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 19:36 On Oct 13, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? > > > > > > Just have to ask. > > > > > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were > > > > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can? > > > > > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are > > > > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent. > > > > No, it is not frame-dependent. > > > Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really > > isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality > > and some people go so far as to call it psychosis. > > > Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical > > properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic > > energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally > > verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are > > *experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not > > simultaneous in another frame. > > Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's > not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the > embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and > add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch > the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the > velocities. And actually for softballs, it is not traveling at the sum of the velocities, either, though the sum is a pretty good approximation. > > Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's > origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to > where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits > your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where > you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon > has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye. Photons travel from the event where they were generated to the place where they are received. They do not travel from the location where the source eventually is when the photon is received. The source may have been destroyed by that time, or it may have turned around and gone the other direction by that time. The photon has no idea where the source is going to end up by the time the photon is eventually absorbed. This is *also* experimentally confirmed. > > I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not > care to understand this concept because it is different than you were > taught. I was taught how to find out about the experimental tests that have been done for various ideas. And I was taught how to conduct a fair number of these tests myself. It's awfully hard to argue with what's going on when you're staring at it with your own eyes. > > There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds > up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the > embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train > out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment > in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to > where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination. > > > > > > > Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science. > > > > That is what is incorrect with > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought > > > experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all > > > four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M > > > arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning > > > strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just > > > like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A' > > > *is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of > > > Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where > > > M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B, > > > and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred > > > simultaneously. > > > > > It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is > > > > at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in > > > > another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is > > > > something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school > > > > children ever since have too. > > > Do you see this? > > > > > > Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the > > > > > light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > > You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet. > > > And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to > > you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem > > to have emotional difficulties about a number of things. > > Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity. Apparently not. You've made a number of errors so far in trying to describe it. Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events?
From: doug on 13 Oct 2009 20:40 mpc755 wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>>On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>>Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? >>>>>>Just have to ask. >> >>>>>How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity >>>>>cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were >>>>>simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can? >> >>>>Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are >>>>simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent. >> >>>No, it is not frame-dependent. >> >>Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really >>isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality >>and some people go so far as to call it psychosis. >> >>Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical >>properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic >>energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally >>verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are >>*experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not >>simultaneous in another frame. >> > > > Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's > not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the > embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and > add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch > the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the > velocities. > > Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's > origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to > where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits > your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where > you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon > has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye. > > I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not > care to understand this concept because it is different than you were > taught. And you view is different from how the universe has been demonstrated to work. There is no point in you continuing to look stupid arguing a case when the universe is telling you that you are wrong. Do you think you are going to win against the universe? > > There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds > up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the > embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train > out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment > in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to > where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination. > > >>Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science. >> >> >> >> >>>That is what is incorrect with >>>Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought >>>experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all >>>four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M >>>arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning >>>strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just >>>like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A' >>>*is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of >>>Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where >>>M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B, >>>and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred >>>simultaneously. >> >>>>It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is >>>>at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in >>>>another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is >>>>something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school >>>>children ever since have too. >> >>Do you see this? >> >> >> >> >>>>>Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the >>>>>light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? >> >>>>It doesn't. >> >>>>You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet. >> >>And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to >>you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem >>to have emotional difficulties about a number of things. > > > Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity. It is that hard on your mental health?
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 19:45 On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 7:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? > > > > > > > Just have to ask. > > > > > > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were > > > > > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can? > > > > > > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are > > > > > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent. > > > > > No, it is not frame-dependent. > > > > Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really > > > isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality > > > and some people go so far as to call it psychosis. > > > > Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical > > > properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic > > > energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally > > > verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are > > > *experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not > > > simultaneous in another frame. > > > Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's > > not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the > > embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and > > add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch > > the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the > > velocities. > > And actually for softballs, it is not traveling at the sum of the > velocities, either, though the sum is a pretty good approximation. > > > > > Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's > > origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to > > where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits > > your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where > > you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon > > has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye. > > Photons travel from the event where they were generated to the place > where they are received. They do not travel from the location where > the source eventually is when the photon is received. The source may > have been destroyed by that time, or it may have turned around and > gone the other direction by that time. The photon has no idea where > the source is going to end up by the time the photon is eventually > absorbed. > If the source is traveling with constant momentum, the photon propagates away from the source at 'c'. If the source is destroyed, the photon wave still propagates away form the path the source was traveling with momentum at 'c' unless it is affected by a change relative to the aether. If the source changes direction then the source is no longer traveling with constant momentum, but the photon wave will still propagate away at 'c' from the path the source would have continued on if it had done so with constant momentum. The source is traveling with constant momentum. There are four observers at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock one light year away form the source. The four observers are traveling with the same constant momentum as the source. A flash occurs at the source. One light year later, all four observers see the flash simultaneously. This is what I mean by where the source *is*. If the source continued traveling with constant momentum, the path the light wave would have traveled to each observer is from where the source *is* to where each of the observers *is* when the light reaches the observers. If the source no longer existed after the flash, the light wave still propagates outward from the path the source would have continued traveling at 'c'. If the source changes direction, the light wave associated with the flash still propagates outward at 'c' from the path the source was traveling with constant momentum. > This is *also* experimentally confirmed. > > > > > I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not > > care to understand this concept because it is different than you were > > taught. > > I was taught how to find out about the experimental tests that have > been done for various ideas. And I was taught how to conduct a fair > number of these tests myself. It's awfully hard to argue with what's > going on when you're staring at it with your own eyes. > > > > > > > There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds > > up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the > > embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train > > out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment > > in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to > > where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination. > > > > Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science. > > > > > That is what is incorrect with > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought > > > > experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all > > > > four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M > > > > arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning > > > > strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just > > > > like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A' > > > > *is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of > > > > Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where > > > > M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B, > > > > and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is > > > > > at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in > > > > > another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is > > > > > something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school > > > > > children ever since have too. > > > > Do you see this? > > > > > > > Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the > > > > > > light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? > > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > > > You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet. > > > > And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to > > > you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem > > > to have emotional difficulties about a number of things. > > > Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity. > > Apparently not. You've made a number of errors so far in trying to > describe it. > > Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated > events?
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 19:58 On Oct 13, 6:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 7:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? > > > > > > > > Just have to ask. > > > > > > > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were > > > > > > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can? > > > > > > > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are > > > > > > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent. > > > > > > No, it is not frame-dependent. > > > > > Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really > > > > isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality > > > > and some people go so far as to call it psychosis. > > > > > Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical > > > > properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic > > > > energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally > > > > verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are > > > > *experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not > > > > simultaneous in another frame. > > > > Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's > > > not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the > > > embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and > > > add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch > > > the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the > > > velocities. > > > And actually for softballs, it is not traveling at the sum of the > > velocities, either, though the sum is a pretty good approximation. > > > > Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's > > > origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to > > > where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits > > > your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where > > > you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon > > > has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye. > > > Photons travel from the event where they were generated to the place > > where they are received. They do not travel from the location where > > the source eventually is when the photon is received. The source may > > have been destroyed by that time, or it may have turned around and > > gone the other direction by that time. The photon has no idea where > > the source is going to end up by the time the photon is eventually > > absorbed. > > If the source is traveling with constant momentum, the photon > propagates away from the source at 'c'. If the source is destroyed, > the photon wave still propagates away form the path the source was > traveling with momentum at 'c' unless it is affected by a change > relative to the aether. You realize that waves in water don't even do that. Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore. This is experimentally confirmed. It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from where they were generated, not from where the source goes. Your claim otherwise is simply counter to experimental measurement. > > If the source changes direction then the source is no longer traveling > with constant momentum, but the photon wave will still propagate away > at 'c' from the path the source would have continued on if it had done > so with constant momentum. > > The source is traveling with constant momentum. There are four > observers at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock one light year away form the > source. The four observers are traveling with the same constant > momentum as the source. A flash occurs at the source. One light year > later, all four observers see the flash simultaneously. This is what I > mean by where the source *is*. If the source continued traveling with > constant momentum, the path the light wave would have traveled to each > observer is from where the source *is* to where each of the observers > *is* when the light reaches the observers. If the source no longer > existed after the flash, the light wave still propagates outward from > the path the source would have continued traveling at 'c'. If the > source changes direction, the light wave associated with the flash > still propagates outward at 'c' from the path the source was traveling > with constant momentum. > > > > > This is *also* experimentally confirmed. The idea of experimental confirmation seems to make no dent in you. > > > > I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not > > > care to understand this concept because it is different than you were > > > taught. > > > I was taught how to find out about the experimental tests that have > > been done for various ideas. And I was taught how to conduct a fair > > number of these tests myself. It's awfully hard to argue with what's > > going on when you're staring at it with your own eyes. > > > > There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds > > > up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the > > > embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train > > > out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment > > > in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to > > > where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination. > > > > > Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science. > > > > > > That is what is incorrect with > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought > > > > > experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all > > > > > four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M > > > > > arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning > > > > > strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just > > > > > like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A' > > > > > *is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of > > > > > Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where > > > > > M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B, > > > > > and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is > > > > > > at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in > > > > > > another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is > > > > > > something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school > > > > > > children ever since have too. > > > > > Do you see this? > > > > > > > > Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the > > > > > > > light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? > > > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > > > > You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet. > > > > > And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to > > > > you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem > > > > to have emotional difficulties about a number of things. > > > > Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > Apparently not. You've made a number of errors so far in trying to > > describe it. > > > Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated > > events? I gather the answer is no.
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 20:08
On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 6:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 7:10 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? > > > > > > > > > Just have to ask. > > > > > > > > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity > > > > > > > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were > > > > > > > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can? > > > > > > > > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are > > > > > > > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent. > > > > > > > No, it is not frame-dependent. > > > > > > Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really > > > > > isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality > > > > > and some people go so far as to call it psychosis. > > > > > > Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical > > > > > properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic > > > > > energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally > > > > > verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are > > > > > *experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not > > > > > simultaneous in another frame. > > > > > Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's > > > > not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the > > > > embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and > > > > add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch > > > > the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the > > > > velocities. > > > > And actually for softballs, it is not traveling at the sum of the > > > velocities, either, though the sum is a pretty good approximation. > > > > > Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's > > > > origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to > > > > where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits > > > > your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where > > > > you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon > > > > has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye. > > > > Photons travel from the event where they were generated to the place > > > where they are received. They do not travel from the location where > > > the source eventually is when the photon is received. The source may > > > have been destroyed by that time, or it may have turned around and > > > gone the other direction by that time. The photon has no idea where > > > the source is going to end up by the time the photon is eventually > > > absorbed. > > > If the source is traveling with constant momentum, the photon > > propagates away from the source at 'c'. If the source is destroyed, > > the photon wave still propagates away form the path the source was > > traveling with momentum at 'c' unless it is affected by a change > > relative to the aether. > > You realize that waves in water don't even do that. Waves do not come > from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore. > Yes, that is why I continually state 'relative to the aether'. If you drop a pebble into the middle of a round pool on a train, the wave the pebble creates will reach all of the sides of the pool simultaneously. If an Observer on the train has his feet in the water and an Observer on the embankment puts his feet into the water right before the wave hits the side of the pool, the wave will hit the feet of the Observer on the train and hit the feet of the Observer on the embankment and the wave will have traveled from the middle of the pool to where the feet *are* when the wave reaches the Observers feet. The wave travels the same distance to both Observers even though both Observers are in different frames of reference. Its the same wave. If the source is stationary relative to the aether, then my description is correct. > This is experimentally confirmed. > > It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from > where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > Your claim otherwise is simply counter to experimental measurement. > > > > > > > If the source changes direction then the source is no longer traveling > > with constant momentum, but the photon wave will still propagate away > > at 'c' from the path the source would have continued on if it had done > > so with constant momentum. > > > The source is traveling with constant momentum. There are four > > observers at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock one light year away form the > > source. The four observers are traveling with the same constant > > momentum as the source. A flash occurs at the source. One light year > > later, all four observers see the flash simultaneously. This is what I > > mean by where the source *is*. If the source continued traveling with > > constant momentum, the path the light wave would have traveled to each > > observer is from where the source *is* to where each of the observers > > *is* when the light reaches the observers. If the source no longer > > existed after the flash, the light wave still propagates outward from > > the path the source would have continued traveling at 'c'. If the > > source changes direction, the light wave associated with the flash > > still propagates outward at 'c' from the path the source was traveling > > with constant momentum. > > > > This is *also* experimentally confirmed. > > The idea of experimental confirmation seems to make no dent in you. > > > > > > > > > I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not > > > > care to understand this concept because it is different than you were > > > > taught. > > > > I was taught how to find out about the experimental tests that have > > > been done for various ideas. And I was taught how to conduct a fair > > > number of these tests myself. It's awfully hard to argue with what's > > > going on when you're staring at it with your own eyes. > > > > > There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds > > > > up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the > > > > embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train > > > > out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment > > > > in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to > > > > where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination. > > > > > > Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science. > > > > > > > That is what is incorrect with > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought > > > > > > experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all > > > > > > four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M > > > > > > arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning > > > > > > strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just > > > > > > like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A' > > > > > > *is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of > > > > > > Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where > > > > > > M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B, > > > > > > and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is > > > > > > > at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in > > > > > > > another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is > > > > > > > something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school > > > > > > > children ever since have too. > > > > > > Do you see this? > > > > > > > > > Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the > > > > > > > > light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? > > > > > > > > It doesn't. > > > > > > > > You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet. > > > > > > And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to > > > > > you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem > > > > > to have emotional difficulties about a number of things. > > > > > Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > Apparently not. You've made a number of errors so far in trying to > > > describe it. > > > > Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated > > > events? > > I gather the answer is no. |