Relative Velocity Measurement – Frame and photon

[Jack_]

Jack, that's exactly what I said. Are you not reading my posts, or just not thinking? Where exactly did I suggest that you need to prove or are trying to prove anything about M at rest?

Focus, Jack. Read what I write. Please?
You proved that for M' at rest when M and M' co-locate, then A' co-locates with A and B' co-locates with B.
You are trying to prove that for M' at rest when M and M' co-locate, then A and B are hit simultaneously.
You are assuming without proof that for M' at rest the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B?

So again I ask:
Can you prove that for M' at rest the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B?


The irony is getting thicker by the second.

I am focused, you focus.

Here is the transaction.

“ Originally Posted by Jack_
Sure I proved this.
I proved when M and M' co-locate, then A' co-locates with A and B' co-locates with B. ”

You proved that for the M' rest frame. Not for the M rest frame.

See, you keep bring up the M rest frame. I am trying to get you to focus on M' stationary.

You are trying to prove that for M' at rest when M and M' co-locate, then A and B are hit simultaneously.

Nope, I do not care about A and B,

I proved A' and B' are hit simultaneously.

You are assuming without proof that for M' at rest the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B?

I proved this with the rods and without the lightnig strikes to keep it simple.

You already agreed if M and M' are co-located, then A and A' and B and B' are co-located.

So, now the experiment says when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck.

But, where and A' and B'? The are co-located with their counterparts since M' and M are co-located. It is quite simple.

You have everything you need right here.

 

[Pete]

I am aware, when M is stationary, this is the conclusion.

No, Jack, that's the conclusion with M' stationary.

The master said this:

Einstein is not "the master" Jack. Any graduate relativistic physicist now is likely to understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. That's what science is about - continual improvement on the work of predecessors.

Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.

http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Can you see the preferred frame fallacy?

Can you see the qualifier?
That the paragraph is explicitly a description of the embankment rest frame, not an absolute construction of reality.
Only the last sentence, "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A." is implicitly an absolute statement, one that must be true in all reference frames (do you understand why?)

The sentence I quoted previously is explicitly a description of the train rest frame.

He is saying M' is never stationary and is in absolute motion I guess.

Rubbish.

Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment)
He is saying the M frame is the only reality.

No, he's saying reality (a word used very loosely in that paragraph) is being considered with reference to the railway embankment in that description.

He goes on to consider the railway train as their reference-body in the paragraph I quoted earlier.

he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A.
This is the correct conclusion only when M is stationary.
Note how M' is moving.

That's right - in that sentence, reality is being considered from a particular reference, that of M stationary.
No, it's not the only way reality can be considered.

Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.
Here he commits preferred frame fallacy and claims the conclusions of frame M under relativity are absolute.

It is indeed implied that this particular conclusion reached from the perspective of M stationary is an absolute one.
Why?
Because causality is absolute. It would break casuality if the order of events that happen to any observer were different under different "considerations of reality" (ie frames of reference).
Hence, if we conclude with M stationary that an observer receives light from B before light from A, then we know that the same must be true with M' stationary.

 

[Pete]

So, now the experiment says when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck.

Jack, the experiment only says that for M stationary.

Focus on M' stationary.
Prove for M' stationary that when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck.

Don't you see that this is precisely what you are trying to prove?
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is true as one of your premises is a logical fallacy?

 

[Jack_]

Jack, the experiment only says that for M stationary.

Focus on M' stationary.
Prove for M' stationary that when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck.

Don't you see that this is precisely what you are trying to prove?
Do you understand that assuming your conclusion is true as one of your premises is a logical fallacy?

I understand what I am trying to prove.

That has been what is going on .

I keep doing it and doing it.

Prove for M' stationary that when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck.

This is not the case.

It is only the case for M' what the primed observers claim. Otherwise, that is frame mixing.

Did you intend to frame mix?

I proved over and over, A' and B' are struck simultaneeously when M' and M are co-located.

Equidistant simultaneous light flashes will reach M' simultaneously.

In M, M makes the same claim.

So, under SR, M and M' will be struck simultaneously at two different positions, a contradiction.

This is simple easy basic logic.

 

[Jack_]

No, Jack, that's the conclusion with M' stationary.

This is Newtonian physics. You claim one frame decides all truth for all frames.

Einstein is not "the master" Jack. Any graduate relativistic physicist now is likely to understand relativity better than Einstein ever did. That's what science is about - continual improvement on the work of predecessors.

From my POV, if someone understands SR, then they understand it is false and does not model the nature of light.

Can you see the qualifier?
That the paragraph is explicitly a description of the embankment rest frame, not an absolute construction of reality.
Only the last sentence, "Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A." is implicitly an absolute statement, one that must be true in all reference frames (do you understand why?)

Yea, from Newtonian physics I understand why.

The M' frame is in absolute motion toward and away for the light flashes.

That is not SR though.
Do you understand why?

It is indeed implied that this particular conclusion reached from the perspective of M stationary is an absolute one.
Why?
Because causality is absolute. It would break casuality if the order of events that happen to any observer were different under different "considerations of reality" (ie frames of reference).
Hence, if we conclude with M stationary that an observer receives light from B before light from A, then we know that the same must be true with M' stationary.

Yes, here is the problem. You have not taked SR and proven the light stikes M' at different times while taking M' as stationary.

I have proven over and over M' will see them as simultaneous while stationary.

And now, you finally have the point, if you are able to think about M' clearly as stationary, you will see SR violates causality in this experiment not because of the light postulate but because of its false "always measure at c" logic.

 

[Pete]

I proved over and over, A' and B' are struck simultaneously when M' and M are co-located.

No, no, no, and no again.

Jack, look at the premises we agreed on:

1. For M at rest, two points A and B are each a distance d from M.
2. For M at rest, M' moves past M at velocity v.
3. For M at rest, when M' and M are co-located, lightning strikes at A and at B.
4. For M' at rest, two points A' and B' are each a distance d/γ from M'.
5. For M' at rest, when M and M' are co-located, A is co-located with A' and B is co-located with B'.

Your logic hasn't progress past this point, because you keep introducing unproven premises. You need to use the agreed premises to prove at least one of the following:

• For M' at rest, the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck simultaneously.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A' and B' are struck simultaneously.

In each subsequent argument you have introduced at least one of these premises with either no proof, or with a proof relying one one of the other two unproven premises.

Please, Jack, show me that you can construct a rigorous proof. For each new statement, list the premises from which it stems. Don't introduce any new statements without that support.

 

[Pete]

This is Newtonian physics. You claim one frame decides all truth for all frames.

Jack, there is no absolute reference frame in Newtonian physics.
Some measures (such as time intervals and acceleration) are absolute, but some (such as time, location, velocity, and orientation) are relative.

The same applies in special relativity. Some measures (such as acceleration, speed of light, space-time interval magnitude, sequence of causal events) are absolute, but some (such as location, velocity, orientation, time, time intervals, and sequence of acausal events) are not.

From my POV, if someone understands SR, then they understand it is false and does not model the nature of light.

Your POV is inadequate to judge whether someone understands SR or not. You're still struggling with Newtonian physics, and yet you're under a delusion that you are capable of instructing someone in relativity? Please.

Yea, from Newtonian physics I understand why.

Clearly you do not, since there is no absolute motion in Newtonian physics.

 

[Jack_]

No, no, no, and no again.

Jack, look at the premises we agreed on:

1. For M at rest, two points A and B are each a distance d from M.
2. For M at rest, M' moves past M at velocity v.
3. For M at rest, when M' and M are co-located, lightning strikes at A and at B.
4. For M' at rest, two points A' and B' are each a distance d/γ from M'.
5. For M' at rest, when M and M' are co-located, A is co-located with A' and B is co-located with B'.

Your logic hasn't progress past this point, because you keep introducing unproven premises. You need to use the agreed premises to prove at least one of the following:

• For M' at rest, the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck simultaneously.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A' and B' are struck simultaneously.

In each subsequent argument you have introduced at least one of these premises with either no proof, or with a proof relying one one of the other two unproven premises.

Please, Jack, show me that you can construct a rigorous proof. For each new statement, list the premises from which it stems. Don't introduce any new statements without that support.

Here it is again.

Now, the reductio ad absurdum argument is applied by assuming Einstein’s conclusion that M' sees the light from B prior to A from the view of M' as stationary.
To support Einstein’s conclusion that M' sees the light from B prior to A one of the following two possibilities must be true:
1. M' moves toward the lightning strike at B closing the distance for light to travel relative to the strike at A.
2. The strike at B occurs prior to the strike at A in the time coordinates of M'.
Possibility 1
Since M' is stationary, it is not moving. A, B and M are moving relative to M'. Sure, B closes the distance to M' as the light travels toward M' but this has nothing to do with the distance light traveled in the frame of M'. The distance light traveled would be measured from B' to M' which is the distance from the light emission point in the frame to the strike point in the coordinates of the frame. That distance is d/γ. The same logic applies to A' and M' where that distance is also d/γ. This logic is supported by length contraction under SR. In particular, if a moving rod is of length d and a stationary rod is of length d/γ, then from the view of the stationary frame, the two ends of the rods can be simultaneously co-located. Hence, possibility one is not viable when taking M' as stationary since B' and A' are equidistant from M and M' when they are co-located and the lightning strikes.

Possibility 2
Since, there are the observers B' and A' co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B, it is impossible there is any disagreement between the frames as to whether light is moving along the x-axis or not. Hence, for example, if B' claims lightning just struck, B will make the same claim as well. So, it cannot be claimed the lightning appears for one frame at some location while a co-located observer claims light is not at that location. Therefore, perhaps the time on the clock of B' will show an earlier time than the clock of A' for the light strike and this explains it. In other words, the light emitted from B' before it emitted from A'.
So, let tB' be the time of the lightning strike at B' and tA' be the time of the strike at A'. Therefore, tB' < tA'. By the experiment, B' is located a distance d/γ from M' at the time of the strike and is co-located with B. At that strike at B', as required by the experiment, M and M' are co-located. But, that also implies M moves a distance (tA' - tB')v between the two lightning strikes in the time of M' if they indeed occur at different times in the M' frame. Thus, when the strike at A/A' occurs, M has moved a distance (tA' - tB')v, hence, M and M' are no longer co-located at the time of the strike at A/A'. So, possibility 2 is not viable.
Therefore, using this simple argument, the stationary frame of M' will be struck by two simultaneous equidistant lightning strikes and M will be struck by the lightning from A prior to B.

 

[Pete]

No, no, no, and no again.

Jack, look at the premises we agreed on:

1. For M at rest, two points A and B are each a distance d from M.
2. For M at rest, M' moves past M at velocity v.
3. For M at rest, when M' and M are co-located, lightning strikes at A and at B.
4. For M' at rest, two points A' and B' are each a distance d/γ from M'.
5. For M' at rest, when M and M' are co-located, A is co-located with A' and B is co-located with B'.

Your logic hasn't progress past this point, because you keep introducing unproven premises. You need to use the agreed premises to prove at least one of the following:

• For M' at rest, the observers B' and A' are co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A and B are struck simultaneously.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, A' and B' are struck simultaneously.

In each subsequent argument you have introduced at least one of these premises with either no proof, or with a proof relying one one of the other two unproven premises.

Please, Jack, show me that you can construct a rigorous proof. For each new statement, list the premises from which it stems. Don't introduce any new statements without that support.

Here it is again.
...
Possibility 2
Since, there are the observers B' and A' co-located at the lightning strikes at A and B,...

That's unproven premise number one.
Please prove that premise using our agreed premises.

 

[Pete]

Note that your previous 'proof' of that premise relied on unproven premise number 2, which you confused with agreed premise number 3 (spot the difference):

Oh, the original thought experiment said when M and M' co-locate, then A and B are hit simultaneuously.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, there is no absolute reference frame in Newtonian physics.
Some measures (such as time intervals and acceleration) are absolute, but some (such as time, location, velocity, and orientation) are relative.

The same applies in special relativity. Some measures (such as acceleration, speed of light, space-time interval magnitude, sequence of causal events) are absolute, but some (such as location, velocity, orientation, time, time intervals, and sequence of acausal events) are not.


Your POV is inadequate to judge whether someone understands SR or not. You're still struggling with Newtonian physics, and yet you're under a delusion that you are capable of instructing someone in relativity? Please.


Clearly you do not, since there is no absolute motion in Newtonian physics.

My POV is superior to yours.

I am being patient, but, this is taking a long time for obvious stuff.

Frankly, I am growing tired of taking to you because, I completely understand everything your aee saying, though you do not realize this, but you have no idea what I am taking about.

I have offered iron clad proof and you cannot even see it.

Here are the basics.

I proved when M and M' co-locate, then A' co-locates with A and B' co-locates with B.

Oh, the original thought experiment said when M and M' co-locate, then A and B are hit simultaneuously.

Thus, when M and M' co-locate, two things are true.

1) A' co-locates with A and B' co-locates with B
2) A and B are struck by the lightning simultaneously.

Now, as I have said over and over and over and over,

If A' and B' are not struck simultaneously, then A' and A will disagree on causality.

The same holds for B and B'.

Then I provided a proof, that assumes they are not struck simultaneously.

If you do not want to discuss the proof, then I do not want to waste my time with you anymore.

You are just not seeing a simple proof and refuse to understand it, or cannot.

 

[Pete]

Jack, you are very clearly demonstrating that you are quite incapable of constructing a sound proof, that you are lax about which premises you have proven before using them in a subsequent step.
I do understand that you are getting tired and frustrated. I suggest that you would be less tired and frustrated if you were less arrogant, and willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

 

[Jack_]

Note that your previous 'proof' of that premise relied on unproven premise number 2, which you confused with agreed premise number 3 (spot the difference):

OMG, I have shown time and time again A' A and B' B co-locate when M' and M co-locate which is when the lightning strikes.

This is a simple fact.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, you are very clearly demonstrating that you are quite incapable of constructing a sound proof, that you are lax about which premises you have proven before using them in a subsequent step.
I do understand that you are getting tired and frustrated. I suggest that you would be less tired and frustrated if you were less arrogant, and willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

This has no value and belongs in politics.
Let me teach you.

Instead of saying I did not prove something, demonstrate that my proof is false.

And I am getting tired of talking to you because you cannot grasp simple concepts.

 

[Jack_]

Jack, you are very clearly demonstrating that you are quite incapable of constructing a sound proof, that you are lax about which premises you have proven before using them in a subsequent step.
I do understand that you are getting tired and frustrated. I suggest that you would be less tired and frustrated if you were less arrogant, and willing to consider the possibility that you might be wrong.

Here I will teach you.

Take a stand on M' and prove your case.

I will will disprove anything you put out.

 

[Pete]

OMG, I have shown time and time again A' A and B' B co-locate when M' and M co-locate which is when the lightning strikes.

This is a simple fact.

Prove it Jack. Stop waving your arms and jumping around, and put together a rigorous proof for a change.

With M' stationary, how do you know the lightning strikes when M' and M co-locate?

 

[Jack_]

Prove it Jack. Stop waving your arms and jumping around, and put together a rigorous proof for a change.

With M' stationary, how do you know the lightning strikes when M' and M co-locate?

It strikes when M and M' co-locate by the experiment.

Are you claiming M' does not co-located with M?

Prove this then.

If M' does not co-located with M, then the original thought experiment for LT construction fails since co-location from both frames is not possible.

 

[Pete]

It strikes when M and M' co-locate by the experiment.

No, Jack, that is with M stationary.
With M' stationary, how do you know the lightning strikes when M' and M co-locate?

Are you claiming M' does not co-located with M?

SR says that with M' stationary, M' is co-located with M at a different time to the lightning strikes.

 

[Jack_]

No, Jack, that is with M stationary.
With M' stationary, how do you know the lightning strikes when M' and M co-locate?

SR says that with M' stationary, M' is co-located with M at a different time to the lightning strikes.

What?

SR does not answer this questin except from the view of M as stationary.


I think you are claiming then, when M' and M co-locate, then A, A' and B B' co-locate.

But the experiment says, when M and M' co-located, then the light strikes A and B.

You are not able to grasp this, but this implies A' and/or B' disagree with A and/or B that lightning has struck at that point. That is impossible by causality.

Take your time on this because I guess it is complex.

 

[Pete]

What?

SR does not answer this question except from the view of M as stationary.

Your ignorance is showing, Jack. SR most definitely tells us what happens with M' stationary.
If we know when and where the lightning strikes with M stationary, then SR tells us when and where it strikes with M' stationary, and vice-versa.

Try it. Say when and where the lightning strikes in one reference frame, and I'll show you how SR tells us when and where it strikes in the other.
If you could do this yourself, we wouldn't have to have such a drawn-out argument.

I think you are claiming then, when M' and M co-locate, then A, A' and B B' co-locate.

With M' stationary, yes. That was one of our agreed premises (number 5).

But the experiment says, when M and M' co-located, then the light strikes A and B.

Yes, the experiment setup says that with M stationary. That's agreed premise number 3.

But, it is not agreed for M' stationary. This might be hard for you to understand, but it's central to understanding special relativity.

Jack, do you understand that the following two statements are not equivalent?

• For M at rest, when M' and M are co-located, lightning strikes at A and at B.
• For M' at rest, when M' and M are co-located, lightning strikes at A and at B.

Do you understand that only one of these is defined by the experiment setup?