Why relativity is wrong

  • Thread starter wespe
  • Start date
  • #226
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Np assumtions regarding synchronization at all. I made it abundantly clear that I was not synchronizing clocks between frames. I was synchronizing clocks within one frame, without reference tio the other frame. Do you have this clearly fixed in your mind?

If the stationary frame observers can assure themselves that their clocks are all calibrated to give the same time, then the same law of physics applied in the inertial moving frame also provides assurance that the clocks in that moving frame all tell the same time.
And how did that work again? Oh yes, it went something like:

A and A' are both set to 0 when they meet
M and M' are both set to 0 when they meet
B and B' are both set to 0 when they meet

In the stationary frame, since A, M, and B are all set to zero simultaneously, they must tell the same time afterwards. Also, in the stationary frame, A', M', and B' are set to zero simultaneously, so they must tell the same time afterwards.


However, you've given no justification for your assertion that they all meet simultaneously in the moving frame. In fact, it is a fairly trivial fact of Minowski geometry (the geometry used in SR) that two events are simultaneous in all frames if and only if they are at the same place at the same time; i.e. if they're the same event.


The conclusion I want is the truth.
Where "truth" is defined as whatever you believe?


The calculations are your job.
We've done a few. You don't listen. They must not satisfy your definition of "truth".


My job, only, is to demonstarte that the photons emitted at A and B simultaneously were also emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.
You're missing a crucially important part of your "job". If your goal is to prove Special Relativity is logically inconsistent, you must make this demonstration within the confines of Special Relativity. If you merely wish to show that Special Relativity doesn't reflect reality, then you must make this demonstration with an actual experiment, not a thought experiment.


You recognize don't you, that my method was able to determine if the pulses were sent simultaneously from a moving frame to a stationary observer?
I think I agree with the spirit of this statement. The pulses, though, weren't sent from a "moving frame"; they were sent from (moving) light sources.


And that under the conditions you set up, the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving and and stationary frames and this is what I calculated.
I do not recognize this, because it is not true. I did the calculations comparing the two frames and showed precisely the opposite; they were simultaneous in one frame and not on the other. You, however, have not done the calculations for both frames under the conditions I set up.


I assume all the postulates that are used in SR. The constancy of the laws of physics and the constancy of the measured speed of light.
And you also assume a few more which are not made by SR.


Why would you hand me rope? I thought, LOL, we were in a science discussion, seeking he truth.
Why would I kick up dust? Or shovel out dirt? You're the one who wanted to bring up colorful analogies, I was just supplying one that is more apt.


How many times did Einstein go into a phsyics lab and tweak knobs and record ammeters and the such?
He did do more than just invent Special & General Relativity, ya know.


are you a bigtime experimentalist?
Nope, I'm not a mathematician. And I'm certainly not the one going around implying that I have done this experiment.


I synchronized,calibrated is a better word, the clocks again in the moving frame using the same laws of physics and the constancy of the speed of light used in the stationary frame
Saying it does not make it so.


This is your current coda? I am supposed to be breathless, awestruck and humbled aren't I? taking these two sentences away? OK, if you say so. You're the mentor.
You can be breathless, awestruck, and humbled if you like. I merely wanted to make it crystal clear that this is where my primary objection to your analysis lies; it is more or less pointless to speak about anything else unless it is going to relate directly to this objection.
 
  • #227
220
0
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.

Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...

etc etc.

if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
 
  • #228
540
0
comiong to gether with defonitions.

ram2048 said:
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.

Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...

etc etc.

if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
I agree. I will confine myself to Einsteins gedunken of the train. M is the midpoint between two light sources at A and B. M' the midpoint of A' and B' on a moving inertial frtame, where A' = A and B' = B and M' =M when two photons are emitted from A and B. along the line of the moving platform moving toward B. The photon from B reaches M' before the photon from A.

The colocation of A = A', B = B" and M = M" is determoned from calulations of the shrinking of the moving frame consistent with the known velocity of the moving frame, say v = 1. AS the photons are emitted, the clocks at all are marked and stored in a data base. The clock at B' read the same as the clock at A', similarly the clock at A reads the same as the clock at B. These calibrations are accomplished by the same laws of physics that apply invariantly to both. There is no pretense to correlate the clocks in the two frames, other than to note the times of the emitted photons are stored in the stationary frame's computer for the stationary data. The time data are stored in the moving frame's computer for the moving frame data, the times recorded when all the coordinates were colocated as described.

It is my position that "simultaneity of the emitted photons" is defined at that instant in time when the photons were actually emitted into the universe. Under the conditions described here the photons were emitted simultaneously in both inertial frames.

It is my position that challenges to the claim here that the indicated readings of the clocks in the moving frame are not verifiable is not valid.. The clocks in the moving frame are calibrated with the same laws of physics used in the stationary frame used to calibrate clock there.

So are claims that A = A' and B = B' and M = M' cannot be achieved. Using SR theory we can calculate shrinkage and time dilation consistent with a known and repeatable velocty v = 1. These two measurments are only provided to guarantee he emission of thephoyons in to the universe simultaneously.

There is no measurement of any passage of time by these clocks that are used in any calculation. The clocks are inserted and are used for the singular purpose of marking the simiultaneous nature of the emitted photons. The only exceoption is that the clock at M' is used to measure the arrival times of pulses from B then A ariving at M' where these times are referenced to the location of M' colocated with M when the photons were emitted.

From this I say my link has proved the simultabeous nature of he emitted photons. Likewise, Hurkyl has admitted that a calculation I made if a hypothetical he presented was calulated properly by myself and that I predicted the photons were emitted positively simultaneously. SR would have predicted otherwise, which escaped Hurkyl. he complimented me on my calulation.
 
  • #229
220
0
i want pictures of trains.

all this A B M and A' B' M' means little to me. what is that two trains?
 
  • #230
540
0
ram2048 said:
it seems to me this is how things have been going for quite a while.

Geist defines a setup as such and asks Hurkyl to resolve it using SR
Hurkyl says that setup is no good for SR, how about THIS one
Geist says no that one doesn't work for me how about THIS one...

etc etc.

if you guys would agree on working with one setup you could probably resolve this quite efficiently... :D
I just took short drive on some personal business and came up with a compromise measuring device. Along the length of the moving platform is a long cylindrical rod. Along the rod are embedded semiconductor high impedence photo-diodes. The distance between centers of the diodes are the state of the art minimum based on todays commercial art. [I think photo-lithograhic exposures are in the x-ray, or near x-ray range for device geometry definitions. but whatever the stae of the art comeical minimum is].

Each device is marked only by a number that defines its location along the rod. We start at M' = 0 and count + and minus up to and passed a fail safe distance insuring that all diodes will be provided over the disnce A to B in the stationary frame. The distance of x to M distance units in the positive direction is equal to the distance x distance units in the minus direction. tThe Number 10 stimulated device in the positive direction is equal tio the number 10 in the negative direction. All we will measure is the number of the device at the location of the the emitted photon at the loction of A and B when the photon is emitted. Period.

All distances measured along the rod in the moving inertial frame are equivalent if photons move equal distances in equal times along any segment of the rod in the moving frame.

As I see the experiment it is exactly like Einsteins except for the presence of the measuring rod in the moving frame. One of the devices is guaranteed to be colocated to a distance less than the wave length of the emitted photon. Many more devices are so colocated such that the resolution of measurement of the photon is much finer than a mere photon wave length resoluiton.

Bottom line: M', A' and B' are defined by a lest one device location along the measuing rod when the photons are emitted from A and B. The photons detected by the observer at M' first from B then A can be defiend by Hurkyl consistent with the laws of physics. He hasn't made any reference to the nature of these measurements so far so what ever resolution Hurkyl desires shall be my desire also.

The given is that M = M' when the photons are emitted in the stationary frame.

No clocks, no sending mesages to M or M'. no computer data base, calibration, synchronization, no frame-to-frame information exchange. We just keep within the experimental limits of Einstein's gedunken as described on pages 25 - 27 of AE's book "Relativity". No measuring rod information to be used in any calculations, as in the original gedunken. The information from the mesuring rods is extrinsic to all determinations of physical fact as in the original gedunken.
 
  • #231
540
0
Hurkyl, ram2048 had an observation that you and I were jumping all over the place with our experimental conditions. I posted a compromise I hope yu will find agreeable.(Two posts) I also suggest that both of us refrain from even the most subtle of personal dissing, OK? Let us be 100% successful in conducting our discussions purely on the issue of whether or not the emitted photons were emitted simultaneously in both frames. I am going to use Einsteins gedunken described in "Relativity" pages 25-27 with a slight modification for the taking of two data points. (See Post to ram2048) From past discussions All objections previously raised by yourself are satisfied.
 
  • #232
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?

Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:


(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)

Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.

Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.

Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • #233
540
0
Hurkyl said:
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?

Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:


(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)

Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.

Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.

Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
In the first post of th thread "SR Simultaneous Lines Drawn in the Sand" the moving observer at M' was at M the midpoint of sources of photons in the stationary frame when the photons were emitted simultaneously. These photons were instantaneously detected in the moving frame as they were emitted in the stationary frame. The moving frame detected the simultaneous emission of the photons in the moving frame.
What do cklocks have to do with SR?

Along come Hurkyl and does what? He attempts to alter the direction of the current thread.
Hey, H start another thread.
 
  • #234
540
0
Hurkyl said:
Shall I assume this discussion is to continue in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=29822 ?

Incidentally, I opened up "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" today, and it has Einstein's definition of synchronized clocks:


(He seems to implicitly assume the clocks are moving inertially; no acceleration)

Suppose we emit a photon from clock A and it reflects off of clock B and is observed back at clock A. Let tA be the time on A that the photon was emitted, tB be the time on B that the photon was reflected, and t'A be the time on A when the photon was observed again.

Then, the clocks are synchronized iff t'A - tB = tB - tA.

Once this definition is made, two events are simultaneous (relative to a collection of synchronized clocks... aka an inertial frame of reference) iff they occur at two of these clocks, and the clocks read the same time.
I have no quarrel with AE and his definition, but is the thjread that you wee responding to directly or indirectly on the issue? The AE train hypothetical has the moving frame receiving the photons from the forwad emitter then from the rear emitter. Is this dt at all significant in testing whether the photons were emiitted in the moving frame simultaneously with the emitted photons in the stationary frame?

Ii don't see the connection of this post to the train hypo. It seems that simultneity iis being artificially defined by the synchronization process and is fa removed from any physical pocesses.

If I missed something can you show me how SR comes to the conclusion that simltaneitymust be catagorically discarded in the train hypo? If i have not been clea befoe, this sold remove any ambiguity: The photons emitted from the two sources is a simultaneous event in he sationry frame. Eventually these photons arrive at the location of the moving frame. The descriptions presented to me say that the emssion of the photons at A and B were not emitted simultaneously in the movinmg frame. Why, or upon what rational is 'simultyabeity' referred back in time, to another frame, and then projected forward such that the current observers on moving frame [who may as well have not been born at the instant the photons were released] determine the photons weren't emitted simultaneously?

Is this a case of arbitrary definition? My hypothetical measurement experiment where the emitted photons are detected by photosensitive devices placed at the exact location of the emitting source in both frames should be consistent with any measuement scheme in the moving frame mesuring arrival times of the photons if SR theory is consistently applicable. Do you agree (technical measuing problems being irrelevant to the theoretical iscussion)?
negative answer imlies, to me, that SR becomes pureley observer determinate. I mean that it is the defined state of the observer, his perceptions, we are focused on as opposed to the physical event that defines simultaneity. If so what does SR and simulaneity have to do with physical events in describing those events after they occur in such a way that the actual event itself remains "absolutely" invariant, physically induistinguishable from theevent, under any real or implied activtivity conceivable ocuring after the fact of the event?
 
  • #235
220
0
wait...

according to the other thread light will always be measured at light speed relative to the observer...

so if the front one is coming at him at light speed and the back one is also coming at him at light speed...

oh... i see now why you're arguing :D
 
  • #236
540
0
ram2048 said:
wait...

according to the other thread light will always be measured at light speed relative to the observer...

so if the front one is coming at him at light speed and the back one is also coming at him at light speed...

oh... i see now why you're arguing :D
SR as seen through the lens of simultaneity is becoming to be grounded in a simple fact: The simultaneity phenomena is not descriptive of physical phenmomena, it is descripive of what a moving observer perceives as a correction for observing the different arrival times of the photons in the moving framew. This occurs, the correction, from failure to consider other options for the staggered arrival times of the photons, i.e. the most obvious, the moving frame is heading to the source of one oncoming photon and away from the source of the other catching up photon.
 
  • #237
220
0
certainly coming to the conclusion that the mover is actually moving is the smart way to look at things.
 

Related Threads on Why relativity is wrong

Replies
18
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
895
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
20
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
24K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
2K
Top