The Relativity of Simultaneity

quantum_wave said:
You represented your "evidence" as if it proved Emil and MD are wrong. I couldn't see how it did and you waved off the challenge. Now you make an obvious statement and I am getting the impression that you challenge one of the strengths of science, that of tentativeness. Do you yearn to say that the postulates are true because they cannot be falsified :).
Click to expand...
I had the impression that he's implying that the postulates are falsifiable, and directly saying that experimental attempts at falsification have not done so.

Are you implying that Einstein's postulates are unfalsifiable?
 
Causality,

The event E is located midway between cause C1 and cauza C2.
If the cause C1 first then event E1 happens and nothing happens for cause C2.
If the cause C2 first then event E2 happens and nothing happens for cause C1.
And you assert that depending on your speed, you can influence the order of occurrence of cases C1, C2?
For two "observers", with different relative speeds, the reality was bifurcated, for one is E1 and for another is E2?
If after a while the two observers will meet, this means they are in two parallel realities?
 
With the relativity of simultaneity, from one frame of reference E1 precedes E2, and from the other, E1 and E2 are simultaneous. But E2 never precedes E1.

Moreover, the stationary observer will note that the moving observer observes the events as simultaneous, so he or she will understand that they have different takes on what happened. From each person's perspective they have information that correlates with their perspective being correct, but understanding how the other observer got the impression that they got. But they can never exchange information and come to the conclusion that one of them was ultimately correct and one ultimately incorrect. Objectively, they are both correct, and they both understand how the other holds a correct but different view.
 
Tach said:
Postulates cannot be proven. They can only be disproved. Experimentally. In 106 years no one has managed to disprove the SR postulates.
Click to expand...
This is very advantageous for the religious people, isn't it?
They have a whole theory, based on the postulate there is God.
This theory is valid if I cannot make evidence there is not a God?
 
angslan said:
With the relativity of simultaneity, from one frame of reference E1 precedes E2, and from the other, E1 and E2 are simultaneous. But E2 never precedes E1.
Click to expand...
Read carefully the demonstration.
Apply exactly the same logic, it is possible for one to be the first C1
and for another to be C2.
angslan said:
But they can never exchange information and come to the conclusion that one of them was ultimately correct and one ultimately incorrect.
Click to expand...
No, they can.
Read carefully the example.
I specifically removed this impossibility.
 
Emil said:
This is very advantageous for the religious people, isn't it?
They have a whole theory, based on the postulate there is God.
This theory is valid if I cannot make evidence there is not a God?
Click to expand...

That's the falsifiability quantum wave mentioned.
The postulates of SR are falsifiable - they make definite differentiating predictions that can be unambiguously tested and reported.
The postulate of God is not falsifiable - it makes no definite differentiating prediction that can be unambiguously tested and reported.
 
Emil said:
Read carefully the demonstration.
Apply exactly the same logic, it is possible for one to be the first C1
and for another to be C2.
Click to expand...
No.
E can't respond directly to the order of C1 and C2, it can only respond to when it receives signals from C1 and C2.
And the order of receiving those signals is the same in all reference frames.
 
Thanks James R, you're a good teacher and I stand corrected on reference bodies vs. reference frames. I'll look it up.

Pete, I'm not saying that Einstein's postulates are not falsifiable. I was getting into it with Tach for being rude and asking him if he yearned to say they were true because they haven't been falsified. A hundred years is not as long to science as it is to the scientist, lol. Tentativeness can be mistakenly forgotten depending on how long a theory has been under experimentation but new tools and new science come along all the time and can lead to changes in our understanding, and I hope we can agree to that extent.
 
Yes, he's rude. But I don't believe his point was supposed to be that SR is some fundamental truth (we know that it's not), but rather that MD's naive beliefs are wrong.
 
Pete said:
No.
E can't respond directly to the order of C1 and C2, it can only respond to when it receives signals from C1 and C2.
And the order of receiving those signals is the same in all reference frames.
Click to expand...
In this case can we agree that there is only one Reality that we can perceive different?
 
There is only one reality. We can measure it against different standards and references.
The resulting measurements do not conflict; they can be easily interconverted.
 
Pete said:
There is only one reality. We can measure it against different standards and references.
The resulting measurements do not conflict; they can be easily interconverted.
Click to expand...
In this case we agree.
There is only one reality that we perceive correctly or incorrectly.
 
Perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly, but I suspect that you are implying that measurement made in different reference frames can't all be correct. But correct measurements made according to different standards and references don't have to result in the same numbers.

If one measurement of a distance is 1 inch, and another measurement of the same distance is 25.4mm, does that mean one of them must be incorrect?
 
Pete said:
Perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly, but I suspect that you are implying that measurement made in different reference frames can't all be correct.
Click to expand...
This means that different reference frames each has its own reality?

Pete said:
If one measurement of a distance is 1 inch, and another measurement of the same distance is 25.4mm, does that mean one of them must be incorrect?
Click to expand...
With this I agree.

Length is a basic physical dimension. (It is a quantity.)
Dimensional analysis,Percentages and derivatives:
Derivatives with respect to a quantity add the dimensions of the variable one is differentiating with respect to on the denominator. Thus:
position (x) has units of L (Length);
derivative of position with respect to time (dx/dt, velocity) has units of L/T – Length from position, time from the derivative.
Click to expand...
So length is measured with a standard. (And not by speed.)This standard may be different meter, foot, miles, nautical miles, etc.
If we choose as a standard the meter then this fits 149.60 × 10 ^ 9 times between Earth and Sun.
Therefore we say that the distance between Earth and Sun is 149.60 × 10 ^ 9 m.
You say that this standard fit differently between Earth and Sun, depending on different reference frames?
 
Pete said:
Perhaps I'm reading you incorrectly, but I suspect that you are implying that measurement made in different reference frames can't all be correct. But correct measurements made according to different standards and references don't have to result in the same numbers.

If one measurement of a distance is 1 inch, and another measurement of the same distance is 25.4mm, does that mean one of them must be incorrect?
Click to expand...

It boils down to this, Pete.

Since light travels at a constant speed in space, it is measured to be traveling at different speeds in every frame, because each frame also travels in space at some constant speed.

If all cars are going in the same direction down a multiple lane highway, and there is one fast car in the left lane going a constant 100 MPH (light), each other car (objects) traveling at different speeds will measure the fast car to be traveling at a different speed, relative to their frame, depending on their speed.

The fast car (light) always travels the same speed during a duration of time.
The other cars (objects) can also travel during the same duration of time.

That means a car going half the speed of the fast car will measure the fast car's speed to be 1/2 of what it really is when basing measurements from that frame. So if the fast car traversed the length of the 1/2 speed car, it would take twice as much time to travel the length than it would if the slower car was not in motion.

Each reference frame has a velocity and when measurements in that frame are based on that frame, then the speed of light must be measured differently depending on the velocity of the frame the measurements are based on.
 
Emil, I think the language barrier is preventing communication. Goodnight.
 
I don't agree that light is measured to be traveling at different speeds in every frame.
Try it yourself.
Try real measurements. Stop navel gazing and look at the real world.
 
Pete said:
I don't agree that light is measured to be traveling at different speeds in every frame.
Try it yourself.
Try real measurements. Stop navel gazing and look at the real world.
Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself in order to defend Einstein's postulate.

Do you agree light travels in space at a constant speed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top