits for the light from clock to hit him, thus registers time as standard.
you move towards the clock and intercept incoming light from clock sooner than him just by virtue of being closer
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:06 PM
I take it you're only considering the case when both photons came from the same direction, then? (I.E. you are not considering the case when the actual sequence of events goes something like "Pass A, see photon A, see photon B, pass B")
(P.S. I'm not faulting you for doing this; it is a fairly messy task to account properly for all the possibilities)
So the criterion for simultaneous emission, according to the moving observer, is that:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
Note that I think you have one of the sides reversed; if the moving observer passed A before B, then he should expect to get B's photon first if emission was simultaneous, making both sides positive. (And similarly if B was passed before A)
As an aside, this is a nifty equation, because it renders calculation of time dilation irrelevant; any sort of dilation of times cancels out!
So let's remember this criterion and go back into the stationary frame. We have an experimental setup consisting of two stationary lamps, A and B. We watch a moving observer pass by both lamps with velocity v, and then, by some means, we trigger A and B simultaneously.
Notice that, in particular, this corresponds to the previous setup; the moving observer will pass A, then pass B, then get B's photon, then get A's photon. Thus, let us compute the times these occur.
For simplicity, the stationary observer sets his clock to 0 when the moving observer passes A. Let's suppose A was at position 0, and B was at position p.
Then, the moving observer passes B at time p / v.
Let's trigger the lamps at time 2p/v. The moving observer is at position 2p when this happens...
Thus, it takes time p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him, and time 2p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him.
So we have the following: In our frame,
He passes A at time 0.
He passes B at time p/v.
He receives the photon from B at time 2p/v + p/(c-v)
He receives the photon from A at time 2p/v + 2p/(c-v)
Remembering from our aside that dilation is irrelevant for the criterion that the moving observer computes the emission to be simultaneous. Let's substitute the times into the equation:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
yielding
c * ((2p/v + 2p/(c-v)) - (2p/v + p/(c-v))) = v ((p/v) - 0)
simplifying...
c * p / (c-v) = p
cancel out p...
c / (c - v) = 1
et cetera...
c = c - v
v = 0
Since the observer is moving, this equation clearly cannot hold, thus we conclude the moving observer does not compute that A and B were activated simultaneously.
Maybe so. The simple model I used had the moving sorces passing by the stationary observer. He was able to make the determination that one or the other photons were emitted before the other. Do all the calulations you desire. The experiment I deswcribed in my summary still holds. If one measures the emission of the photons simulaneously then any theoretical construct that contradicts the expemenatl observation is flawed.
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:12 PM
Let's run some actual numbers.
Suppose your setup is 10m long. In the lab frame, all 6 (identical) clocks are stationary and set to 0.
A' is at the left end, M' is in the middle, and B' is at the right end.
Suppose that A', M', and B' are all accelerated in exactly the same way to a velocity of 1 m/s. In this moving frame, the clock readings are no longer synchronous; B' > M' > A'. In particular, according to the moving frame, when A' reads 0, M' reads 5.56 * 10^-17 seconds, and B' reads 1.11 * 10^-16 seconds.
Note that the descrepancy is less than a millionth of a nanosecond. The differnce between B' and A' is less than a millionth of the frequency of a Cs-133 atom. Hardly a surprise it should go unnoticed. Heck, NIST's clock is only accurate to about one part in 10^15, still not enough to detect the difference.
Your analysis is totally bogus. Come on Hurkyl. The A', M' and B' clocks are on the same rigid frame and are all accelerated together, at the same time. How in th e heck do you get the inequaliies you do? Do you make this up as you go along? It is the same train man. The clocks are just set at diffeent points in the train. Are you trying to be purposfully obscuring the hypothetical experiment in an attempt to confuse me or any observer to this thread?
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:17 PM
I take it you're only considering the case when both photons came from the same direction, then? (I.E. you are not considering the case when the actual sequence of events goes something like "Pass A, see photon A, see photon B, pass B")
(P.S. I'm not faulting you for doing this; it is a fairly messy task to account properly for all the possibilities)
So the criterion for simultaneous emission, according to the moving observer, is that:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
Note that I think you have one of the sides reversed; if the moving observer passed A before B, then he should expect to get B's photon first if emission was simultaneous, making both sides positive. (And similarly if B was passed before A)
As an aside, this is a nifty equation, because it renders calculation of time dilation irrelevant; any sort of dilation of times cancels out!
So let's remember this criterion and go back into the stationary frame. We have an experimental setup consisting of two stationary lamps, A and B. We watch a moving observer pass by both lamps with velocity v, and then, by some means, we trigger A and B simultaneously.
Notice that, in particular, this corresponds to the previous setup; the moving observer will pass A, then pass B, then get B's photon, then get A's photon. Thus, let us compute the times these occur.
For simplicity, the stationary observer sets his clock to 0 when the moving observer passes A. Let's suppose A was at position 0, and B was at position p.
Then, the moving observer passes B at time p / v.
Let's trigger the lamps at time 2p/v. The moving observer is at position 2p when this happens...
Thus, it takes time p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him, and time 2p / (c - v) for the photon from A to reach him.
So we have the following: In our frame,
He passes A at time 0.
He passes B at time p/v.
He receives the photon from B at time 2p/v + p/(c-v)
He receives the photon from A at time 2p/v + 2p/(c-v)
Remembering from our aside that dilation is irrelevant for the criterion that the moving observer computes the emission to be simultaneous. Let's substitute the times into the equation:
c * (y - z) = v (x - w)
yielding
c * ((2p/v + 2p/(c-v)) - (2p/v + p/(c-v))) = v ((p/v) - 0)
simplifying...
c * p / (c-v) = p
cancel out p...
c / (c - v) = 1
et cetera...
c = c - v
v = 0
Since the observer is moving, this equation clearly cannot hold, thus we conclude the moving observer does not compute that A and B were activated simultaneously.
Your hypothetical to me was confusing. You had the frame moving, then the observer. Any way all that is your problem. I am standing by the hyopothetical that have the photons observed to be emitted simultaneously. When you tire of your trivial calculations and want to discuss the experimental result, just say so.
edit added: If your source of photons is the same as the hypothetical arrangement that /b/measured[/b] the photons being emitted simultaneously then what ever your conclusions are merely adds a few more centimeters to the depth of the grave hole that is being dug for SR theory. Every SR analysis conflictingwith the experuimental results proves my point why continue? Your analysis above is just another shovel of dirt thrown out by that eternal and tireless worker, Dellawsa Fizzicks.
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:23 PM
Let's run some actual numbers.
Suppose your setup is 10m long. In the lab frame, all 6 (identical) clocks are stationary and set to 0.
A' is at the left end, M' is in the middle, and B' is at the right end.
Suppose that A', M', and B' are all accelerated in exactly the same way to a velocity of 1 m/s. In this moving frame, the clock readings are no longer synchronous; B' > M' > A'. In particular, according to the moving frame, when A' reads 0, M' reads 5.56 * 10^-17 seconds, and B' reads 1.11 * 10^-16 seconds.
Note that the descrepancy is less than a millionth of a nanosecond. The differnce between B' and A' is less than a millionth of the frequency of a Cs-133 atom. Hardly a surprise it should go unnoticed. Heck, NIST's clock is only accurate to about one part in 10^15, still not enough to detect the difference.
Then make he train go faster and make it as long as mecessary. Your setting the clocks synchronization is totally bogus. The clocks are on the same frame man. The clocks are accelerated slowly together to reach a velocoty v = 1.
SR demands the simultaneous emission of photions in the stationar6y frame are nonsimulatneous whenread from the moving frame. Discuss the contradiction between experiment and theory. If you re able to do so.
Are you trying to toss in some of your confusion here in order to throw the direction of the thread away from the primary focus of ciontradiciton od theory by experimental results?:
Is this an honest effort on your part or are you playing the role of faithful propagandist??
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:28 PM
uhhh
if they're all accelerated the same way (i'm assuming you mean same direction and rate of accel) why are they not synchro anymore?
Uhhh.
They are all obeying the same law of physics. They are all on the same rigid frame when accelerated. The clocks are identical. There is no fram3e-to-frame synchroni=zsation.
The laws of physics are identical in all stationary frames are they not?
When you say "i'm assuming you mean same direction and rate of accel)" , you are telling me you haven't a clue to what the experimental conditions are.
Why don't you find out what is poing on here, or are you and Hurkyl just trying to confuse the observers and posters to this thread?
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:35 PM
If they gave the same readings at the same time in the lab frame...
And they all underwent the exact same acceleration in the lab frame...
Then they still give the same readings at the same time in the lab frame.
But that is no reason to think they give the same readings at the same time in the moving frame, unless you've already assumed simultaneity is absolute.
You mean that taking identical clocks and subjecting them to identical acceleration conditions will result in random clock dilations? What does simultaneity is absolute" mean anyway? Is this some random and incompetently formed physical enquiry?, or are you just trying to divert the thread away from the impending disaster of discovering that SR is flawed and useless physical construction?
I am assuming the constancy of he lasws of physics acting on identical bodies when acted upon in identical ways will result in identical results. Do you agree with this?
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:38 PM
but why should you think that it isn't the same in the first place.
if all variables for the clocks are the same then how can the result be different
the only answer is there's some external effect happening that we haven't thought of
It is apparent that the external effect you haven't thought of is the laws of physics. Why not review those?
You haven't addressed the primar issue here. you are trying to obscue the laws of physics, intetionally, or unintenionally. What is your problem?
Uhhh.
They are all obeying the same law of physics. They are all on the same rigid frame when accelerated. The clocks are identical. There is no fram3e-to-frame synchroni=zsation.
The laws of physics are identical in all stationary frames are they not?
When you say "i'm assuming you mean same direction and rate of accel)" , you are telling me you haven't a clue to what the experimental conditions are.
Why don't you find out what is poing on here, or are you and Hurkyl just trying to confuse the observers and posters to this thread
actually i was just trying to get hurkyl to clarify his new "setup" before i tried to figure out what he was saying in his proposition.
not trying to confuse anyone, just trying to make things clearer for myself.
i've already explained the way i view the situation, need me to elaborate? it's pretty straightforward if you view it from a certain standpoint.
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:42 PM
Well, the general result is that in accelerated frames, observations of clocks are affected by more than just time dilation. In particular, if you're accelerating towards a clock, you perceive it running faster, and if you're accelerating away from a clock, you perceive it running slower (/stopped/backwards).
So in A''s accelerated frame, B' will run fast. However, in B''s accelerated frame, A' will run slow.
Why are you comparing acelerated clock readings? What possible significance does your speculations have on the expeimental results that proved the photons in the experiment that is the focus of the thread were emitted simultaneously?
GET BACK ON TRACK.
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 07:45 PM
actually i was just trying to get hurkyl to clarify his new "setup" before i tried to figure out what he was saying in his proposition.
not trying to confuse anyone, just trying to make things clearer for myself.
i've already explained the way i view the situation, need me to elaborate? it's pretty straightforward if you view it from a certain standpoint.
If you elaborate about the experimental esults that proved the photons were emitted simultaneously, OK. but why digress to some point that is not directed at the issue of the contradiction between expeimental results and SR theory?
because i was trying to figure out where he was going with that line of thought.
he never comes out and directly says something (well seldomly). he'll throw up a crapload of subtlely linked hypotheticals at you and have you wear yourself out trying to solve them
then when you're weak and tired he'll dry-gulch you with what he had originally intended in the first place and you'll be too brain fried to refute it... :D
in any case please verify for me:
let's state our facts.
1. the clocks are not moving
2. the clocks will always face the observer
3. there is a defined midpoint between the two clocks
4. lightspeed is constant within the system
now our subject matter.
4. the clocks may or may NOT be synchronized.
5. the observer moves towards the midpoint from ANY direction at ANY speed
6. he reaches the midpoint at the EXACT time to view the same time displayed on both clocks
what can we conclude from this?
7. the clocks ARE synchronized
is that what we've been arguing about? because i don't see the problem...
I am standing by the hyopothetical that have the photons observed to be emitted simultaneously.
And that's the whole problem. Your hypothetical is in direct violation of Special Relativity, thus you should be getting results that disagree with Special Relativity.
What does simultaneity is absolute" mean anyway?
Absolute simultaneity is precisely what you have been assuming: things are either simultaneous or they are not. It is not relative to anything.
The alternative is relative simultaneity which is part of SR. It only makes sense to speak about simultaneity relative to something (in SR's case, relative to the choice of reference frame).
For another example of "absoulte" vs "relative" consider that of position.
"Absolute position" means that I can give three numbers that unambiguously state where I am in the universe.
"Relative position" means that I can give three numbers that unambiguously state where I am, with respect to a chosen origin and choice of directions.
are you just trying to divert the thread away from the impending disaster of discovering that SR is flawed and useless physical construction?
Sort of like how you've steered the thread away from the example where I got you to explicitly state a condition for events to be simultaneous in a moving frame, and show that condition fails, despite the events being simultaneous in the stationary frame?
1. the clocks are not moving
2. the clocks will always face the observer
3. there is a defined midpoint between the two clocks
4. lightspeed is constant within the system
now our subject matter.
4. the clocks may or may NOT be synchronized.
5. the observer moves towards the midpoint from ANY direction at ANY speed
6. he reaches the midpoint at the EXACT time to view the same time displayed on both clocks
what can we conclude from this?
7. the clocks ARE synchronized
is that what we've been arguing about? because i don't see the problem...
The problem is #1: the clocks are not moving. (and less so, #6 is a problem)
If #1 is false, one generally would not conclude the clocks are synchronized. This corresponds to the difference between the "moving" frame and the "stationary" frame; in the former the clocks are moving.
geistkiesel
Jun6-04, 11:39 PM
The problem is #1: the clocks are not moving. (and less so, #6 is a problem)
If #1 is false, one generally would not conclude the clocks are synchronized. This corresponds to the difference between the "moving" frame and the "stationary" frame; in the former the clocks are moving.
Hurkyl
Quote:
1. the clocks are not moving
2. the clocks will always face the observer
3. there is a defined midpoint between the two clocks
4. lightspeed is constant within the system
now our subject matter.
4. the clocks may or may NOT be synchronized.
5. the observer moves towards the midpoint from ANY direction at ANY speed
6. he reaches the midpoint at the EXACT time to view the same time displayed on both clocks
what can we conclude from this?
7. the clocks ARE synchronized
is that what we've been arguing about? because i don't see the problem...
The problem is #1: the clocks are not moving. (and less so, #6 is a problem)
If #1 is false, one generally would not conclude the clocks are synchronized. This corresponds to the difference between the "moving" frame and the "stationary" frame; in the former the clocks are moving.
" You ask what can we conclude from this?"
You can conlcude anything you desire from this, I conclude that you have altered the experimenal arrangement wher the clocks on the moving frame and the clocks in the stationary frame are such that A = A', B=B' M = M' where M is the midoint between the photon sources. The clocks on each inertial frame are synchronized within each frame. As the moving frame passes the stationary frame with the locations as defined at that instant, photos were emitted and clock times noted within the frames and these noted times were exchyanged as a matter of courtesy to the other frame.
With the exception of the addition of the clocks and method of determining the instant the photons left A and B, by triggering that emission by the passing moving frame, Eisnteins example of he loss of simultaneity is faithfully recreted. maybe you have a quarrle with our manner of mesuring or the way in which we carefully considered the SR imperatives of time and matter shrinking in arriving ar=t the construction of the frame that guarantees A=A' B=B' and M = M" as coordinates for an instant, a mimimum quantum instant.
You say the clocks cannot be synchrionized? You mean the moving frame clocks and technology cannot determine a midpoint between the clocks, just like the stationary frame? You say the laws of physics are different for the moving frame? You say we cannot predict the time dilation and shrinking and build an oversized frame that will shrink to the dimensions such that A =A', B = B' and M =M' when achieving some velocity v =1? Prove it then, with more than 'it cannot be done'" statements.
If you want to casually ignore the laws of physics to suit your collpased SR theory reconstruction purposes, be reminded that in the moving frame we will synchronize those clocks the same way the statioanry frame synchronized their clocks, only with respect to the particlular frame. We aren't talking about frame-to-frame synchronization, is this understood? By synchronize I mean only that all clocks will measure the same time whereever located on the frame. If errors develop for any reason, such as through sabotage by unscrupulous SR Theorists, the error can be repaired, just like in the stationary frame.
What would an unscrupulous SR Theorist look like if suddenly ejected from a space ship dressed only in his clothes? Would he be able to tell what time it was?
geistkiesel
Jun7-04, 03:37 AM
because i was trying to figure out where he was going with that line of thought.
he never comes out and directly says something (well seldomly). he'll throw up a crapload of subtlely linked hypotheticals at you and have you wear yourself out trying to solve them
then when you're weak and tired he'll dry-gulch you with what he had originally intended in the first place and you'll be too brain fried to refute it... :D
I was brain fried the first time I went through this post. If nothing else I am becoming more aware as these posts continue, of the ol' dry-gulching scenario. I missed your candor assuming in my paranoia that all are the enemy. My humble apologies, it always a relief to meet another monk along the endless path.
Roses are red
violets are blue,
I'm schizophrenic,
and so am I
Herb Caen
Hell, I expect it. It makes me strong, as it is easier to point out a conscious cheater than merely one convinced honestly of their position. I did fall into the trap, my generous nature, to agree to anything my enemy proposes. He had me making calculations on how I would determine if the photons from two sources on moving frames emitted photons simultaneously. I thought my answer was rather trivially simple, but he was scuffing his toes in the dirt and clouded it up, or tried to.
Then it dawned on me, why I was so generous, I mean my only concern is to expose the contradiction between experiment and theory in the case of simultaneity among inertial frames. All the elaborate means I went through to build a situation where for only a single instant, A = A', B = B' and M = M' where the symbols are coordinates. This and the switch on the moving frame triggering photons simultaniously at A and B.
Now Hurkyl screams at me that the moving platform crosses M = M' with the frame pointed at any angle. He is denying me the switch I inserted that triggered the emission of the photons in both frames simultaneously. Damn, all that money and effort, to lose now because of the unexpected "any angle of motion through M" bushwhack. Well, I found out later that my instrumentation group had installed a switch at M that emitted a pulse at M that sent a signal to A and B to emit the photons at A and B when M = M' simultaneously, which is what occured. While the rest of the moving frame was passing through M, like an arrow, the photons from sources at A and B were detected at points along the moving frame arrow especially at the shortest distance from A and B which are symmetrically located. (inserted with a continous line of photo diodes) at the same time, the same instant. (We have aslo added the "single emitted" photon restriction to accomodate a short pulse of photons.) All the detected points on the wave front of the photons from A and B were 100% consistent with simultaneous emission of the photons, measuring the spherical radiation of the photons emitted with detectors at A' and B'
While I was going around the M=M' point slowly rotating my moving frame arrow around M = M', it dawned on me that there would be a severe problem when the arrow was pi/2 to the directed line of motion of photons between A and B. Problem to Hurkyl, that is. All measurements along the arrow from tip to feather, lined as the shaft was, with the tiniest photo diode sensitive detectors possible, all measured all arriving photons from A and B simultaneously, for the duration of the continuous emission of the photon pulse. What else could the mesurement and theory determine? In the case of the theory, an exception, as here reality and theory agree, embarasssingly agree.
Hurkyl, you aren't supposed to stir up dust with your toes, you're supposed to draw a line in the sand, don't cha know?
Then I saw him, the enemy, lurking prone,
setting up another bushwhack,
when he found me alone.
So, with most careful arrow's aim I wait, to hurry?, oh no.
When speaks the last refrain then?
When I thrust home.
I will respond to the other half of your post post haste.
We never get to talk about the results of your thought experiment becuase you continually deny SR in the setup of the experiment. You talk about things like instants of time, synchronized clocks, and simultaneous events, but in SR all of those things only have any meaning relative to some reference frame.
The primary way you've been misleading yourself with this thought experiment is the presence of multiple clocks per reference frame. Using your assumption that both sets of clocks will be synchronized, you are able to arrive at the conclusion you want.
Furthermore, you have avoided doing any sort of other calculations with your experimental setup; one of the main points of this thought experiment is that if you don't use relativity, you must measure the speed of light to be something other than c.
I had to, more or less, trick you into doing one of these computations. You did a good job of computing a criterion for the moving observer to identify whether the photons were emitted simultaneously, so you're certainly capable of doing these sorts of calculations.
I wasn't stirring up dust, I was handing you rope.
Unfortunately, I was too impatient and opted to derive the final result myself instead of getting you to derive it, leading to the predictable result that you simply ignored the results without any sort of critical reasoning whatsoever. It seemed you felt the need to heap on some insults to rationalize this behavior, though, which I take as a good sign.
I do find it peculiar that you have been writing the last couple of pages as if you have actually performed an actual, physical experiment.
Anyways, if you're going to take anything away from this post, let it be the following two sentences:
You synchronized the clocks in the stationary frame.
How do you justify the assertion they are synchronized in the moving frame?
geistkiesel
Jun7-04, 10:29 AM
We never get to talk about the results of your thought experiment becuase you continually deny SR in the setup of the experiment. You talk about things like instants of time, synchronized clocks, and simultaneous events, but in SR all of those things only have any meaning relative to some reference frame.
The primary way you've been misleading yourself with this thought experiment is the presence of multiple clocks per reference frame. Using your assumption that both sets of clocks will be synchronized, you are able to arrive at the conclusion you want.
See the posts between ram2048 and myself (#219 and 223). These were meant for your consumption also, amd anyone else interested. There is much for you to pick at. Some might call it "poetic"?
Np assumtions regarding synchronization at all. I made it abundantly clear that I was not synchronizing clocks between frames. I was synchronizing clocks within one frame, without reference tio the other frame. Do you have this clearly fixed in your mind?
If the stationary frame observers can assure themselves that their clocks are all calibrated to give the same time, then the same law of physics applied in the inertial moving frame also provides assurance that the clocks in that moving frame all tell the same time.
no clock sysnchrionization is conducted between frames. got it hurkyl?
The conclusion I want is the truth.
Furthermore, you have avoided doing any sort of other calculations with your experimental setup; one of the main points of this thought experiment is that if you don't use relativity, you must measure the speed of light to be something other than c.
I had to, more or less, trick you into doing one of these computations. You did a good job of computing a criterion for the moving observer to identify whether the photons were emitted simultaneously, so you're certainly capable of doing these sorts of calculations
The calculations are your job. I assume you will always get something consistent with SR. My job, only, is to demonstarte that the photons emitted at A and B simultaneously were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. I did this. I am still waiting for your honorable surrender, but that ain't gonna happen will it?
Thank you for the compliment on my calculations. You recognize don't you, that my method was able to determine if the pulses were sent simultaneously from a moving frame to a stationary observer? And that under the conditions you set up, the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving and and stationary frames and this is what I calculated. You do remember that do you not? You gave it all away Hurkyl, just now. you said basically, " good job".
I assume all the postulates that are used in SR. The constancy of the laws of physics and the constancy of the measured speed of light.
I wasn't stirring up dust, I was handing you rope.
Unfortunately, I was too impatient and opted to derive the final result myself instead of getting you to derive it, leading to the predictable result that you simply ignored the results without any sort of critical reasoning whatsoever. It seemed you felt the need to heap on some insults to rationalize this behavior, though, which I take as a good sign
You are telling me I had a close call, that I bit on your ruse, but your impatience was cause for my escape? Why would you hand me rope? I thought, LOL, we were in a science discussion, seeking he truth.
You wouldn't got me to do any more of your derivations. I was muttering to myself all along, as to why I was doing the calculations I was doing, this was your job. You fooled me big H.. Well as you said, I did get the right answer.
Hey, hurkyl, you just complimented me on my calculations where I contradicted your SR theory,you complimented me, remember?.
I give you the results contradicitng what you you derived, agreeing with what I derived and which you complimented me on.. You used SR and you got the expected SR results didn't you? Good, Now we have an unmabiguous meeting ground. I discoverd experimental proof that the photons were emitted simultaneously (your 'synchronization concerns satisfied as the same laws of physics and speed of light in inertial frames are invariant) in both frames, got it? Experimental results vs theory: The contradiction to be resolved by? Answer:Experimental results.
I do find it peculiar that you have been writing the last couple of pages as if you have actually performed an actual, physical experiment.
Well I did the same experiment that Einstein did, that is what this thread is all about, remember? Postulations, or mind rules, use of physical laws, are what we are talking about. How many times did Einstein go into a phsyics lab and tweak knobs and record ammeters and the such? I have never heard him doing this. It has been my personal experiience that when approaching any thing vaguely appearaing like a science lab, I hear glass breaking. I go not where the clues direct me elsewhere. But I did approach the labs. How about you H, are you a bigtime experimentalist?
Anyways, if you're going to take anything away from this post, let it be the following two sentences:
You synchronized the clocks in the stationary frame.
How do you justify the assertion they are synchronized in the moving frame?
I synchronized,calibrated is a better word, the clocks again in the moving frame using the same laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light used in the stationary frame
This is your current coda? I am supposed to be breathless, awestruck and humbled aren't I? taking these two sentences away? OK, if you say so. You're the mentor.
Np assumtions regarding synchronization at all. I made it abundantly clear that I was not synchronizing clocks between frames. I was synchronizing clocks within one frame, without reference tio the other frame. Do you have this clearly fixed in your mind?
If the stationary frame observers can assure themselves that their clocks are all calibrated to give the same time, then the same law of physics applied in the inertial moving frame also provides assurance that the clocks in that moving frame all tell the same time.
And how did that work again? Oh yes, it went something like:
A and A' are both set to 0 when they meet
M and M' are both set to 0 when they meet
B and B' are both set to 0 when they meet
In the stationary frame, since A, M, and B are all set to zero simultaneously, they must tell the same time afterwards. Also, in the stationary frame, A', M', and B' are set to zero simultaneously, so they must tell the same time afterwards.
However, you've given no justification for your assertion that they all meet simultaneously in the moving frame. In fact, it is a fairly trivial fact of Minowski geometry (the geometry used in SR) that two events are simultaneous in all frames if and only if they are at the same place at the same time; i.e. if they're the same event.
The conclusion I want is the truth.
Where "truth" is defined as whatever you believe?
The calculations are your job.
We've done a few. You don't listen. They must not satisfy your definition of "truth".
My job, only, is to demonstarte that the photons emitted at A and B simultaneously were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.
You're missing a crucially important part of your "job". If your goal is to prove Special Relativity is logically inconsistent, you must make this demonstration within the confines of Special Relativity. If you merely wish to show that Special Relativity doesn't reflect reality, then you must make this demonstration with an actual experiment, not a thought experiment.
You recognize don't you, that my method was able to determine if the pulses were sent simultaneously from a moving frame to a stationary observer?
I think I agree with the spirit of this statement. The pulses, though, weren't sent from a "moving frame"; they were sent from (moving) light sources.
And that under the conditions you set up, the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving and and stationary frames and this is what I calculated.
I do not recognize this, because it is not true. I did the calculations comparing the two frames and showed precisely the opposite; they were simultaneous in one frame and not on the other. You, however, have not done the calculations for both frames under the conditions I set up.
I assume all the postulates that are used in SR. The constancy of the laws of physics and the constancy of the measured speed of light.
And you also assume a few more which are not made by SR.
Why would you hand me rope? I thought, LOL, we were in a science discussion, seeking he truth.
Why would I kick up dust? Or shovel out dirt? You're the one who wanted to bring up colorful analogies, I was just supplying one that is more apt.
How many times did Einstein go into a phsyics lab and tweak knobs and record ammeters and the such?
He did do more than just invent Special & General Relativity, ya know.
are you a bigtime experimentalist?
Nope, I'm not a mathematician. And I'm certainly not the one going around implying that I have done this experiment.
I synchronized,calibrated is a better word, the clocks again in the moving frame using the same laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light used in the stationary frame
Saying it does not make it so.
This is your current coda? I am supposed to be breathless, awestruck and humbled aren't I? taking these two sentences away? OK, if you say so. You're the mentor.
You can be breathless, awestruck, and humbled if you like. I merely wanted to make it crystal clear that this is where my primary objection to your analysis lies; it is more or less pointless to speak about anything else unless it is going to relate directly to this objection.
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.
Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...
etc etc.
if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
geistkiesel
Jun7-04, 01:12 PM
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.
Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...
etc etc.
if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
I agree. I will confine myself to Einsteins gedunken of the train. M is the midpoint between two light sources at A and B. M' the midpoint of A' and B' on a moving inertial frtame, where A' = A and B' = B and M' =M when two photons are emitted from A and B. along the line of the moving platform moving toward B. The photon from B reaches M' before the photon from A.
The colocation of A = A', B = B" and M = M" is determoned from calulations of the shrinking of the moving frame consistent with the known velocity of the moving frame, say v = 1. AS the photons are emitted, the clocks at all are marked and stored in a data base. The clock at B' read the same as the clock at A', similarly the clock at A reads the same as the clock at B. These calibrations are accomplished by the same laws of physics that apply invariantly to both. There is no pretense to correlate the clocks in the two frames, other than to note the times of the emitted photons are stored in the stationary frame's computer for the stationary data. The time data are stored in the moving frame's computer for the moving frame data, the times recorded when all the coordinates were colocated as described.
It is my position that "simultaneity of the emitted photons" is defined at that instant in time when the photons were actually emitted into the universe. Under the conditions described here the photons were emitted simultaneously in both inertial frames.
It is my position that challenges to the claim here that the indicated readings of the clocks in the moving frame are not verifiable is not valid.. The clocks in the moving frame are calibrated with the same laws of physics used in the stationary frame used to calibrate clock there.
So are claims that A = A' and B = B' and M = M' cannot be achieved. Using SR theory we can calculate shrinkage and time dilation consistent with a known and repeatable velocty v = 1. These two measurments are only provided to guarantee he emission of thephoyons in to the universe simultaneously.
There is no measurement of any passage of time by these clocks that are used in any calculation. The clocks are inserted and are used for the singular purpose of marking the simiultaneous nature of the emitted photons. The only exceoption is that the clock at M' is used to measure the arrival times of pulses from B then A ariving at M' where these times are referenced to the location of M' colocated with M when the photons were emitted.
From this I say my link has proved the simultabeous nature of he emitted photons. Likewise, Hurkyl has admitted that a calculation I made if a hypothetical he presented was calulated properly by myself and that I predicted the photons were emitted positively simultaneously. SR would have predicted otherwise, which escaped Hurkyl. he complimented me on my calulation.
i want pictures of trains.
all this A B M and A' B' M' means little to me. what is that two trains?
geistkiesel
Jun7-04, 02:11 PM
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.
Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...
etc etc.
if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
I just took short drive on some personal business and came up with a compromise measuring device. Along the length of the moving platform is a long cylindrical rod. Along the rod are embedded semiconductor high impedence photo-diodes. The distance between centers of the diodes are the state of the art minimum based on todays commercial art. [I think photo-lithograhic exposures are in the x-ray, or near x-ray range for device geometry definitions. but whatever the stae of the art comeical minimum is].
Each device is marked only by a number that defines its location along the rod. We start at M' = 0 and count + and minus up to and passed a fail safe distance insuring that all diodes will be provided over the disnce A to B in the stationary frame. The distance of x to M distance units in the positive direction is equal to the distance x distance units in the minus direction. tThe Number 10 stimulated device in the positive direction is equal tio the number 10 in the negative direction. All we will measure is the number of the device at the location of the the emitted photon at the loction of A and B when the photon is emitted. Period.
All distances measured along the rod in the moving inertial frame are equivalent if photons move equal distances in equal times along any segment of the rod in the moving frame.
As I see the experiment it is exactly like Einsteins except for the presence of the measuring rod in the moving frame. One of the devices is guaranteed to be colocated to a distance less than the wave length of the emitted photon. Many more devices are so colocated such that the resolution of measurement of the photon is much finer than a mere photon wave length resoluiton.
Bottom line: M', A' and B' are defined by a lest one device location along the measuing rod when the photons are emitted from A and B. The photons detected by the observer at M' first from B then A can be defiend by Hurkyl consistent with the laws of physics. He hasn't made any reference to the nature of these measurements so far so what ever resolution Hurkyl desires shall be my desire also.
The given is that M = M' when the photons are emitted in the stationary frame.
No clocks, no sending mesages to M or M'. no computer data base, calibration, synchronization, no frame-to-frame information exchange. We just keep within the experimental limits of Einstein's gedunken as described on pages 25 - 27 of AE's book "Relativity". No measuring rod information to be used in any calculations, as in the original gedunken. The information from the mesuring rods is extrinsic to all determinations of physical fact as in the original gedunken.
geistkiesel
Jun7-04, 02:24 PM
Hurkyl, ram2048 had an observation that you and I were jumping all over the place with our experimental conditions. I posted a compromise I hope yu will find agreeable.(Two posts) I also suggest that both of us refrain from even the most subtle of personal dissing, OK? Let us be 100% successful in conducting our discussions purely on the issue of whether or not the emitted photons were emitted simultaneously in both frames. I am going to use Einsteins gedunken described in "Relativity" pages 25-27 with a slight modification for the taking of two data points. (See Post to ram2048) From past discussions All objections previously raised by yourself are satisfied.
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?
Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:
(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)
Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.
Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.
Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
geistkiesel
Jun9-04, 03:00 AM
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?
Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:
(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)
Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.
Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.
Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
In the first post of th thread "SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand" the moving observer at M' was at M the midpoint of sources of photons in the stationary frame when the photons were emitted simultaneously. These photons were instantaneously detected in the moving frame as they were emitted in the stationary frame. The moving frame detected the simultaneous emission of the photons in the moving frame.
What do cklocks have to do with SR?
Along come Hurkyl and does what? He attempts to alter the direction of the current thread.
Hey, H start another thread.
geistkiesel
Jun11-04, 07:36 PM
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?
Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:
(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)
Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.
Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.
Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
I have no quarrel with AE and his definition, but is the thjread that you wee responding to directly or indirectly on the issue? The AE train hypothetical has the moving frame receiving the photons from the forwad emitter then from the rear emitter. Is this dt at all significant in testing whether the photons were emiitted in the moving frame simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame?
Ii don't see the connection of this post to the train hypo. It seems that simultneity iis being artificially defined by the synchronization process and is fa removed from any physical pocesses.
If I missed something can you show me how SR comes to the conclusion that simltaneitymust be catagorically discarded in the train hypo? If i have not been clea befoe, this sold remove any ambiguity: The photons emitted from the two sources is a simultaneous event in he sationry frame. Eventually these photons arrive at the location of the moving frame. The descriptions presented to me say that the emssion of the photons at A and B were not emitted simultaneously in the movinmg frame. Why, or upon what rational is 'simultyabeity' referred back in time, to another frame, and then projected forward such that the current observers on moving frame [who may as well have not been born at the instant the photons were released] determine the photons weren't emitted simultaneously?
Is this a case of arbitrary definition? My hypothetical measurement experiment where the emitted photons are detected by photosensitive devices placed at the exact location of the emitting source in both frames should be consistent with any measuement scheme in the moving frame mesuring arrival times of the photons if SR theory is consistently applicable. Do you agree (technical measuing problems being irrelevant to the theoretical iscussion)?
negative answer imlies, to me, that SR becomes pureley observer determinate. I mean that it is the defined state of the observer, his perceptions, we are focused on as opposed to the physical event that defines simultaneity. If so what does SR and simulaneity have to do with physical events in describing those events after they occur in such a way that the actual event itself remains "absolutely" invariant, physically induistinguishable from theevent, under any real or implied activtivity conceivable ocuring after the fact of the event?
ram2048
Jun13-04, 12:35 AM
wait...
according to the other thread light will always be measured at light speed relative to the observer...
so if the front one is coming at him at light speed and the back one is also coming at him at light speed...
oh... i see now why you're arguing :D
geistkiesel
Jun14-04, 08:20 AM
wait...
according to the other thread light will always be measured at light speed relative to the observer...
so if the front one is coming at him at light speed and the back one is also coming at him at light speed...
oh... i see now why you're arguing :D
SR as seen through the lens of simultaneity is becoming to be grounded in a simple fact: The simultaneity phenomena is not descriptive of physical phenmomena, it is descripive of what a moving observer perceives as a correction for observing the different arrival times of the photons in the moving framew. This occurs, the correction, from failure to consider other options for the staggered arrival times of the photons, i.e. the most obvious, the moving frame is heading to the source of one oncoming photon and away from the source of the other catching up photon.
ram2048
Jun14-04, 01:59 PM
certainly coming to the conclusion that the mover is actually moving is the smart way to look at things.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.