Turns out that mainstream physicists understand the notion very well. Helas, they disagree with your approach.
You'd need to go all the way back to post 95 and you'll find out.
Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Turns out that mainstream physicists understand the notion very well. Helas, they disagree with your approach.
You'd need to go all the way back to post 95 and you'll find out.
Tach appears to be saying that Einstein's train thought experiment is flawed: the observers in different frames don't see different things, they can't because there is no test of RoS.
Since they can't test RoS by observing lightning strikes, they can't use cameras. In fact they can't use their eyes (post 95 explains why not) . . .
Since they can't test RoS by observing lightning strikes, they can't use cameras. In fact they can't use their eyes (post 95 explains why not) . . .
Not at all, this is just your limited understanding of the issue.
Mainstream physics tells you that, you should make the effort and study the subject. Actually, mainstream physics tells you that there will never be a test for RoS, that there cannot be a test for RoS.
If you think the opposite, just team up with Neddy Bate and put together the experiment. The Nobel Prize awaits you two.
So when I google "relativity of simultaneity", all those diagrams from all those explanations represent something that can't be tested?Tach said:
The observers can't meet up (in the same frame of reference) and compare their observations? Or alternatively, their observations are identical despite what Einstein says?
I can't see why the two observers, if they observe different things (which is what Einstein does say) can't compare their observations. Why can't they, or why is that a problem?
Yep.
They are in motion wrt. each other. To meet , they need to stop, by that time the deynchronization is lost. Have you ever taken a relativity class?
If this is your level of understanding.....
You need to read and comprehend post 95.
Howdy.....Hello.....An occasion occurring as event for observers at two different locations exactly the same for all principles, and plus or minus light's distance time. Observer's A and B see a lighting bolt at the same time given that the bolt struck exactly at one-half their total distance relative to each other. Then with lights' speed-distance-time (sdt) first order principles may be read by A and B i.e. the mechanics of an occasion occurring, for the existence of an event to exist it's location relative to A and B. The light source is not uniform, so arrival time will vary on the inner rim, and A to B. An exactitude of time...... Light in the exact center of a sphere will strike the inner wall of the sphere at the same time. when the source of the light's geometry is the same arc angle and be let go as light at the same exact time. All light source atoms vibrate at the same rate =h/v as the inner rim of the sphere h/v adds the change in h/v from source distance to receptor. Then A and B are each aware of itself and each other.
The issue with RoS is not whether the events are simultaneous or not. They are obviously simultaneous with respect to each other. The point of RoS is that because time and distance are measured differently in different inertial frames..., and the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames, events which are simultaneous in one frame (a frame generally at rest with respect to the events), will not generally be measured or "judged" to be simultaneous in a frame moving with respect to the events.
Note, there would be a class of frames moving with respect to the rest frame or frame of the simultaneous events, where the observer is always equidistant from the events and would conclude that they are simutaneous. That is why the qualifier, "will not generally" is included above.
And yes if the observer from the moving frame either meets up with the observer in the rest frame or has access to all of the information available in the rest frame, that observer could know that the events were simultaneous, with respect to each other. That would not change the observation and conclusions, based on measurements or judgements made from the moving frame.
(Again, I am using judgement above because many of the measurements are time delayed or of remote events. No direct measurement is possible, in all frames.)
Well, that's one nice propertry of thought experiments; with an observer on a train, it isn't too difficult to assume they can recall what they saw, when they meet up with another observer, who can also recall what they saw..Tach said:
Sure, go ahead, try running the thought experiment above or any thought experiment for that matter. You obviously have never attempted running a real experiment.
That is the thought experiment however. Two observers in relative motion will not "agree" on when different events occurred. Hence, an observer on a train will not see what an observer on a platform sees. Unless somehow one of them "changes their mind" when they arrange to agree or disagree. Unless also there is some unfathomable reason the train can't stop and let our observer off, complete with a memory of what they saw.Tach said:
I'm also seing how ridiculous the discussion might get.
They will disagree, one sees the effect simultaneous, the other one sees it as non-simultaneous. The problem is that the one who sees it as non-simultaneous cannot quantify the "amount of lack of simultaneity". Like I told you several times, you need to read post 95 to understand why mainstream science forbids such a measurement.
Yep, this is why funkstar has stopped trying to teach you math.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
That's a good point. But even if the observers never meet up, they can still transmit information to each other. For example, they could encode the information in EM signals and send them to the other observer, repeatedly, until they are confirmed as received.
That isn't relevant if the point of the experiment is to establish that the effect is real. And then again, in what sense is the memory of each observer not a measurement? How is it not quantified? In what sense are the memories of different observers not a quantity?Tach said:
Nope, the point of all experiments is to measure. You need to learn some experimental physics.
So this thread has been about what measurement means. We've had one about what real means in the context of Lorentz contraction.
Tach is stuck in a laboratory, obviously. Most of the extended discussions he's involved in seem to have this property: Tach disagrees with everyone else about what some word means.
Tach is stuck in a laboratory, obviously. Most of the extended discussions he's involved in seem to have this property: Tach disagrees with everyone else about what some word means.
I am impressed that you finally figured out what this thread is all about. Took some time but you finally understood the title.
I am experimental physicist <shrug>. Something that you obviously know nothing about.
Yeah, I don't care either, <shrUg>Tach said:
Howdy.....Hello....post #646 is totally off base. Observers A and B are mirrors. Observers may or may not be in motion. At a given time at one location common to A,B, one photon is released, received by A,B, at any time, reflecting the signal to each other as reverberating in time. Mirror's h/v reflection is equal or not. The light's, the distance's, the time's, are variable numerically.Each reflection can add too, remain the same,or reduce from light, speed/ wavelength/frequency. (binning traits can yield some, but not all of the qualities and quantities. though it does increase volume which would not have been there otherwise.)