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 13 Oct 2009 17:09 On Oct 13, 4:04 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 4:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:50 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 8 oct, 16:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, 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 > > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > > the location of M. > > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > > No! you are as always ignorant of even what Einstein gedanken says, > > > so... > > > You are showing four (4) events or flashes instead of the two (2) > > > flashes that Einstein used. And, of course, the relativity of > > > simultaneity means that those two events while being simultaneous for > > > one of the observers (M for instance), will most definitely not be > > > simultaneous for the other observer M', and vice versa. > > > > This was already discussed some months ago, so you are clearly trying > > > to resurrect a dead cow here. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > You do not understand Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' > > is a single event and all of the light from A/A' will reach M > > simultaneously. > > > This is not what is occurring in Simultaneity of Relativity. In > > Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from the lightning strike at A' > > reaches M prior to the light from A reaching M.- Hide quoted text - > > No....A and A' is the same strike and B and B' is the same strike. > Einstein claimed that light from these two strikes will arrive at M > simultaneously and will not arrive at M' simultaneously. This claim > violates the experimentally confirmed fact that the speed of light is > isotropic in all inertial frames. No, it doesn't, Ken. You have confused closing speed with measured light speed. You've made this mistake 3,421 times in the last 12 years.
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 17:09 On Oct 13, 3:58 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 4:50 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 oct, 16:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, 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 > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > the location of M. > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > simultaneously. > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > No! you are as always ignorant of even what Einstein gedanken says, > > so... > > You are showing four (4) events or flashes instead of the two (2) > > flashes that Einstein used. And, of course, the relativity of > > simultaneity means that those two events while being simultaneous for > > one of the observers (M for instance), will most definitely not be > > simultaneous for the other observer M', and vice versa. > > The two events are light spheres. Light spheres are not events, Ken. Do you need to know what an event is? > Two rays R1 and R2 from the spheres > arrive at M simmultaneously and two different rays from the spheres R3 > and R4 arrive at M' simutaneously. > > Ken Seto > > > > > This was already discussed some months ago, so you are clearly trying > > to resurrect a dead cow here. > > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 13 Oct 2009 17:10 On Oct 8, 8:51 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 oct, 17:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You do not understand Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' > > > > is a single event and all of the light from A/A' will reach M > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > This is not what is occurring in Simultaneity of Relativity. In > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from the lightning strike at A' > > > > reaches M prior to the light from A reaching M > > > > No it is you who, clearly, does not understand any physics. > > > If you now are asserting that the strikes are simultaneous at points A > > > and A', then your video is totally bogus since you are clearly showing > > > two circles growing one from point A and the other from point A' and > > > hence they are not moving at the same speed. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > Yes, the lightning strike at A/A' occurs simultaneously because it is > > a single lightning strike that just happens to hit at A and A' > > simultaneously. > > > The light from the lightning strike at A is moving through the aether > > which is stationary relative to the embankment and the light from the > > lightning strike at A' is moving through the aether which is > > stationary relative to the train. > > Again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. > > What Einstein gedanken says is quite clear: observer M on the > embankment is right on the midle of the distance between points A and > B and when the strikes hit both A and B he will later receive both > light signals simultaneously. Then he ask the readers if observer M' > on the train will observe the same and he proved that he will not. He did not proove anything. He made the bogus assertion that M' is rushing toward the light front from the front (c+v) and receding away from the light front from the rear (c-v). Such assertion violates the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Ken Seto > > When the strikes happened, M' (moving at a speed v=0.6c let us say) > was passing just in front of M. So the spacetime coordinates of the > same event are given by the Lorentz transformation equations: > > x' = gamma (x - vt) ; t = gamma (t - vx/c^2) > where gamma=1/ (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2))=1.25 since v=0.6c > > So in the embankment frame, the two strikes were at t=0 and > x_A=-100000km, x_B=+100000km, so it is quite evident that: > > x_A'=-125000km, t_A'=+0.25sec are the coordinates of point A' on the > train > > x_B'=+125000km, t_B'=-0.25sec are the coordinates of point B' on the > train > > So as the observer M received both light signals at the same time, > meaning the strikes hit at the same time on the embankment frame, the > same event were not at the same time on the train frame and that is > all to this gedanken. > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 17:11 On Oct 13, 4:10 pm, "kens...(a)erinet.com" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:51 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 8 oct, 17:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You do not understand Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' > > > > > is a single event and all of the light from A/A' will reach M > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > This is not what is occurring in Simultaneity of Relativity. In > > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from the lightning strike at A' > > > > > reaches M prior to the light from A reaching M > > > > > No it is you who, clearly, does not understand any physics. > > > > If you now are asserting that the strikes are simultaneous at points A > > > > and A', then your video is totally bogus since you are clearly showing > > > > two circles growing one from point A and the other from point A' and > > > > hence they are not moving at the same speed. > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > Yes, the lightning strike at A/A' occurs simultaneously because it is > > > a single lightning strike that just happens to hit at A and A' > > > simultaneously. > > > > The light from the lightning strike at A is moving through the aether > > > which is stationary relative to the embankment and the light from the > > > lightning strike at A' is moving through the aether which is > > > stationary relative to the train. > > > Again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. > > > What Einstein gedanken says is quite clear: observer M on the > > embankment is right on the midle of the distance between points A and > > B and when the strikes hit both A and B he will later receive both > > light signals simultaneously. Then he ask the readers if observer M' > > on the train will observe the same and he proved that he will not. > > He did not proove anything. He made the bogus assertion that M' is > rushing toward the light front from the front (c+v) and receding away > from the light front from the rear (c-v). Such assertion violates the > isotropy of the speed of light in the train. No it doesn't, Ken. Closing speed is not light speed. You've made this mistake twice in just a couple minutes now. > > Ken Seto > > > > > When the strikes happened, M' (moving at a speed v=0.6c let us say) > > was passing just in front of M. So the spacetime coordinates of the > > same event are given by the Lorentz transformation equations: > > > x' = gamma (x - vt) ; t = gamma (t - vx/c^2) > > where gamma=1/ (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2))=1.25 since v=0.6c > > > So in the embankment frame, the two strikes were at t=0 and > > x_A=-100000km, x_B=+100000km, so it is quite evident that: > > > x_A'=-125000km, t_A'=+0.25sec are the coordinates of point A' on the > > train > > > x_B'=+125000km, t_B'=-0.25sec are the coordinates of point B' on the > > train > > > So as the observer M received both light signals at the same time, > > meaning the strikes hit at the same time on the embankment frame, the > > same event were not at the same time on the train frame and that is > > all to this gedanken. > > > Miguel Rios- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 17:17
On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories. > > > > > > > > Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you > > > > > > > looked into the other two dozen experiments? > > > > > > > Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations > > > > > > > are aetherless. > > > > > > > There is no such thing as aetherless. > > > > > > You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of > > > > > the theories being tested. > > > > > > What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number > > > > > of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think. > > > > > Mass-less particle require a medium in order to propagate. > > > > > The Emitter Theory I am proposing in Simultaneity of Relativity has to > > > > do with the light waves interaction with the aether. > > > > > Aether is entrained by massive objects and therefore the light wave > > > > propagates outward at 'c' relative to the massive object. But it is a > > > > light wave. > > > > > As the light wave moves further past the binary star which emitted the > > > > light wave, it travels at 'c' relative to the entrained aether > > > > surrounding both stars. > > > > > My thought experiment explains how four wave fronts are determined by > > > > both the Observers at M and M' to have been emitted by simultaneous > > > > flashes. > > > > > Do you agree the Observers determine the flashes of light occurred > > > > simultaneously? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not. > > > > I asked you about this earlier, if you want to know how relativity > > > accounts for what goes on, since you obviously do not understand the > > > Einstein gedanken. You suggested that we forget the Einstein gedanken.. > > > If you'd like to revisit the Einstein gedanken and actually learn what > > > relativity says, then ask. > > > I understand Einstein's train thought experiment. > > That's doubtful. You seemed to get a number of things about it wrong > right away. > > > I am discussing my > > train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts. > > There's no real value in it. If you're looking for what's logically > wrong between your presumptions and your animation, I don't know that > there's anything wrong there. > > But the predictions you make do not match what is seen in experiment, > and the other predictions that would necessarily follow from your > model are ALSO not seen in experiment, as I've indicated. > > > > > > > > Keep in mind that throughout any discussion that ensues, we would be > > > talking about RELATIVITY and not your pet aether guess. If you want to > > > know what's wrong with your pet aether guess, I've already pointed you > > > to a listing of dozens of experiments and the documentation about > > > them. > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > occurred simultaneously. > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > happens. > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really happen in nature? > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > idea to you must be right. > > PD Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? |