Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 17:50 On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > > occurred simultaneously. > > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > > happens. > > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' > simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' > simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really > happen in nature? Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you? Just have to ask. > > > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > > idea to you must be right. > > > PD > > Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach > the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at > A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? > > Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude > the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer > back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their > reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the > light traveled from that point to where they are? > > The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B > to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' > travels from B' to M'. > > But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the > light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' > *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same > for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must > conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the > Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes > absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the > correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously. > > All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* > when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to > determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason > they are not allowed to do this. > > They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because > light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the > light waves interaction with the aether.
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 17:56 On Oct 13, 5:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > > > occurred simultaneously. > > > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > > > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > > > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > > > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > > > happens. > > > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' > > simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' > > simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really > > happen in nature? > > 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? 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*? Is light aware of the frames of reference it is dealing with and act accordingly? > > > > > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > > > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > > > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > > > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > > > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > > > idea to you must be right. > > > > PD > > > Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach > > the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at > > A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? > > > Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude > > the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer > > back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their > > reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the > > light traveled from that point to where they are? > > > The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B > > to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' > > travels from B' to M'. > > > But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the > > light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' > > *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same > > for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must > > conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the > > Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes > > absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the > > correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously. > > > All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* > > when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to > > determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason > > they are not allowed to do this. > > > They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because > > light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the > > light waves interaction with the aether. > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 18:13 On Oct 13, 5:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > > > occurred simultaneously. > > > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > > > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > > > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > > > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > > > happens. > > > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' > > simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' > > simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really > > happen in nature? > > 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? 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*? > > > > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > > > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > > > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > > > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > > > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > > > idea to you must be right. > > > > PD > > > Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach > > the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at > > A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? > > > Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude > > the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer > > back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their > > reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the > > light traveled from that point to where they are? > > > The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B > > to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' > > travels from B' to M'. > > > But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the > > light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' > > *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same > > for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must > > conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the > > Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes > > absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the > > correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously. > > > All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* > > when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to > > determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason > > they are not allowed to do this. > > > They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because > > light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the > > light waves interaction with the aether. > >
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 18:52 On Oct 13, 5:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 5:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > > > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > > > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > > > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > > > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > > > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > > > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > > > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > > > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > > > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > > > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > > > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > > > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > > > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > > > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > > > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > > > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > > > > occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > > > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > > > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > > > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > > > > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > > > > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > > > > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > > > > happens. > > > > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' > > > simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' > > > simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really > > > happen in nature? > > > 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. 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. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > > > > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > > > > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > > > > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > > > > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > > > > idea to you must be right. > > > > > PD > > > > Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach > > > the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at > > > A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? > > > > Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude > > > the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer > > > back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their > > > reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the > > > light traveled from that point to where they are? > > > > The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B > > > to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' > > > travels from B' to M'. > > > > But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the > > > light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' > > > *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same > > > for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must > > > conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the > > > Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes > > > absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the > > > correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously. > > > > All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* > > > when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to > > > determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason > > > they are not allowed to do this. > > > > They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because > > > light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the > > > light waves interaction with the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 19:00
On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 5:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 4:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > > > > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > > > > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > > > > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > > > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > > > > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > > > > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > > > > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > > > > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > > > > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > > > > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > > > > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > > > > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > > > > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > > > > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > > > > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > > > > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > > > > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > > > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > > > > > occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > > > > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > > > > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > > > > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > > > > > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > > > > > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > > > > > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > > > > > happens. > > > > > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' > > > > simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' > > > > simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really > > > > happen in nature? > > > > 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. 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. > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > > > > > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > > > > > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > > > > > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > > > > > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > > > > > idea to you must be right. > > > > > > PD > > > > > Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach > > > > the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at > > > > A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? > > > > > Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude > > > > the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer > > > > back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their > > > > reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the > > > > light traveled from that point to where they are? > > > > > The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B > > > > to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' > > > > travels from B' to M'. > > > > > But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the > > > > light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' > > > > *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same > > > > for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must > > > > conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the > > > > Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes > > > > absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the > > > > correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously.. > > > > > All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* > > > > when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to > > > > determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason > > > > they are not allowed to do this. > > > > > They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because > > > > light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the > > > > light waves interaction with the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |