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: Bruce Richmond on 12 Oct 2009 11:29 On Oct 12, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 1:04 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 10:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > > Possibly because it has no mass. Possibly because it carries the > > signals we use to syncronize our clocks. Possibly because there is > > only one aether as opposed to the multiple aethers you are trying to > > imagine. > > How do you know the aether has no mass? How do you weight the lowest > common denominator of matter? > > The aether has mass or there would be no mass.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Mass is attracted to mass. If the aether had mass we would find it thicker near the planets.
From: Bruce Richmond on 12 Oct 2009 11:31 On Oct 12, 10:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 12:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 7:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:58 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. > > > > > > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is > > > > > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light > > > > > at B/B' occurring in a single instant 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'. > > > > > You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can > > > > only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one > > > > point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so > > > > he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the > > > > flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal > > > > distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times. > > > > > In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first, > > > > M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen.. > > > > By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had > > > > moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and > > > > B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they > > > > are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the > > > > same time. > > > > My thought experiment: > > > > Embankment water stationary relative to the embankment. > > > Train water stationary relative to the train. > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at A on the embankment and A' on the > > > train. > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at B on the embankment and B' on the > > > train. > > > If the waves created by the pebbles at A and B reach M simultaneously, > > > do the waves created by the pebbles at A' and B' reach M' > > > simultaneously? > > > > Yes. > > > > Replace the pebbles with flashes of light. > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > Yes. > > > > Replace the water with aether, ice, air, or glass. > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > Yes. > > > > If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light > > > travels through? > > > If light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > simultaneously, the light waves from the flashes at A' and B' reach M' > > simultaneously. > > > A and B are light years from M. A' and B' are light years from M'. The > > membrane between the embankment frame of reference and the train frame > > of reference is thin enough to allow light waves to travel through but > > not the stationary aether associated with each frame of reference. At > > the time of the flashes, A and A' are extremely close together and so > > are M and M' and B and B'. > > > M and M' are moving away from each other at a high rate of speed. > > > The light reaches each observer accordingly: > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > simultaneously, then > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > M' simultaneously, then > > The light from A reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M > > simultaneously. > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > Stationary aether in each frame of reference allows for Simultaneity > of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Which results in multiple wave fronts from the same event, proving it wrong.
From: mpc755 on 12 Oct 2009 11:33 On Oct 12, 11:29 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 11, 1:04 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 10:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > > > Possibly because it has no mass. Possibly because it carries the > > > signals we use to syncronize our clocks. Possibly because there is > > > only one aether as opposed to the multiple aethers you are trying to > > > imagine. > > > How do you know the aether has no mass? How do you weight the lowest > > common denominator of matter? > > > The aether has mass or there would be no mass.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Mass is attracted to mass. If the aether had mass we would find it > thicker near the planets. Compressed aether is matter.
From: mpc755 on 12 Oct 2009 11:36 On Oct 12, 11:31 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 10:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 11, 12:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 7:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:58 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. > > > > > > > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is > > > > > > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light > > > > > > at B/B' occurring in a single instant 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'. > > > > > > You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can > > > > > only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one > > > > > point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so > > > > > he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the > > > > > flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal > > > > > distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times.. > > > > > > In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first, > > > > > M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen. > > > > > By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had > > > > > moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and > > > > > B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they > > > > > are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the > > > > > same time. > > > > > My thought experiment: > > > > > Embankment water stationary relative to the embankment. > > > > Train water stationary relative to the train. > > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at A on the embankment and A' on the > > > > train. > > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at B on the embankment and B' on the > > > > train. > > > > If the waves created by the pebbles at A and B reach M simultaneously, > > > > do the waves created by the pebbles at A' and B' reach M' > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Replace the pebbles with flashes of light. > > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > > Yes. > > > > > Replace the water with aether, ice, air, or glass. > > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > > Yes. > > > > > If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light > > > > travels through? > > > > If light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > simultaneously, the light waves from the flashes at A' and B' reach M' > > > simultaneously. > > > > A and B are light years from M. A' and B' are light years from M'. The > > > membrane between the embankment frame of reference and the train frame > > > of reference is thin enough to allow light waves to travel through but > > > not the stationary aether associated with each frame of reference. At > > > the time of the flashes, A and A' are extremely close together and so > > > are M and M' and B and B'. > > > > M and M' are moving away from each other at a high rate of speed. > > > > The light reaches each observer accordingly: > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > simultaneously, then > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > M' simultaneously, then > > > The light from A reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M > > > simultaneously. > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > Stationary aether in each frame of reference allows for Simultaneity > > of Relativity. > > Which results in multiple wave fronts from the same event, proving it > wrong. There are four wave fronts in my thought experiment.
From: Bruce Richmond on 12 Oct 2009 13:31
On Oct 12, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 11:31 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 10:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 11, 12:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 7:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:58 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. > > > > > > > > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is > > > > > > > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light > > > > > > > at B/B' occurring in a single instant 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'. > > > > > > > You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can > > > > > > only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one > > > > > > point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so > > > > > > he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the > > > > > > flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal > > > > > > distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times. > > > > > > > In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first, > > > > > > M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen. > > > > > > By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had > > > > > > moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and > > > > > > B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they > > > > > > are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the > > > > > > same time. > > > > > > My thought experiment: > > > > > > Embankment water stationary relative to the embankment. > > > > > Train water stationary relative to the train. > > > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at A on the embankment and A' on the > > > > > train. > > > > > Pebbles dropped simultaneously at B on the embankment and B' on the > > > > > train. > > > > > If the waves created by the pebbles at A and B reach M simultaneously, > > > > > do the waves created by the pebbles at A' and B' reach M' > > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Replace the pebbles with flashes of light. > > > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > Replace the water with aether, ice, air, or glass. > > > > > > If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > > > simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach > > > > > M' simultaneously? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light > > > > > travels through? > > > > > If light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M > > > > simultaneously, the light waves from the flashes at A' and B' reach M' > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > A and B are light years from M. A' and B' are light years from M'. The > > > > membrane between the embankment frame of reference and the train frame > > > > of reference is thin enough to allow light waves to travel through but > > > > not the stationary aether associated with each frame of reference. At > > > > the time of the flashes, A and A' are extremely close together and so > > > > are M and M' and B and B'. > > > > > M and M' are moving away from each other at a high rate of speed. > > > > > The light reaches each observer accordingly: > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > simultaneously, then > > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > > M' simultaneously, then > > > > The light from A reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M > > > > simultaneously. > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > Stationary aether in each frame of reference allows for Simultaneity > > > of Relativity. > > > Which results in multiple wave fronts from the same event, proving it > > wrong. > > There are four wave fronts in my thought experiment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - I know, and that is wrong. Your animation is wrong because A and A' were together when the strike hit. You have them offset from each other. |