On the idea of time in physics-relativity

Pete said:
Layman, you're constructing your own meaning for a term that already has a well established meaning that you don't understand.

Don't do that. It's counterproductive to communication.
Click to expand...
How could you even know this when you didn't even know what gauge invarience was until I explained it to you? It is the description in layman terms that I have just regurgitated to you. Your jumping to conclusions.


Pete said:
Good, so we've established that there's no problem in the train observer's frame, and no problem in the platform observer's frame.
All experiments carried out by each observer happen as expected, with light always moving at c.

Now:
The blue flashes are like the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The yellow and red flashes are Einstein's thought experiment.
Can you see that there is no conflict between the two?
Click to expand...
The locations of the beams of light are not in the same locations in each frame. It shows that the locations of the beams are at different locations at the same time intervals in both frames. It is just an overlay of the Lorentz Transformations and a Minkowski Diagram, I don't think that would prove a violation of simultaneity, only that the Lorentz Transformation and a Minkowski Diagram do not agree on the locations of the beams at the same time intervals.
 
Prof.Layman said:
How could you even know this when you didn't even know what gauge invarience was until I explained it to you? It is the description in layman terms that I have just regurgitated to you.
Click to expand...
Layman, I still don't understand gauge theory, and neither do you. Your attempt at explanation is worse than useless.

The locations of the beams of light are not in the same locations in each frame.
Click to expand...
Of course they aren't. Each frame has its own measure of location.
The train rulers are at rest with respect to the train, and moving with respect to the platform.
The platform rulers are at rest with respect to the platform, and moving with respect to the train.
 
Prof.Layman said:
How could you even know this when you didn't even know what gauge invarience was until I explained it to you? It is the description in layman terms that I have just regurgitated to you. Your jumping to conclusions.


The locations of the beams of light are not in the same locations in each frame. It shows that the locations of the beams are at different locations at the same time intervals in both frames. It is just an overlay of the Lorentz Transformations and a Minkowski Diagram, I don't think that would prove a violation of simultaneity, only that the Lorentz Transformation and a Minkowski Diagram do not agree on the locations of the beams at the same time intervals.
Click to expand...

Sorry for bringing conclusions that is wrong. When i said that Michelson-Morley experiment would look different in the reference of an observer outside earth's orbit. In both case,Michelson-Morley experiment would be same as a consequence of Einstein's Thought experiment and Special theory of relativity.
 
ash64449 said:
Sorry for bringing conclusions that is wrong. When i said that Michelson-Morley experiment would look different in the reference of an observer outside earth's orbit. In both case,Michelson-Morley experiment would be same as a consequence of Einstein's Thought experiment and Special theory of relativity.
Click to expand...
"As a consequence of a thought experiment"! I would accept "a conclusion was deduced by a thought experiment", but I doubt if anything is a consequence of a thought experiment!
It is only a thought experiment after all.
 
Pete said:
Layman, I still don't understand gauge theory, and neither do you. Your attempt at explanation is worse than useless.
Click to expand...
Then maybe you should look it up and try to learn about it. I don't think the explaination in the wiki is that good. I just read about it, that is why I thought I should bring it up because I think it applies here. There are good explainations of it, all you need is a good pop science book, and it will tell you all about it. You guys wanted a source for why I didn't completely agree with the TE, and I found that it was because of gauge theory. All it means really is that an experiment should have the same results of the MME. The beams in the experiment arrive at the same time. You could turn the experiment every which way and get the same results. There is symmetry in all the measurments no matter where in the train you are, that is gauge theory. You wouldn't be able to "gauge" where you are in the train and what direction your facing based on beam of light experiments. They will always have the same results. This is what actually happens in real experiments.
 
Prof.Layman said:
You guys wanted a source for why I didn't completely agree with the TE, and I found that it was because of gauge theory.
Click to expand...

LOL, precious.

All it means really is that an experiment should have the same results of the MME.
Click to expand...

Both TE and MME explanations are direct consequences of the LT (Lorentz Transforms). As such, there can be no disagreement between them, contrary to your crank beliefs.



The beams in the experiment arrive at the same time. You could turn the experiment every which way and get the same results. There is symmetry in all the measurments no matter where in the train you are, that is gauge theory.
Click to expand...

You have no clue what gauge theory is.
 
Tach said:
Both TE and MME explanations are direct consequences of the LT (Lorentz Transforms). As such, there can be no disagreement between them, contrary to your crank beliefs.
Click to expand...
There was no cranking involved, I only compared the final results and conclusions of both experiments. In the TE they arrive at different times, in the MME they arrive at the same time. Would like to see how you can crank your beliefs around that one.
 
Tach said:
...in different locations

...in the same location.

Capisci?
Click to expand...
No, in the TE they arrive at the same location that is the observer on the train. It is said that he observes them to arrive at this same location at different times.
 
Prof.Layman said:
I never really had any hopes of being able to convince anyone of this even though it is so relatively simple.
Click to expand...

You can't convince anyone, because we all know you are wrong. Relativity would completely fall apart without relativity of simultaneity. No one ever said it was easy to understand, but clearly you are not even trying to understand it.
 
Prof.Layman said:
The beams in the experiment arrive at the same time. You could turn the experiment every which way and get the same results.
Click to expand...

PlatformMME.png
TrainMME.png

Look at the blue flashes, Layman.
They are like the MME.
They arrive back at the train observer at the same time in both reference frames.

Now look at the red and yellow flashes.
They are not like the MME.
 
Pete said:
Look at the blue flashes, Layman.
They are like the MME.
They arrive back at the train observer at the same time in both reference frames.

Now look at the red and yellow flashes.
They are not like the MME.
Click to expand...
Hey, you finally got it. Good job!
 
Has Pete's Minkowski diagrams been removed. I've scanned the last 7 pages and can't find them. What post were they on? Maybe this computer won't run it??
 
Prof.Layman said:
Hey, you finally got it. Good job!
Click to expand...
I finally got what I've been saying all thread? Somehow, I don't think you've got it.
The train thought experiment (the red and yellow flashes) is not like the Michelson Morley experiment (which is similar to the blue flashes), so you shouldn't expect the same result.
 
Pete said:
I finally got what I've been saying all thread? Somehow, I don't think you've got it.
The train thought experiment (the red and yellow flashes) is not like the Michelson Morley experiment (which is similar to the blue flashes), so you shouldn't expect the same result.
Click to expand...
So then you think the scientist are wrong in saying that the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there was no aether becaues it didn't find a varience in the speed of light and there really is an aether? The experiment was considered to be in motion because of the motions of the Earth, just like the train. They didn't find a difference in the arrival times of the beams of light because of this...
 
Prof.Layman said:
So then you think the scientist are wrong in saying that the Michelson Morley experiment proved that there was no aether becaues it didn't find a varience in the speed of light and there really is an aether?
Click to expand...
No, I think they're right, and the diagrams corroborate this.
The experiment was considered to be in motion because of the motions of the Earth, just like the train. They didn't find a difference in the arrival times of the beams of light because of this...
Click to expand...
Look at the blue flashes. They represent the MME.
The blue flashes arrive back at the detector at the same time whether the train is moving or not.
So, the spacetime diagrams agree with the MME result.


The red and yellow flashes have nothing to do with the MME.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top