A puzzle for the SRians
in [Physics]
|
Prev: New data suggest a lighter Higgs
Next:  Making Waves
From: kenseto on 1 Aug 2010 09:46 On Jul 31, 8:12 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > On Jul 31, 6:09 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 31, 5:15 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 26, 5:12 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified as follows: > > > > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes > > > > hits the ends of the train and the light fronts arrive at M' non- > > > > simultaneously. > > > > Question for the SRians: does this mean that according to the SR > > > > concept of relativity of simultaneity M will see the light fronts > > > > arrive at him simultaneously? > > > > Since there are an infinite number of pairs of strikes that can cause > > > > the light fronts to arrive at M' non-simultaneously, does that means > > > > that there are infinite pairs of strikes that M will see their light > > > > fronts to arrive at him simultaneously????? > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > To someone with the mindset that simultaneity is absolute (you) this > > > may seem like a reasonable question. To someone with the mindset that > > > simultaneity is not absolute (SRian) this question is ambiguous and > > > can not be answered. > > > Hey idiot why not? If simultaneity is relative and if M' sees the > > strikes to be non-simultaneous then M must see the strikes to be > > simultaneous to conform with the SR concept of relativity of > > simultaneity....right? > > Ken Seto > > In the first sentence you describe three separate events, the > coincidence of M and M', and the two lightening strikes. You don't > give any more information as to their relative timing. The implication > is that they all happen "at the same time". No there is no such implication. My point is that M' sees the light fronts arrive at him non-simultaneously....does this mean that M will see these light fronts arrive at him simultaneously? The answer to this question is NO. Since there are infinite pairs of light fronts that arrives at M' non-simultaneously...does this mean that M will see these light fronts arrive at him simultaneously? The answer to this question is again no. What does this mean? It means that M and M' agree on all situations when M' sees the light fronts to be non- simultaneous M will also sees the same lighht fronts to be non- simultaneous. This refute the SR claim that simultaneity is relative. There is one set of light fronts that M' will see them arrive at him simultaneously. Does M will see these light fronts arrive at him simultaneously? The answer to this question is yes. Why? 1. The strikes must happened simultaneously before M' can see its light front arrive at him simultaneously. 2. at the time when the strikes happened simultaneously M is at equal distance from the strike points (the ends of the train). 3. The speed of light in the M frame is isotropic. 4. The speed of light is independent of the motion of the ends of the train. 5. therefore M must also see the light fronts from these strikes arrive at him simultaneously. Again these arguements refute the SR claim that simultnaeity is relative. Ken Seto >But what does that mean? > If one assumes that simultaneity is absolute then there's no problem > and the question can be answered. The problem is the answer ultimately > means abandoning the constancy of the speed of light. > If, on the other hand, one assumes that simultaneity is not absolute > then you have to specify the frame in which the events are > simultaneous. You haven't done that here which makes the question > ambiguous and unanswerable. > That's the whole point of the original train gedanken, to specify the > frame where the events are simultaneous and then see how that > translates to other frames. > The constancy of the speed of light has been verified experimentally, > a fact you choose to ignore. Like I said, just bury your head in the > sand and pretend what you don't see doesn't exist. It's certainly your > right to do so but I just don't understand why you insist on ignoring > reality.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 1 Aug 2010 10:04 On Jul 31, 8:12 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > In the first sentence you describe three separate events, the > coincidence of M and M', and the two lightening strikes. You don't > give any more information as to their relative timing. No .. he said clearly "when": === When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes hits the ends of the train === That means "at the same time". Three events at the same time (though it wasn't made clear in which frame they were the same time, that could be implied from context)
From: kenseto on 1 Aug 2010 12:25
On Aug 1, 10:04 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > On Jul 31, 8:12 pm, waldofj <wald...(a)verizon.net> wrote: > > > In the first sentence you describe three separate events, the > > coincidence of M and M', and the two lightening strikes. You don't > > give any more information as to their relative timing. > > No .. he said clearly "when": > > === > When M and M' are coincide with each other......two lightning strikes hits > the ends of the train > === > > That means "at the same time". Three events at the same time (though it > wasn't made clear in which frame they were the same time, that could be > implied from context) No idiot....if the light fronts arrive at M' non-simultaneously, the strikes cannot occur at the same time. Why? Because M' is at equal distance from the strikes (the ends of the train and the speed of light in the train is isotropic. ken Seto |