Today Special Relativity dies

[geistkiesel]

ok...i read the first section of arguements, and jesus u all make it way more complicated than it really is. It might seem this way to me because I'm a high school student going into 12th grade, and i have yet to take BC calc and AP physics when school starts. Even though i can't go into the detail that u all go into all the frames and ****, but from the very biginning i saw that the answers were true, true, true. I'll come some time to see what else is up, well, have fun argueing about SR. By the way, u just can't try to disprove the theory of one of the greatest geniuses of all time, SR has been proven correct in several experiments. (-_-)

Hey, ArmoSkater87, I got to question for ya. How do you know who is and who is not the "greatest geniuses of all time" ? I mean if you aren't up there with the greatest, how do you comprehend those that are the greatest? I suspect because soemone convinced you they were "the greatest".

So sad to see someone so rigidly robotic at such a tender young age. You start believing in the complexities of scientific understanding as rigidly established as you stated in your post then you are missing the dynamic exchanges that proves the oppostite situation as the rule, the dynamics of change and reformation of structure and form. Relativity theory is a temporary state of scientific discussion, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Hurkyl]

well ya, but "their measurement" are also perfectly valid, according to einstein assertions, so you they DO have their own reality :D

Don't forget Gallileo and Newton too!

 

[Janus]

URF (Universal Rest Frame) Space-Buoy© <- ke ke
the machine consists OF:

1 heavy duty computing device
4 photon receptors
4 equal length long ass poles and 4 photon emitters connected to sychronized clocks
some thrusters for movement.

now the idea for this consists of detecting the difference in arrival times of the photons from different directions.

if the photons from any source arrive SOONER than other sources, we can conclude we are moving towards that emitter. we merely perform some calculations, use our thrusters to slow us down, and take another measurement.

when we finally receive the light from all sources at the same time we will be at complete universal rest, and objects functioning in this relativistic inertial frame will bear true space/time

Sorry, but this device will not detect uniform motion. If you had two of these devices, and they were moving relative to each other, all the photons for each device would still arrive all at the same time.

 

[ram1024]

Janus, do me a flavor and go back to page 1.

answer True/False for case 1,2 and 3

then hit page 4 for case #4 which is an essay type question

 

[ram1024]

and yes, the UFR Spacebuoy does NOT work, but I'm not going to tell you why... not yet :D

 

[wespe]

and yes, the UFR Spacebuoy does NOT work, but I'm not going to tell you why... not yet :D

How old are you? :)

Anyway, UFR Spacebuoy imparts and inertial vectored thrust quotient based on non-linear cohesian and sub temporal disjunction, and therefore the light particles get immersed in an endothermic tesla-radiation that elevates their states to 15th dimensional particles. SR predicts that these particles exist everywhere at once. Good Game, ram1024, YOU LOSE

 

[jcsd]

ok...i read the first section of arguements, and jesus u all make it way more complicated than it really is. It might seem this way to me because I'm a high school student going into 12th grade, and i have yet to take BC calc and AP physics when school starts. Even though i can't go into the detail that u all go into all the frames and ****, but from the very biginning i saw that the answers were true, true, true. I'll come some time to see what else is up, well, have fun argueing about SR. By the way, u just can't try to disprove the theory of one of the greatest geniuses of all time, SR has been proven correct in several experiments. (-_-)

Actually the only one that is true is the last statement, the first statemnt is defintely false as it implies the clocks will stay synchronized in all inertial frames which is not the case and the second one suggests the same thing.

 

[ram1024]

How old are you? :)

Anyway, UFR Spacebuoy imparts and inertial vectored thrust quotient based on non-linear cohesian and sub temporal disjunction, and therefore the light particles get immersed in an endothermic tesla-radiation that elevates their states to 15th dimensional particles. SR predicts that these particles exist everywhere at once. Good Game, ram1024, YOU LOSE

heh I'm 28, and that's not as far from the truth as you might suppose ;D

15th dimensional particles! holy hell! they're everywhen!

 

[ArmoSkater87]

Hey geistkiesel, your right about me not being anywhere up there, but in my opinion i don't have to be to know who has a briliant mind and who doesnt. Einstein follwed Galileo and Newton, who were the first to explain motion mathematically. Altough many more followed, it seems to me that Einstein has incorperated much more into his theories than earlier minds had before him. I'm not saying that Einstein is the greatest genius that ever lived, I am just saying that he has ONE of the most briliant minds that anyone has ever seen. I can simply say this because of the fact that there have been so few in that field like him.


quote:
"Actually the only one that is true is the last statement, the first statemnt is defintely false as it implies the clocks will stay synchronized in all inertial frames which is not the case and the second one suggests the same thing."

haha, way over my head jcsd

 

[jcsd]

haha, way over my head jcsd

It isn't/doesn't have to be though, relativistic kinematics are suprisingly easy to understand.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

jcsd, I though pretty much everyone agreed on true, true, true for the first stage. So why are u saying only the last statement is true.

 

[jcsd]

There's ambiguities in the statements:

The first statement purpisely suggetss that the clocks will appear synchronized to all onsrevers this is not the case.

the second statement is true except for the bit in the brackets which is only true in one inertial frame.

 

[ArmoSkater87]

oh i thought we asume they are synchronized in every case and every frame

 

[jcsd]

oh i thought we asume they are synchronized in every case and every frame

But this is the crux, they can't be synchronised in every frame as they are separated by distance.

 

[ram1024]

all the clocks are synchronous in the stationary "picture-frame" as hurkyl would call it.

we're determining simultaneity/detection times for the observers which i believe to be immutable (meaning that no matter what frame you choose to look at there will never be a frame where events happening to one observer will change order)

in case 1 we're assuming the train is stationary (i know nothing can be truly stationary in SR, calm down let's not get bogged down)

in case 2 we're moving the train, but because it's a relativistic inertial frame we should get the same results as in case 1 right?

in case 3 we're moving the observer, we SHOULD get a different result than in step 2, right?

that was the main focus of this "gedankenexperiment". Hurkyl caught on a bit too quickly and foiled my plans, and now i can't get anyone to admit where they stand on any of the cases :D

 

[ArmoSkater87]

thanks for the clarification! :P

 

[russ_watters]

thanks for the clarification! :P

To simplify a little for your sake, picture two clocks that are 300,000km apart and synchronized from Hurkyl's "picture frame." Each clock can send a signal to the other saying what time it is: since it takes 1sec for the signal to reach the opposing clock, each clock compares its own time to the signal it receives and concludes the other clock is a second behind. The paradox can obviously be resolved easily enough knowing the speed of light and the distance between the clocks and calculating the transmission delay.

This is true in Galilean Relativity, ie, before you even start to consider Einstein's SR/GR. The only thing added by SR is that the speed of light is constant.

 

[ram1024]

if you're going to tell him it's constant at least tell him HOW it's constant.

 

[Alkatran]

actually it all suits my purposes. i don't care to retute SR as long as it sees things MY way ;D

I find that quote really amusin, RAM.

Anyways, I just though I'd come in and tell you why all of this time dilation and non-simultaneity is popping up. Consider this: You have two objects in a two-dimensional universe. One is standing still in the reference frame, while the other is moving to the right at a high speed. As soon as the second object is at the same position as the first light is emitted from where they are positioned.

Now, the un-moving object perceives the light as expanding uniformely around it (in a circle) and SO DOES THE MOVING ONE. But how is that possible?? Well, check the attacked picture for what Einstein was thinking for relativity.

Now, remember this is a 2d universe, the up/down part of the picture represents the passage of time. (Notice that the light is expanding as it goes up? That's light moving away. Now, notice how the moving object (the blue one) has a "reality" that is warped in relation to time? Notice how it's actual passage through time is warped (it moves slightly faster upwards). Finally, notice that in it's reality the light is in a circle around it.

Do you understand now? That really for us to have a concept of simultaneous we could define a certain speed as "0" and say only things in that frame are simultaneous? (Think about this, if the observers know of the effects or relativity, shouldn't they compensate for it when deciding wether or not something was simultaneous? )

 

[Janus]

all the clocks are synchronous in the stationary "picture-frame" as hurkyl would call it.

Earlier in this thread you said

the clocks in all cases emit photon simultaneously RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER.

these clocks are perfectly aligned and synchronized and in all cases they move within the same inertial frame so they can stay calibrated.

So which is it? Now, for cases 1 & 3 it doesn't matter, because the "picture frame" and the "clock frame" are one in the same.

But in case 2, the clock frame and the "picture frame move relative to each other, and thus the clocks can't emit their photons simultaneously in both frames. They can emit simultaneously in one or the other, but not both.

 

[David]

By the way, u just can't try to disprove the theory of one of the greatest geniuses of all time, SR has been proven correct in several experiments. (-_-)

No, that’s a myth. Lorentz theory has been proven correct in several experiments. Einstein stole many of his SR theory ideas from Lorentz and modified Lorentz’s ideas.

The “time dilation” of atomic clocks was invented by Lorentz in the 1890s. So was “length contraction”, the “speed limit of c”, “mass increase due to motion”. See Lorentz's, “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern,” published in 1895 when Einstein was just 16 years old.

”To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H.A. Lorentz’s theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments (experiments by Fizeau, Rowland, etc.).” A. Einstein, 1912

 

[David]

It isn't/doesn't have to be though, relativistic kinematics are suprisingly easy to understand.

Straight line non-accelerated relative motion can’t slow down the rate of any clock. As Lorentz pointed out, a “force” has to be placed on a clock timing mechanism, or removed from it, to change the clock’s rates. “Kinematics” without force changes no clock rates.

 

[ram1024]

So which is it? Now, for cases 1 & 3 it doesn't matter, because the "picture frame" and the "clock frame" are one in the same.

But in case 2, the clock frame and the "picture frame move relative to each other, and thus the clocks can't emit their photons simultaneously in both frames. They can emit simultaneously in one or the other, but not both.

no one's yet given me a reason to believe they'd emit photons non-simultaneously in EITHER frame, moving or not.

does the phrase "relative to each other" actually have a meaning in this case? i mean i just threw it out there without thinking of consequences because i cannot fathom the difference it would make.

so if you can, tell me what the difference would be if they emitted photons simultaneously in the "picture frame" and in the "relative to each other frame)

thanks in advance

 

[wespe]

no one's yet given me a reason to believe they'd emit photons non-simultaneously in EITHER frame, moving or not.

does the phrase "relative to each other" actually have a meaning in this case? i mean i just threw it out there without thinking of consequences because i cannot fathom the difference it would make.

so if you can, tell me what the difference would be if they emitted photons simultaneously in the "picture frame" and in the "relative to each other frame)

thanks in advance

Please read http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

 

[ArmoSkater87]

thanks to whoever helped me out :P

 

[ram1024]

Please read http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result

this case depicted is actually case 3 of my list, not case 2. note the sources are "lightning flashes" which are not in any way tied to the train.

the train moving towards B)flash is equivalent to my guy running towards B)emitter on top of the train in case 3.

case 2 is the crux of the argument. if "stationary" doesn't exist how can case 1 yield that light hits the observer simultaneously, yet in case 2 if you take that frame as being stationary (inertially relative frame) you DON'T get hit by light simultaneously?

i'm not sure i explained that well enough for you to understand :( sorry if not, i'll do better

 

[wespe]

Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important result

this case depicted is actually case 3 of my list, not case 2. note the sources are "lightning flashes" which are not in any way tied to the train.

the train moving towards B)flash is equivalent to my guy running towards B)emitter on top of the train in case 3.

case 2 is the crux of the argument. if "stationary" doesn't exist how can case 1 yield that light hits the observer simultaneously, yet in case 2 if you take that frame as being stationary (inertially relative frame) you DON'T get hit by light simultaneously?

i'm not sure i explained that well enough for you to understand :( sorry if not, i'll do better

Yes, it doesn't matter whether the sources are tied to the train or not, because speed of light is independent of its source.

So, what is the difference between your case #2 and #3?

The difference is: in case #2, the photons are emitted simultaneously relative to the emitters (which means also relative to the man). In case #3, the photons are emitted simultaneously relative to the emitters (as you said this is always the case), therefore they cannot be emitted simultaneously relative to the man. See, it matters in which frame they are emitted simultanously. So how do we know in which frame? It is the frame that the clocks (tied to the emitters) were synchronized in. And how were they synchronized? By sending two light signals to the emitters from the midpoint in that frame. Naturally it follows that: after this synchronization, simultaneous light signals will be received at the same time only at the midpoint in that frame (not some other frame where the midpoint moves [is somewhere else when the photons meet]).

 

[ram1024]

Yes, it doesn't matter whether the sources are tied to the train or not, because speed of light is independent of its source

The difference is: in case #2, the photons are emitted simultaneously relative to the emitters (which means also relative to the man). In case #3, the photons are emitted simultaneously relative to the emitters (as you said this is always the case), therefore they cannot be emitted simultaneously relative to the man

i think you're confusing the emissions with the intercepts... if the sources do not matter in speed, remove them from the picture and view the motions of the observers in case 2 and case 3. they're identical. the photons from both frames were emitted at exactly the same time and place. the only difference is, one guy is running and one guy is riding the train.

are you telling me runners and train riders have different perspectives at the same speed?

<we're getting close to the point where you're going to have the same revelation that i had i think. good stuff>

 

[wespe]

i think you're confusing the emissions with the intercepts... if the sources do not matter in speed, remove them from the picture and view the motions of the observers in case 2 and case 3. they're identical. the photons from both frames were emitted at exactly the same time and place.

No I'm not confusing anything. Did you read carefully what I wrote? The sources can only emit light according to how they were synchronized (before the experiment started). How do you suppose they know when to emit the photons? It is this synchronization that makes the cases 2 and 3 different. Actually, change the sources with mirrors, and you can think of the emitted photons as reflected photons sent from the midpoint (they were sent to synchronize the clocks). In case 2, the man sent these photons to synchronize the clocks, so he receives them back at the same time. In case 3, the stationary midpoint sent them, so it receives them back at the same time, and the man does not. Yes it is this simple.

 

[ram1024]

i can see where you would get this confused.

go back to the link on the page. the lightning is synchronized simultaneous ACCORDING to the simultaneous intercepts of the embankment.

it is deriving simultaneity FROM that frame. and then comparing it to all others.

the clock/emitters in my experiment are NOT deriving synchronization or simultaneity FROM any frame. they are synchronized together (let's say zero-distance) and then methodically placed into position using exacting methods to ensure they are never subjected to anything that would "unsynch" them

in this case simultaneous MEANS true simultaneity not "according to how you look at the picture".

i'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that SR doesn't allow ANYTHING to be truly simultaneous unless it emanates from ONE location... right?

 

[wespe]

i can see where you would get this confused.
go back to the link on the page. the lightning is synchronized simultaneous ACCORDING to the simultaneous intercepts of the embankment.
it is deriving simultaneity FROM that frame. and then comparing it to all others.

Yes.

the clock/emitters in my experiment are NOT deriving synchronization or simultaneity FROM any frame. they are synchronized together (let's say zero-distance) and then methodically placed into position using exacting methods to ensure they are never subjected to anything that would "unsynch" them

No, after the acceleration they go out of synch, even if they both go under the same acceleration. They may be still in synch in their final rest frame, but in all other frames they will look out of synch. The end result is the same as if they were synchronized by a signal from the midpoint in their final rest frame.

in this case simultaneous MEANS true simultaneity not "according to how you look at the picture".

i'm going to take a wild stab in the dark that SR doesn't allow ANYTHING to be truly simultaneous unless it emanates from ONE location... right?

There is no such thing as true simultaneity or simultaneity in all frames [when events separated by distance]. That Enistein gedanken proves [edit:no, discusses] just that. Seems you didn't get the point from that page.

editing to add: The point is, if two distant clocks are synchronized in their frame, they can not be [look] synchronized in other frames.

 

[ram1024]

There is no such thing as true simultaneity or simultaneity in all frames [when events separated by distance]. That Enistein gedanken proves just that. Seems you didn't get the point from that page

that's because the page assumes simultaneity is relative to begin with.

i see I'm going to have to employ stricter methods to convince you :D

ONE EMITTER.

TWO OBSERVERS.

Case #5

[u](o)                    <-)|(->                    (o)[/u]

One emitter simultaneously shoots 2 photons towards two ovservers equal distance from the center (where the emitter is). the observers carry synchronized clocks to time their photon receptions

SR predicts that since this is a "inertial frame" light will hit both observers at the same time. (True / False) ?

 

[ram1024]

i realize case 5 is a loaded question.

so I'm going to answer it myself so we can move on with no hard feelings :D

SR cannot make predictions as to the simultaneity of reception BECAUSE it does not believe in sychronous clocks at a distance.

fine. moving on to case #6

 

[ram1024]

Case #6

[u](o)                    <-)|(->                    (o)[/u]

Same thing as case #5 except this time the two clocks use laser light and the distance between them to synchronize. They synchronize in such a way that the light from the center hits them both at what appears to them to be the same "time"

the train is them sped up FASTER in the direction it was traveling (let's say to the right) and another light is pulsed.

SR predicts they receive light non-simultaneous now (because of clocks getting messed up) even though nothing happened that changed clock synch relative to the other clock. (True / False)

 

[wespe]

i see I'm going to have to employ stricter methods to convince you :D

You will either make me go insane, or I will give up on you. I'm not sure if you are reading what I'm saying. If you are thinking I don't qualify or something, just say so and I will leave you alone. Otherwise please try a bit harder and hopefully you will be able to answer your own questions.

Case #5

[u](o)                    <-)|(->                    (o)[/u]

One emitter simultaneously shoots 2 photons towards two ovservers equal distance from the center (where the emitter is). the observers carry synchronized clocks to time their photon receptions

SR predicts that since this is a "inertial frame" light will hit both observers at the same time. (True / False) ?

"At the same time" means "simultaneously". Simultaneity is meaningless unless you specify the frame it is measured in. So your question is meaningless. SR will predict that light will hit both observers at the same time in the frame of the emitter/observers/picture. There is no other frame seen here, but no doubt there will be in the next case. All this confusion is due to your omitting the frame bit.

Case #6

[u](o)                    <-)|(->                    (o)[/u]

Same thing as case #5 except this time the two clocks use laser light and the distance between them to synchronize. They synchronize in such a way that the light from the center hits them both at what appears to them to be the same "time"

the train is them sped up FASTER in the direction it was traveling (let's say to the right) and another light is pulsed.

SR predicts they receive light non-simultaneous now (because of clocks getting messed up) even though nothing happened that changed clock synch relative to the other clock. (True / False)

No, they will receive the light at the same time in the train frame. But will the clocks show the same time when they do? If the clocks remain synchronized according to the train frame*, yes. In any case, they will not look like receiving them at the same time in the picture frame. And even if the clocks remained synchronized in the train frame, they will not look synchronized in the picture frame.

*OK I can't talk so confidently when acceleration is involved. But I can say it depends on how the train is accelerated. Is it pulled from the front, or pushed from the back, or both "at the same time" (wrt what? If wrt themselves, then I -think- they will remain synchronized in the train frame)