The Relativity of Simultaneity

origin said:
See what I mean QW? You have to get on board with denying that the speed of light is measured properly. Of course that makes one wonder why in the world MD would use the accepted speed of light in his discussions if he thinks that we don't measure it properly. Curious, no?

I noticed that you don't like how Einstein measured the speed of light. Since Einstein was not involved in actually measuring the speed of light I guess you are just spinning some sort of crap to help your denial.

QW you really need links? It is really simple, qoogle 'speed of light' and all of the sites will have the speed of light as c, and they will note that it is independent of motion. If you want to know how the speed of light is measured google 'how is the speed of light measured'.

I know I am wasting my time because you guys are convinced that you have figured out something that proves you are smarter than Einstein (and Hawking, Feynman, ect.). The reality is that for the people that have actually studied this stuff you sound a bit like a 4 year old child confidently explaining how a computer works.

You guys are embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Need I point out that there are two world views, one based on SR and one based on MD. A bright individual should be able to grasp the two views and differentiate between them. By doing that you should be able to present testimony from the perspective of each observe in each world view.

Once you have accomplished that task you should then consider which testimony seems to be most representative of reality in your view. I have done that following those steps, and I have presented what I think the testimony of the observers would be from each world view.

I believe that the world view that invokes just one expanding light sphere in space and that results in observers with their noses to different sides of the same train window would see the same flash at the same time is the better characterization of reality.
 
Originally Posted by origin
Oh really? According to MD's postulate there is only one way that we can measure the relative speed of light as c, and that is if we are at absolute rest. ”
Click to expand...

At rest relative to the point of emission.
Click to expand...
Not according to MD. If you are in a closed container and that is moving at a constant velocity and a light source is in the middle of the box (the observer is at rest relative to the source) then MD says that the speed would be different in the front of the box and the back of the box along the direction of travel.
Since you whole heartedly agree with MD it would seem that you should at least know what you are agreeing with.


If you measure the speed of light at c, you can determine the point of emission or don't you agree?
Click to expand...

Well, since the speed of light is always measure at c (google 'speed of light') I don't really know what you are saying. You would certainly know the direction. If I measure the speed of light (which would of course would be c [google 'speed of light']) coming from say sirius how will that allow me to determine anything other than the direction of sirius?
 
quantum_wave said:
Need I point out that there are two world views, one based on SR and one based on MD. A bright individual should be able to grasp the two views and differentiate between them. By doing that you should be able to present testimony from the perspective of each observe in each world view.

Once you have accomplished that task you should then consider which testimony seems to be most representative of reality in your view. I have done that following those steps, and I have presented what I think the testimony of the observers would be from each world view.

I believe that the world view that invokes just one expanding light sphere in space and that results in observers with their noses to different sides of the same train window would see the same flash at the same time is the better characterization of reality.
Click to expand...

That is much better. Ignore the whole inconvenient, "the measurements show you are wrong" aspect, and instead start waxing about perspective and testimony and how this is just opinion, and not based on real world measurements.

Let's just forget that little slip up where you admitted that the speed of light is measured as c regardless of the motion of the earth.

Now your back on track (to blissful ignorance)!
 
origin said:
That is much better. Ignore the whole inconvenient, "the measurements show you are wrong" aspect, and instead start waxing about perspective and testimony and how this is just opinion, and not based on real world measurements.

Let's just forget that little slip up where you admitted that the speed of light is measured as c regardless of the motion of the earth.

Now your back on track (to blissful ignorance)!
Click to expand...
Get a grip smart ;) guy. You are babbling.
 
Here is what it looks like when the cube's initial absolute velocity is 0 m/s, and one second later its absolute velocity is 149,896,229 m/s. Let's see Einstein's version of the accelerated cube. Oh, wait, he can't do that, that's right. :rolleyes:

attachment.php
 
Last edited:
Here is what it looks like when the cube's initial absolute velocity is 0 m/s, and one second later its absolute velocity is 149,896,229 m/s. Let's see Einstein's version of the accelerated cube.
Click to expand...

Why not?
 
Motor Daddy said:
Show me what you got!
Click to expand...

Not me, Einstein.

Start here and check the links.

Considering that you can't grasp Special Relativity all I can say is good luck!

Oh, that's right you will just say it is wrong, so you don't need to understand - hey, hey problem solved.:D
 
origin said:
MD, take a look at this it may help you to understand (but I doubt it).

It is rather humorous that you did not realize that Einstein has a theory for nonuniform motion, or accleration.:D
Click to expand...

Again, show me the numbers!

Show me that regardless of the acceleration of the cube, the light always takes .5 seconds to reach each receiver at the center of each wall, and that light reaches each receiver simultaneously.

Make a diagram and show me your understanding, at the very least. You don't understand it yourself, and you are telling me I am wrong? :rolleyes:
 
This idiocy can go on forever. Neither MD or QW ever acknowledge that there are actual experiments and measurements proving them wrong. They just state the same nonsense over and over.
 
Motor Daddy said:
you are telling me I am wrong? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Hey, it's the safe bet!

I have only had 2 years of calculus/Diff. Eq. So quite frankly the math of GR is beyond my ability.

I know that with your mastery of long division it is no problem for you, though.

I am sure I could make a diagram that is as worthless as yours but what would be the point?
 
Motor Daddy said:
Another thing which einstein makes a fatal mistake is that he measures the round trip light travel time in the frame, and divides that time in two to come up with the length. That is absurd!!! Obviously the length is wrong if the frame is in motion, as the times could be"

(2+4)/2=3
(3+3)/2=3
(4+2)/2=3

As you can see, since he uses round trip light travel time and divides by two, he gets the length wrong for anything other than a zero velocity (3+3) in the example.
Click to expand...


Hi again Motor Daddy,

Are you claiming that measuring a "round trip" travel time for light will falsely cause the speed of light to always be calculated to be c? In other words, your theory could be correct, but since we always measure "round trip" travel times for light, we have never noticed that the speed of light is not always c?

Let's break out your equations. Let's say the speed of the cube is 0.80c along the x-axis, and there is no y or z component to the velocity. The distance relative to the cube is 0.5 lightseconds in both directions, so I think you would predict the one-way times to be like this:

t_forward = 0.50 / (1.0c - 0.8c)
t_forward = 2.50 seconds

t_backward = 0.50 / (1.0c + 0.8c)
t_backward = 0.28 seconds

t_total = 2.50 + 0.28 = 2.78 seconds

Thus, using the "round-trip" times, the speed of light inside the cube would be measured to be:

c_measured = 0.5/2.78 = 0.18c

So your claim that since we always measure "round trip" travel times for light, we have never noticed that the speed of light varies from c, has been proven wrong. Now could you please explain why we always measure the speed of light to be c, and not a variety of different numbers, such as 0.18c? Thanks.
 
Neddy Bate said:
Hi again Motor Daddy,

Are you claiming that measuring a "round trip" travel time for light will falsely cause the speed of light to always be calculated to be c? In other words, your theory could be correct, but since we always measure "round trip" travel times for light, we have never noticed that the speed of light is not always c?

Let's break out your equations. Let's say the speed of the cube is 0.80c along the x-axis, and there is no y or z component to the velocity. The distance relative to the cube is 0.5 lightseconds in both directions, so I think you would predict the one-way times to be like this:

t_forward = 0.50 / (1.0c - 0.8c)
t_forward = 2.50 seconds

t_backward = 0.50 / (1.0c + 0.8c)
t_backward = 0.28 seconds

t_total = 2.50 + 0.28 = 2.78 seconds

Thus, using the "round-trip" times, the speed of light inside the cube would be measured to be:

c_measured = 0.5/2.78 = 0.18c

So your claim that since we always measure "round trip" travel times for light, we have never noticed that the speed of light varies from c, has been proven wrong. Now could you please explain why we always measure the speed of light to be c, and not a variety of different numbers, such as 0.18c? Thanks.
Click to expand...

If the x component velocity was .8c and the round trip time was 2.78 seconds, Einstein says that the length of the train light traveled is 2.78/2=1.39 light seconds. He assumes the train is at rest. He measures the round trip time to be 2.78 seconds, and concludes the length is 1.39 light seconds, when in actuality, it was LIGHT that traveled 2.78 light seconds in space, and the length of the train is actually .5 light seconds at a .8c velocity.
 
Motor Daddy said:
If the x component velocity was .8c and the round trip time was 2.78 seconds, Einstein says that the length of the train light traveled is 2.78/2=1.39 light seconds. He assumes the train is at rest. He measures the round trip time to be 2.78 seconds, and concludes the length is 1.39 light seconds, when in actuality, it was LIGHT that traveled 2.78 light seconds in space, and the length of the train is actually .5 light seconds at a .8c velocity.
Click to expand...

You realize that trains are not used to measure the speed of light, right?
 
Motor Daddy said:
If the x component velocity was .8c and the round trip time was 2.78 seconds, Einstein says that the length of the train light traveled is 2.78/2=1.39 light seconds. He assumes the train is at rest. He measures the round trip time to be 2.78 seconds, and concludes the length is 1.39 light seconds, when in actuality, it was LIGHT that traveled 2.78 light seconds in space, and the length of the train is actually .5 light seconds at a .8c velocity.
Click to expand...


You are saying that the length of the cube is always measured with light? Why can't measuring bars be used? Originally, the standard meter was defined as the distance between two marks on a 90% platinum bar held at a certain temperature. That definition still works quite well within its applicable degree of accuracy.

The reason the definition of the meter was changed to rely on light was because it provided an even greater degree of accuracy, not less. According to your theory, lengths associated with light on earth would produce different results at different times of the year. This is yet another proof that your theory is not correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top