Has ayone seen the lost simultaneity?

[geistkiesel]

Quote:
(3) No. You must realize that only after the observers can look at the detctors can they tell when the photons arrived. This is after the event.

Wrong. Both frames detect the photons simultaneously on their own clocks. What do you mean the detection is "after the event"? The detection is the event.

The speed of light is constant. If O' is moving wrt the spot in the stationary frame where the light was emitted then it is physically impossible for the A' observer to detect the photon from the source the same instant the B' observer detects the photon., even if their clocks wee running slower thatn the stationary clocks. You can't have it both ways.

 

[geistkiesel]

Right! Good for you.

Wrong. Both frames detect the photons simultaneously on their own clocks. What do you mean the detection is "after the event"? The detection is the event.

Right, but not for your reasons.

Wrong. Each observer sees the others clocks as being out of synch. (And yes I remember your silly calculation where you use time measured in the "stationary" frame, but claim you are using times measured in the moving frame. I assume you are just confused, not willfully trying to lie or deceive.)

SR theory sucks, for the following reasons. If you follow the argument in my analysis that you find so silly you will see that the moving observer will detect the photons were emitted simultaneoulsy in his frame as he will receive the information of the emitted photon simultaneously, even though he has moved to the right. The detetctors will not detetct the photons at the same time, after all the observers are moving with respect to the point the photons were emitted, but this has nothing to do with SR.

The bottom line is that both frames will detect the photons arriving simultaneously. And, since the light is emitted at the midpoint between both observers, both O and O' will conclude that the photons were emitted simultaneously in their own frames.

Of course, but the detectors in the moving frame will not detect the photons simultaneously. It is only after the infromation regarding time of emission, detetction times and velocity will the moving frame determine the photons were emitted simultaneously.

But, since we knew that the photons were all emitted at the same place and time according to all frames, this should be obvious.

Wrong. The stationary observer will have no problem, but for the moving observer it is not obvious anad he will have to go through the calculations as I did in order to see that that the photons were emitted simultaneously; or simply use mirros as per my analysis and he can see the photons were emitted simultaneously..

Don't get your hopes up. You are still stumbling over problems I would assign to high school students.

I am not stumbling over problems i am stumbling over people that believe in the silliness of SR as it was pounded into their minds.

 

[Doc Al]

Hence = therefore. This is how I used the word, just like AE used the word. What is your real question here?

Right: Hence = therefore. Thus indicating a conclusion not a definition. My real question: Do you understand english?

#3. No, the A' observer detects the photon from M before the B' observer detects the photon from M. Their clocks will show different arrival times.

Incorrect. You are still viewing things from the stationary frame. Break out that box! To observers A' and B', the light flashed on exactly at the midpoint; which is also what A and B see. So clocks A' and B' read the same when the photons arrive; as do A and B.

#4. After comparing their clock times and knowing their velocity wrt the stationary frame the A' and B' observers will conclude the photons were emitted simultaneously.(See my analysis)

Now why in the world would the O' frame use the velocity of the O frame in figuring out what they can observe directly? The reason that all observers agree that the photons were emitted simultaneously is that (a) the photons were emitted from the midpoint between the two detectors and (b) the photons were detected at the same time by both detectors.

#. 5) Do the observers in ("stationary") frame O agree that A' and B' detected the photons simultaneously according to the O frame clocks?

No. The stationary observers know the A' observer is moving to the oncoming photon and they know the B' is chasing the outgoing photon.

You changed your answer from before. Good for you! (But note that this reasoning works exactly the same for the moving frame!)

(6) Do the observers in ("moving") frame O' agree that A and B detected the photons simultaneously according to the O' frame clocks?

Yes. The photons from M have the same distance to travel. The moving obsever can see this clealy. Even if the clocks were slower in the moving fame the distance the photons cover is the same, therefore the clocks will determine that the photons had the same time of flight to arrive at A and B. If the clocks do not agree then they are niot operating popely.

No. The moving observer clearly sees that A is moving away from the oncoming light, and B is moving towards it. This is the exact reasoning you used to (finally) get the correct answer to #5. Have you forgotten it so soon?

 

[geistkiesel]

Right: Hence = therefore. Thus indicating a conclusion not a definition. My real question: Do you understand english?

Incorrect. You are still viewing things from the stationary frame. Break out that box! To observers A' and B', the light flashed on exactly at the midpoint; which is also what A and B see. So clocks A' and B' read the same when the photons arrive; as do A and B.

Hence means 'therefore'. AE is using the term in the context that the observers on the train see the B pulse first then the A pulse, Hence, they conclude he photons were not emitted simultaneously.And they conclude erroneously. It is easier teaching average 8th graders this stuff than old men whose minds have been corrupted by ignorant graduate advisors. Drink a glass of warm milk Doc and get a good night's rest.

No the speed of light is constant and measuring from different frames does not impose restrictions. A' and B' are moving wrt the pulse source and hence as the pulse source does not move., the A' and B' detectors will record different times. therfore, [HENCE] A' and B' read the photons at different times.

Now why in the world would the O' frame use the velocity of the O frame in figuring out what they can observe directly? The reason that all observers agree that the photons were emitted simultaneously is that (a) the photons were emitted from the midpoint between the two detectors and (b) the photons were detected at the same time by both detectors.

Only the stationary detectors measure simulaneous signals fronm the source.

On;y the moving observer can measure the simultaneous arrival of the pulses and then only if the A' and B' detectors are replaced by mirrors.

Look at the physics of the problem and put your SR crap to sleep. A stationary and moving frame are going to measure different times of emission using absolute time as a reference. And there aren't "both" detectors, there are four detectors, two moving, two stationary. Let uis keep it that way OK?.

You changed your answer from before. Good for you! (But note that this reasoning works exactly the same for the moving frame!)

No you are wrong. I said the moving detectors will not simultaneoulsy detect the emitted photons and the stationary obserbver will also not see simultaneousl detection of the photons by A' and B'. The moviing OBSERVER will detect the photons ariving at the shifted position of O', if the detectors are replaced by mirrors. The reasonong is not the same using the moving frame as a staionary frame, because the moving frame is moving, it is not stationary. Do you undertstand?

No. The moving observer clearly sees that A is moving away from the oncoming light, and B is moving towards it. This is the exact reasoning you used to (finally) get the correct answer to #5. Have you forgotten it so soon?

Doc it is you gedunken stick with it. O is stationary thrpugh out, O' is moving through out.

See, here is where you and SR are full of it. The moving observer O'cannot "see" A moving at all. There is the speed of light restriction. All that the moving observer O' can "see" is the first return of the signals, either at the shifted origin, if the detectors are replaced by mirrors, or after she has looked at the timing of the detectors at A and A' and B and B', which is post experiment time.

Remember Doc Al, this is your gedunken. You said that the O' was the MOVING observer, now you want to play the old "reversee who is moving" game. Stick to what you described and answer the question, if you are able. Are you intentionally doing this (I cannot believe you are other than misguided, which is why I have exercised an infnite degree of patience with you) or is it just a carry over of what you learned in graduate school?

You are putting the moving observer in the stationary frame and doing some kind of logical flim flam dance. Get back in your proper frame Doc Al bwefore you fall off.

I am responding with another post here.

 

[geistkiesel]

The Basic System
There are two photon sources at A and B with the midpoint marked at M. Photons are emitted in a pulsed mode, | | | | | | |, where each pulse, |, is coded such that the A and B pulses can be distinguished. This can be accomplished using coded MW signals with pulse width of | ~ λ, the wavelength of a light pulse emitted at A and B.

|A->_____________________M________________________<-B|

Extended System
In the middle of the sources is a mirror system that reflects the A and B photons back to their respective source position as well as pairing each of the reflected photons with a photon from the opposite source. On the first line A and B pulses are deflected into mirrors, on the second line, that reverses the directions of the pulses. On the third and fourth lines the reversed pulses are paired with pulses of the opposite type: B paired with A and A paired with B.

At this point A and B photons are moving in both directions with the same left-right spatial locations.

Organization of Pulses

 |_____________________->\/<-___________________________|  
              A  <-____<-/\->____->   B
              B  <-____<-/
                          \->____->   A

Final System at Equilibrium
Located at A and B is a system of flat reflecting mirrors that reflect the AB photon pairs back to the opposite set of mirrors. After a complete reflection cycle is completed equilibrium is established.

The vertical lines that stretch from A to B along the bottom can selectively measure AB photon pairs moving in either direction. Therefore, any position along the AB axis will measure AB photon pair pulses simultaneously. If we install an electronic system to enable anyone of the detectors randomly or sequentially, AB photon pairs will always be measured simultaneously. If we program the detectors to be triggered sequentially we may simulate motion along the AB axis, or we can insert a detector to actually move along the AB axis.

Now the question: Is a detector moving in the AB axis going to measure the same as a static detector? This question must be answered in the context of the experiment described. Using SR theory to invent an answer will be circuitous logic and therefore useless.

|-----------------------------------<- A--------------------------------|
|-----------------------------------<- B--------------------------------|
|----------------> B ---------------------------------------------------|
|----------------> A ---------------------------------------------------|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Definition of Simultaneity
Pairs of reflected photons are coded as pairs.
AE's definition that “Events that are simultaneous in stationary frames are not simultaneous in moving frames.” means must a conflict between definition and experiment exists. Some might consider the 'definition' as a 'conclusion'. The statement is a definition as offered by AE ,and we can debate the point later, however ,it must still be proved, one way or the other, before it is universally adopted. We must be very careful not to implement the definition iin a way that results in circuitous reasoning.

Those implications derived from the definition have resulted in discarding the concept of “absolute time” and as such are fatally flawed. If we use the definition above then we discard absolute time, insert time dilation, shrink matter in the direction of motion and measure the speed of light always as c = 300,000km/sec without regard to the motion of the ftrame from which the measurement is taken. and all of this to conform to the definition, however phrased. [Notice there is no attempt to measure the speed of light with respect to the motion of the frame of reference in practice.].

Definitional flaw in Simultaneity
There is an obvious error in the implementation of the definition of simultaneity which originated with A. Einstein in his widely discussed gedunken experiment using a train as a moving frame, with one observation point on that train passing through the midpoint M of the A and B sources just as photons are emitted from A and B. It is only the first emitted photon pair that are considered in AE's analysis of the definition

As defined any system of moving entities will fall uner the deinitional umbrella of simultaneity.
Before we continue let us look at the condition where A and B are the starting point for NASCAR vehicles leaving A and B at 300km/hr as substitutes for the photons. For the train we substitute a single NASCAR detector moving on a straight track at 100km/hr in the B direction. The AB distance is 800km.The NASCAR detector will detect the ‘B’ NASCAR first, followed by the ‘A’ NASCAR. If we now look at the detector we see the B object detected before the A object. What conclusions may we draw from this data alone? Nothing, other than B was detected before A. May we conclude that the moving detector has proved the definition of simultaneity? No.

Simultaneity is functionally related to information of the time an observer passes through M, the velocity of the train wrt stationary frame, the AB sgtationary distance and the speed of light wrt stationary frames.
With only the fact that a train observers in AE's gedunken only see the different arrival times, no conlcusions regarding simultaneity are reasonable. If the observers on the train consider their velocity wrt the stationary frame they are still unable to conclude when the photons were emitted. If they consider that they were at M when the photons were emitted they are still unable to determine simultaneity. [the photons could have been emitted any time before they arrived at A and/or B]. If the observers then add the consideration of the distance between A and B they must first make the calculations to determine if the photons were emitted simultaneously. In a previous post I derived that t2 = t1(C + V)/(C - V) where t1 is the time of the B measurement wrt t = 0 when the observers were at M, and t2 the time of the A measurement wrt t = 0 at M. Using the AE definition, each observer strung along the train must make her own calculations to determine her own state of observing simultaneity. Each will determinme the photons were emitted simultaneously into the moving frame of he train. Imposing time dilations is premature here. The observers who are at the midpoint M when the photons arrive their simultaneously need not make any calculaiopns, they will be able to see the photons arrive at the same place they are located.

There can be only one law for all the observers on one train, right?[/size]

The defnition is ambiguous regarding conditions of information.
If we know ahead of time that the detector passed through M just as each A and B NASCAR left A and B may we then approve of the definition of simultaneity? No, obviously not. If two objects are headed toward each other and a third object is behind the middle object and is trying to catch up (under the conditions established here) the objects moving in a collision course will always meet before the trailing object catches up. Think about it, any objects will suffice :earth worms, olympic sprinters, even photons confined to the situation described above. Are we, then going to assign AE’s definition to the NASCAR/detector system in order to bring the definition of simultaneity into a universally operating reality, for all objects? No.

Simultaneity not universally defined.
Simultaneity, as discussed in the context of the definition refers specifically to electromagnetic motion, or radiation. In this sense, the definition is used to justify the time dilation, mass shrinking and the implication from these concepts that the measure of the speed of light as constant with respect to all inertial frames. In other words, once one accepts the definition the concepts mentioned must be implmented in order to maintain consistency with the definition.

Circuitous analysis substututed for physical reality.
One should look very closely at what is being trashed in order to bring about a compromise that justifies the mental limitations of the scientific industry.

We must be very careful that definitions do not bootstrap coincidental observations imposed by the defintion. To infer preconceived ideas about concepts of natural phenomena and surrepticously constructing defintions is always fatally hazardous.

The Speed of Light is C in vacuo
So light moves at a constant velocity of c in vacuo. Is this any reason, by itself, to conclude that we must measure the relative velocity of light as c with respect to any frame of reference? Not including the velocity of the referenced frame when measuring c is equated to voluntarily placing the observer firmly on the horn of a dilemma. This omission will always result in an erroneous conclusion that time dilates and mass shrinks., which results in, voila! the speed of light measured as c = 300,000km/sec [with dialted time and mass, of course].

Are we thinkers ot robots?
What about the implications of Galilean vs. Lorentzian transformations and the implications of Maxwell’s equations? Just crank out some maths? What about the relative motion of 8km/sec between light and the aether found by Dayton Miller [who confirmed the Michelson-Morely's results]? Those confining themselves to the rote meanings of concepts as they were taught, without an in depth and critical analysis, simply get back on their horn and proceed along in the pain of collective and singular confusion .

 

[Doc Al]

stationary? moving? says who?

Doc it is you gedunken stick with it. O is stationary thrpugh out, O' is moving through out.

You are still stuck thinking that "stationary" somehow means something absolute. It's just an arbitrary label. I never said what O was stationary with respect to. It just so happens that O is stationary with respect to a spaceship that is traveling alongside it. And, what do you know, O' is moving with respect to that ship... but it's stationary with respect to the Earth! (Which is perhaps a billion miles away.)

Who knew? Time to change all your goofy arguments around, geistkiesel. I guess O' was really stationary all the time!

 

[Doc Al]

same foolish argument--just longer

The Basic System
There are two photon sources at A and B with the midpoint marked at M. Photons are emitted in a pulsed mode, | | | | | | |, where each pulse, |, is coded such that the A and B pulses can be distinguished. This can be accomplished using coded MW signals with pulse width of | ~ λ, the wavelength of a light pulse emitted at A and B.

|A->_____________________M________________________<-B|

Extended System
In the middle of the sources is a mirror system that reflects the A and B photons back to their respective source position as well as pairing each of the reflected photons with a photon from the opposite source.

As I have explained at length in an earlier post, introducing a mirror at the midpoint changes the original gedanken and makes it trivial:

- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the photons reach the mirror at the same time
- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the "paired photons" left the midpoint at the same time​

So what?

Once again I request that you go back to the original Einstein gedanken and answer my questions. There is no escape, geistkiesel!

 

[geistkiesel]

You are still stuck thinking that "stationary" somehow means something absolute. It's just an arbitrary label. I never said what O was stationary with respect to. It just so happens that O is stationary with respect to a spaceship that is traveling alongside it. And, what do you know, O' is moving with respect to that ship... but it's stationary with respect to the Earth! (Which is perhaps a billion miles away.)

Who knew? Time to change all your goofy arguments around, geistkiesel. I guess O' was really stationary all the time!

Oh I get it. If you are an SR theorist, you can make it up as you go along. So a stationary train depot is not staionary anymore? Oh I get it arbitrary labels allowed in SR theory, but rational analyiss is verboten? You have just introduced the silliest things you have ever posted in your career. talk about out in the clouds.

SR error that is fatal, every time: Assuming stationary and moving platforms then swapping them in the middlde of analysis to sound like you know what you are talking about.
Not only do you make it up arbitrarily as you go along, you are in lock step wuith all the other SR robots: you make up impossibke situations and conditions. I admit my latest post has some engineering problems to ovecome, but theoretically the gedunken is "rational" Doc Al, a word you should look up in the dictionary.

 

[geistkiesel]

As I have explained at length in an earlier post, introducing a mirror at the midpoint changes the original gedanken and makes it trivial:

- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the photons reach the mirror at the same time
- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the "paired photons" left the midpoint at the same time​

So what?

Once again I request that you go back to the original Einstein gedanken and answer my questions. There is no escape, geistkiesel!

Excuse me I got the order of your posts reversed. You are correct the gedunken is trivial, as trivial as Einstein's is in error. I have answered your questions many times over. It is your attitude that needs answering.

- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the photons reach the mirror at the same time
- Everyone (O and O') agrees that the "paired photons" left the midpoint at the same time[/INDENT]
So what?

So what? You didn't complete the logically next third sentence. Let me assist you in this trivial matter:

Geistkiesl is finishing Doc Al's post for him. Apparently Doc fell asleep at the wheel before the simultaneity wall appeared in front of ---.

Everyone (O and O') agrees that the "paired photons" were emitted simultaneously (and detected as such) in the moving frame at the same time.

You are very welcome Doc. Can I call you Doc?
There, Doc Al, let me be the first to welcome you back to a rational world.

 

[Janus]

Oh I get it. If you are an SR theorist, you can make it up as you go along. So a stationary train depot is not staionary anymore? Oh I get it arbitrary labels allowed in SR theory, but rational analyiss is verboten? You have just introduced the silliest things you have ever posted in your career. talk about out in the clouds.

The idea that there is a state of absolute rest died over 350 yrs ago. Since then, "stationary" has always been an arbitrary label; That which is considered "stationary" is considered so for convenience only. This is not a idea new to SR.

Until you come to grips with this you are no better off than the members of the Flat Earth Society, who refuse to come to grips with the concept of a spherical world.

 

[geistkiesel]

The idea that there is a state of absolute rest died over 350 yrs ago. Since then, "stationary" has always been an arbitrary label; That which is considered "stationary" is considered so for convenience only. This is not a idea new to SR.

Until you come to grips with this you are no better off than the members of the Flat Earth Society, who refuse to come to grips with the concept of a spherical world.

The "idea" of absolute rest dying ove 350 years ago is a non sequitor, even if universally true, which it isn't. That idea held by some may be true in their own abstract world, but only there can the idea be scrutinized.

So stationary is a "convenience only". Absolute rest is merely a mathematical convenience, I think you mean, don't you?

Railway stations are not stationary, they are what, conveniently at rest?

This is not an idea new to SR? So what, and who said it was new to SR? And what is the difference of the newness of the idea? Ptolemy theorists held the concept of an Earth centered universe for almost 2000 years, but that old idea died didn't it Janus? You think that just because you are the modern holder of a silly theory that you couldn't be possibly in error, could you?

Have you ever seen a railway station accelerate wrt a moving train? Or even a stationary train? When a relative velocity is measured between train and train station, which people felt the acceleration that produced the motion? The ones on the stationary platform or the people on the moving train? What you term is "for convenience only" you offer as a peversion of physics by assuming your mathematical garbage that trains are stationary and that it is the train station that moves. But then you wanted to be a physicist and no way are you going to make that grade even thinking about challenging your graduate advicor on SR theory, right?

This frame swapping you SRists are so perverted fond of are physical impossibilities and you know it. But then if you really knew it, you wouldn't be able to honestly use the convenience as a substitute for physical law and reality.

Make some Earth frame mesurements and detect roundness. Sure add a ton of energy, get in orbit, take a photograph, decelerate and show me your photograph and say, "See, the Earth is round." I then show you a zillion Earth frame based (low energy) experimental results using '"flat laser beams" that are unable to show roundness. And everybody points their finger at you and laughs, or they just point their finger at you.

Bottom line then from the frame of Janus: The concept of SR simultaneity implications are based on arbitrary and unreal physical concepts, which are substituted for by abstract and mathematically silly coveniences.

 

[geistkiesel]

:
#. 5) Do the observers in ("stationary") frame O agree that A' and B' detected the photons simultaneously according to the O frame clocks?

No. The stationary observers know the A' observer is moving to an on coming photon and they know the B' is chasing the outgoing photon. They know it when they get the information.

You changed your answer from before. Good for you! (But note that this reasoning works exactly the same for the moving frame!)

No I didn't change my answer, I said earlier that the moving observer would see the photons arriving at his shifted position simultaneously. Yopu are perverting your position as a reviewer and mentor. There you go swapping frames again.

 

[geistkiesel]

The bottom line is that both frames will detect the photons arriving simultaneously. And, since the light is emitted at the midpoint between both observers, both O and O' will conclude that the photons were emitted simultaneously in their own frames.

In the first thread you and I discussed this matter, where the moving observer and the emitted photons from A and B arrived at the midpoint M simultaneously, you argued, and to this day I presume, that the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Some passengers on the train see the photons such that they "must, therefore" conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame, all except those sitting adjacent to the photons arriving simultaneously at M and their position, right Doc Al? Well ,I guess that simultaneity is functionally dependent on where one is located in the moving frame, right?
The old peception of the eye in the beholder, right?

 

[geistkiesel]

Who knew? Time to change all your goofy arguments around, geistkiesel. I guess O' was really stationary all the time.

Your physics is that you "guess" the moving observer O' was really stationary all the time?

I thought this was a physics forum, then why are so many of you acting out some silly nonsense "guessing charades?" Fie on you Doc Al, for shame.

 

[geistkiesel]

You are still stuck thinking that "stationary" somehow means something absolute. It's just an arbitrary label. I never said what O was stationary with respect to. It just so happens that O is stationary with respect to a spaceship that is traveling alongside it

You were specifically saying the stationary platform was stationary wrt the moving frame, remember? You moans of distress are starting to sound like squeals. Chill Doc Al. chill.

Why don't you just admit it? SR is a mathematical contrivance allowing SRists to pervert physcial reality by implementing the perversion of frame swapping which is physically impossible to do, right?

 

[Doc Al]

Why don't you just admit it? SR is a mathematical contrivance allowing SRists to pervert physcial reality by implementing the perversion of frame swapping which is physically impossible to do, right?

Discussing SR with you is rather pointless, since you haven't even caught on to Galilean relativity yet. Let us know when you reach the 20th century.

 

[geistkiesel]

Four exceptional passengers and a NASCAR ride.

Discussing SR with you is rather pointless, since you haven't even caught on to Galilean relativity yet. Let us know when you reach the 20th century.

Doc are you saying that you have run out of specifics to attack? Why not just focus on the defintion (ok conclusion) of simultaneity. Changing subject matter is lequivalent to frame swapping, isn't it?

Let us take a non SR example. Two NASCARS with velocity of 300km/hr pass are emitted from A and B seaprated by 800meters just as the observer in 1979 Ford Futura passes the midpoint of A and B The B NASCAR is detected first 100 meters to the right of M and later the A NASCAR catches the Furtura at 200 meters past M.

Everybody in the track can see the NASCARS emitted into the moving frame as the NASCARS leave A and B, including the observer in the Futura. Am I going too fast for you? Just kidding.

Now Einstein didn't bring uniqeness of photons into the discussion as a parameter of his defintion (conclusion) that events simultaneous in stationary frames are not simultaneous in moving frames.So how do you rationalize the NASCAR equivalence of Einstein's model?

Or, on the passenger train, there are four seats that are adjacent to the Midpoint M just as the A and B photons arrive and are immediately detected in the moving frames by the exceptions to simulaneity that are sitting in those four exceptional seats. These four are the only ones on the train that the photons are emitted simultaneously to aren't they? What a perception, Ahh es, quite a perception of those four exceptional observers, right?

You sound like an angy man Doc Al, chill man, all is not lost, even if you are a loser in this instance.

How about a truce?

How does one create attachments that are posted as URLs?

 

[Doc Al]

Doc are you saying that you have run out of specifics to attack?

Exactly! When you come up with something new, I'll be happy to destroy it as I have all your previous "arguments". It is getting tedious to keep repeating myself.

Why not just focus on the defintion (ok conclusion) of simultaneity. Changing subject matter is lequivalent to frame swapping, isn't it?

There are two meanings to "frame swapping": one good and necessary, the other bad and silly. The good kind is to realize that physics should work the same from any frame. So any frame is as good as any other to describe the world.

The bad kind is mixing up measurements made in one frame and confusing them with measurement made in a different frame. Now... which kind of "frame swapping" do you keep doing?

Let us take a non SR example. Two NASCARS with velocity of 300km/hr pass are emitted from A and B seaprated by 800meters just as the observer in 1979 Ford Futura passes the midpoint of A and B The B NASCAR is detected first 100 meters to the right of M and later the A NASCAR catches the Furtura at 200 meters past M.

Silly rabbit! You think SR doesn't apply to NASCARS? There is no escape!

You sound like an angy man Doc Al, chill man, all is not lost, even if you are a loser in this instance.

How about a truce?

Me angry? I'm as calm as can be. A truce? Have you run out of material already?

How does one create attachments that are posted as URLs?

I don't understand the question. You've posted URLs before.

 

[geistkiesel]

Exactly! When you come up with something new, I'll be happy to destroy it as I have all your previous "arguments". It is getting tedious to keep repeating myself.


Silly rabbit! You think SR doesn't apply to NASCARS? There is no escape!

I don't understand the question. You've posted URLs before.

I am under thje belief that SR is a photon phenomnon. If we can see the NASCARS entering the moving frame and see them entering simultaneously then what law of physics says we aren't allowed to add velocities, or subtract for that matter with regard to NASCARS?..

I understand simultaneity, I just happen not to agree with it.

Regarding attachments it is what I am asking about. How do I make a figure and present the figure as a physicsforum link? or copy some figure from a website and present as an attachment?
Thanx

 

[Doc Al]

I am under thje belief that SR is a photon phenomnon.

Add that to your pile of mistaken beliefs.

If we can see the NASCARS entering the moving frame and see them entering simultaneously then what law of physics says we aren't allowed to add velocities, or subtract for that matter with regard to NASCARS?..

Not sure what you are talking about. For low speeds you can certainly use Galilean addition of velocities. But realize it's only an approximation. (An incredibly good one, for NASCAR speeds!)

Also: You often talk about things "entering the moving frame". Bad habit. Things just are. They can be viewed from many different frames at once. They don't belong to one frame or another, but to all frames.

I understand simultaneity, I just happen not to agree with it.

I know you don't agree with it, but I'm still awaiting proof that you understand it.

Regarding attachments it is what I am asking about. How do I make a figure and present the figure as a physicsforum link? or copy some figure from a website and present as an attachment?

When you make a post or reply to one you'll see a tool called "attach files". Just put your diagram in one of the acceptable file types and go for it. Let me know if it doesn't work for you.

 

[geistkiesel]

Add that to your pile of mistaken beliefs.

Not sure what you are talking about. For low speeds you can certainly use Galilean addition of velocities. But realize it's only an approximation. (An incredibly good one, for NASCAR speeds!)

Also: You often talk about things "entering the moving frame". Bad habit. Things just are. They can be viewed from many different frames at once. They don't belong to one frame or another, but to all frames.

We have been talking about photons emitted simukltabeously in the stationary frame being simultaneously emitted in the moving frame. What are you talking about. I think you have some bad habit neediong correciton here not me.

I know you don't agree with it, but I'm still awaiting proof that you understand it.

What do you have that makes you feel that I owe you some proof that i undertsand SR? I undertstand it and you know I do,. iIjust believe it is garbage, that's all.

When you make a post or reply to one you'll see a tool called "attach files". Just put your diagram in one of the acceptable file types and go for it. Let me know if it doesn't work for you.

Thanx for the "attachment" info.

Doc Al you and I both know that the gedunken we have been working on here does not use any SR postulates requiring time dilation, mass shrinking or any of the other SR inferences. Einstein's gedunken and the example given here is all he used. Einstein will have us believe because the oncoming photon was measured before the one approaching from the rear that this is suffciient to discard the simultaneity of events and to discard absolte time. read the reference you gave me, This is the same book I have been quoting from which you ridicule with your school yard jimmer jammer. Don't be dishonest DOc Al, There is only one life you have to live, don't let it be a lie that is as grossly uttered as SR.

 

[geistkiesel]

Clearing up AE Gedanken ambiguities.

Einstein gedunken experiment has been much misinterpreted in this thread. This discussion is intended to clear up any misconceptions.

For those following this thread you can see the intensity of those defending the concept of simultaneity, for if simultaneity goes, so goes SR, out the window. Doc Al has made a valiant but fruitless effort to insert time dilation and mass shrinking into this discussion of AE’s gedunken, primarily by Doc Al.

Read and be your own judge.

_->                 M                   <-_.
A|__________________|____________________|B.
_a__________________O’___________________b__.

This is where we start. The moving observer O’ is at M the midpoint of A and B photon sources when photons are emitted. Passengers designated a and b detect these photons when first emitted. The train extends beyond the two A and B source locations.

As the train moves to the right, second line, there are four significant events to consider.

1. The photons are emitted simultaneously in the embankment observed by passengers a and b sitting adjacent to the A and B sources when the photons were emitted- call this time1
2 The observer O’ detects the on coming B photon - time 2.
3 The photons A and B arrive simultaneously at M in the stationary frame and are observed simultaneously by passengers sitting in those adjacent seats in the moving frame. We call these passengers a|b - time 3. These are not the same a and b passengers observing the original omission of the photons.
4 O’ observes the photon A from the rear – time 4.

Doc Al will scream that I haven’t said which frame we are counting time. I am using the same time frame Einstein used in his gedunken.

By this time all passengers sitting to the rear of O’ have detected the A and B photon, including the passengers sitting adjacent from M when the photons arrived at M in he stationary frame and observed simultaneoulsy in the moving frame by a|b pasengers simultaneously. simultaneously. simultaneously.

a. In describing this experiment Einstein did not invoke any aspects of special relativity certainly not time dilation or mass shrinking in the set-up of the experiment, or the conduct of the experiment.
b. AE drew all of his conclusions from this experiment based on the sequential arrival of the A and B photons at O’.
c. AE states that “Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he [O’] is hastening toward the beam of light from coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the light emitted from A. Hence the observer [O’] will see the beam from of light emitted from B earlier than he will that emitted from A.
d. When AE stated that the, ”Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must, therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place before lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result: Events, which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment, are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference body (coordinate 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 if the time of an event.” All of this in quotes follows from the sequential arrival and detection of the photons by O’ on the train, or so claims AE.
e. AE imposes the conclusions in B to all passengers on the train including those passengers that were located at the midpoint of the embankment when the photons arrived simultaneously there. Apparently AE has some special conditions associated with the mysterious O’ observer that do not attach to the other passengers on the train. Again, AE makes his conclusion based purely in the sequential detection of the A and B photons by O’. From this AE makes the conclusions stated in D above. This is essential and for those truly interested in following the discussion you should clarify the points to you satisfaction. There should not be any remaining ambiguity on the correct interpretation of the gendunken.

Now ask yourself: if there is one exception to a definition then does the definition fail?
In the world of physics and mathematics the answer is yes, the definition fails, or the conclusion is erroneous.

What Einstein actually found was that in the emission of photons into a moving frame at least one location on that moving frame will locate the simultaneous arrival of the emitted photons. What is simultaneous in a stationary platform is simultaneous in the moving platform.

What if the moving platform is only a grain of sand and is smaller than a fame extending to include the midpoint of the emitted photons in the stationary frame? One can calculate the spatial midpoint positions. It is not necessary to have a moving frame of the size and velocity that will always include the sources and midpoint s of the photons emitted.From time 4, or t4, we can calculate the correctness of whether the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame as

T4 = T2(C + v)/(C – v)

where T4 is the time the A photon was detected and T2, the time the B photon was detected. As T2 and T4 are both measured, or detected values, the accuracy of the expression can be tested – if the calculation agrees with observation, the photons were emitted simultaneously. This would be a very simple experiment to conduct.

Further, the original observers of the emitted photons a and b, may compare their respective clocks later and determine the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame and so on down the line of passengers from a ->, to the right as the A photons go past, and from <-b to the left as the B photons go past to the left.

 

[Doc Al]

another swing, another miss

Einstein gedunken experiment has been much misinterpreted in this thread.

By you.

This discussion is intended to clear up any misconceptions.

I assume you meant to say: "In this post I intend to repeat my misconceptions yet again."

For those following this thread you can see the intensity of those defending the concept of simultaneity, for if simultaneity goes, so goes SR, out the window. Doc Al has made a valiant but fruitless effort to insert time dilation and mass shrinking into this discussion of AE’s gedunken, primarily by Doc Al.

If you understood Einstein's simple argument with the train gedanken, you would know that nowhere does "time dilation" or "mass shrinking" enter into it.

Read and be your own judge.

_->                 M                   <-_.
A|__________________|____________________|B.
_a__________________O’___________________b__.

This is where we start. The moving observer O’ is at M the midpoint of A and B photon sources when photons are emitted. Passengers designated a and b detect these photons when first emitted. The train extends beyond the two A and B source locations.

Your diagram implies that there are observers on the train (you call them a and b) who see those flashes happen at the same time.

As the train moves to the right, second line, there are four significant events to consider.

1. The photons are emitted simultaneously in the embankment observed by passengers a and b sitting adjacent to the A and B sources when the photons were emitted- call this time1

By claiming that train occupants a and b observe the flashes at a single time, you merely assume what you intend to prove. You may as well stop right here.

 

[geistkiesel]

Proof of simultaneity of stationary/moving frame systems.

I have not read your replies. I just came up with another proof that the moving observer must conclude the photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame. All clocks on the moving frame are synchronized within the moving frame. The clocks in the vicinity of A and the clocks in the vicinity of B are showing the same time throughout the train at all times. When the photons are emitted at A and B they are then detected by a and b, which are clocks nearest to A and B in the moving frame. These clocks times are immediately relayed to O'. As these times are now electromagnetic radiation they will travel exactly as fast as the photons they just timed. Therefore the B photon arrival at O' is joined by the time the b clock in the moving frame detected the photon emission into the moving frame. Later the photon from A is also joined with the time stamp of the a clock, giving the time the A photon was emitted at A. O' then compares the a and b clocks and gets the same number in the moving frame clock system. O' must, therefore, come to the conlcusion the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. The timing information is also joined by the times the a|b observers detected the A and B photon arriving simultaneously at M.

That tap-tap-tap you hear in the background is just another SR Theory coffin nail being set, it's no big deal.

 

[Alkatran]

If passengers A and B are on the train, the photons were emitted simultaneously in that frame and will meet at O' (who won't be in the center at the time).

In the stationary frame the left photon will be emitted first.

 

[geistkiesel]

Originally Posted by geistkiesel
Einstein gedunken experiment has been much misinterpreted in this thread.
By you.Quote:
This discussion is intended to clear up any misconceptions.

quote; Doc Al. I assume you meant to say: "In this post I intend to repeat my misconceptions yet again.

Quote geistkiesel:
For those following this thread you can see the intensity of those defending the concept of simultaneity, for if simultaneity goes, so goes SR, out the window. Doc Al has made a valiant but fruitless effort to insert time dilation and mass shrinking into this discussion of AE’s gedunken, [insidiously inserted by Doc Al.]

If you understood Einstein's simple argument with the train gedanken, you would know that nowhere does "time dilation" or "mass shrinking" enter into it

Why did you lie about this Doc?. You have been perverting my efforts from the get go. You haven't a clue what "mentor" means you creep.

Quote:Geistkiesel
Read and be your own judge.
Code:
_-> M <-_.
A|__________________|____________________|B.
_a__________________O’___________________b__.

Geistkiesel says:
This is where we start. The moving observer O’ is at M the midpoint of A and B photon sources when photons are emitted. Passengers designated a and b detect these photons when first emitted. The train extends beyond the two A and B source locations.

The a and b passenges seen at A and b detect the photons when they were emitted. a knows nothing of b and vice versa, except that they are cousins. They only determine the train clock time when the photons were emitted and these a and b passengers detected the photons.

Your diagram implies that there are observers on the train (you call them a and b) who see those flashes happen at the same time.

Not necessarily, because they are on opposite ends of the train. (See my proof in the following post). I merely say they record the time the photon was emitted at their respective stations. The gedunken tells us that the photons were emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame. Whether the a and b passenges are aware of this information is not given here. But if the photons were emitted simultanously in the stationary frame what conclusion do you come to when you see one of the photons emitted and you know your partner on the other end of the train is probably measuring the same thing you are measuring right? Right? Seems reasonable doesn't it?

In any event any errors are going to be swamped by the delta times between the B and A photon detetction by O'.

Quote:Geistkiesel
As the train moves to the right, second line, there are four significant events to consider.

1. The photons are emitted simultaneously in the embankment observed by passengers a and b sitting adjacent to the A and B sources when the photons were emitted- call this time1

By claiming that train occupants a and b observe the flashes at a single time, you merely assume what you intend to prove. You may as well stop right here.

Good catch. I meant only that 'a' detected the A photon when omitted. 'b' detetcted the B photon when emitted. By my adding the photons were emitted simultaneoulsy in the stationary frame merely repeats the experimental given. No conclusions are made at this time, but I sure would like to bet a lot of money on the outocme of any experiment.

By you.

I assume you meant to say: "In this post I intend to repeat my misconceptions yet again."

If you understood Einstein's simple argument with the train gedanken, you would know that nowhere does "time dilation" or "mass shrinking" enter into it.

No Doc Al I meant in my post that you imposed these constrictions by making all your silly time is different to the moving and stationary observers. demands. You have been doing this consistently and you know it. You have been conniving, not too successfully, to interject confusion and smog into a seriously offered point of view, whether you agree with it or not.

So whatever you say,

Frankly, my Doc Al, I don't give a damn.

You just made a calculated dishonest move Doc Al. Tsk, tsk. Where are the scientific rules of integrity? Have you ever heard of them? i bet the rules are strictly relative, aren't they?

Your diagram implies that there are observers on the train (you call them a and b) who see those flashes happen at the same time.

I say and after correcting myself above, that the a and b passengers detetcted the photons when emitted at A and B,. In other words their clocks recorded the time and then I add here, relayed the information immediately to O'.

I also said that two different passengers a|b were adjacent to the A and B photons when the A and B photons arrived simultaneously at M the midpoint of the A and B photon sources. You would object if I claimed the a|b passengers (the train is 8 seats wide and the train is packed) detected the photons simultaneously with their arrival at M? OK whatever you call the simultaneous arival of the A and B photon at the midpoint M when the a|b passengers, 8 of them, time stamped their observed arrival of the photons at M, the midpoint of A and B in the stationary frame.

What did you think of the form and structure of the post Doc Al? Ease of reading? Information content? Persuasivenss of arguments?

 

[Doc Al]

I just came up with another proof that the moving observer must conclude the photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame.

Yeah, "another" one.

Let's cut through the nonsense, once again. Let's say a and b are the observers on the train located right next to the flashing lights at A and B when they flash. When the see the lights flash, they check the time. No need for any "relaying" of clock times anywhere. Assuming, like you did, that all clocks on the train are synchronized then--like it or not--observers a and b will record different times for the two photon emissions.

 

[Doc Al]

What did you think of the form and structure of the post Doc Al? Ease of reading? Information content? Persuasivenss of arguments?

Just the usual crap. You've said the same thing--including the obnoxious accusations of my "lying"--many, many times.

 

[geistkiesel]

Just the usual crap. You've said the same thing--including the obnoxious accusations of my "lying"--many, many times.

OK maybe one, or both of us had a mental lapse. I went out of my way to avoid using SR imperatives when makingh my calculations. I do remember you often criticzing me for using stationary times with moving frame times (which I denied doing).You use of the was proficient.

If I err then I publically apologize. If it was a misinterpretation of what you were saying I was doing vs what I perceived you doing I will leave it at that. At least, at this time there is no ambiguity is there? I am now stating unequivacally that I reject the necessity of the use of any SR aspects or imperatives in determining the conclusions of AE's gedunken. If this isn't good enough to salve your obvious anger at the accusations then so be it. I can do no more.

Ok what usual crap. Spell it out. Everybody wants to know especially myself.

Did I make any improper claims of simultaneiity of events? I did make corrections, or clairifications, are you aware of these?

Is it not feasible that I can conclude that a moving frame has at least one point associated with a midpoint of photons emitted simultaneously from a stationary frame? Even if the midpoint falls off the frame, or cannot be determined from the information available.

You said the NASCAR example fell under the umbrella of SR. The low velocity makes it difficult to measure, but we are working theory here. What distinguihes NASCAR and the AE gedunken?

Do you agree that the difference in time that the O' observer measuresd the arrival of the B and A photon is the basis of AE concluding that the passengers "must , therefore conclude" the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame?

Did not the determination of the a|b passengers adjacent to the the midpoint when the A anad B photons arrived at M simultaneously fullfill the definition of the sources being separated equally at M and that the a|b passengers marking the time the photons arrived is a detection of simultaneously emitted photons in the stationary frame, at the very least? If so then what is it that prevents you from agreeing that the a|b passengers seeing the arrival of the A and B photons at M simultabeously is not a measurement of the photons simultaneously in the in the moving frame in the same sense that the O' observer could not so detect the photons simultaneously?

Do you agree that any SR constraints, if any, of the problem is swamped by the difference in time of measuring the B and A photons by the O' observer?

Fact assumed: the clocks of the a and b passengers located at A and B when the photons were emitted were synchronized wrt the moving frame. If the clocks later show the same time for the emission of the photons, does not this constitutes a detection of the the photons simultaneously such that the event of the simultaneously emitted photons in the stationary frame also constitutes simultaneously emitted photons in the moving frame as well? If no why not?

Under the given circumstances, could any of the passengers have ever detected or determined the emission of the A and B photons simultaneously into the moving frame? Why?

You seem to think I have not described a situation that is either proved, or provable, where is the error, so I don't crowd the forum with this pitifull junk? Shiow me I will stop this as sudeenly as I started it. Just prove it. Those watching can determine my "honesty" in this regard.

What usual crap are you referring? Be brief, or lengthy, just don't be ambiguous, ok?

I have concluded that we are at at an impasse. Like Robin Hood and Friar Tuck meeting in the middle of the stream joisting for the only dry passage over the stream to the other side. Where is the crap? Point to it directly, I implore you. In fact you owe it to yourself to be as clear with a physical description as you are able at least to the level of certaqinty you show by the level of your sarcastic quips, your use of , and your anger and cycnicism.

Priove it Doc Al, or get another profession, bcause sooner or later someone just might ask you to do just that, prove it, I mean, like your boss.Or is she the one that directed you to stuff this line of reasoning where it would never see the light of day?

I know the rhetorical dangers of being painted into a corner and painting another into a corner [Huis Clos], but once the paint has been spread onto the floor, the dye is cast, n'cest pas? (pun intended)

 

[Doc Al]

Is it not feasible that I can conclude that a moving frame has at least one point associated with a midpoint of photons emitted simultaneously from a stationary frame? Even if the midpoint falls off the frame, or cannot be determined from the information available.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a guess: Is there a point on the train that coincides with M at the moment that the light from A and B reaches M? Of course there is. So what?

You said the NASCAR example fell under the umbrella of SR. The low velocity makes it difficult to measure, but we are working theory here. What distinguihes NASCAR and the AE gedunken?

What are you talking about now? SR applies to EVERYTHING!

Do you agree that the difference in time that the O' observer measuresd the arrival of the B and A photon is the basis of AE concluding that the passengers "must , therefore conclude" the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame?

The fact (agreed to by ALL observers) that light from B hits O' before the light from A leads the O' frame to conclude that the lights did not flash simultaneously.

Did not the determination of the a|b passengers adjacent to the the midpoint when the A anad B photons arrived at M simultaneously fullfill the definition of the sources being separated equally at M and that the a|b passengers marking the time the photons arrived is a detection of simultaneously emitted photons in the stationary frame, at the very least? If so then what is it that prevents you from agreeing that the a|b passengers seeing the arrival of the A and B photons at M simultabeously is not a measurement of the photons simultaneously in the in the moving frame in the same sense that the O' observer could not so detect the photons simultaneously?

I have no idea what you're saying here. Get this straight: Observers a and b DO NOT detect the flashes simultaneously.

Do you agree that any SR constraints, if any, of the problem is swamped by the difference in time of measuring the B and A photons by the O' observer?

What's that supposed to mean?

Fact assumed: the clocks of the a and b passengers located at A and B when the photons were emitted were synchronized wrt the moving frame. If the clocks later show the same time for the emission of the photons, does not this constitutes a detection of the the photons simultaneously such that the event of the simultaneously emitted photons in the stationary frame also constitutes simultaneously emitted photons in the moving frame as well? If no why not?

If observers in O' measure two events to occur at the same time according to their clocks, then of course those events are considered simultaneous in the O' frame. That's what is meant by simultaneous.

Under the given circumstances, could any of the passengers have ever detected or determined the emission of the A and B photons simultaneously into the moving frame? Why?

No. See Einstein's Train Gedanken for a simple proof that events simultaneous in the O frame cannot be simultaneous in the O' frame. We've discussed this many times. Of course, you keep dodging that one. (Why do you insist on adding stuff to Einstein's simple argument?)

If you are REALLY interested, go back and read all the many, many posts in which I have painstakingly explained every inch of the "Einstein Train Gedanken" problem. Even better, pick up a relativity book.

 

[geistkiesel]

Quote:
Originally Posted by geistkiesel
I just came up with another proof that the moving observer must conclude the photons were emitted in the moving frame simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame.
Yeah, "another" one.

Let's cut through the nonsense, once again. Let's say a and b are the observers on the train located right next to the flashing lights at A and B when they flash. When the see the lights flash, they check the time. No need for any "relaying" of clock times anywhere. Assuming, like you did, that all clocks on the train are synchronized then--like it or not--observers a and b will record different times for the two photon emissions.

Based on what Doc? You are so emphatic. Based on what?

You have a problem here Doc Al. Let us assume that there is only one emitter say A, then can the a passenger located at A when A emits the photon accurately determine the time the A photon was emitted? Sure 'a' can do thisa slam dunk easy as pie task..

Now A and B are inanimate photon sources that emit photon simultaneously in the stationary frame right?, each "knowing absolutely nothing of the other source."?
Similarly for the a and b detectors that do not have to be people. Now if one detector can accurately determine the emission of a photon, how in hell can two photons be deteced sequentially? Ram1024 suggested god intervened. Is this what you SRists have done, recruited god to your side?If so then this isn't playing fair.

And how do the sources determine which photon gets to be emitted first. Do they check with someone before acting? Maybe its nonlocal activity? hmmmm?

In other words, how do the A and B photon sources know which is at which end of the train and, hence, which photon must be emitted before the other, in the moving frame that is? Is this one of those "that's just the way it is?"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Here's a guess: Is there a point on the train that coincides with M at the moment that the light from A and B reaches M? Of course there is. So what?

If the a|b passengers, those located at M when the photons arrived simultaneously, wouldn't this satisfy the definition of simultananeity when they see and record the simultaneous arrival of the photons? We are still in the Eisntein train gedunken and haven't resorted to SR imperatives as Einstein did not so resort in his discussion of the gedunken.

What are you talking about now? SR applies to EVERYTHING!

OK if SR applies to everything how does it apply to the measurement of the B and A photon sequentially? And how is this measurement related to SR, in light of the other simultaneous measurements I have discussed here, [that you disagree with of course]?.

The fact (agreed to by ALL observers) that light from B hits O' before the light from A leads the O' frame to conclude that the lights did not flash simultaneously.

Is the difference in the time the B and A photon were detected such as to swamp any SR effects that you alluded to where "SR applies to EVERYTHING!"? In other words can SR effects be calculated or measured in the Einstein gedunken?

Get this straight: Observers a and b DO NOT detect the flashes simultaneously.

I discussed this elsewhere, but are you saying that if there were only one photon emitter, say A, that the 'a' passenger could properly detect the time the A pohoton was emitted?

If observers in O' measure two events to occur at the same time according to their clocks, then of course those events are considered simultaneous in the O' frame. That's what is meant by simultaneous.


No. See Einstein's Train Gedanken for a simple proof that events simultaneous in the O frame cannot be simultaneous in the O' frame. We've discussed this many times. Of course, you keep dodging that one. (Why do you insist on adding stuff to Einstein's simple argument?)

BECAUSE EINSTEINS ARGUMENT IS SPECIOUS, INCOMPLETE A CONTRIVANCE, INANE NOT IN ACCORD WITH OPHYSICAL LAW AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

]
If you are REALLY interested, go back and read all the many, many posts in which I have painstakingly explained every inch of the "Einstein Train Gedanken" problem. Even better, pick up a relativity book.

You haven't explained 1/16 of an inch to me. I have read a lot of posts like he one above that says: quote DOc Al "Get this straight: Observers a and b DO NOT detect the flashes simultaneously."
This statement proves nothing. It is just another SR mantra.

I read your link regarding Einstein's "Relativity" a treasured book I have been quoting from the get go. You even sneered at this once.

 

[geistkiesel]

Another subject. If I vow not to post on any but Theory Development can my privileges regarding other forum activities be reatored? Access to my profile, private messages etc. One violation 86 me, OK?

 

[Alkatran]

Quote:
You haven't explained 1/16 of an inch to me. I have read a lot of posts like he one above that says: quote DOc Al "Get this straight: Observers a and b DO NOT detect the flashes simultaneously."
This statement proves nothing. It is just another SR mantra.

Awww, too bad you repeating something doesn't make it true either. I also like how you said SR goes against experimental results. BS at its finest.

 

[Doc Al]

Even though I keep telling myself to stop wasting time, I just can't resist. You are too funny, geistkiesel!

You have a problem here Doc Al. Let us assume that there is only one emitter say A, then can the a passenger located at A when A emits the photon accurately determine the time the A photon was emitted? Sure 'a' can do thisa slam dunk easy as pie task..

Let's be clear. Light A flashes. At that very instant, observer "a" on the train is directly opposite point A. Observer "a" detects the flash and records the time. Where's the problem?

Now A and B are inanimate photon sources that emit photon simultaneously in the stationary frame right?, each "knowing absolutely nothing of the other source."?

So far, so good.

Similarly for the a and b detectors that do not have to be people. Now if one detector can accurately determine the emission of a photon, how in hell can two photons be deteced sequentially?

Uh... because one was detected before the other?

And how do the sources determine which photon gets to be emitted first. Do they check with someone before acting? Maybe its nonlocal activity? hmmmm?

Their time of emission is determined by clocks in the O frame. No mysterious nonlocal forces between photons.

In other words, how do the A and B photon sources know which is at which end of the train and, hence, which photon must be emitted before the other, in the moving frame that is? Is this one of those "that's just the way it is?"

The photons know nothing. They just flash when triggered to do so. It's kind of trivial.

If the a|b passengers, those located at M when the photons arrived simultaneously, wouldn't this satisfy the definition of simultananeity when they see and record the simultaneous arrival of the photons?

All measurements made in the O' frame agree with the fact that the flashes were not simultaneous in the O' frame.

We are still in the Eisntein train gedunken and haven't resorted to SR imperatives as Einstein did not so resort in his discussion of the gedunken.

Einstein invokes the invariant speed of light: and from that deduces all of SR.

OK if SR applies to everything how does it apply to the measurement of the B and A photon sequentially? And how is this measurement related to SR, in light of the other simultaneous measurements I have discussed here, [that you disagree with of course]?.

Your "other simultaneous measurements" are just things you made up. But, looking at things from the O frame it's trivial to show that M' detects a photon from B before detecting a photon from A. After all, M' is moving towards B and the light (which travels at speed c with respect to O) is moving towards M'. This staggered arrival of photons at M' is a real physical effect that everyone will agree upon. The O' frame can use this information to deduce (from the invariant speed of light as viewed from the O' frame) that the lights could not have flashed simultaneously at the moment M' passed M according to the O' clocks. (Damn, I must have explained this trivia about 1000 times by now.)

Is the difference in the time the B and A photon were detected such as to swamp any SR effects that you alluded to where "SR applies to EVERYTHING!"? In other words can SR effects be calculated or measured in the Einstein gedunken?

Don't know what you are talking about. What "swamps" SR effects? The entire discussion of the train gedanken is an "SR effect"!

Can the train gedanken be used to illustrate all the SR effects? Of course! But for that you'd have to know some relativity. (For example: Tell me how far is "a" from M'? How far is "a" from M at the moment that A flashes? What time does the "a" clock read when A flashes? etc, etc.)

I discussed this elsewhere, but are you saying that if there were only one photon emitter, say A, that the 'a' passenger could properly detect the time the A pohoton was emitted?

The "a" observer could detect the time that the A light flashed according to the O'-synchronized clock that he uses. Why is this so difficult for you?

BECAUSE EINSTEINS ARGUMENT IS SPECIOUS, INCOMPLETE A CONTRIVANCE, INANE NOT IN ACCORD WITH OPHYSICAL LAW AND EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS.

A laughable comment. (1) SR is in complete--and overwhelming--accord with experiment, (2) you know nothing of physical law, and (3) why do you keep quoting Einstein if you don't agree with his simple (HS level) argument? I'm still waiting for you to point out the flaw in it. (And without your usual smoke screen of mirrors and extra observers.)

I read your link regarding Einstein's "Relativity" a treasured book I have been quoting from the get go. You even sneered at this once.

This "treasured book" remains a mystery to you. And I wasn't sneering at the book.

 

[geistkiesel]

Even though I keep telling myself to stop wasting time, I just can't resist. You are too funny, geistkiesel!
Quote:
Originally Posted by geistkiesel
You have a problem here Doc Al. Let us assume that there is only one emitter say A, then can the a passenger located at A when A emits the photon accurately determine the time the A photon was emitted? Sure 'a' can do thisa slam dunk easy as pie task..

Let's be clear. Light A flashes. At that very instant, observer "a" on the train is directly opposite point A. Observer "a" detects the flash and records the time. Where's the problem?

I asked the question using A and a. Now ask the same question using B andb and I get the same answer, via a symmetry argument OK? You cannot say otherwise.
If a and b, separately can record the time of the photons where and when emitted in the moving frame separately, when emitted in the stationary frame, why cannot they do so when the a and b observers are both observing the A and B flashes that flash simultaneously?

 

[geistkiesel]

Awww, too bad you repeating something doesn't make it true either. I also like how you said SR goes against experimental results. BS at its finest.

For now we settle for a gedunken experiment. observer 'a' in the moving frame is adjacent to A the source of A photons in the stationary frame just as A emits the photon. Does 'a' in the moving frame detect the photon when emitted? assuming the 'a' detetcor is one wavelength from the emitting source A?

 

[geistkiesel]

If O' detects the A and B photons simultaneously in her frame she therefore concludes the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Now she must conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame, right?

 

[geistkiesel]

O' considers herself stationary and watches the station move past her to the left. Just as M in the moving station is adjacent to O' photons are emitted simultaneously in the moving station frame. These photons when emitted were equidistant from M and hence equidistant from O' when emitted. Hence, O', knowing the speed of light is constant in her stationary frame will absolutely be guaranteed that the photons from the A and B emitters have the exact distance to travel form A and B in order to reach her. Hence the photons will spend the same time of flight in reaching her stationary position, hence the photons will arrive at her position simultaneously. Light is constant for the A and B photon when measured from O' frame, no problem correct?

 

[geistkiesel]

The moving frame with O' is at M when photons are emitted simultaneously from A' and B' sources where O' is the midpoint of the A' and B' sources. A' and B' will arrive simultaneously at M in the stationary frame as the speed of light is invariant in the stationary frame.. However, as the light is still invariant to O' she is still going to collide with the B' photon earlier than she detects the A' photon for the same reasons she did so when the sources were in the stationary frame.

Hence, what is simultaneous in the moving frame is simultaneous in the stationary frame, hence a violation of the relativity of simultaneity.

And the real joker here is that what is simultaneous in the moving and stationary frames, the emission of the A' anad B' photons, will be determined by O' not to be simultaneous at her position when she detects the staggered arrival of the B' and A' photons.

 

[geistkiesel]

O' considers her frame as stationary when the train station rushes by. A' and B' photons are emitted simultaneously in her considered stationary frame just as O' is at M in the train station frame rushing by. The A' and B' photons arrive simultaneously at M. O' is considering that the photons B' and A' must reach her simultaneously as she has considered herself stationary. However, phyisics doesn't cooperate. The photons arrive simultaneously at M in the train station considered by O' to be moving as light speed is invariant under motion of the source. O', considering herself stationary will be waiting patiently for the simultaneous arrival of the B' and A' photons. When the B' photons arrives first, she becomes confused, and starts to blabber SR mantras in a vain attempt to correct what she knows to be wrong, physically wrong. The photons have to arrive at her position simultaneously because, dammit, she considered herself stationary, Doc Al told her she could do that. However, as the light speed is still invariant to O' she is still going to collide with the B' photon earlier than she detects the A' photon for the same reasons she did so when the sources were in the stationary frame, the reasons being the laws of physics makes her considerations of her stationary frame silly and I might add, impossible.

When you are moving, you have to keep up the speed or else you auger in if considering yourself stationary. This is what is known in SR theory as the SR stall speed.

Another point to broadcast is that in all these cases the realtive velocity of the observers and photons is crucial to determining and predicting the correct outcome of the events.

Hence, what is simultaneous in the moving frame is simultaneous in the stationary frame, hence a violation of the relativity of simultaneity.

And the real joker here is that what is simultaneous in the moving and stationary frames, the emission of the A' anad B' photons, will be determined by O' not to be simultaneous at her position when she detects the staggered arrival of the B' and A' photons, even if she considerd herself stationary, damn, damn, damn.

So we have a return to absolute speed, zero in this case, also absolute time, I might add.

 

[geistkiesel]

Doc Al, Take a look at my last post in "No postulate of light violated in galilean trasnformation". It is in regard to my famous "sneer" t3 = t1(C + V)/ (C - V) expression. You might be interested. I addressed the post to tom_mattson, as that is what I was working on when I came across something in the intenet. take a look. No bull **** on this one.

 

[Doc Al]

Doc Al, Take a look at my last post in "No postulate of light violated in galilean trasnformation". It is in regard to my famous "sneer" t3 = t1(C + V)/ (C - V) expression. You might be interested. I addressed the post to tom_mattson, as that is what I was working on when I came across something in the intenet. take a look. No bull **** on this one.

Take a look at my response, where I explain once again how that trivial expression is derived and what it means. Take notes this time.

 

[Eyesaw]

O' considers her frame as stationary when the train station rushes by. A' and B' photons are emitted simultaneously in her considered stationary frame just as O' is at M in the train station frame rushing by. The A' and B' photons arrive simultaneously at M. O' is considering that the photons B' and A' must reach her simultaneously as she has considered herself stationary. However, phyisics doesn't cooperate. The photons arrive simultaneously at M in the train station considered by O' to be moving as light speed is invariant under motion of the source. O', considering herself stationary will be waiting patiently for the simultaneous arrival of the B' and A' photons. When the B' photons arrives first, she becomes confused, and starts to blabber SR mantras in a vain attempt to correct what she knows to be wrong, physically wrong. The photons have to arrive at her position simultaneously because, dammit, she considered herself stationary, Doc Al told her she could do that. However, as the light speed is still invariant to O' she is still going to collide with the B' photon earlier than she detects the A' photon for the same reasons she did so when the sources were in the stationary frame, the reasons being the laws of physics makes her considerations of her stationary frame silly and I might add, impossible.

When you are moving, you have to keep up the speed or else you auger in if considering yourself stationary. This is what is known in SR theory as the SR stall speed.

Another point to broadcast is that in all these cases the realtive velocity of the observers and photons is crucial to determining and predicting the correct outcome of the events.

Hence, what is simultaneous in the moving frame is simultaneous in the stationary frame, hence a violation of the relativity of simultaneity.

And the real joker here is that what is simultaneous in the moving and stationary frames, the emission of the A' anad B' photons, will be determined by O' not to be simultaneous at her position when she detects the staggered arrival of the B' and A' photons, even if she considerd herself stationary, damn, damn, damn.

So we have a return to absolute speed, zero in this case, also absolute time, I might add.

SR stall speed- that's funny. A very succinct and clear analysis I might add.

 

[geistkiesel]

Take a look at my response, where I explain once again how that trivial expression is derived and what it means. Take notes this time.

Doc will yopu please look at the link I referenced. My expression is used in a very sophisticated simultabneity analysis. Look at it godamnit!.

 

[Doc Al]

Doc will yopu please look at the link I referenced. My expression is used in a very sophisticated simultabneity analysis. Look at it godamnit!.

Do you really think that link which discusses relativity will support your anti-relativity crusade? Yes, that kind of expression does come up. But it's not what you think it is. That article is way too advanced for you.

Why not try reading it from the beginning? You may learn something.

 

[geistkiesel]

Do you really think that link which discusses relativity will support your anti-relativity crusade? Yes, that kind of expression does come up. But it's not what you think it is. That article is way too advanced for you.

Why not try reading it from the beginning? You may learn something.

How in the hell do you know what I think it is? I thought it was interesting dingdong. You are the one avoiding discussing the link. This makes me think I just found out what I have been thinking all along. I put you out of your league, didn't I? I do notice that when I write something decent, at least one line per post, that you avoid the difficult stuff, or you do your frame swapping routuine, or chortle, or start shouting i am using stationary times, or ...anything but physics, or, when you are up against the wall and they are tying the blindfold to cover your eyes, you bring out your most potent weapon, the:

 

[geistkiesel]

Take a look at my response, where I explain once again how that trivial expression is derived and what it means. Take notes this time.

I know what it measn Doc.

 

[Doc Al]

I do notice that when I write something decent...

When did this happen?

 

[geistkiesel]

When did this happen?

We put the emitters in the moving frame and just as the sources A' and B' arrive at A and B in the stationary frame, the A' and B' sources emit photons. The O', who was at M in the stationary frame when the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame still heads to the B' photon on a collision course and detects the B' photon first, then later the A' photon.


Therefore, the passengers on the railway train must, therefore, conlcude the photons emitted simultaneously in the moving frame, were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. Hence the passengers all come to the conclusion, simultaneously, that special relativity theory sucks.
[/size]

 

[Doc Al]

lights on the train? No problem!

We put the emitters in the moving frame and just as the sources A' and B' arrive at A and B in the stationary frame, the A' and B' sources emit photons. The O', who was at M in the stationary frame when the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame still heads to the B' photon on a collision course and detects the B' photon first, then later the A' photon.

I'm not sure what the set up is in this scenario, but the following is true. It doesn't matter if the emitters are on the train or on the embankment. If the embankment observes them flashing simultaneously, then the train will not. And vice versa.