Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: PD on 10 Oct 2009 11:51 On Oct 10, 10:48 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 10:48 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 9:52 am, PD wrote: > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > I understand exactly what is > > > > occurring in Einstein's Train > > > > Thought experiment. > > > > Not as Einstein explained it, no you > don't. > > > > You understand the MPC Train Thought > > > Experiment, which is something > > > completely different than the > > > Einstein Train Thought Experiment. > > > Yes. > > > > << Lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' behave exactly like the waves of > > > pebbles dropped into stationary pools of water on the train and > > stationary pools of water on the embankment. > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > waves the pebbles create from A and B reaches M and the light from A' > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > light waves from A and B reach M and the light wave from A' and B' > > reach M' simultaneously. >> > > > > See? That's the MPC Train Thought > > > Experiment, not the Einstein one. > > > PD is right. In Einstein's, A and A' coincide when a given ray hits > > point AA', and B and B' coincide when ray 2 hits BB'. In MPC's, A and > > A' are different points than each other in 3-d space and so are b and > > B'. > > In Einstein, the space between AA' and BB' is empty and light moves > > at c wrt to it while the train - thus points A', B' and midpoint M' - > > moves to the right at v. in mpc, a luminiferous aether is trapped > > within the moving train and is therefore moving wrt to the outside > > aether taken as at rest wrt the embankment. > > Therefore, as PD said, mpc's conclusions are unrelated to > > Einstein's. > > > BTW, this gedanken experiment by Einstein is to the layman, and > > doesn't explain why simultaneity is relative to the states of motion > > of different observers' clocks. > > > glird > > > them ir point > > It makes no difference if the points A and A' coincide side-by-side or > not in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment. > > Saying it makes a difference shows your limited understanding of the > Einstein's Train Thought Experiment. No, I'm sorry, now you're using sentences that Ken Seto uses, and Ken Seto is insane. It's you that doesn't understand the Einstein gedanken. > > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant And at a single location. > and the flash of light > at B/B' occurring in a single instant And at a single location. > and for A and B to be equi- > distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for > the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance > from A' to M' and B' to M'. > > Let me ask you about Einstein's Train Thought Experiment with the > following variation. Why don't we take up the variation after you've correctly understood the unvaried case? > As described in the above sentence, if there is > are simultaneous lightning strikes at A and A' and there are > simultaneous lightning strikes at B and B', if the light from A and B > reaches M simultaneously does the light from A' and B' reach M' > simultaneously? And in terms of simultaneous, I am referring to any > frame of reference. In other words, from the perspective of an > observer on the embankment, if the light from A and B reaches the > observer at M simultaneously, does the light from the lightning > strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 11:52 On Oct 10, 11:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 10:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 9:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 9, 10:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 6:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > I think the end result of this discussion, MPC, is that you've never > > > > > understood what's being said in the Einstein train gedanken. > > > > > > At this point, it might have been effective for you to say, "I guess I > > > > > don't understand what Einstein was trying to say. Is there anyone that > > > > > is willing to walk through it with me to explain to me what it's > > > > > saying?" > > > > > > For some people this is emotionally difficult to do. One recourse for > > > > > such people is to pretend that they understand what they do not, and > > > > > to try to invent something they can at least call their own, because > > > > > they do understand what they invent for themselves. The problem is, > > > > > this has nothing to do with science, where the value of an idea is > > > > > determined by how nature really acts, not how intuitive it is in our > > > > > heads. > > > > > > The right steps are to ask the following: > > > > > 1. "What is this relativity theory, exactly, and what does it say?" > > > > > 2. "OK, now that I understand what it claims, what makes you think > > > > > it's right?" > > > > > 3. "If there are other claims that have been put forward that are > > > > > different, how do you know that any of those are not right?" > > > > > > PD > > > > > I understand exactly what is occurring in Einstein's Train Thought > > > > experiment. > > > > Not as Einstein explained it, no you don't. > > > > You understand the MPC Train Thought Experiment, which is something > > > completely different than the Einstein Train Thought Experiment. > > > > > Lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' behave exactly like the waves of > > > > pebbles dropped into stationary pools of water on the train and > > > > stationary pools of water on the embankment. > > > > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > > > waves the pebbles create from A and B reaches M and the light from A' > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > > > light waves from A and B reach M and the light wave from A' and B' > > > > reach M' simultaneously. > > > > See? That's the MPC Train Thought Experiment, not the Einstein one. > > > It's the same thought experiment, but I am starting with pebbles in > > the stationary medium of water, moving to flashes of light in the > > stationary medium water, moving to flashes of light in the stationary > > medium of aether. > > But here's the problem. > You have not addressed what happens in the transition region between > the two relatively moving bodies of water. > You have also made a prediction of what will be observed in terms of > arrival times at M and M' that is in conflict with experiment. > So since you have these two problems that are not resolved, I see no > reason to bang on your model further. Do you? If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
From: PD on 10 Oct 2009 11:52 On Oct 10, 10:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 10:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If pebbles are dropped simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are > > > > > dropped simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M > > > > > simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > Answer in what way? > > > > It doesn't pertain to the Einstein gedanken, which is done out in the > > > > open so that at best there is ONE medium. > > > > If Einstein's Train Thought Experiment was done 'out in the open' then > > > you are tying the stationary aether to one of the frames of reference, > > > No, *I'm* not, you are. Einstein made no presumption that an aether > > was present at all. > > And in fact, I asked you how you can tell with the information given > > that there is an aether tied to *either* frame of reference. I > > explicitly asked you how you know that the aether isn't moving > > relative to *both* the embankment and the train. > > > > which is a different thought experiment than the one Einstein > > > proposes. > > > > Asking, 'Answer in what way?' is hiding from answering the following > > > question: > > > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > > > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > > > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > > > reach M' simultaneously? > > > Sorry, but now you're asking questions about the MPC train thought > > experiment, not the Einstein gedanken. > > I was interested when you were claiming this has something to do with > > Einstein's gedanken, but I'm not interested in a wholly different > > example involving two tanks of water and pebbles. > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > reach M' simultaneously? Ah, ok, now we're back to your passive-aggressive mode of communication, where you simply repeat the same statement over and over and over again, without addressing any of the remarks that have been made about your original claims.
From: PD on 10 Oct 2009 11:53 On Oct 10, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 10:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 10:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If pebbles are dropped simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are > > > > > > dropped simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M > > > > > > simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > > Answer in what way? > > > > > It doesn't pertain to the Einstein gedanken, which is done out in the > > > > > open so that at best there is ONE medium. > > > > > If Einstein's Train Thought Experiment was done 'out in the open' then > > > > you are tying the stationary aether to one of the frames of reference, > > > > No, *I'm* not, you are. Einstein made no presumption that an aether > > > was present at all. > > > And in fact, I asked you how you can tell with the information given > > > that there is an aether tied to *either* frame of reference. I > > > explicitly asked you how you know that the aether isn't moving > > > relative to *both* the embankment and the train. > > > > > which is a different thought experiment than the one Einstein > > > > proposes. > > > > > Asking, 'Answer in what way?' is hiding from answering the following > > > > question: > > > > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > > > > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > > > > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > > > > reach M' simultaneously? > > > > Sorry, but now you're asking questions about the MPC train thought > > > experiment, not the Einstein gedanken. > > > I was interested when you were claiming this has something to do with > > > Einstein's gedanken, but I'm not interested in a wholly different > > > example involving two tanks of water and pebbles. > > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > > reach M' simultaneously? > > Ah, ok, now we're back to your passive-aggressive mode of > communication, where you simply repeat the same statement over and > over and over again, without addressing any of the remarks that have > been made about your original claims. You do realize, don't you, that this is why you don't date much.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 11:54
On Oct 10, 11:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 10:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:46 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 10:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If pebbles are dropped simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are > > > > > > dropped simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M > > > > > > simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > > Answer in what way? > > > > > It doesn't pertain to the Einstein gedanken, which is done out in the > > > > > open so that at best there is ONE medium. > > > > > If Einstein's Train Thought Experiment was done 'out in the open' then > > > > you are tying the stationary aether to one of the frames of reference, > > > > No, *I'm* not, you are. Einstein made no presumption that an aether > > > was present at all. > > > And in fact, I asked you how you can tell with the information given > > > that there is an aether tied to *either* frame of reference. I > > > explicitly asked you how you know that the aether isn't moving > > > relative to *both* the embankment and the train. > > > > > which is a different thought experiment than the one Einstein > > > > proposes. > > > > > Asking, 'Answer in what way?' is hiding from answering the following > > > > question: > > > > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > > > > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > > > > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > > > > reach M' simultaneously? > > > > Sorry, but now you're asking questions about the MPC train thought > > > experiment, not the Einstein gedanken. > > > I was interested when you were claiming this has something to do with > > > Einstein's gedanken, but I'm not interested in a wholly different > > > example involving two tanks of water and pebbles. > > > If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and > > pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the > > waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' > > reach M' simultaneously? > > Ah, ok, now we're back to your passive-aggressive mode of > communication, where you simply repeat the same statement over and > over and over again, without addressing any of the remarks that have > been made about your original claims. If pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are dropped into the water simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? |