Has ayone seen the lost simultaneity?

[quantumdude]

Ram's little outburst can be found in the Feedback Forum at this link:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=254873#post254873

For future reference, feedback doesn't belong in the Theory Development Forum.

 

[ram1024]

this is the argument that shut you down, Tom.

although it will just get deleted again anyways...

Speed is defined as:

[u]Distance[/u]
  Time

now i want you to specifically take note that you say the speed of light is constant to the observer.

that specifically means no matter HOW the observer moves he will always measure the speed of light to be the same RELATIVE to him as calculated if he were stationary.

For Example, an observer moving 40,000 km/sec towards a light source would still measure light coming towards him at 300,000 km per second. and the stationary observer would too.

the argument was as follows. speed consists of two components Distance, and Time.

The of the speed of light is COMPLETELY dependant on fudging with those two components to maintain "Constancy" to all observers.

If i take a value C made up of two values A / B (A divided by B) can you not see that i can make C any value i want by fudging the values A and B to suit my whims?

Distance is Immutable
Time is Immutable

try your hand at calculating the speed of light using real measurements not fake elastic ones and the constancy of the speed of light goes in the crapper.

 

[quantumdude]

this is the argument that shut you down, Tom.

No, it isn't. First of all, I didn't delete this argument. I deleted the argument about monkeys and bamboo (that was a real stroke of genius). Second, I already answered this argument. And third, this argument is so idiotic, there is no way it could shut anybody down.

I've already said it several times, but here I go again: All you are doing here is the following:

1. Assume that Galilean relativity is correct.
2. Assume that measurements taken will agree with Galilean relativity.
3. Assume that any measurements that don't agree with it are wrong.
4. Conclude that Galilean relativity is correct based on 1-3.

You are the very definition of irrationality, as you make no reference to the real world. The data that you tell me to look at will back up SR, which is what you won't accept. Too bad for you.

although it will just get deleted again anyways...

I'll leave it here, but be assured that the next time you post this same drivel, it will be deleted. Do it once, and it's an honest error. Do it twice, and it's annoying. Do it three times, and it's spam.

edit: By the way, your monkey and bamboo argument has been reposted in the thread in the Feedback Forum, so everyone can see how brilliant you are.

 

[russ_watters]

Morbid curiosity here...

Distance is Immutable
Time is Immutable

On what, specifically, do you base those two statements?

 

[krab]

I just looked in on this thread and, whew! I am surprised and impressed by the amount of work people have put into responding to Ram. It is positively heroic. But Ram is irrational. In a math thread, he stated that "zero point nine nine nine repeating is not equal to one, and nothing anyone can say will convince me otherwise" (or words to that effect). That's his attitude in Math. So if he denies solid mathematical proofs (many were given), teaching him Physics is even more hopeless.

My advice (if anyone cares) is: do not respond to an irrational person. It's entirely pointless. Such a person is not accepting the rules of logic that you are using. He laughs, you waste your time, and the argument will continue to the point where your blood pressure rises, and even if you are the most rational person, you finally become irrational. (Yes, it has happened to me.)

 

[geistkiesel]

Simultaneity? Yes or no?

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.

This is the qustion: On the moving platform the lights were emitted such that the observers at A' and B', that is a and b, mesurd the time of emission. The lights emitted just as O' was located at M. The O' observer detected the A' and B' photons in the same sequence as she detected the photon emitted from the moving frame.
Will the moving frame come to the same conclusion she came to under the standard Einstein version where the photons were emitted simultaneously in the stationry fame? Remember, the only difference here is "the photons were emitted n the moving frame as O' was at M."

Your response to the first version of thois indicated that simultaneity could be determined by what each observer did. If the stationary observer concluded the photons were emitted simultaneously in the stationary fram,e then the photons were not emitted simulltaneoulsy in the stationary frame simultaneity. Can you please discuss the four cases below? Thanx.

1. This sounds like O's reality is determined by what the stationary observer detects say: true or False?
2. the stationary observer did not have his detectors working at the instant the photons were emitted in the moving frame:What eaffect on determining simultaneity does have? and
3. the stationary observer did have his detectors working.
4. The A' and B' photons were detected arriving simultaneously at M. What affect, if any?

 

[geistkiesel]

Before we follow the yellow brick road to the land of Oz, let's define our terms. I assume you mean by A' and B' certain locations on the train. I further assume that these locations are the positions in the train that were directly opposite A and B when the lights flashed at A and B. Is that what you mean by A' and B'?

If so, then what is the set up? You now have lights at A' and B'? (These points happen to be equidistant from M'.) And they flash simultaneously according to who?

Note that if A' flashes when A' passes A, and B' flashes when B' passes B, then they obviously do not flash simultaneously in the train frame.

No, the A' and B' photons are emitted simultaneously in the moving frame as determined by the watches on observes at A' and B' when O' was located at M in the stationary frame. The O' observer will naturally detect the photons in the same sequence she detected the photons emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame. It was this sequene of detection that Einstein referred to when he said thyat the passengers n the train 'must, therefore come to the conclusion that the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.

Once the photons have been emitted in the moving frame the moving observer may not rationally consider herself at rest and the train station moving, this is a physical impossibility.She cannot do this under anycircumstances the consuideration being a physical impossibility.

Do any of your answers include the use of gamma in xdetermining whether the moving observer determines the photons were, or were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame/

 

[geistkiesel]

Ram's little outburst can be found in the Feedback Forum at this link:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=254873#post254873

For future reference, feedback doesn't belong in the Theory Development Forum.

Speaking of outbursts it appears to me that your anger got the best of you when you closed my thread. My post describing the zero velocity absolute inertial frame you cionssidered as circular? why becfause no one caved on to your demjands that we succumb to SR doma?

Tom,. the post was anything but circular. It was my impression that you weren; up to the task of refuting my model,. so you simply exercised what you thought was your absolute right to close a thread for any reasson what so ever.

It was a good paper, too bad it was over your head.

Here is another ove your head.

Just as O' in the moving frame arrives at M the midpoint of to stakes in the ground that once held photon emitters At and B. At this instant phoitons are emitted in the moving frame, As the photons speed opf light is not fdependent on the velocity of the sources A' and B' in the moving frame, the O' observer detects the photons first from A' coming at her from the front, then the A' and B' photons are detected simultaneously arriving at M in the stationary frame then the A' photon is detetcted by O' in the moving frame. Effectively the photons were detected in the same order by O' as when the photons were emitted simultaneoulsy in the stationary frame.

Does the moving ovserver conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneoulsy in the moving frame? Remember the photons had to be detected sequentially as when emitted in the stationary frame from the laws of the propagation of photons a la di Sitter. In other words, O' may not consider herself at rest when the photons were emitted and hence detect the photons arrived at the midpoint of A' and B' in the moving frame.

SR does not allow physical impossibilities in its mathematical modeling, does it?

 

[quantumdude]

Speaking of outbursts it appears to me that your anger got the best of you when you closed my thread.

No anger whatsoever. Just doing my job.

My post describing the zero velocity absolute inertial frame you cionssidered as circular? why becfause no one caved on to your demjands that we succumb to SR doma?

If a "zero velocity absolute inertial frame" is one that can be considered at absolute rest, then it does not exist in nature. Period.

Tom,. the post was anything but circular.

Yes, the thread was going around in circles. You post the same crap over and over, and no matter how many times it's refuted, you keep coming back with the same lame arguments.

It was my impression that you weren; up to the task of refuting my model,. so you simply exercised what you thought was your absolute right to close a thread for any reasson what so ever.

With the possible exception of ram1024, you are the last person here who is qualified to make that kind of assessment.

It was a good paper, too bad it was over your head.

Ditto for these assessments.

Here is another ove your head.

Oh, please. Your silly thought experiments are like a special ed version of a high school textbook.

In other words, O' may not consider herself at rest when the photons were emitted and hence detect the photons arrived at the midpoint of A' and B' in the moving frame.

If O' is inertial, then O' may consider herself at rest. It's as simple as that.

 

[terrabyte]

if O' considers himself at rest, the rest of the universe moves opposite O's velocity (same speed, opposite direction)

it's simple

what seems to be the problem?