Einstein's clock

[Aqueous Id]

1) It does not matter who is moving.

No, once you establish the inertial reference, you drive a stake in the ground. You initially set this up in the sun's inertial frame. That makes the earth the accelerating frame.

2) Any measurement in the perpendicular direction of motion has the same units for both frames. That is relativity. You need to research that.

No, relative to the solar frame, the earth experiences contraction in the longitudinal plane and dilation in the transverse plane* (pancake effect).


*you've been calling it an axis. It's a plane.

 

[Neddy Bate]

6) The two observer's measure the distance from their common location on any axis perpendicular (say y axis) the earth's motion to the light sphere. This eliminates length contraction.

Yes, but isn't that a bit convenient for your side of the argument? Why not measure the light sphere along the x axis, tangent to the orbital path? Then there will be length contraction!

7) Since they must measure different times since the light pulse was emitted, then either they measure a different speed of light or they measure a different position of the light sphere from their common location.

Either way, relativity does not hold true.

You mean your cartoonish version of Special Relativity, in which the earth is always in one inertial frame, does not hold true. Congratulations on proving that.

 

[brucep]

OK, so you agree the moving clock is time dilated.

However, this history of the measurements along the travel is irrelevant. It only matters the instantaneous measurement when the frames are again common.

Now, are you claiming they cannot measure a y-axis with identity units perpendicular to the line of travel?

Remember, relativity must survive instantaneous measurements. Are you claiming this is false?

If you can't comprehend what I said in the last post then I'm not doing it again. Your hypothesis is nonsense and it doesn't matter whether you figure it out or not.

 

[BWE1]

Does your brain now claim all of physics cannot measure instantaneous measurements?

LOL

Prove your assertions.

Im on my phone but google "the measure of time poincare" and read the essay.

 

[chinglu]

Does yours understand that Einstein isn't referring to measurement when he says "At the time t' = τ = 0, when the origin of the co-ordinates is common to the two systems, let a spherical wave be emitted therefrom".

He's talking about an event which is simultaneous to the origin, i.e. when the origin of both systems of coordinates is common. But one system is moving relative to the other, so the two systems will measure different things.

But by all means, clingτo your misinτerpreτaτion, chinglu.

I feel like I am in a cartoon, folks can make up anything they want.

Two observers at any location at the same place with the light sphere view a simultaneous event but will most likely have different times on their clocks.

That is called LT transformation.

The clocks at the origin were synched to 0.

 

[chinglu]

The earth never stops accelerating.

So, what.

 

[chinglu]

No, once you establish the inertial reference, you drive a stake in the ground. You initially set this up in the sun's inertial frame. That makes the earth the accelerating frame.


No, relative to the solar frame, the earth experiences contraction in the longitudinal plane and dilation in the transverse plane* (pancake effect).


*you've been calling it an axis. It's a plane.

No frame experiences length contraction in the direction perpendicular to the line of travel.

Google standard configuration.

 

[chinglu]

If you can't comprehend what I said in the last post then I'm not doing it again. Your hypothesis is nonsense and it doesn't matter whether you figure it out or not.

I totally understand what you said.
My question back was to show you that your comment makes no sense.

Are you claiming they measure a different distance to the light sphere along an axis perpendicular to the direction of travel?

If so, you are wrong and do not understand relativity.

So, we have 2 different times on the clocks at the same place with a common y axis units. Thus we have a contradiction since they must either measure a different speed of light from the same local place or they must claim the one light sphere is at two different locations along the y axis.

 

[chinglu]

Im on my phone but google "the measure of time poincare" and read the essay.

SR uses an instantaneous co-moving inertial frame all the time for the derivations of the acceleration equations.

So, that is mainstream SR and not a path to refute this argument.

 

[BWE1]

define simultaneity. In any inertial frame. It will be a model, not an observable. Guaranteed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=R6...QWroJntBA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[chinglu]

define simultaneity. In any inertial frame. It will be a model, not an observable. Guaranteed.

http://books.google.com/books?id=R6...QWroJntBA&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Simultaneity has nothing to do with this problem.

We are not trying to determine whether two different events are simultaneous.

We are trying to determine the location of the light sphere when 2 observers are at the same place along a y-axis.


However, when two observers are at the same place, they measure the same y-axis units under the standard configuration whether they have relative motion or not.

 

[arfa brane]

However, when two observers are at the same place, they measure the same y-axis units under the standard configuration whether they have relative motion or not.

If they're in relative motion, when are they "at the same place" and for how long?

Thus we have a contradiction since they must either measure a different speed of light from the same local place or they must claim the one light sphere is at two different locations along the y axis.

Suppose they measure the same speed of light. Do both observers see one light sphere in two different places?

 

[BWE1]

Well chinglu, I fold. Good luck with your effort.

 

[chinglu]

If they're in relative motion, when are they "at the same place" and for how long?
Suppose they measure the same speed of light. Do both observers see one light sphere in two different places?

1) We are only concerned with deciding where the light sphere is located along some common y-axis. Since the orbit is "circular" then, it is the case that the two clocks will again be at the same place. Now, this is not true in reality, but using perfect circles, we are permitted to imagine that case. So, they are at the same place for an instant.

2) If they measure the same speed of light along a common non-length contracted axis and they have different times on their clocks from start to finish, then if we have one light sphere in 2 different locations, that is a contradiction in nature. So, it is not even a real question to ask if they measure the same speed of light. The fact is, one light sphere must be at the same place along the common y-axis when the two observers are again at the same place. Then, if SR time dilation is true, they must measure one ray of light that is not c for both frames. That is a contradiction in SR.

 

[arfa brane]

So, they are at the same place for an instant.

How long is this instant?

If they measure the same speed of light along a common non-length contracted axis and they have different times on their clocks from start to finish, then if we have one light sphere in 2 different locations, that is a contradiction in nature.

Again, I'll ask if both observers see the light sphere in two different places?

So, it is not even a real question to ask if they measure the same speed of light.

Especially since this has been confirmed many times by experiment.

The fact is, one light sphere must be at the same place along the common y-axis when the two observers are again at the same place.

But, again, how long are both observers at the same place? Are you saying the light sphere is at the same place, or two different places, and for which observer?

Then, if SR time dilation is true, they must measure one ray of light that is not c for both frames.

Why?

"The same place" is not the same place for observers in relative motion. You don't seem to be able to get this. It's only "the same place" for stationary observers, as Einstein's paper says. He appears to be correct, since, if he wasn't we would not have a working GPS system for one.

 

[Aqueous Id]

No frame experiences length contraction in the direction perpendicular to the line of travel.

Google standard configuration.

You haven't formulated a standard configuration, which is for the simplest case--linear translation. You've got the earth moving in its orbit. And you've got earth in transverse configuration with the hypothetical observation "point".

I think you've agreed now that SR is proven by GPS, right? So that already establishes dilation between the earth observer and the guy parked relative to the sun. Once you've established that, you will have to go with the transverse relativity between the earth and the point 1 LY from the sun-frame observer.

Proof.

 

[chinglu]

How long is this instant? Again, I'll ask if both observers see the light sphere in two different places?Especially since this has been confirmed many times by experiment.But, again, how long are both observers at the same place? Are you saying the light sphere is at the same place, or two different places, and for which observer?Why?

"The same place" is not the same place for observers in relative motion. You don't seem to be able to get this. It's only "the same place" for stationary observers, as Einstein's paper says. He appears to be correct, since, if he wasn't we would not have a working GPS system for one.

1) The light sphere must be at the same place.

2) Since the motion is circular, then the observers will again be at the same place.

3) Do I understand you correctly, that evidence shows a light sphere can be at two different places along an axis perpendicular to the line of motion when the observers are again at the same place? Show me.

3) If you think observers cannot agree they are at the same place, provide the relativity justification.

 

[chinglu]

You haven't formulated a standard configuration, which is for the simplest case--linear translation. You've got the earth moving in its orbit. And you've got earth in transverse configuration with the hypothetical observation "point".

I think you've agreed now that SR is proven by GPS, right? So that already establishes dilation between the earth observer and the guy parked relative to the sun. Once you've established that, you will have to go with the transverse relativity between the earth and the point 1 LY from the sun-frame observer.

Proof.

It is a standard configuration in the sense that at the instant they measure, the axis of measurement, it is perpendicular to the instantaneous line of motion.

I agree that GPS proves time dilation exists for the satellite. So, we are in agreement with that point.

I also agree the one rotating has a GR time effect that makes its time less than the one that is not rotating all other thing being equal.

So, as in GPS, we have two operations of time differentials, GR (acceleration) and time dilation.

Now, let's cancel the GR effects since that effect allows the frames to disagree on the speed of light.

OK, so we factor that.

But, now we have the time dilation effect that is not explained. However, unlike GR effects which allows frames to disagree on the speed of light, time dilation does not since its derivation assumes both frames measure c.

But, as proven by GPS, time dilation exists and so one clock must read a different clock reading than the other.

However, since the 2 observers are at the same place again, and they measure the light sphere along a y-axis, and they read different times on their clocks, then they disagree on the speed of light for the time dilation component. But, the time dilation component was built on the condition that the speed of light measured c for both frames.

So, we have a contradiction.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

However, since the 2 observers are at the same place again, and they measure the light sphere along a y-axis, and they read different times on their clocks, then they disagree on the speed of light for the time dilation component. But, the time dilation component was built on the condition that the speed of light measured c for both frames.

So, we have a contradiction.

As with previous "light sphere contradiction" you harped on about, it just shows you cannot calculate anything in special relativity. You're all arm waving and ignorance.

 

[chinglu]

As with previous "light sphere contradiction" you harped on about, it just shows you cannot calculate anything in special relativity. You're all arm waving and ignorance.

What part of my statement is false?

Are for SR time dilation, we have not only GPS, but we have this from Einstein:

If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive at this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be $$$\frac{1}{2}tv^2/c^2$$$ second slow

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

So, after we account for the GR effects of acceleration differentials, we have to also account for this SR time dilation.

Whereas GR effects of gravity and acceleration differentials are absolute, the time dilation part is not.

So, we certainly can remove the GR effects from the two clocks.

Then, all that is left is the SR effect of time dilation.

Under that context, time dilation is predicated on an agreed upon sped of light between the two observers.

Yet, if the clocks have different times on them because of SR time dilation, then they must disagree on the speed of light since they must agree on the position of the light sphere along the y-axis when they are again at the same place.

You mean you do not see the problem?