The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Motor Daddy]

He doesn't pretend that.
He knows that the train-standard is a distinct standard.
Do you see that it is a useful standard?

There is not a "train standard." There is A standard, of which all frames use. He can't even measure the speed of light properly because he doesn't know his own velocity.

He doesn't want to make false statements. But what choice does he have?

Right, he is forced to make false statements, because he doesn't know the truth.

So it's only a semantic difference then?

No, not semantics, it's the difference between fairy tales and reality. If you say that's semantics, then you probably think it's just semantics between theism and atheism??

Doesn't work, MD. The wheel is moving, so it's length contracted. Different parts of the wheel are moving at different rates, so the length contraction varies around its radius.
The complete analysis is tricky, but very interesting.
In this mathematical world of length contraction, the spinning wheel must undergo some physical stress - either the spokes of the wheel have to be physically compressed, or the circumference of the wheel has to be physically stretched, or both.

Are you saying that it's impossible to have a true circle on the train? Pete, where do you come up with this stuff? You are living in Einstein's world of illusions. Why can't you see that? ...and it doesn't matter anyway, the actuators were calibrated so that the tabs hit them simultaneously. You are trying to deny that two clocks could ever be in sync. Do you think it's possible for two clocks to be in sync? Answer that question!

There's a question you haven't addressed yet: how can you tell if your preferred mathematical world matches the real world?

Because I know that objects travel in space. I know that light travels in space. I know the speed of light to be a constant because the meter is defined by light travel time.

In order for an object to travel in space, the observers in that object can't measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 relative to their object in motion in space. It is simply impossible, because the object is in motion, and the speed of light is a constant.

The failure occurs because the observers in the object in motion in space fail to acknowledge their own motion, because they don't know it (in Einstein's world), so they assume (incorrectly) that they are motionless. Then they go on to say that they measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s in their object. They realize things don;t add up, so they come up with the crazy notion of time dilation and length contraction, and discard simultaneity in order to save their prized possession of their object being motionless. It's to laugh!

 

[Motor Daddy]

You ignoring me now, MD?

No, I have a bunch of other hecklers that I have to respond to.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nothing needs to be calculated. Your whole premise is based on the assumption that the speed of light changes relative to the observer. All you have to do is to present some evidence (measurements) that the relative speed of light varies with the observers speed. Untill you can do that your analysis is pure and simply based an idea in your head and not reality. A result based on a faulty premise is crap. Show a mesurement where c varies with the speed of the oserver. If you can't then your premise is wrong, your analysis is wrong and your results are wrong.



There is absolutely no significance what so ever. You have in essence said, "if we ignore that the speed of light is always measured as c regardless of the inertial frame then I can get a nonstandard result". Gee really! If I ignore that gravity is an attractive force then people can jump into outer space. I can even calculate their velocity based on how strong there legs are - amazing huh?

You don't present evidence because you know that there isn't any, whcih means you are simply screwing around and trolling.

Stick with the OP, which is Chapter 9. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Tell me what you conclude, and I will show you where you are wrong. Chapter 9 shows the errors quite clearly. The situation is not reversible, so it is impossible for the train observer to correctly conclude he was at rest and the embankment was in motion. It is impossible. It shows why Einstein's theory is BS! Einstein himself proved himself wrong with this example, and he didn't even realize it. Go figure, he never understood how to properly measure distance and time, so he created a world of illusions.

 

[Pete]

There is not a "train standard."

Where do you think standards come from?
The train standard has been defined, and the train observer finds it very practical. He uses it in exactly the same way as the embankment observer uses the original standard, and finds it just as useful.

He can't even measure the speed of light properly because he doesn't know his own velocity.

Right, he is forced to make false statements, because he doesn't know the truth.

That's correct.
He can't know the truth in this mathematical world.
So what would you do if you were the train observer?
Would you just give up, or would you make do with what you have?

No, not semantics, it's the difference between fairy tales and reality. If you say that's semantics, then you probably think it's just semantics between theism and atheism??

You said his dictionary is wrong. If he's just using word differently, that's semantics.

Are you saying that it's impossible to have a true circle on the train?

No. What I said is the inescapable result of the rules of this mathematical world.

Because I know that objects travel in space. I know that light travels in space. I know the speed of light to be a constant because the meter is defined by light travel time.

That's all true in my mathematical world as well.
How can you tell which world we're actually living in?

In order for an object to travel in space, the observers in that object can't measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 relative to their object in motion in space. It is simply impossible, because the object is in motion, and the speed of light is a constant.

The train observer measures the speed of light relative to the train to be 299792458 train-standard metres per train-standard second.
What do you think that means?

The failure occurs because the observers in the object in motion in space fail to acknowledge their own motion, because they don't know it (in Einstein's world), so they assume (incorrectly) that they are motionless. Then they go on to say that they measure the speed of light to be 299,792,458 m/s in their object.

If you were living in Einstein's world, MD, how could you tell that you weren't living in your mathematical world?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Where do you think standards come from?
The train standard has been defined, and the train observer finds it very practical. He uses it in exactly the same way as the embankment observer uses the original standard, and finds it just as useful.

We defined the standards. He is not using the standard properly. He is not acknowledging his own velocity, which makes his measurements of distance and time distorted.

That's correct.
He can't know the truth in this mathematical world.
So what would you do if you were the train observer?
Would you just give up, or would you make do with what you have?

He can know the truth. I just showed you the truth, and you don't accept it. You don't want the truth..."You can't handle the truth!!!"

You said his dictionary is wrong. If he's just using word differently, that's semantics.

No, what I mean is that what he calls a meter is not a meter, because he doesn't acknowledge his own velocity in space, so his measurements are inaccurate.

No. What I said is the inescapable result of the rules of this mathematical world.

Wrong. The actuators were calibrated so the tabs contact them simultaneously.

That's all true in my mathematical world as well.
How can you tell which world we're actually living in?

Because my observers agree with each other, and Einstein's observers scratch their heads and look at each other weird, and call each other names. That starts wars and the like, you know? Einstein has created confusion between observers, because his methods are incorrect. That makes observer disagree with each other. They also don't know their own velocity in space, so they are in no position to make statements about other motion until they know their own motion.

The train observer measures the speed of light relative to the train to be 299792458 train-standard metres per train-standard second.
What do you think that means?

It means that he's measured incorrectly. It means that light didn't actually travel the distance he said it did.

If you were living in Einstein's world, MD, how could you tell that you weren't living in your mathematical world?

I would reference Chapter 9 and conclude that the train observer is incorrect to assume he was at rest. I would then understand where the mistake is made, and make the necessary corrections in order to restore accuracy to the universe. In the process I would be able to measure my own velocity in space, a must in order for me to make statements about others motion in space.

 

[Pete]

We defined the standards. He is not using the standard properly. He is not acknowledging his own velocity, which makes his measurements of distance and time distorted.

He has defined a new standard. What's wrong with that?

He can know the truth. I just showed you the truth, and you don't accept it. You don't want the truth..."You can't handle the truth!!!"
...
Wrong. The actuators were calibrated so the tabs contact them simultaneously.

Sorry, MD. That just doesn't work in this mathematical world.

No, what I mean is that what he calls a meter is not a meter, because he doesn't acknowledge his own velocity in space, so his measurements are inaccurate.

He doesn't call it a metre. He calls it a train-standard metre. It's not supposed to be the same thing.

Because my observers agree with each other, and Einstein's observers scratch their heads and look at each other weird, and call each other names. That starts wars and the like, you know? Einstein has created confusion between observers, because his methods are incorrect. That makes observer disagree with each other. They also don't know their own velocity in space, so they are in no position to make statements about other motion until they know their own motion.

That's all wrong, MD.
The train observer and the embankment observer agree with each other and get along fine. The train observer can use the embankment standard when it's convenient, and the embankment observer can use the train standard when it's convenient.

No one has to insist they are at rest, they just use whatever standard is convenient at the time. Mostly, they like to use the embankment standard, but really, they find that they just don't care about their velocity in space.

What difference does it make, anyway?

Isn't it enough to know their velocity relative to whatever they're dealing with?

It means that he's measured incorrectly. It means that light didn't actually travel the distance he said it did.

But isn't it interesting that he measured that exact number? Coincidence?

I would reference Chapter 9 and conclude that the train observer is incorrect to assume he was at rest. I would then understand where the mistake is made, and make the necessary corrections in order to restore accuracy to the universe. In the process I would be able to measure my own velocity in space, a must in order for me to make statements about others motion in space.

In Einstein's world you can't measure your velocity in space, MD.
In Einstein's world, signals through moving wires travel faster in one direction that the other.
In Einstein's world, moving rotating wheels are distorted.

What would you do if you found that no matter what you tried, you couldn't measure your own velocity in space?

 

[AlexG]

Measurement shows MD is wrong.
Experiment shows MD is wrong.
100 years of observation shows MD is wrong.

MD is simply wrong, although he will NEVER acknowledge it.

Any attempt to convince MD otherwise is predoomed to failure.


You can argue with a crank, but you can never teach them. :shrug:

 

[Motor Daddy]

Pete, here's my suggestion. You think your way is correct and I'll think my way is correct. You be happy and I'll be happy. You live in Einstein's world and I'll live in my world. You keep chasing your tail, and I'll enjoy watching you chase your tail.

ps, The Earth came from the Sun!!

L=(2cTt)/(T+t)
v=(ct-L)/t

 

[Pete]

Pete, here's my suggestion. You think your way is correct and I'll think my way is correct. You be happy and I'll be happy. You live in Einstein's world and I'll live in my world.

We live in a real world, MD, not mathematical worlds.
How do you tell which one you live in?

 

[origin]

Stick with the OP, which is Chapter 9. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Tell me what you conclude, and I will show you where you are wrong. Chapter 9 shows the errors quite clearly. The situation is not reversible, so it is impossible for the train observer to correctly conclude he was at rest and the embankment was in motion. It is impossible. It shows why Einstein's theory is BS! Einstein himself proved himself wrong with this example, and he didn't even realize it. Go figure, he never understood how to properly measure distance and time, so he created a world of illusions.

Nice dodge. You can only show where it is wrong if you assume that light has a different relative speed for different inertial frames, which is not true. Therefore your analysis is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

If you disagree then give some evidence that the relative speed of light is affected by the speed of the observer. Oh, that's right you have no evidence except for a gut feeling. As a matter of fact ALL MEASUREMENTS SAY YOU AR WRONG. But by all means don't let the facts get in the way of your beliefs.

 

[Motor Daddy]

We live in a real world, MD, not mathematical worlds.
How do you tell which one you live in?

I can tell because in the real world, no object is at rest, so Einstein's illusions are just that, illusions!

 

[Motor Daddy]

Nice dodge. You can only show where it is wrong if you assume that light has a different relative speed for different inertial frames, which is not true. Therefore your analysis is wrong and your conclusions are wrong.

So you are saying that since the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously, that the light reached the train observer simultaneously, because he was at the midpoint of the train. That is what you are saying, correct? Since light always travels at c in the train, and the train observer is "at rest", and at the midpoint of the train, you must be saying the train observer was impacted by the lights simultaneously.

You start with a contradiction right off the bat!!!

 

[Pete]

I can tell because in the real world, no object is at rest, so Einstein's illusions are just that, illusions!

How can you tell? Have you made measurements?

 

[Motor Daddy]

How can you tell? Have you made measurements?

By definition an object's motion is compared to the speed of light.

 

[AlexG]

“ Originally Posted by Pete
How can you tell? Have you made measurements? ”

By definition an object's motion is compared to the speed of light.

In other words, no.

 

[Pete]

By what definition? Perhaps you're confusing motion with distance.
In Einstein's world, you can't determine motion by comparison with the speed of light. As our train observer discovered.

So you haven't made measurements, then?
How can you tell which world you live in?

 

[Motor Daddy]

In other words, no.

Your mathematical world is incorrect.

How do you explain the fact that lightening struck A and B simultaneously, the speed of light is measured to be c in the train in each direction, the observer on the train was at the midpoint, and the lights impacted him at different times??

Tell me how you explain that, in your delusional world that is Einstein's.

 

[AlexG]

How can you tell which world you live in?

Isn't it obvious? He lives in his own world.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Isn't it obvious? He lives in his own world.

Explain your position as the train observer. Don't avoid the question because you know you are wrong, answer the question.

BTW, I'm not going to respond to you anymore until you answer my questions, it's a waste of time to do so.

 

[AlexG]

Your mathematical world is incorrect.

How do you explain the fact that lightening struck A and B simultaneously, the speed of light is measured to be c in the train in each direction, the observer on the train was at the midpoint, and the lights impacted him at different times??

Tell me how you explain that, in your delusional world that is Einstein's.

Nope, there's no point in arguing with crank. You frequently ask 'how do you explain that', and then ignore the answers. I'm happy to point out that you're delusional, but I refuse to partake in your delusion by pretending that it has any relationship to reality.