The Relativity of Simultaneity
- Thread starter Motor Daddy
- Start date
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
There is different math, because my math doesn't use length contraction and time dilation. My math takes into account the frame's absolute velocity, Einstein's doesn't. My math not only determines how far a train traveled down the tracks relative to the tracks, but it also tells you the absolute velocity of each the train and the tracks.
In other words, we can both say the train traveled 50 m/s down the tracks relative to the tracks. But I can tell you that the train had an absolute velocity of 40 m/s in one direction, and the tracks had an absolute velocity of 10 m/s in the opposite direction.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
We are living in mine, because Einstein's world doesn't acknowledge that a source could be at a different point in space from when it emitted light. It can only tell you that the light is x distance away from the source in x amount of time. I can tell you how far the light is away from the source in x amount of time, AND also how far the source moved from the point in space that it emitted that light in that time, which means I can tell you the absolute velocity of the source.
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
Good night, Pete.
MD, do you maintain that since the source of light can move relative to the light surface (that I think of a curved plane waves traveling through the medium of space in this case), that then the apparent speed of that plane wave relative to the moving source is not constant, but depends on the velocity of the source?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
If I understand you correctly, yes.
I like to make it simple. A source in space emits light. One second later the light sphere will have a radius of ~299,792,458 meters. If the source is at the center of the sphere at the 1 second mark then it had an absolute zero velocity. If the source moved during that 1 second then the source will not be at the center of the light sphere, it will be closer to one edge of the outer light sphere, meaning the light will not be 299,792,458 meters away from the source in that direction, and it will be more than 299,792,458 meters away in the opposite direction. The only way the light can be 299,792,458 meters from the source one second after the light is emitted is IF the source had an absolute zero velocity.
Yes, you are correct. However then the source has changed frames. Obviously (I think), the light sphere cannot change frames, and so you are basing the concept of absolute zero velocity on an object at rest that emits the light sphere, and it must remain at rest relative to that sphere. Buy we know that is not possible since everything is in constant motion.
So wouldn't you have to be making a premise that the location of the emmission of the light sphere is always at rest and that that postion can serve as the absolut reference for both the velocity of the light and the velocity of the source?
So wouldn't you have to be making a premise that the location of the emmission of the light sphere is always at rest and that that postion can serve as the absolut reference for both the velocity of the light and the velocity of the source?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
The center of the light sphere is the point in space that the light was emitted, that can't change because the speed of light is a constant. The measurements are taken from that point in space for the light, and also the source, since that is where the source was when it emitted the light.
The light travels relative to the absolute zero reference frame, and so does the source.
I will support you on that. Since I am not up to speed on the example being discussed and don't relish the idea of reading back on a year old thread with a bezillion posts
, I leave it at that. (Unless you want to give me a post # to go bact to that will bring me up to speed )Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I will support you on that. Since I am not up to speed on the example being discussed and don't relish the idea of reading back on a year old thread with a bezillion posts
I don't blame you. You can see, though, that my method is bonded to the definitions of the speed of light and the meter and second. You can not separate my method from the standards. Einstein's method, though, is very different, and that makes him wrong. There is only 1 reality, and mine is it. That leaves him out in the cold!
Can you briefly explain the differences between your method and Einstein's? On the surface I don't see how the particular speed of light, length of the meter, or duration of a second would make any difference between your view and Einstein's.
Here is Motor Daddy's problem (or at least, one of them). It's a big one:
All you need is a universe that lets you see light traveling through space, and has clocks that are accurately synchronised for all time.
Note: my analysis of MD's universe may be a little inaccurate, but I think that's the gist.
This appears to be saying that a source can determine its absolute velocity relative to the velocity of light. This is possible because the source can tell how far away the edge of a spherically expanding wave of light is, after they emit it. In other words, to determine your absolute velocity, emit some light and simply observe the expanding spherical wave. Since you know how long a metre is, you know the distance to the edge of the light wave, and if you have an accurate clock you can determine your absolute velocity.Motor Daddy said:
All you need is a universe that lets you see light traveling through space, and has clocks that are accurately synchronised for all time.
Note: my analysis of MD's universe may be a little inaccurate, but I think that's the gist.
What you say is true. However, if MD's position is defensible given a way to follow a light sphere through space, etc., then what I am asking him is what there is about Einstein's theory that would produce different observations given the same tools.
Well, let's suppose instead that we live in a universe where we can't see light traveling through space.
Then the problem is determining how far light travels from a source when you can't see the light traveling, but you can reflect it from a mirror or detect it with a "light detector".
But obviously this requires that you have mirrors or detectors in a fixed, or "known" location, and that these allow you to determine the distance to a source of light. So now you have the velocity of the source and the unknown velocity of the detector; you have two frames of reference. MD appears to believe you can determine an absolute velocity from just one frame of reference. All you need is a universe where light can be seen traveling through space (and absolutely accurate clocks, whatever they are).
Then the problem is determining how far light travels from a source when you can't see the light traveling, but you can reflect it from a mirror or detect it with a "light detector".
But obviously this requires that you have mirrors or detectors in a fixed, or "known" location, and that these allow you to determine the distance to a source of light. So now you have the velocity of the source and the unknown velocity of the detector; you have two frames of reference. MD appears to believe you can determine an absolute velocity from just one frame of reference. All you need is a universe where light can be seen traveling through space (and absolutely accurate clocks, whatever they are).
It is quite simple. Experiments showed that light is always measured in a vacuum as c. Einstein said; fine, that means that every observer regardless of the inertal frame they are in (their velocity frame) will measure light as moving at c. That directly leads to lorentz transformations and the contraction of time and space, or special relativity.
MD ignores the fact that light is always measured as c in a vacuum. He chooses to believe that depending on your velocity you will measure a different relative speed of light. If this were true (which it is not) then you could simply use Newtonian physics to analyze the situation instead of using relativity. That is what MD is doing, using newtonian physics with light.
Why he ignores actual measurements and instead pretends that the relative speed of light changes with the observers inertial frame is anyones guess....
Thank you Origin. That sounds like a good explanation of the differences I was looking for.
The matter of synchronization of clocks and the different rate that time can be measured in different frames of reference seems to be in contention. You say he ignores actual measurements ... do you mean that he does not accept observations that clocks show time passing at different rates in different frames? I don't think there is any question about there being observations to support time dilation. Is the question then about the cause of time dilation?
Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
I measure the speed of light to be different, depending on the frame that you measure it in. So back to the light sphere example, if you are the source, and you moved in the one second, it would be impossible for you to measure the light to be moving away from you at 299,792,458 m/s. One way you would measure the light to be less than c, and the other way you would measure it to be more than c, since the light is less than 299,792,458 meters away from you after one second in one direction, and more than 299,792,458 meters away from you in the opposite direction after 1 second. The light speed was constant in the absolute zero reference frame. Your velocity is relative to the absolute zero reference frame, but you MEASURE the speed of light to be different in your frame, because of your velocity. You measure the speed of light to be greater than c in one direction, and less than c in the opposite direction.
Knowing that the speed of light is constant, you know it is not the light that changed velocity in opposite directions, it was that you had a velocity which caused your measurements to reflect the greater and less than c in opposite directions.
Last edited:
Where and when did you take these measurements?
Could we please see the set up you used?
Did you publish?
"The question" might be more about why someone is unable to see past their own circular reasoning, or why it fails to correspond at all with reality.
In Motor Daddy's world, it's ok to emit some light and be able to tell how far away it is after 1 second, you just "look" at "where the light has traveled to". If it isn't 299,792,458 metres away then the source must have moved.
That this "method" requires you to be able to measure the distance from the source to the light as it moves doesn't seem to matter. That there is no practical way to observe light traveling in space doesn't seem to matter.
In other words, it doesn't matter in MD's world that you need profoundly unphysical measurements to support a model; the model fits so it must be right, Einstein somehow overlooked this obvious solution!
In Motor Daddy's world, it's ok to emit some light and be able to tell how far away it is after 1 second, you just "look" at "where the light has traveled to". If it isn't 299,792,458 metres away then the source must have moved.
That this "method" requires you to be able to measure the distance from the source to the light as it moves doesn't seem to matter. That there is no practical way to observe light traveling in space doesn't seem to matter.
In other words, it doesn't matter in MD's world that you need profoundly unphysical measurements to support a model; the model fits so it must be right, Einstein somehow overlooked this obvious solution!