You should take a look at figure 4. on the wiki page that explains the MME .
On the idea of time in physics-relativity
- Thread starter ash64449
- Start date
For crying out loud, I think this thread has just the right level of absurdity - no need to pile on.
You have such a fascinating blending of complete self assuredness mixed with an utter lack of knowledge. It is rather quaint...
If you can refute any of the reasons that I gave as to why the MMX does not address the RoS then why have you arduously avoided doing so? And apparently to the extent of refusing to quote anything that may upset your apple cart. Namely:
MMX only addresses the one frame where the experiment is performed, so obviously there is no observer in any different frame to dispute/compare simultaneity. But even if there were such an observer, all the events in the MMX are universally simultaneous, because both the emission and detection of the signal occur at the same places and times, respectively. No one disputes the observation that a photon struck a detection plate, as it happens at the same place and time. Relatively simultaneous events are separate in space, and thus cannot be universally said to occur at the same time, just like two lightning strikes separated by the length of a train.
Not only are they sent at the same time, they are emitted from the same place as well. This satisfies the requirement for a universally simultaneous event, that will always be agreed upon by all observers, regardless of motion. Unlike the two lightning strikes separated in space. The beam emission is a single event (local in both time and space) while the lightning strikes are two events (remote in time and/or space).
Again, a single event which all observers will agree upon.
As opposed to the MMX, this can only happen because these flashes originate as different events, separated in space.
The MMX would have the same null result if conducted on the train in the TE, because MMX does not rely on making any comparison of separate events as observed by two frames. IOW, they do match, insofar as both results are expected due to the same physics.
You are far too entrenched in your ignorance to see the simple and obvious fact that denying the relativity of simultaneity as "outdated" you are equally denying time dilation. If the timing between events separated in time or space cannot change due to motion, then it follows that time dilation is impossible. So you are foolishly trying to refute all of SR.
Get a grip and start asking some questions yourself, instead of making religious-like proclamations you cannot possibly support (other than by outright ignoring all the experimentally verified facts).
Last edited:
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Dear Prof. Layman,
By the time the observer at M sees the light from the two lightning strikes, the train passenger at M' has moved off to the right. Therefore, at that time, the observer at M' must have already seen the light coming from the right. Also, at that time, the observer at M' could not possibly have seen the light coming from the left. This is simple geometry.
By the time the observer at M sees the light from the two lightning strikes, the train passenger at M' has moved off to the right. Therefore, at that time, the observer at M' must have already seen the light coming from the right. Also, at that time, the observer at M' could not possibly have seen the light coming from the left. This is simple geometry.
Very well said. In math terms:
$$dt'=\gamma(dt-\frac{vdx}{c^2})$$
Since $$dt=0$$ (simultaneous in frame F)
and
$$dx=0$$ (co-located events)
it follows that:
$$dt'=0$$ (i.e , simultaneous in any other frame F')
i.e. what you call "universal simultaneity".
Not that it will help convince the crackpot "professor".
Last edited:
I could say the same thing about you. How can you be so certain that you are not the one that is actually suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect? Someone actually suffering from this effect would naturally conclude that it is actually other people that are suffering from this same effect and not them. It is called denial. If your doctor has diagnosed you with this then it would mean that he was actually correct in doing so. That would mean that you need to get back on to the medications that he prescribed you for this condition. You would be just too ignorant to realise that it is actually you suffering from this effect.
It's not about stupidity, it's about education.
The more you learn, the more you realize how much you haven't learned.
Layman, it's not a medical diagnosis, and medication won't help. The only treatment is education.
Then I suggest you go seek treatment right away. In the train thought experiment, the beam in front would travel ( c + v ), and the beam behind the train travels ( c - v ), both beams would both just travel the speed of light, and not be affected by its velocity. So then the beam in front would travel "c", the beam behind would travel "c", both beams would travel the same distance, so then they would arrive at the same time.
Trying to say that the beams would be measured to travel different relative speeds, and would arrive at different times would just be a bunch of had waving. This is what scientist thought how light would behave before they found out about the MME. This is not what they found out from the actual experiments. It is that simple. It is really sad that you all suffer from denial of this Dunning-Kruger effect. Acceptance is the first path to overcoming a problem. So then you must accept that you have this problem, or you will never recover from this condition.
Science is what it is. Complaining that it doesn't operate within your personal playbook says nothing about science and everything about you.
Such bitterness. Sounds like remorse for never studying science. Fortunately, Einstein's discoveries --and the truths of nature he revealed-- are not dependent upon your blessing regardless of how holy you believe your own ideas to be.
Just shocking. I, for one, am mortified.
And yet, since you reject science you have relegated yourself to attack it with the nonsensical arguments of pseudoscience.
If you knew what a thought experiment was, and how and why it is used, you would understand why this statement is absurd.
That merely demonstrates that you have no clue about the science involved and that you believe the whole world is ignorant and naive. And this is how you compensate for failing to advance your own knowledge of science. The fact is, you can't blame anyone but yourself for failing to seize the day.
This, in response to my statement that there is nothing particularly heinous about a thought experiment. If you ever come down off your high horse you'll realize how foolish your statement is.
You can no sooner tell us what Einstein did than you can prove some basic principle of geometry. It all boils down to education, and your lack of it seems to have you foaming at the mouth. Crack a book, learn something, and I assure you the chills and fever will subside.
If the decision were based on your absurd posts, it might just as well be sent to the cesspool. The intent here is to engage in intelligent discussion about matters of science. So far you've essentially diverted this thread from that goal. "Intelligent discussion" at least revolves around what folks have learned, or what they're interested in learning. You're obviously attacking material that you have no knowledge of, and no interest in learning, instead trying to make the discussion revolve around yourself. How's that working out for you so far?
On that note, may I remind you that there are plenty of anti-science threads where you can pontificate all you want. Feel free to ask about science here, but you should probably avoid making any claims about it since you lack the qualifications.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
My troll alarm is beeping. :argue:
I am not posting anti-science, I am only distinguishing what is and isn't really science. So be not agreeing with me your post are actually anti-science, this seems to be a very common condition known as the Dunning–Kruger effect. I am starting to think that this is a very serious and contagious disease that can even be transmitted online over the internet. Just because a thought experiment by a famous scientist wasn't right doesn't mean that all of science is wrong, only that the thought experiment was wrong at the time. This error was corrected with the MME experiment. So then any ideas on how the velocity of light is seen to be affected by an objects velocity where done away with.
So then I would have to ask you to stop posting anti-science threads, and claiming that an objects velocity can change the measured speed of light.
I always have, and always will.
That is good, you should keep it up. Maybe then you could acheive a full recovery.
We're all born with the condition, so there is no 'recovery'.
And no matter how much we learn, there is always more, so the condition is inescapable.
All we can do is try to minimise the effects by always striving to learn, to always be open to learning from others, and to always be suspicious of our own understanding.
It is deliciously ironic that you're exhibiting Dunning-Kruger in your post about Dunning-Kruger!
Second-order ignorance. Marvelous.
If you are unsure about something and it leads to a dispute often times you can ask a grown up, a parent, teacher, or someone that is familiar with the subject. If that still doesn't work then you can have your dad fight their dad, and the person with the strongest dad is normally right.
But, while on the internet, there is no way to know if that person actually is a grown up, teacher, or someone that is familiar with the subject. Dunning-Kruger could be inescapable for someone trying to learn on the internet. That is why I think this condition would be most common for people who learn on the net. There would also be no way to know which one actually has the stronger dad.
One person could get misinformation, and then convince someone else that they are incompentant about the subject and then force their ideals on that person. The person they have done this too, would then encounter another person that knows about the subject and that they have been mislead. Then that person would then suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. They would then have no idea that what they know is wrong and would assume that everything the person that does know is incorrect about everything. A prime example would be funkstars comment above. Einsteins thought experiment has gone viral, and is spreading Dunning-Kruger rapidly. That is what happens when mistakes are found, and then brought up back later again and accepted as scientific truth.
The solution is simple, even the greatest minds make mistakes. When it is said that everyone didn't expect the results of the MME, they really meant everyone, including Einstein. Since that was everyone at the time, they didn't really blame him for making this mistake.
Perhaps you should ask a grown up, a parent, teacher, or someone that is familiar with the subject about this.