Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 19:29 On Nov 3, 12:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what > > > > > > > you are referring to is an error of omission. > > > > > > > Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. > > > > > > What part of the next sentence don't you understand? > > > > > Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.. > > > > Also GR and SR are not the same thing. > > > > In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for > > > propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable > > > for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you > > > correctly? > > > That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are > > understanding it. > > > When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how > > light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that > > however it got from place to place it always traveled at c, > > reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement. > > SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal > > constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only > > that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one > > frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure > > the same beam to be traveling at c. > > > Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he > > didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory. > > Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he > > never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether > > similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours. > > But Einstein believe there is an aether or there is no propagation of > light, which means there is an aether in SR He could have believed that light was transported in buckets by little blue fairies, it wouldn't have made any difference in the train experiment. What matters is that both frames measure *the same light* to travel at c in their own frame. > and if the idea of motion > cannot be applied to the aether and the train frame of reference and > the embankment frame of reference both occupy the same three > dimensional space then this implies the aether is at rest in both > frames which is impossible. The idea that motion cannot be applied to the aether is another way of saying that no frame can exclude other frames from considering themselves to be at rest. The track frame sees the train moving relative to the wave fronts and sees that the M' does not see the flashes from A' and B' at the same instant. There is no getting around that fact. There is only one wave front moving out from the strike at A/A' and one from B/B'. Those wave fronts meet at only one point on the tracks, and that is at M. M' sees one flash before M and the other after M. Since A' and B' are equal distances from M', and light travels at c in the train frame, the only explaination is that in the train frame the strikes happen at different times. BTW, the tracks and the train do not occupy the same three dimensional space. Each frame is using its own set of dimensions. In track coordinates the x coordinate of M' is constantly changing since he is moving at v. In the train frame M' is at rest so his coordinates don't change. > I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to > all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You have the waves traveling at c relative to the pond which is at rest in the train frame but moving in the track frame. That results in the leading edge of the waves traveling at c+v relative to the tracks. The track frame makes measurements relative to the tracks, not the train or the pond. > You are tying the > emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which > is inaccurate. In the track frame I am tying the emission to the track coordinates where the emission took place. In the train frame it is tied to the train coordinates where it took place. They are both correct for their respective frames. > Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and > Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold. > > Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, the mpc755 train > thought experiment is physically impossible for a single lightning > strike at A/A' and a single lightning strike at B/B'. > LET says otherwise.
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 19:29 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'. Agreed. > 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 observers can insist all they want, it doesn't change the fact that both frames see the strikes at 12:00:01 as measured in their own coordinate systems. Since A and A' are on lines perpendicular to the direction of motion there will be no length contraction to consider. When A and A' meet so do M/M' and B/B', all at the same instant. All agree that the distance from A/A' to M/M' is the same as the distance from A'/A to M'/ M. The same reasoning applies to B/B'. M can see A' moving toward A. When they meet there is the flash of the strike, and A' continues to move on. A marks the spot in the track frame where the strike happen. From the track frame M' sees A moving toward A'. When they meet there is a flash and A continues to move on. A' marks the spot in the train frame where the strike happen. > 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? Try using the correct coordinates. The train measures things in train coordinates while the tracks measure things in track coordinates. The train frame does not agree with the track frame on the distance the light has to travel to reach M'.
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 19:34 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 > The clocks are identical and run at the same rate. Both frames measure the clocks in the other frame to run slow. It is due to the way the clocks are synchronized. > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 19:39 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. Nobody said anything about the absolute state of motion of any clock. Quit making things up. > >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 > And you are wrong. > > >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 20:10
On Nov 3, 7:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 12:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what > > > > > > > > you are referring to is an error of omission. > > > > > > > > Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. > > > > > > > What part of the next sentence don't you understand? > > > > > > Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment. > > > > > Also GR and SR are not the same thing. > > > > > In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for > > > > propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable > > > > for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you > > > > correctly? > > > > That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are > > > understanding it. > > > > When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how > > > light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that > > > however it got from place to place it always traveled at c, > > > reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement. > > > SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal > > > constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only > > > that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one > > > frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure > > > the same beam to be traveling at c. > > > > Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he > > > didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory. > > > Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he > > > never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether > > > similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours. > > > But Einstein believe there is an aether or there is no propagation of > > light, which means there is an aether in SR > > He could have believed that light was transported in buckets by little > blue fairies, it wouldn't have made any difference in the train > experiment. What matters is that both frames measure *the same light* > to travel at c in their own frame. > > > and if the idea of motion > > cannot be applied to the aether and the train frame of reference and > > the embankment frame of reference both occupy the same three > > dimensional space then this implies the aether is at rest in both > > frames which is impossible. > > The idea that motion cannot be applied to the aether is another way of > saying that no frame can exclude other frames from considering > themselves to be at rest. > > The track frame sees the train moving relative to the wave fronts and > sees that the M' does not see the flashes from A' and B' at the same > instant. There is no getting around that fact. There is only one > wave front moving out from the strike at A/A' and one from B/B'. > Those wave fronts meet at only one point on the tracks, and that is at > M. M' sees one flash before M and the other after M. > How is that possible? M' maintains the same distance from A' and B' at all times. M' also maintains the same distance from A and B at all times. M' is moving along a line that is at all times equi-distant from A and B. > Since A' and B' are equal distances from M', and light travels at c in > the train frame, the only explaination is that in the train frame the > strikes happen at different times. > > BTW, the tracks and the train do not occupy the same three dimensional > space. Each frame is using its own set of dimensions. In track > coordinates the x coordinate of M' is constantly changing since he is > moving at v. In the train frame M' is at rest so his coordinates > don't change. > > > I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to > > all Observer's but you are not understanding it. > > You have the waves traveling at c relative to the pond which is at > rest in the train frame but moving in the track frame. That results > in the leading edge of the waves traveling at c+v relative to the > tracks. The track frame makes measurements relative to the tracks, > not the train or the pond. > > > You are tying the > > emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which > > is inaccurate. > > In the track frame I am tying the emission to the track coordinates > where the emission took place. In the train frame it is tied to the > train coordinates where it took place. They are both correct for > their respective frames. > > > Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and > > Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold. > > > Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, the mpc755 train > > thought experiment is physically impossible for a single lightning > > strike at A/A' and a single lightning strike at B/B'. > > LET says otherwise. |