Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?

[Undefined]

Sure, I have. It appears that you don't know, so rather than me teaching you, you should go back and read the two articles.

It is not my claim, it is the claim of the professional physicists who ran the actual experiments.

Then tell us what they "measured" since it is your claim that these measurements are the "proof" you claim them to be.

And then explain exactly what and how and why these "measured effects" are what you claim.

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained. It is you that claims their "interpretations" are "proof" positive of SR "contraction" for real and not from other possible causes in LHC accelerator system/energy effects.

 

[Tach]

Then tell us what they "measured" since it is your claim that these measurements are the "proof" you claim them to be. And then explain exactly what and how and why these "measured effects" are what you claim.

I don't feel obligated to teach you anything. You should try to educate yourself, the websites are self-explanatory.
Once again, it is not "my claim", it is the claim of the professionals that actually ran the experiments. Understood?

 

[Undefined]

I don't feel obligated to teach you anything. You should try to educate yourself, the websites are self-explanatory.
Once again, it is not "my claim", it is the claim of the professionals that actually ran the experiments. Understood?

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from SR theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained. It is you that claims their "interpretations" are "proof" positive of SR "contraction" for real and not from other possible causes in LHC accelerator system/energy effects.

So tell us what they "measured" since it is your claim that these measurements are the "proof" you claim them to be. And then explain exactly what and how and why these "measured effects" are what you claim.

 

[Tach]

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from SR theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed.

This is the third time you make this false claim.

 

[Undefined]

This is the third time you make this false claim.

I am questioning your claims about LHC accelerator effects being "proof" of SR "contraction" and not any other cause/effect in there. Have you any scientific and objective arguments to support your claims that don't just depend on SR theory assumptions and interpretations? If you don't want to support your claims about LHC operations as "proof of SR contraction", ok. Another "lesson" learnt from you is to evade your responsibilities in debate. Thankyou for that "lesson" again.

 

[Pete]

We don't know, scientists are divided on the subject as per the first article I linked for you.

So now you don't know relativity of simultaneity is real? It's interesting that you've change your mind. You might want to revisit your earlier arguments based on this new understanding.

 

[Tach]

So now you don't know relativity of simultaneity is real? It's interesting that you've change your mind.

Professional physicists are divided on the issue, you should read the first article and try to understand it, instead of arguing.
Now, what I do know, is that you cannot test it. The second article leaves no doubt about that.

You might want to revisit your earlier arguments based on this new understanding.

There is nothing to revisit: you can't build a valid experiment to measure RoS.

 

[Tach]

I am questioning your claims about LHC accelerator effects being "proof" of SR "contraction" and not any other cause/effect in there.

You aren't questioning, you are making false claims. Three times you repeated the same false claim.

 

[Undefined]

You aren't questioning, you are making false claims. Three times you repeated the same false claim.

You claimed that LHC operations "proved" that SR "contraction" is "real". You linked to two articles which describe LHC scientists interpreting data according to SR theory whose assumptions were then input to algorithm for simulation of the data/effects observed.

They just say that SR theory interprets it as "SR contraction".

You claim that it is "SR contraction" for sure and proven beyond doubt and that it could be nothing else in LHC energy/acceleration system effects involved!

Your claim of "proof". Your links questioned as to their adequacy as "proof" of "SR contraction" claimed by you.

Can you support your claims with any links that do not just present only SR theory "interpretations" of data?

You claimed those linked interpretations were "proof", not me or anyone else.

 

[Tach]

You claimed that LHC operations "proved" that SR "contraction" is "real". You linked to two articles which describe LHC scientists interpreting data according to SR theory whose assumptions were then input to algorithm for simulation of the data/effects observed.

They just say that SR theory interprets it as "SR contraction".

You claim that it is "SR contraction" for sure and proven beyond doubt and that it could be nothing else in LHC energy/acceleration system effects involved!

Your claim of "proof". Your links questioned as to their adequacy as "proof" of "SR contraction" claimed by you.

Can you support your claims with any links that do not just present only SR theory "interpretations" of data?

You claimed those linked interpretations were "proof", not me or anyone else.

One thing at a time, do you retract your three time repeated false claim that:

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from SR theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained.

?

 

[Undefined]

One thing at a time, do you retract your three time repeated false claim that:

?

Until you support your claim of "proof" from those links of yours, there is nothing for me to retract in the following statement in context so far:

No, the scientists you mention just "interpret" and "simulate" from SR theory assumptions input to algorithms for "interpretation" of effects observed. That is all they present in conjunction with any data they obtained.

Please don't start your game of "excerpting and evading". You claimed LHC as "proof". It is not "proof", only "interpretation from theory" of their data and simulated accordingly, as already pointed out enough times so you can't play evasive games and not be called out.

 

[Tach]

Until you support your claim of "proof" from those links of yours, there is nothing for me to retract in the following statement in context so far

I don't discuss with people who make false, anti-mainstream claims. Dialogue is impossible with such individuals. Until you renounce your crank claim, there is nothing to talk about.

 

[Undefined]

I don't discuss with people who make false, anti-mainstream claims. Dialogue is impossible with such individuals. Until you renounce your crank claim, there is nothing to talk about.

So you don't think your links are "proof" after all? That's why you refuse to explain exactly how they constitute "proof" of your claim? ok.

 

[renislaj]

Length contraction has only been indirectly indicated to occur with particles and ions in high energy accelerators.., and that is only a conclusion derived from the aftermath of collisions... And even then there remains some debate about whether it is a Lorentz contraction or some other cause.

There is no debate about it.

Are you sure?

Where? Cite, please.

You too Tach. Cite, please.

And all conclusions about the pancaking of ions is based on observations of the aftermath of collisions. No one, I repeat no one, has claimed to directly measure the shape of an ion to be a pancake.., that is as length contracted.

This is outright false, both references I gave have explained the results as an effect of length contraction.

OnlyMe reiterated his points. The only thing that is false is your assertion that he is false.

 

[eram]

Ion pancaking? Sounds delicious.

 

[renislaj]

Please don't start your game of "excerpting and evading".

That's why you refuse to explain exactly how they constitute "proof" of your claim? ok.

He has been playing that game all along. Look, he's evading again.

I don't discuss with people who make false, anti-mainstream claims. Dialogue is impossible with such individuals. Until you renounce your crank claim, there is nothing to talk about.

He did not make any crank claims, and even if he did, it is still easier to have dialogue with him than with you.

 

[ash64449]

So your argument is that RoS is not measurable, for the same reasons that time dilation and length contraction are not measurable. That is not much of an argument, especially considering that time dilation and length contraction ARE measurable.

:bugeye:

Tell me which part of the following three lines of text you disagree with:

The ground clocks are synchronized in the ground frame. The ground clocks MEASURE the same time for two events. Therefore the events are MEASURED TO BE simultaneous in the ground frame.

The rail clocks are synchronized in the rail frame. The rail clocks MEASURE different times for those same two events. Therefore the events are MEASURED TO BE non-simultaneous in the rail frame.

Bringing the measurement data together in one place allows comparison. We find that the two events in question were simultaneous in one frame, but non-simultaneous in the other frame. RoS is therefore evident in the MEASUREMENTS.

I am going to ask you how are you going to make two remote measurements at the "same" time?

Tel me How You Can Measure. Don't Say We Cam Measure.

 

[ash64449]

So now you don't know relativity of simultaneity is real? It's interesting that you've change your mind. You might want to revisit your earlier arguments based on this new understanding.

The reason why Relativity Of Simultaneity is not observed is because you cannot observe two remote measurements at the same time. Have you specified how did you measure two remote measurements?

 

[Fednis48]

The reason why Relativity Of Simultaneity is not observed is because you cannot observe two remote measurements at the same time. Have you specified how did you measure two remote measurements?

Synchronize two clocks, then take them to the locations of the events you want to measure and set each up with some kind of detector. Program the clocks to stop ticking as soon as they detect events at their respective locations. After both events have happened, bring the clocks back together and compare the times they recorded.

Am I missing some subtle reason why that doesn't work?

 

[eram]

Synchronize two clocks, then take them to the locations of the events you want to measure and set each up with some kind of detector. Program the clocks to stop ticking as soon as they detect events at their respective locations. After both events have happened, bring the clocks back together and compare the times they recorded.

Am I missing some subtle reason why that doesn't work?

If I'm not wrong, the clocks ticking non-simultaneously in another frame will make the experiment null.

Do you think we could use a radar gun to test RoS?