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: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 19:04 On Oct 10, 6:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 6:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 3:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 11:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 2:49 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 9, 11:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:50 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've fouled this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the light from A and B reaches M' at different times, but the > > > > > > > > > > > > light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' are a single strike. B and B' are a single strike. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, A and A' are a single strike but A and A' are two different > > > > > > > > > > locations in three dimensional space. A in on the embankment and A' is > > > > > > > > > > on the train. > > > > > > > > > > No, they are not. You have not read the gedanken carefully. A lighting > > > > > > > > > strike hits in ONE place, not two. A and A' are two labels for the > > > > > > > > > same point. In the original gedanken, A and A' label the point where > > > > > > > > > the train meets the track at one end of the train. That is ONE POINT. > > > > > > > > > > Please reread it and pay more attention than what you have been doing > > > > > > > > > so far. > > > > > > > > > The lightning strike leaves marks at A, A', B, and B'. This is four > > > > > > > > different locations in three dimensional space. A and A' and B and B' > > > > > > > > were co-located at the time of the strikes, but they are four > > > > > > > > different locations. > > > > > > > > > If A and A' are two labels for the same point, why does the Observer > > > > > > > > at M measure to A and B and the Observer at M' measure to A' and B'? > > > > > > > > The measure to the appropriate marks because there are four marks. > > > > > > > > > Please try and understand if you have four marks at four locations > > > > > > > > that is four points. > > > > > > > > The mark at A on the tracks and the mark at A' on the train were made > > > > > > > when the two points were together. > > > > > > > > M considers the strike to have happen at A. There are scorch marks on > > > > > > > the tracks marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > > > train, but the train is moving relative to the tracks, so the marks on > > > > > > > the train are not where the strike took place in the track frame. > > > > > > > > M' considers the strike to have happen at A'. There are scorch marks > > > > > > > on the train marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > > > tracks, but the tracks are moving relative to the train, so the marks > > > > > > > on the tracks are not where the strike took place in the train frame. > > > > > > > > > > > > The light from A/A' travels through the *same medium* that the > > > > > > > > > > > embankment and the open flatbed train cars are immersed in. The light > > > > > > > > > > > from B/B' does the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > > So how does the light, coming from a single lightning strike (A/A'), > > > > > > > > > > > traveling through a common medium, arrive at the same observer M' both > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and not simultaneously as the light from B/B'? > > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. If the train contains open flatbed cars, then you are > > > > > > > > > > implying the medium is stationary relative to the embankment. > > > > > > > > > > No, I'm not. There's no such implication at all. What you know is true > > > > > > > > > is that there is ONE medium, not two. > > > > > > > > > If there is one medium that is stationary relative to one of the > > > > > > > > frames of reference in Einstein's train thought experiment then that > > > > > > > > means it is moving relative to the other frame of reference which > > > > > > > > means there is a preferred frame of reference. > > > > > > > > There is only one medium and it is not stationary relative to either > > > > > > > frame, so neither one is preferred. > > > > > > > What if there is water that is stationary on the train and water that > > > > > > is stationary on the embankment and a lightning strike occur > > > > > > simultaneously at A' on the train and A on the embankment and another > > > > > > lightning strike occurs simultaneously at B' on the train and B on the > > > > > > embankment. If the light from the lightning strikes at A and B travels > > > > > > through the stationary water on the embankment and reaches M > > > > > > simultaneously, does the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B' > > > > > > travel through the stationary water in the train and reach M' > > > > > > simultaneously?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Because Relativity refers to "empty space". If you look out at the > > > > > stars there is empty space between us and them. If there is an aether > > > > > out there, there is only one aether between the stars and anything > > > > > moving relative to them. So you need to make your theory work with > > > > > just one aether. > > > > > That is where Relativity is incorrect. The aether is more like water > > > > than you give it credit for. > > > > > We could say there is one water, > > > > Then do so. > > > > > but the water on the embankment is > > > > stationary relative to the embankment and the water on the train is > > > > stationary relative to the train. > > > > > The same is correct for aether. > > > > > For everything to be truly relative in Einstein's Train Thought > > > > Experiment the aether needs to be relative in the embankment frame of > > > > reference and the train frame of reference which means the aether is > > > > stationary relative to both frames of reference.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Relativity doesn't care about the aether, it cares only that all rays > > > of light travel at the measured speed of c. It is physically > > > imposible for one aether to be at rest WRT two frames that are moving > > > WRT each other. But it is possible for both frames to be moving WRT > > > the aether, so neither one is favored. > > > Rays of light travel at 'c' relative to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > In Einstein's relativity light travels at c relative to the observer. > > If you want to talk aether, LET gets the same answers as SR, and it > has only one aether. In LET light travels at c relative to the aether > and is measured to travel at c in the rest frame of the observer doing > the measuring. Replace length contraction with relative to the aether and you have Aether Displacement.
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Oct 2009 20:29 On Oct 10, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 10, 11:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 11:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've fouled this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Einstein's gedanken says is that the light from A/A' and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light from B/B' arrive simultaneously at M and NOT simultaneously at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if this were viewed from M', because the propagation toward M' is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c from either A/A' or B/B', then it would be clear that events at A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and B were not simultaneous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, at least you now understand Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, both frames are equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all well and good, but experiment agrees with Einstein, not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with your picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you know? You just figured out what Relativity of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity is two minutes ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I certainly did have difficulty explaining it right at first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the experimental stuff has been figured out a long time ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether to be 'entrained' by the embankment in the embankment frame of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference and for the aether to be 'entrained' by the train in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > train frame of reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, but the train observer could well be sitting on top of the train > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out in the open air, right along with the air that is surrounding the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > embankment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So unless you've got overlapping aethers, one passing through the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other, then there would have to be a boundary between the two moving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses of aether, where they are rubbing up against each other. And in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that case, there would be a region of aether in between where it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving somewhat in between what the two entrained aethers are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then just by moving, say, the embankment observer a little closer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the train, or the train observer a little to one side, then you'd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start seeing the effect of the aether moving at a speed somewhat in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between. However, this is not observed in equivalent experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post a link to the experiments you are referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google "experimental basis for relativity" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say this is not observed in equivalent experiments, you should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be willing and able to backup up such a statement with specifics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, since you just figured out what Relativity of Simultaneity is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > five minutes ago, its understandable you can't backup the claims you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such cheesy baiting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually do the search I recommended, and you click on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > FIRST link it returns, you'll have a lovely list of experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you cannot do even this without whining, is it an indicator that > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are hopelessly lazy or hopelessly incompetent? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I mean by following the implications of an idea all the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way through to look for *uniquely distinguishing* predictions. I've > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just given an example of a clear implication of AD, one that would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testable. And unfortunately, it doesn't match experiment. So it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gotta be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments like de Sitter and the double star? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. That has to do with something else entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That has to do with a test that distinguishes ballistic emission > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory and relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to do with simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity is emission theory in an entrained aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. In your theory the speed of light is relative to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether. In ballistic theory it is relative to the source. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the train is half full of water and the water is stationary in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > train and you drop pebbles at A' and B', the waves from A' and B' will > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the embankment is half full of water and the water is stationary > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and you drop pebbles into the water at A > > > > > > > > > > > > > and B, the waves from A and B will reach M simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you drop pebbles into the water at A and A' simultaneously and drop > > > > > > > > > > > > > pebbles into B and B' simultaneously, if the waves from A and B reach > > > > > > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, the waves from A' and B' will reach M' > > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If it helps, MPC, Einstein's train gedanken can just as well take > > > > > > > > > > > > place on open, flat-bed cars. > > > > > > > > > > > > The water is stationary relative to the embankment and the train is > > > > > > > > > > > moving along under the water and not affecting the water. Pebbles are > > > > > > > > > > > dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from B/B' travels from B to M'. The > > > > > > > > > > > waves from A and B and reach M simultaneously. The wave from A reaches > > > > > > > > > > > M'. > > > > > > > > > > > And notice that the waves from A and B do not arrive at M' at the same > > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, because the water is stationary relative to the embankment. In > > > > > > > > > this scenario, the embankment is the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > > For Einstein's train thought experiment to be truly relative, there > > > > > > > > > can be no preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the water must be stationary relative to the embankment in > > > > > > > > > the embankment frame of reference and stationary relative to the train > > > > > > > > > in the train reference frame. > > > > > > > > > Yes! And notice that, because the train cars are open, flatbed cars, > > > > > > > > you have to satisfy both criteria at the same time! > > > > > > > > > Here's where the fun starts. So if there is an aether (or water as you > > > > > > > > want to analogize), it has to be stationary with respect to the > > > > > > > > embankment AND to the train, at the same time. Not different > > > > > > > > scenarios. At the same time. > > > > > > > > > > In this scenario, my animation holds in the light from A and B reaches > > > > > > > > > M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > No, certainly not. Because it's the same medium. > > > > > > > > The embankment observer notes that the light from A and B reaches M' > > > > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > > Yes, the light from A and B reaches M' at different times, but the > > > > > > > light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > There is only one wave front emitted at A/A' and one at B/B'. Your > > > > > > inimation is wrong.> > The train observer has to agree with that. > > > > > > Why is everyone afraid to answer my thought experiment with pebbles > > > > > and the waves they create and stationary water on the train and > > > > > stationary water on the embankment? > > > > > > 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, > > > which is a different thought experiment than the one Einstein > > > proposes. > > > Einstein did not have an aether in his experiment. The observer at M > > declared that the speed of light was c, relative to him, in both > > directions to provide him with a definition of simultanity. The > > observer M' on the train is allowed to do the same. But since they > > are moving relative to each other they come up with conflicting > > calculations of when the strike at A/A' happen. The LT allows them to > > resolve the differences. > > Einstein believed the propagation of light required an aether. That may be, but he wrote that it didn't matter as far as his theory of relativity was concerned.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 20:45 On Oct 10, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Einstein believed the propagation of light required an aether. > > That may be, but he wrote that it didn't matter as far as his theory > of relativity was concerned. Answer why the aether is not like other aethers in my thought experiment.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 21:01 On Oct 10, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Einstein believed the propagation of light required an aether. > > That may be, but he wrote that it didn't matter as far as his theory > of relativity was concerned. Answer why the aether is not like other mediums in my thought experiment.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 22:21
On Oct 10, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 6:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Einstein believed the propagation of light required an aether. > > That may be, but he wrote that it didn't matter as far as his theory > of relativity was concerned. Why is the aether not like other mediums in my thought experiment? |