Tests for relativistic velocity composition have existed for a long time. They do not test RoS either directly or indirectly. Where do you take your cues from, Neddy Bate?
Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Tests for relativistic velocity composition have existed for a long time. They do not test RoS either directly or indirectly. Where do you take your cues from, Neddy Bate?
Nope, I actually got this from St. Augustine, in the link you provided.
Imagine a long rod with an AND gate directly in the center. A symmetrical setup. In the frame of the rod, two objects are launched simultaneously from the ends of the rod with velocities +0.6c and -0.6c. The meet in the middle and the AND gate detects this.
In another frame, the rod is moving at +0.5c. The objects are moving at +0.846c and -0.143c.
To make it easier to visualize, we consider the relativistic effects in the frame of the rod. The objects are moving at +0.346c and -0.643c. Since the meet in the middle, they must've been launched at different times.
In this link:
Then keep learning from him.
In "the other frame" the objects do not "meet in the middle", this forum is reaching new lows by the post.
Last edited:
The mere fact that you ask such a question proves that you don't know what you are doing. Try writing the equations of your so-called "experiment" and you might find out all by yourself.
Tach doesn't give out freebies, remember.
If your interested, there's a lot information in this link.
While prof. Brown has an excellent website, highly recommended, the link that you provided as a Hail Mary has nothing in it that would help eram understand his error. Perhaps you could help him with the math description of his so-called "experiment"?
How about you wrote down the equations of your so-called "experiment"? Maybe Trooper can help you.
It's no secret that my math skills suck, so what? God, you're such a defensive little guy. A Hail Mary?...hardly. I posted it so that others could follow along. Besides, I think you may be back peddling by using the whole "test of RoS" just to save face.
I think that an emission theory is precluded in special relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter. This part of the light postulate is independent of any judgments of simultaneity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
I think that an emission theory is precluded in special relativity by the part of the light postulate that asserts that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the emitter. This part of the light postulate is independent of any judgments of simultaneity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
Last edited:
More like he doesn't know what to say so he justs plays that "evading game", as Undefined mentioned.
eram already provided the numbers.
Last edited by a moderator:
So does your knowledge of physics. So, no math, no physics, this reduces your posts to mudslinging and obscenities.
You and the others need to come to grips with the fact that there is no "test of RoS". At least, in mainstream physics.
Copying and pasting random links does not make physics.
Maybe you could help eram figure out the mistakes? Can you write the equations for him?
Let one object be at point $$A$$, the other be at point $$B$$, and the AND gate be at point $$G$$. Let $$S$$ be the rest frame of $$G$$, and $$S'$$ be moving with a velocity of $$-.5c$$ with respect to $$S$$. In any frame, until the objects start moving, all three points are co-moving. In $$S$$, they are co-moving with a separation of $$d$$. Length contraction gives us the separation in $$S'$$:
$$d'=d\sqrt{1-.5^2}=\frac{\sqrt{3}d}{2}$$
As soon as object $$A$$ is launched, the gap between it and the gate will start decreasing at a rate $$v'_A-v'_G$$, and object $$A$$ will hit the gate after a time $$T'_A=\frac{v'_A-v'_G}{d'}$$. The same reasoning applies to object $$B$$, except with a minus sign in front of the $$d'$$ in the denominator. Trivially, the gate is moving at $$v'_G=.5c$$ at all times in $$S''$$. From this helpful website, the post-launch velocities of the objects are given by:
$$\begin{align}
v'_A&=\frac{.6c+.5c}{1+.6*.5}\approx.846c\\
v'_B&=\frac{-.6c+.5c}{1-.6*.5}\approx-.143c
\end{align}$$
These match eram's results. Plugging these into the formulae above:
$$\begin{align}T'_A&=\frac{2(.846c-.5c)}{\sqrt{3}d}\\
&=\frac{2*.346c}{\sqrt{3}d}\\
&=.538\frac{2*-.643c}{-\sqrt{3}d}\\
&=.538\frac{2(-.143c-.5c)}{-\sqrt{3}d}\\
&=.538T'_B\end{align}$$
In other words, after their respective launches, object $$A$$ reaches the gate almost twice as quickly as object $$B$$. Importantly, while I used Lorentz transforms to find the various $$v'$$, an experimentalist could reach the same conclusions just by using radar guns to read the velocities of both objects and the gate.
The gate, meanwhile, will tells us that both objects reached it simultaneously (and since the simultaneous intersection of $$A$$, $$B$$, and $$G$$ is a single space time event, all reference frames will agree that it occurs). The radar measurements tell us that object $$A$$ took less time after its launch to reach the gate than object $$B$$ did, while the gate measurement tells us that the objects reached the gate simultaneously. Applying a bit of logic, the two measurements together show that object $$B$$ launched before object $$A$$.
Last edited:
This trivial part is correct.
These calculations, on the other hand, are not correct. You already know that I can spot your errors very quickly.
This is really bad, your AND gate will produce a solid "1" in one frame and a glitch to "0" in the other frame.
I think that you may want to go back and read post 95, it explains why the mainstream physicists know that "RoS tests" cannot be performed. Pete is starting to come to grips with the idea.
By contrast, valid tests of relativistic velocity composition do exist and have been conducted.
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Tach's argument has never been, "Your proposed experiment does not test RoS because your experiment is founded on Einstein synchronization which assumes the speed of light is the same in both directions." His argument is, "Your proposed experiment does not test RoS under the theoretical framework of SR," which of course includes Einstein synchronization. In short, I think you are being way too generous to Tach on this.
I never said there was a test, duh! I never said I was doing physics, either. I said that I think James R may be right.
James R said:
Post 95 shows your claim to be exactly false.
This is false as well, you obviously do not understand that the RMS theory is consistent with the SR framework. At least, this is what mainstream physics considers it. But, nice try.
Then what are you doing in this forum? Eh?
Turns out JamesR is wrong. Didn't stop so many of you in joining the chorus. I can see how his post, devoid of any scientific content, gave the others "carte blanche" in joining with the ad-hominems. His post is nothing but an ad-hominem, made even more pitiful by the fact that he had no contribution to the debate up to that point or thereafter.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
In that case, you should have said so much earlier.