The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Motor Daddy]

Something to think about for the train standard, MD.

The train observer and the embankment observer want to know who's the faster runner.
Can they find out without a shared synchronization standard?

I can calculate the velocity of each, in their own frame, without respect to the others frame, and when I present my calculations to each observer after the measurements are completed and the calculations are complete, they will both agree with my numbers, and both agree with each other.

 

[Pete]

So in his frame (the train), according to him the strikes occurred at different times at A and B?

That's what the clocks say.

No, I haven't made measurements. I am telling you how distance and time work in the universe, according to the definition of the speed of light and the meter.

They are inseparable.

1/299,792,458 of a second of light travel time is 1 meter. I don't need to take any measurements, it is defined!

Human definitions don't dictate to the universe, MD.

So, once more... how can you tell if you're living in Einstein's world?

 

[Motor Daddy]

That's what the clocks say.


Human definitions don't dictate to the universe, MD.

So, once more... how can you tell if you're living in Einstein's world?

I can tell I'm NOT living in his world, as the train observer is in Einstein's world, and he clearly gets it wrong. He clearly thinks the strikes occurred at A and B at different times, which we know FOR SURE that is impossible, so he is absolutely 100% wrong!!! He went wrong by assuming his velocity to be zero.

In my world, there is no discrepancy. In my world, the train observer knows his absolute velocity, and knows the speed of light is not measured to be the same in each direction, so he is able to make informed decisions, and clearly understands the lights impacted A and B at exactly the same time, simultaneously.

 

[origin]

In my world, the train observer knows his absolute velocity, and knows the speed of light is not measured to be the same in each direction, .

He may "know" that, but when he actually measures the speed of light he finds that it is the same in each direction.

So he can either be a fool and create a false reality or accept the measurements and data that is right in front of him.

It seems pretty obvious that it would be utterly stupid believe something that measurements show to be false. Seems almost crazy actually....

 

[Motor Daddy]

Human definitions don't dictate to the universe, MD.

Human units of measure don't dictate the universe, but the universal concept of the constant speed of light traveling a specific distance in a specific duration of time is a standard which nobody can deny! It is irrefutable using any units of measure of distance and time.

 

[Pete]

I can calculate the velocity of each, in their own frame, without respect to the others frame, and when I present my calculations to each observer after the measurements are completed and the calculations are complete, they will both agree with my numbers, and both agree with each other.

Good!
So you can you do it without the train observer knowing the train's velocity?

I can tell I'm NOT living in his world, as the train observer is in Einstein's world, and he clearly gets it wrong. He clearly thinks the strikes occurred at A and B at different times, which we know FOR SURE that is impossible, so he is absolutely 100% wrong!!! He went wrong by assuming his velocity to be zero.

Don't be distracted, MD. Remember that he doesn't have to believe he's at rest. He's just using a convenient standard of measurement, that everyone can agree on.

In my world, there is no discrepancy. In my world, the train observer knows his absolute velocity, and knows the speed of light is not measured to be the same in each direction, so he is able to make informed decisions, and clearly understands the lights impacted A and B at exactly the same time, simultaneously.

So how can you tell if you're really living in that world?
Do you know your absolute velocity?

 

[Motor Daddy]

He may "know" that, but when he actually measures the speed of light he finds that it is the same in each direction.

So he can either be a fool and create a false reality or accept the measurements and data that is right in front of him.

It seems pretty obvious that it would be utterly stupid believe something that measurements show to be false. Seems almost crazy actually....

Again, nobody has ever measured the speed of light knowing their absolute velocity, using clocks that are absolutely sync'd, by measuring the one-way times in each direction. So your previous BS is just that, BS!

 

[Pete]

Again, nobody has ever measured the speed of light knowing their absolute velocity, using clocks that are absolutely sync'd, by measuring the one-way times in each direction.

That's absolutely correct, MD.
Nobody knows their absolute velocity.
Nobody has clocks that are absolutely sync'd.

So what world are we living in?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Good!
So you can you do it without the train observer knowing the train's velocity?

I will tell you the train's velocity, the distance the train traveled in space, the time the train traveled in space, the measured speed of light in each direction, the time of light travel, the distance the train observer runs in the train compared to the train, and compared to space, the absolute velocity of the train observer in space when he was running, etc...

I can also do the same for the embankment observer.

So how can you tell if you're really living in that world?
Do you know your absolute velocity?

I've never measured it, but I have a method. You haven't measured it, nor do you have a method! All I need is precise equipment. You need a method and precise equipment. That makes me one step ahead of you! The difference being, I have the knowledge of how to do it, you have no clue!

 

[quantum_wave]

I'll defend Pete to the extent that saying he has no clue may be an exageration .

 

[Pete]

I will tell you the train's velocity, the distance the train traveled in space, the time the train traveled in space, the measured speed of light in each direction, the time of light travel, the distance the train observer runs in the train compared to the train, and compared to space, the absolute velocity of the train observer in space when he was running, etc...

I can also do the same for the embankment observer.

There's a much less complicated way.

I've never measured it, but I have a method. You haven't measured it, nor do you have a method! All I need is precise equipment. You need a method and precise equipment. That makes me one step ahead of you! The difference being, I have the knowledge of how to do it, you have no clue!

Your method certainly works in your mathematical world.
Your method certainly does not work in Einstein's world.

If your method works in the real world, then your mathematical world is more true than Einstein's.
If your method doesn't work in the real world, then Einstein's world is more true than yours.

How can you tell which it is, if you haven't tried it?

 

[origin]

Again, nobody has ever measured the speed of light knowing their absolute velocity, using clocks that are absolutely sync'd, by measuring the one-way times in each direction. So your previous BS is just that, BS!

Your sad denials are becoming excruciatingly painful to watch.

No need to know your absolute velocity.
No need to know your relative velocity.
No need to know the velocity of the light source.
No need to have synched clocks.

Just measure the speed of light from different sources at different speeds at different times. Doesn't matter - because every time the speed of light is the same.

You are wrong - and you must know you are wrong, because you have dodged every chance to show that the speed of light changes relative to the motion of the observer. It is a simple matter to show your evidence - I mean if any existed.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You don't have a much simpler way?

Do you want all the information, or do you want some of it?

Your method certainly works in your mathematical world.
Your method certainly does not work in Einstein's world.

If your method works in the real world, then your mathematical world is more true than Einstein's.
If your method doesn't work in the real world, then Einstein's world is more true than yours.

How can you tell which it is, if you haven't tried it?

Because we've defined distance and time and the speed of light. My method is bonded to those definitions. You can't separate my method from those definitions anymore than you can separate a meter from 1/299,792,458 of a second of light travel. It is bonded together, you can't separate the distance and time.

 

[quantum_wave]

Isn't the constant speed of light axiomatic in Relativity. MD, would I be safe in concluding that you do not accept it as axiomatic?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Isn't the constant speed of light axiomatic in Relativity. MD, would I be safe in concluding that you do not accept it as axiomatic?

I disagree with Einstein's second postulate. I agree the speed of light is a constant. I don't agree it is always measured to be the same in all frames of reference.

 

[Pete]

Because we've defined distance and time and the speed of light. My method is bonded to those definitions. You can't separate my method from those definitions anymore than you can separate a meter from 1/299,792,458 of a second of light travel. It is bonded together, you can't separate the distance and time.

We use the standard without knowing our absolute velocity or having absolutely synchronized clocks, MD.

Whose world are we living in?

Do you want all the information, or do you want some of it?

I meant to say that there is a much simpler way.
The train and embankment observers can easily determine the fastest runner without having to establish the velocity of the train, or having absolutely synchronized train clocks.

If the train observer uses the train standard to measure his running speed in train-standard metres per train-standard second, he will get exactly the same result as if he was running on the embankment and measuring in metres per second.

Want to see the numbers?

 

[Pete]

Isn't the constant speed of light axiomatic in Relativity. MD, would I be safe in concluding that you do not accept it as axiomatic?

MD thinks that "constant speed of light" means "constant in an absolute reference frame", not "constant in all inertial reference frames."

He also believes that the SI definition of the metre must also only be applied in an absolute rest frame.

 

[quantum_wave]

I disagree with Einstein's second postulate. I agree the speed of light is a constant. I don't agree it is always measured to be the same in all frames of reference.

Well then, am I safe to conclude that the frames of reference you refer to are not defined exactly the same as they are in Relativity? Your definition would suggest different math to perform transformations?

 

[quantum_wave]

MD thinks that "constant speed of light" means "constant in an absolute reference frame", not "constant in all inertial reference frames."

He also believes that the SI definition of the metre must also only be applied in an absolute rest frame.

I see said the blind man, lol. But then he must be making that absolute rest frame a axiom because there is no way to prove it exists.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Want to see the numbers?

Yes, and when you show me the numbers, include what time the race starts and ends for each. I may want to watch the race I don't want to be late!

Tell me what time the racers start their measurements, and what time the racers stop their measurements, ie, the race starts at 12:00:00 at A and ends at ....... at B.