Relative Velocity Measurement – Frame and photon

[Uno Hoo]

LOL, I will let everyone in on my idea, for free.

This is a method to test the one-way speed of light. It is also a fool-proof method to synchronise clocks.

Put two clocks far away from each other in space. Put an honest observer next to each clock. Provide the observers with very powerful telescopes so they can view the other guy's clock.

Each observer must keep a log of what they see on both clocks. So one observer might have a log that looks like this:

Mine .. His
0.00 .. 5.00
1.00 .. 6.00
2.00 .. 7.00

And the other observer might have a log like this:

Mine .. Hers
0.55 .. 0.00
1.55 .. 1.00
2.55 .. 2.00

From this data, I can tell that the speed of light is 1.8c in one direction, and 0.2c in the other direction.

It's like a magic trick. See if you can tell how I did it.

Neddy, I have always respected your every post, and I like you, too. But this is such a hare brain demonstration of one way speed of light that I cannot repress response.

Only a crank or a genuine crackpot would suggest such a cockamammy way to observe speed of light giving a different speed value to the same observer during the same event.

Wait a minute. Something is really fishy smelling about this thing. This sounds awfully familiar.

I got it. I have read this crank crackpot nonsense before. In Einstein's amusing little book Relativity. In the Chapter where he explained the Simultaneity Of Relativity.

Neddy Bates charming demonstration of one way speed of light being asymmetrical to the same observer, in blatant contradiction to The Postulate, is exactly the same thing Einstein imagined that The Rider On The Train saw! :bugeye:

Einstein not only wrote The Postulate. He also simultaneously wrote its disproof!

Box Score:
Relativity.....0
Neddy bate..1

 

[AlphaNumeric]

My serious logical study of Special Relativity has covered more decades than you have even been physically alive.

And yet you have not shown any understanding of it and you keep claiming things which are false. The fact you're older than me doesn't mean you're more knowledgable. I haven't seen you show a working understanding of relativity in any thread. Please provide a link to one.

Special Relativity contains mathematics which seems to me to be impeccably internally consistent. The math is not a problem for me. The problem(s) is that Special Relativity was presented containing a quantity of terrible logical inconsistencies.

You failed to provide me with an example of an area of mathematics which isn't based on logic. You aren't providing any logical inconsistencies in SR, you simply demonstrate that despite your decades of 'serious logical study' you haven't grasped what undergraduates can.

The Einstein presentation of The Relativity Of Simultaneity is perfectly logically inconsistent with his Postulate that the speed of light is always observed to be the same value. It is as obvious as that full grown pink elephant in your office.

This is patently false. You admit there's no mathematical inconsistency, which means that all predictions for experiments and observations, which are derived mathematically from the postulates, are consistent. Therefore there's no inconsistency. If there's a logical inconsistency you should be able to use SR to predict 2 different values for the same experimental quantity, thus getting the SR version of 1=2. Can you? The fact you haven't done so in all your 'decades of serious logical study' would suggest you can't.

I find it funny when cranks say "I've been doing this longer than you've been alive!". It means that despite having (supposedly) put in decades more time and effort than myself they have achieved considerably less than I have, they are unable to get their claims published and are reduced to making claims on forums. If you are so good at this and the inconsistency so obvious why aren't you publishing your work? The physicist who knocks over relativity will get a Nobel Prize. So why are you stuck making unsupported claims in the pseudoscience section? Because you have nothing to back up your claims.

Only a crank or a genuine crackpot would suggest such a cockamammy way to observe speed of light giving a different speed value to the same observer during the same event.

Wait a minute. Something is really fishy smelling about this thing. This sounds awfully familiar.

I got it. I have read this crank crackpot nonsense before. In Einstein's amusing little book Relativity. In the Chapter where he explained the Simultaneity Of Relativity.

Except that Neddy didn't actually compute his values using relativity, just plucked them out of the air. And Einstein didn't say as you claim.

If you're right you should be able to formalise all of this into the algebra of special relativity. Instead you're stuck just making arm waving claims. If you can get SR to say 1=2 then demonstrate it. But if you can't then you have no justification for your claims. Even you, with all your 'decades of serious logical study' should follow that.

 

[Uno Hoo]

And yet you have not shown any understanding of it and you keep claiming things which are false. The fact you're older than me doesn't mean you're more knowledgable. I haven't seen you show a working understanding of relativity in any thread. Please provide a link to one.

You failed to provide me with an example of an area of mathematics which isn't based on logic. You aren't providing any logical inconsistencies in SR, you simply demonstrate that despite your decades of 'serious logical study' you haven't grasped what undergraduates can.

This is patently false. You admit there's no mathematical inconsistency, which means that all predictions for experiments and observations, which are derived mathematically from the postulates, are consistent. Therefore there's no inconsistency. If there's a logical inconsistency you should be able to use SR to predict 2 different values for the same experimental quantity, thus getting the SR version of 1=2. Can you? The fact you haven't done so in all your 'decades of serious logical study' would suggest you can't.

I find it funny when cranks say "I've been doing this longer than you've been alive!". It means that despite having (supposedly) put in decades more time and effort than myself they have achieved considerably less than I have, they are unable to get their claims published and are reduced to making claims on forums. If you are so good at this and the inconsistency so obvious why aren't you publishing your work? The physicist who knocks over relativity will get a Nobel Prize. So why are you stuck making unsupported claims in the pseudoscience section? Because you have nothing to back up your claims.

Except that Neddy didn't actually compute his values using relativity, just plucked them out of the air. And Einstein didn't say as you claim.

If you're right you should be able to formalise all of this into the algebra of special relativity. Instead you're stuck just making arm waving claims. If you can get SR to say 1=2 then demonstrate it. But if you can't then you have no justification for your claims. Even you, with all your 'decades of serious logical study' should follow that.

With the greatest of induced hilarity I have read your most recent post. Thank you for cheering me up.

It is of particular note that I notice that you neglected to write any mathematical or logical rejoinders. Rather, you chose to make attacks upon my person, in an amusing variety of ways.

Like Elvis said: (slightly paraphrased) A little less empty rhetoric, please! A little more specific rebuttal of what I wrote!

Einstein plainly wrote of one observer observing light traveling at a different speed while traversing identical measured distance.

Duuh.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It is of particular note that I notice that you neglected to write any mathematical or logical rejoinders. Rather, you chose to make attacks upon my person, in an amusing variety of ways.

I am not making any particular numerical claim. I asked you to justify your claims about specific inconsistencies. You made a claim, I asked you to back it up and you haven't. You complain I failed to provide 'any mathematical or logical rejoinders [sic]' when its entirely on you to provide the supposed inconsistencies you claim are in SR.

Like Elvis said: (slightly paraphrased) A little less empty rhetoric, please! A little more specific rebuttal of what I wrote!

Wow, are you trying to be as hypocritical as possible? You haven't provided me with anything to rebut. You have simply said "Oh there's an inconsistency!". I asked you to lay out precisely how you can get SR to effectively predict 1=2, ie provide details, because you thus far hadn't and you continue not to.

Einstein plainly wrote of one observer observing light traveling at a different speed while traversing identical measured distance.

Given 'measured distance' is a frame dependent quantity you are going to have for formalise that else all you have done is mixed frames.

With the greatest of induced hilarity I have read your most recent post. Thank you for cheering me up.

Nice defence mechanism. It provides you with a way to make it seem like you've responded to what I said but you haven't really. Couldn't you think of anything specific to retort my comment that the fact you've been doing 'serious logical study' for more time than I've been alive makes you all the more laughable because you've accomplished less than I have? Couldn't you provide me with even one link to a post of yours where you show a working understanding of special relativity? After all, if a university student can learn basic SR in 3 months surely after decades of 'serious logical study' you'd be a whiz at it? So where is even one example of you showing as much?

Obviously you had no come back from my simple observation that if all your 'serious logical study' over decades has amounted to you waving your arms and whining in the pseudoscience section of a physics forum then you're an abject failure. I would imagine its not particularly pleasant to be corrected by people who've been alive less time than you've been doing 'serious logical study' and yet who have accomplished more than you. Clearly your 'hilarity' is a defence mechanism to help you avoid accepting that.

 

[Uno Hoo]

You may have been too busy concocting your next sarcastic insult, so, you didn't notice that Einstein plainly explained to us: both the Rider On The Train and the Observer On The Embankment know that The Rider is located exactly in the middle of the train car. Perhaps it is that you are too much of an advanced being to have ever bothered to piddle about with reading either OEMB or Relativity (such an amusing little book!). Instead maybe you just sit in lecture hall and grin and let your profs fill you with any kind of bullshit they want to cram into your slack jawed mouth.

In OEMB and in Relativity we (who actually have gotten our eyeballs dirty by reading ) know that Einstein Himself plainly said that the distance to the front of the car and to the back of the car were the same to The Rider On The Train. And Einstein Himself plainly said that one of the lights hit the Rider eye before the other light.

Equal distances. Different travel times. Noone can deny it (except illiterate or lazy ones).

Then we read The Postulate. It says that every observer will see light go at same speed? Noone can deny that same speed means equal time to go across equal distance.

Noone but a crank or a crackpot can deny that Einstein wrote all thse things. Why are you having so much trouble with it?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

so, you didn't notice that Einstein plainly explained to us: both the Rider On The Train and the Observer On The Embankment know that The Rider is located exactly in the middle of the train car. Perhaps it is that you are too much of an advanced being to have ever bothered to piddle about with reading either OEMB or Relativity (such an amusing little book!). Instead maybe you just sit in lecture hall and grin and let your profs fill you with any kind of bullshit they want to cram into your slack jawed mouth.

In OEMB and in Relativity we (who actually have gotten our eyeballs dirty by reading ) know that Einstein Himself plainly said that the distance to the front of the car and to the back of the car were the same to The Rider On The Train. And Einstein Himself plainly said that one of the lights hit the Rider eye before the other light.

Equal distances. Different travel times. Noone can deny it (except illiterate or lazy ones).

Clearly you didn't actually understand the book. We're back to the whole "I don't understand it so its wrong" thing.

You have to be very careful with how you transform from one persons point of view to another and whose measuring what. The setup of bouncing lights about on a moving train is not new, its a standard textbook example. Don't you think if it were obvious from an example Einstein himself uses people would have pointed it out by now? Or do you think there's a 100 year old global conspiracy spanning all countries, ideologies and social groups which is maintaining it and you are the first to 'break cover'?

You try to insult me with comments like "Instead maybe you just sit in lecture hall and grin and let your profs fill you with any kind of bullshit they want to cram into your slack jawed mouth." Oh no, you've found my one emotional weakness, I'm so embarrassed I learnt something which you haven't. I'm so embarrassed that I have demonstrated understanding of relativity.

Of course if you think you do understand it on a working level then you should be able to formalise the description of the experiment and you should be able, clear as day, to get SR to say 1=2. The fact you're avoiding doing this, something which could earn you a Nobel Prize if true, suggests you can't do it.

Can you even provide specific page citations for what Einstein said? And if you put some thought to it you can see that both the person on the train and the person on the embankment will see the light beams reach the person's eyes at the same time, as the journeys are symmetric in both frames. So even if Einstein did say that the fact he's been wrong about his own theory is immaterial. You have to show a contradiction in the theory, not in what people say about the theory. This is another basic concept in logic you have failed to grasp.

And all your insults do nothing but illustrate you can't actually retort what I'm saying and justify your claims. You are simply throwing up an 'insult smoke screen'. If I'm wrong about this, why are you stuck in the pseudoscience section of a forum? Why aren't you publishing your work in reputable journals? If the contradiction is so simple and you're so well versed in special relativity you shouldn't have any problems. Assuming, of course, you're not just talking out your backside.

 

[James R]

You may have been too busy concocting your next sarcastic insult, so, you didn't notice that Einstein plainly explained to us: both the Rider On The Train and the Observer On The Embankment know that The Rider is located exactly in the middle of the train car. ....

In OEMB and in Relativity we (who actually have gotten our eyeballs dirty by reading ) know that Einstein Himself plainly said that the distance to the front of the car and to the back of the car were the same to The Rider On The Train. And Einstein Himself plainly said that one of the lights hit the Rider eye before the other light.

Equal distances. Different travel times. Noone can deny it (except illiterate or lazy ones).

Wrong. The travel times are the same from the front or back to the middle, in both frames. What the people in the two frames disagree about is the emission times of the light pulses from the front and back of the train.

 

[Jack_]

Wrong. The travel times are the same from the front or back to the middle, in both frames. What the people in the two frames disagree about is the emission times of the light pulses from the front and back of the train.

Wrong.

Frames in relative motion disagree on the emission points of light.

That cause light travel differentials.

That seems to translate to time differentials if the clocks obey an inconsistent theory.

 

[Jack_]

Clearly you didn't actually understand the book. We're back to the whole "I don't understand it so its wrong" thing.

You have to be very careful with how you transform from one persons point of view to another and whose measuring what. The setup of bouncing lights about on a moving train is not new, its a standard textbook example. Don't you think if it were obvious from an example Einstein himself uses people would have pointed it out by now? Or do you think there's a 100 year old global conspiracy spanning all countries, ideologies and social groups which is maintaining it and you are the first to 'break cover'?

You try to insult me with comments like "Instead maybe you just sit in lecture hall and grin and let your profs fill you with any kind of bullshit they want to cram into your slack jawed mouth." Oh no, you've found my one emotional weakness, I'm so embarrassed I learnt something which you haven't. I'm so embarrassed that I have demonstrated understanding of relativity.

Of course if you think you do understand it on a working level then you should be able to formalise the description of the experiment and you should be able, clear as day, to get SR to say 1=2. The fact you're avoiding doing this, something which could earn you a Nobel Prize if true, suggests you can't do it.

Can you even provide specific page citations for what Einstein said? And if you put some thought to it you can see that both the person on the train and the person on the embankment will see the light beams reach the person's eyes at the same time, as the journeys are symmetric in both frames. So even if Einstein did say that the fact he's been wrong about his own theory is immaterial. You have to show a contradiction in the theory, not in what people say about the theory. This is another basic concept in logic you have failed to grasp.

And all your insults do nothing but illustrate you can't actually retort what I'm saying and justify your claims. You are simply throwing up an 'insult smoke screen'. If I'm wrong about this, why are you stuck in the pseudoscience section of a forum? Why aren't you publishing your work in reputable journals? If the contradiction is so simple and you're so well versed in special relativity you shouldn't have any problems. Assuming, of course, you're not just talking out your backside.

I would like to see you use the train embankment experiment and take the train as stationary.

When you do, you will find Einsteins' conclusions that the train observer see the B light before A as false.

The train observer will also see the lightning strikes as simultaneous.

So, your conclusions above are absurd.

 

[James R]

Wrong.

Frames in relative motion disagree on the emission points of light.

No they don't. Light emitted from the front of a train is emitted from the front of a train in any reference frame. A runner who starts a race from the start line starts from the start line in any reference frame.

 

[Uno Hoo]

No they don't. Light emitted from the front of a train is emitted from the front of a train in any reference frame. A runner who starts a race from the start line starts from the start line in any reference frame.

Uhh, do you mean that a light flash is emitted from the front of the train car in any reference frame?

And, uhhh, do you mean that a light flash is emitted from the rear of the train car in any reference frame?

And, uhhhh, do you mean that a Rider On The Train has measured the distance (using his own personal custom-made yardstick) from the ends of the car to the "middle" the same way in any reference frame?

And, uhhhhh, when Einstein tells us, with a grin and a wink, that the light flashes start at the ends of the car at the same moment, but arrive upon the Rider's eye at different moments, do you tell us that that happens in any frame?

(It is very important to notice that it is absolutely critical to Einstein's relativity Of Simultaneity Hoax that the flashes begin at the same moment, cross equal distances, and arrive in the middle at DIFFERENT moments.

Einstein's hoax regarding Relativity Of Simultaneity is only true if:
The flashes begin at the same moment.
The flashes arrive in the measured middle at differents. )

So, you must pick your poison.

Pick true Relativity Of Simultaneity and screw The Postulate.

Pick true The Postulate and screw Relativity Of Simultaneity.

This is just one of the Pandora's Box of huge logical misfires in Special Relativity.

 

[Uno Hoo]

P.S: I hate cold weather. I'm not going to Stockholm in the winter. Tell them to reschedule it for July.

 

[James R]

Uno Hoo:

Uhh, do you mean that a light flash is emitted from the front of the train car in any reference frame?

If it is emitted from the front in one frame, it is emitted from the front in all frames.

And, uhhh, do you mean that a light flash is emitted from the rear of the train car in any reference frame?

See above.

And, uhhhh, do you mean that a Rider On The Train has measured the distance (using his own personal custom-made yardstick) from the ends of the car to the "middle" the same way in any reference frame?

The Rider on the Train uses a Ruler on the Train, presumably.

And, uhhhhh, when Einstein tells us, with a grin and a wink, that the light flashes start at the ends of the car at the same moment, but arrive upon the Rider's eye at different moments, do you tell us that that happens in any frame?

No. That is frame-dependent, which is the whole point of the thought experiment.

(It is very important to notice that it is absolutely critical to Einstein's relativity Of Simultaneity Hoax that the flashes begin at the same moment, cross equal distances, and arrive in the middle at DIFFERENT moments.

You misunderstand.

The flashes only begin at the same moment in one frame. In all other frames they begin at different moments. They do cover equal distances in any single frame, however.

And there's no hoax - just failure to comprehend on your part.

Einstein's hoax regarding Relativity Of Simultaneity is only true if:
The flashes begin at the same moment.
The flashes arrive in the measured middle at differents. )

No. The whole point of relativity of simultaneity is that events that are simultaneous in one frame but separated by some distance are not simultaneous in a different frame.

This is just one of the Pandora's Box of huge logical misfires in Special Relativity.

No. It's just one the huge logical misfires in your brain.

 

[Pete]

It is very important to notice that it is absolutely critical to Einstein's relativity Of Simultaneity Hoax that the flashes begin at the same moment, cross equal distances, and arrive in the middle at DIFFERENT moments.

The entire point is that according to the train observer, the flashes cross equal distances at equal speeds and arrive in the middle at different moments, and therefore they also began at different moments.


Edit - corrected "different speeds" to "equal speeds"

 

[Uno Hoo]

The entire point is that according to the train observer, the flashes cross equal distances at different speeds and arrive in the middle at different moments, and therefore they also began at different moments.

Thank you for agreeing with me that the flashes crossed equal distances at different speeds.

Einstein, kiss your Postulate good bye. Constant speed of light my donkey.

 

[Pete]

Ha! A simple typo, and hilarity ensues.

Please, allow me to edit that post to correct the mistake.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Many years of vulgar experience have taught me the unhappy truth that Pete can and will edit my post regardless of my permission. Why is it asked for?

I do not grant it. A marauder will maraud as he wishes until he is stopped cold-cocked regardless of rules. Rest in peace Pete.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Einstein, kiss your Postulate good bye. Constant speed of light my donkey.

Still haven't seen any evidence for it. You haven't provided a mathematical demonstration that the postulate is contradictory to the theory and you haven't provided an experiment which shows that the speed of light in a vacuum is system dependent. After all, since SR says the speed of light in a vacuum is always c you need only provide one example, one system, where this is not true and you invalidate relativity.

Funny that despite all your claims you haven't provided that. But then if you had such an example you'd not be peddling it on a forum. That's the ultimate kicker, if you're pushing a new idea on a forum rather than a journal its practically certain you're full of hot air. And don't give me the "They wouldn't accept anything which says SR is wrong!" crap because last year the hot topic in theoretical physics was Horava gravity, which doesn't have Lorentz invariance! Just look at ArXiv and you'll find plenty of such papers. This year its deriving gravity from thermodynamics so you don't need relativistic postulates. So if you had a falsification of relativity you'd simply increase the surge in these other ideas. But you don't.

 

[Pete]

Many years of vulgar experience have taught me the unhappy truth that Pete can and will edit my post regardless of my permission. Why is it asked for?

I do not grant it. A marauder will maraud as he wishes until he is stopped cold-cocked regardless of rules. Rest in peace Pete.

What are you talking about? I couldn't edit your post even if I wanted to!
The error was in my post, and that's what I edited.

Here it is again:

The entire point is that according to the train observer, the flashes cross equal distances at equal speeds and arrive in the middle at different moments, and therefore they also began at different moments.

 

[Uno Hoo]

Still haven't seen any evidence for it. You haven't provided a mathematical demonstration that the postulate is contradictory to the theory and you haven't provided an experiment which shows that the speed of light in a vacuum is system dependent. After all, since SR says the speed of light in a vacuum is always c you need only provide one example, one system, where this is not true and you invalidate relativity.

Funny that despite all your claims you haven't provided that. But then if you had such an example you'd not be peddling it on a forum. That's the ultimate kicker, if you're pushing a new idea on a forum rather than a journal its practically certain you're full of hot air. And don't give me the "They wouldn't accept anything which says SR is wrong!" crap because last year the hot topic in theoretical physics was Horava gravity, which doesn't have Lorentz invariance! Just look at ArXiv and you'll find plenty of such papers. This year its deriving gravity from thermodynamics so you don't need relativistic postulates. So if you had a falsification of relativity you'd simply increase the surge in these other ideas. But you don't.

Pardon me for interrupting your perpetual uncontrollable dialog with your own self. You have some misconceptions.

In the real world, outside of your ballistic imagination, your extrapolations of exterior person's motives is worthless (whereas you mistakenly believe it is all about YOU).

Hell will be frozen over solid down past bedrock when somebody like me feels compelled to be motivated by the totally chaotic and senseless rants spewed out by somebody like you.

My concerns regarding the terrible logical disconnects contained in Einstein's "Relativity Of Simultaneity" versus Einstein's "Postulate" have already been plainly stated. If you are so ditzy that you are unable to read and comprehend plainly written English then that is an Alphanumertic problem, not a Uno Hoo problem.

Read my posts, read the book, try to figure it out again, and quit trying to screw with me for your problematic motives.