Recent content by teachmemore

You completely mis-interpreted the statement for which you just quoted. I understand your post #31 quite clearly. If I had any issue with it, I would not hide that from you ;-) If you want to understand what I mean by "independent of any godly knowledge", please refer to posts #74 or read...

I'm not sure what you mean here. In what you refer to the "what I finally settled on", all I was doing was defining "fixed distance". The answer to your second question is no.

There is a problem with what you have said here. Firstly, the answer to your question about what 'count' B is setting itself to was already explained here: In other words, B is using the definition of simultaneity in A's reference frame to set itself. Now, here is the problem with...

People keep trying to explain this with a 'delay', claiming 'relativity of simultaneity', which shows that they are missing it. It is easy to setup a thought experiment where simultaneity can be ensured. In this case I used a device which is in the frame of reference of counter B, when it comes...

Ah, maybe here is where it will clear up the difference in our understanding. If the two clocks are in contact with one another, even though they are in different frames of reference; when B perceives that they start at the same time, A will also perceive that the two clocks start at the same...

Now add to this the condition that the two light pulses do not begin at this fixed distance. Edit: oh geeze, sorry. scratch that. The condition is that the two light pulses begin at a fixed distance, but then become an unfixed distance, and then return to a fixed distance. how is that? ;-)...

ah. thank you, but the coded light pulse would not be able to relay all the information that my device would because the observer A does not know the distance between himself and observer B from observer B's frame of reference. Observer A only knows the distance as he observes it to be from his...

Ya. The light is not every at rest. agreed. And ya. as far as light absorption, who the hell knows what happens to it. It is all just speculation. We only know that it it can both be incorporated into the particle and that the particle can be converted into light and emit light by e=mc^2.

Ya sorry. I meant pulse, not beam.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the issue of information being exchanged between reference frames that are in contact in space? ei. like my example of a device which is switched by a passing rocket?

We would not be able to see the trapped light pulse. An example of a trapped light pulse is the "light clock" regularly used in special relativity thought experiments. Edit: Another example would be an absorption process where the light is permanently absorbed as part of the particle; and is...

I don't know why you are having such a hard time with the word trapped. It just means confined to a fixed coordinate or set of coordinates within the frame of reference. All matter IS at a fixed coordinate within a frame of reference. It does not need to be "trapped" to remain there because...

Firstly, the definition was using the scenario of two pulses of light becoming trapped at a fixed distance apart; no statement was being made about what would happen if two arbitrary light pulses were sent in opposite directions. Secondly, the definition is incomplete, because the scenario is...

Eventually stop? Sorry? No that is impossible. I just meant that they become trapped at a fixed distance apart from one another, which would imply that they are in the same frame of reference.

It is not that important, since this definition is incomplete, but ya, what I meant was that two two pulses of light are trapped within the same frame of reference. As to how the light is trapped there, it is unimportant. It could be by particle absorption, or by being reflected between...