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 3 Nov 2009 00:35 On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > > > aisle. > > > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > > > simultaneity. > > > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > Nope, wrong set-up. > > > Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two > > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice > of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is > the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as > M' passes between them. So, where does the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travel from to each Observer?
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 01:16 On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > > > aisle. > > > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > > > simultaneity. > > > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > Nope, wrong set-up. > > > Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two > > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice > of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is > the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as > M' passes between them. When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for the light from A' and B' to reach M'. When the Observers get back together they each conclude the light reached them at 12:00:01. But the Observer on the embankment insists the light from the lightning strikes must have reached the Observer at M' after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A and B to the Observer at M' than it did to the Observer at M and the Observer on the train insists the light from the lightning strikes had to have reached the Observer at M after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A' and B' to the Observer at M than it did to the Observer at M'. The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both correctly conclude the light could not have reached both Observers simultaneously because it did not travel the same distance to both Observers, but their clocks say otherwise. How do you resolve this in SR and Relativity of Simultaneity?
From: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 08:37 On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > > > > aisle. > > > > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > > > > simultaneity. > > > > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > Nope, wrong set-up. > > > > Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two > > > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > > > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice > > of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is > > the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as > > M' passes between them. > > When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the > train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A' > and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes > one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for > the light from A' and B' to reach M'. No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means that it takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light fronts to reach. Ken Seto > > When the Observers get back together they each conclude the light > reached them at 12:00:01. But the Observer on the embankment insists > the light from the lightning strikes must have reached the Observer at > M' after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A and B > to the Observer at M' than it did to the Observer at M and the > Observer on the train insists the light from the lightning strikes had > to have reached the Observer at M after 12:00:01 because the light had > further to travel from A' and B' to the Observer at M than it did to > the Observer at M'. > > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both > correctly conclude the light could not have reached both Observers > simultaneously because it did not travel the same distance to both > Observers, but their clocks say otherwise. > > How do you resolve this in SR and Relativity of Simultaneity?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 09:13 On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > > > > > aisle. > > > > > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > > > > > simultaneity. > > > > > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > Nope, wrong set-up. > > > > > Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two > > > > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > > > > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice > > > of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is > > > the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as > > > M' passes between them. > > > When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the > > train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A' > > and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes > > one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for > > the light from A' and B' to reach M'. > > No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means that it > takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light fronts to > reach. > > Ken Seto > > Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of reference are moving relative to one another. I think you are saying M' clock is running slower from the perspective of the embankment frame of reference, but the same must be true from the perspective of the train frame of reference. From the train frame of reference, the M clock must be running slower than the M' clock. The frames are moving relative to one another. Both frames, in order to be isotropic, must be moving identically relative to one another. To say the M' clock is running slower than M's clock is to have a preferred frame of reference.
From: PD on 3 Nov 2009 10:23
On Nov 3, 12:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > > > > aisle. > > > > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > | | | > > > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > > > > simultaneity. > > > > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > Nope, wrong set-up. > > > > Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two > > > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > > > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice > > of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is > > the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as > > M' passes between them. > > When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the > train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A' > and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes > one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for > the light from A' and B' to reach M'. > > When the Observers get back together they each conclude the light > reached them at 12:00:01. But the Observer on the embankment insists > the light from the lightning strikes must have reached the Observer at > M' after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A and B > to the Observer at M' than it did to the Observer at M and the > Observer on the train insists the light from the lightning strikes had > to have reached the Observer at M after 12:00:01 because the light had > further to travel from A' and B' to the Observer at M than it did to > the Observer at M'. > > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both > correctly conclude the light could not have reached both Observers > simultaneously because it did not travel the same distance to both > Observers, but their clocks say otherwise. > > How do you resolve this in SR and Relativity of Simultaneity? Your description of the events as they transpire is not correct. Do you want to be taught what really happens? |