geistkiesel
Valued Senior Member
Billy T said:
Billy T,
By the way: AE definmed simultanous thgat if the arrival of lights at the midpoint of the two sources is simultaneously then the lights were emitted si8multaneously. Clearly, the define3ition of simultaneous makes it impossible for the lights to arrive at the clocks on the A and B moving frame simultaneously.
It is good to get back into the fray. However, I think I can clear up any differences we may have had. If there are A and B clocks that are the same distance apart on both frames then:
1. Are you saying the lights will emitted from the respective mnidpoints will arrive at A and B on the respective frames at the same instant on the frames? This is what I understand you are saying.
2. Lets's perform the same, separately in an experiment in the stationary frame. Let the light pulses be emitted in both directions simultaneously from the midpoint of A and B. Are you saying these two pulses will arrive at A and B in the stationary frame at the same instant?
We can read the clocks in both frames at any time in the future. I have made this slight departure of your exact experiment and have completed two distinct tests. Clearly, as described here both lights will arrive simultaneously at A and B in the stationary frame.
I understand you to say the lights will also arrive at the A and B clocks in the moving frame simultaneously. I don't agree with this, but that is my understanding of what you have said.
3. Now, we run both experiments at the same time and emit the light when both midpoints of the two sets of clocks are co-located. One would expect that what is occurring on the stationary frame will not affect what happens on the moving frame. From this both sets of lights will obviously not be co-located when the lights arrive at the respective A and B clocks.
Giving you the benefit of the argument here, the lights arrive at the A and B clocks on the moving frame simultaneously (the lights were emitted in the moving frame though their arrival times can be measured separately in the two separate frames).
Here are my questions:
1. What is the difference in the two different experiments that the lights will arrive at the A and B frames sequentially in the stationry frame in the separate experiments, yet arrive sequentially when both tests are coinducted at the same time when the two midpoints are colocated and the source of the light pulses are at the midpoint of the two clocks on the moving frame when emitted ?
2. If the statioanry observer measures the speed of light on the moving frame as the same speed of the light outside the train,then the stationary frame obvserver will see the lights arriving at A and B on the stationary frame simultaneoulsy, yet arriving at the A and B clocks on the moving frame sequentially. Tis is how I see it. However, you will say the lights will arrive at the aA and B vclocks simultaneously as measured by the clocks located at A and B on the movig frame.
You arrive at this conclusion as the moving observer considers his frame at rest wrt the embankment. Likewise, as the moving observer sees the embankment moving o the left the A clock (in the left direction) will measure an arrival of the light before the light arrives at B , on the stationary frame.correct?
Likewise, as the train is at rest, wrt the embankment the lights are claimed to arrive at A and B on the train simultaneously. Correct? If so, does not the train observer also see the light outside the trsain moving as fast as the light moving inside the train?
Final question: If the measured SOL wrt the vacua is c, and then if the SOL measured wrt the train is also c, we need something like SRT to explain the differences as observed. I see you have a problem with the clocks on the moving train that are synchronized wrt each other. The stationary observer will see the lights arriving aty A and B on the stationary frame simultaneousl. This same obserber will see the lights arriving at A and B on the train sequentially and would expect the synchronized clocks on the train to indicate a seqauential arrival of the lights on the moving frame. If this is so, then as the light moving wrt the vacua and on the rain are not affected by the moitio of train, but we both know, that whatever the observer records on the train, that the train can only measure the speed of liught as c wrt the train, iof the train is really at rest wrt the embankment.
The logic is the same as the resolution of the "Twin Paradox" and where only the twin that actually accelerated and is really moving will be observ ed to have been affeteced by motion due to his reduced age compoared to the earth borne twin.
The observer on the once exclusively accelerated framne cannot use the equivalence of inertial frames postualate to describe relative simultaneity, or for any SRT expected affect.
3.Remember, here question 2. asks nothing of absolute times of arrival, merely whether the lights arrive simultaneously at A and B on the both frames. I say the lights cannot be measured to arrive simultaneousloy on the moving frame if emitted at the midpoint of the clocks on the moving frame. Is this your position?
The seeming apparent state of rest of the moving observer is not justified by the physics as the observer on the train that has accelerated must consider his motion as moving wrt the stationary vacua.
Geistkiesel
3.
By the way: AE definmed simultanous thgat if the arrival of lights at the midpoint of the two sources is simultaneously then the lights were emitted si8multaneously. Clearly, the define3ition of simultaneous makes it impossible for the lights to arrive at the clocks on the A and B moving frame simultaneously.
It is good to get back into the fray. However, I think I can clear up any differences we may have had. If there are A and B clocks that are the same distance apart on both frames then:
1. Are you saying the lights will emitted from the respective mnidpoints will arrive at A and B on the respective frames at the same instant on the frames? This is what I understand you are saying.
2. Lets's perform the same, separately in an experiment in the stationary frame. Let the light pulses be emitted in both directions simultaneously from the midpoint of A and B. Are you saying these two pulses will arrive at A and B in the stationary frame at the same instant?
We can read the clocks in both frames at any time in the future. I have made this slight departure of your exact experiment and have completed two distinct tests. Clearly, as described here both lights will arrive simultaneously at A and B in the stationary frame.
I understand you to say the lights will also arrive at the A and B clocks in the moving frame simultaneously. I don't agree with this, but that is my understanding of what you have said.
3. Now, we run both experiments at the same time and emit the light when both midpoints of the two sets of clocks are co-located. One would expect that what is occurring on the stationary frame will not affect what happens on the moving frame. From this both sets of lights will obviously not be co-located when the lights arrive at the respective A and B clocks.
Giving you the benefit of the argument here, the lights arrive at the A and B clocks on the moving frame simultaneously (the lights were emitted in the moving frame though their arrival times can be measured separately in the two separate frames).
Here are my questions:
1. What is the difference in the two different experiments that the lights will arrive at the A and B frames sequentially in the stationry frame in the separate experiments, yet arrive sequentially when both tests are coinducted at the same time when the two midpoints are colocated and the source of the light pulses are at the midpoint of the two clocks on the moving frame when emitted ?
2. If the statioanry observer measures the speed of light on the moving frame as the same speed of the light outside the train,then the stationary frame obvserver will see the lights arriving at A and B on the stationary frame simultaneoulsy, yet arriving at the A and B clocks on the moving frame sequentially. Tis is how I see it. However, you will say the lights will arrive at the aA and B vclocks simultaneously as measured by the clocks located at A and B on the movig frame.
You arrive at this conclusion as the moving observer considers his frame at rest wrt the embankment. Likewise, as the moving observer sees the embankment moving o the left the A clock (in the left direction) will measure an arrival of the light before the light arrives at B , on the stationary frame.correct?
Likewise, as the train is at rest, wrt the embankment the lights are claimed to arrive at A and B on the train simultaneously. Correct? If so, does not the train observer also see the light outside the trsain moving as fast as the light moving inside the train?
Final question: If the measured SOL wrt the vacua is c, and then if the SOL measured wrt the train is also c, we need something like SRT to explain the differences as observed. I see you have a problem with the clocks on the moving train that are synchronized wrt each other. The stationary observer will see the lights arriving aty A and B on the stationary frame simultaneousl. This same obserber will see the lights arriving at A and B on the train sequentially and would expect the synchronized clocks on the train to indicate a seqauential arrival of the lights on the moving frame. If this is so, then as the light moving wrt the vacua and on the rain are not affected by the moitio of train, but we both know, that whatever the observer records on the train, that the train can only measure the speed of liught as c wrt the train, iof the train is really at rest wrt the embankment.
The logic is the same as the resolution of the "Twin Paradox" and where only the twin that actually accelerated and is really moving will be observ ed to have been affeteced by motion due to his reduced age compoared to the earth borne twin.
The observer on the once exclusively accelerated framne cannot use the equivalence of inertial frames postualate to describe relative simultaneity, or for any SRT expected affect.
3.Remember, here question 2. asks nothing of absolute times of arrival, merely whether the lights arrive simultaneously at A and B on the both frames. I say the lights cannot be measured to arrive simultaneousloy on the moving frame if emitted at the midpoint of the clocks on the moving frame. Is this your position?
The seeming apparent state of rest of the moving observer is not justified by the physics as the observer on the train that has accelerated must consider his motion as moving wrt the stationary vacua.
Geistkiesel
3.
