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: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 10:32 On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M. >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. No that's not what I am saying. I said that the M' clock is really running slower than the M clock. It is not a perstie effect. From M' pint of view: the M clock is running fast compared to the M' clock. Ken Seto >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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 10:46 On Nov 3, 10:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M. > No it is not. Instead of there being an embankment and a train, change the thought experiment to there being two trains. > >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. > > No that's not what I am saying. I said that the M' clock is really > running slower than the M clock. It is not a perstie effect. From M' > pint of view: the M clock is running fast compared to the M' clock. > > Ken Seto > Then you have a preferred frame. > >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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: kenseto on 3 Nov 2009 16:53 On Nov 3, 10:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M. > > No it is not. Instead of there being an embankment and a train, change > the thought experiment to there being two trains. That dosen't change anything. One of the train would be more at rest than the other. > > > >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. > > > No that's not what I am saying. I said that the M' clock is really > > running slower than the M clock. It is not a perstie effect. From M' > > pint of view: the M clock is running fast compared to the M' clock. > > > Ken Seto > > Then you have a preferred frame. I am saying that one of the clock is more at rest than the other. The clock that is more at rest will run at a faster rate than the other clock that is in a higher state of absolute motion. > > > > > >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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 16:58 On Nov 3, 4:53 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 10:46 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 10:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M. > > > No it is not. Instead of there being an embankment and a train, change > > the thought experiment to there being two trains. > > That dosen't change anything. One of the train would be more at rest > than the other. > Which one? That completely voids the principal of relativity, and besides that, it is incorrect. The trains could be moving towards each other at a constant speed and in which case, one train would not be at rest than the other one. > > > > > >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. > > > > No that's not what I am saying. I said that the M' clock is really > > > running slower than the M clock. It is not a perstie effect. From M' > > > pint of view: the M clock is running fast compared to the M' clock. > > > > Ken Seto > > > Then you have a preferred frame. > > I am saying that one of the clock is more at rest than the other. The > clock that is more at rest will run at a faster rate than the other > clock that is in a higher state of absolute motion. > Which one? And what difference does that make. The light is traveling the same distance from A and B to M and the light is traveling the same distance from A' and B' to M'. > > > > > >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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Inertial on 3 Nov 2009 19:12
"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656(a)a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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. > > Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M. According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario whether it is M or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one cannot tell how the clock rate relate at all. |