The Relativity of Simultaneity

[quantum_wave]

What he presented is an accurate representation of Einstein's incorrect method, correct. That is why I said I am looking forward to his explanation, as it will surely be a groundbreaking phenomena!

Not necessarily. Remember, your postulate is based on the electromagnetic nature of light, and in SR the concept of light as an entity traveling independently through space is wrong because it is incompatible with the invariance principle that says that light always travels at c in all frames.

The difference is that light as a physical entity would be frame dependent meaning that the addition of velocities would apply. But in SR the addition of velocities does not apply to light which means that the distance that light travels from the point of emission to the point of detection is always traversed at c and so the distance is a calculation in all moving frames relative to the rest frame that hosts the point of emission.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Not necessarily. Remember, your postulate is based on the electromagnatic nature of light, and in SR the concept of light as an entity travelling independently through space is wrong because it is incompatible with the invariance principle that says that light always travels at c in all frames.

Not necessarily what, that what he presented is an accurate representation of Einstein's inconsistencies? His representation is accurate according to SR. SR is incorrect, and it shows in his representation. There is no fixing that slight little problem without having to admit SR is inconsistent.

 

[quantum_wave]

Not necessarily what, that what he presented is an accurate representation of Einstein's inconsistencies? His representation is accurate according to SR. SR is incorrect, and it shows in his representation. There is no fixing that slight little problem without having to admit SR is inconsistent.

You posted at the same time I edited the post your are replying to .

Here is what I added: The difference is that light as a physical entity would be frame dependent meaning that the addition of velocities would apply. But in SR the addition of velocities does not apply to light which means that the distance that light travels from the point of emission to the point of detection is always traversed at c and so the distance is a calculation in all moving frames relative to the rest frame that hosts the point of emission.

The point you are missing is that SR maintains that light does not act like electromagnetic radiation in any moving frame relative to the point of emission.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You posted at the same time I edited the post your are replying to .

Here is what I added: The difference is that light as a physical entity would be frame dependant meaning that the addition of velocities would apply. But in SR the addition of velocities does not apply to light which means that the distance that light travels from the point of emission to the point of detection is always traversed at c and so the distance is a calculation in all moving frames relative to the rest frame that hosts the point of emission.

I don't know what you are trying to say.

The time it takes light to reach the side receiver from the source is affected by the train's absolute velocity.

If the train was at rest, and the tracks were moving, this inconsistency would not show up, because the light would travel the distance of .5 light seconds in the time of .5 seconds. So even though there is a relative velocity between the tracks and the train, it is the ABSOLUTE VELOCITY that affects the time it takes light to reach the receiver, not the RELATIVE VELOCITY between the tracks and the train.

 

[quantum_wave]

I don't know what you are trying to say.

The time it takes light to reach the side receiver from the source is affected by the train's absolute velocity.

If the train was at rest, and the tracks were moving, this inconsistency would not show up, because the light would travel the distance of .5 light seconds in the time of .5 seconds. So even though there is a relative velocity between the tracks and the train, it is the ABSOLUTE VELOCITY that affects the time it takes light to reach the receiver, not the RELATIVE VELOCITY between the tracks and the train.

SR would answer that the light was emitted in a rest frame and the box is a moving frame, so light in the moving box frame would not comply with the laws of electromagnitism. The light in the moving frame would be traveling at c by definition and therefore the distances that light travels in the moving frame would be calculations using the point of emission and detection in the moving frame, and dividing by the invariant speed of light to get the distance. Crazy but that is the implication of the theory.

If you switch frames and make the box at rest and the tracks moving, then the light would comply with EM in the box and would not comply with EM on the moving tracks, lol.

And one last edit to this post, you and I do not believe that the laws of EM are abandoned in inertial frames because we believe that light has a physical presence as it expands spherically through space. What fools we are.

 

[arfa brane]

MD, you have made a valid point in regard to the light sphere in column one of James R's diagram. It has not reached the side receptor in that depiction.

What you probably meant to say about the diagram is that a diagram of a light sphere isn't really a light sphere (it's a diagram).

If only Einstein had diagram drawing skills as good as you or MD, the last century or so of confusion could have been avoided!

Or perhaps Einstein wasn't suffering from "diagram delusion" as bad as you and MD seem to be.

When either of you can draw a picture of how the universe works, "it will surely be a groundbreaking phenomena!".
You should start with a picture of a sack of rocks, though.

 

[Motor Daddy]

SR would answer that the light was emitted in a rest frame and the box is a moving frame, so light in the moving box frame would not comply with the laws of electromagnitism. The light in the moving frame would be traveling at c by definition and therefore the distances that light travels in the moving frame would be calculations using the point of emission and detection in the moving frame, and dividing by the invariant speed of light to get the distance. Crazy but that is the theory.

The inconsistency is caused by the simultaneous absolute velocity of the source and the clock, relative to the point of emission of the light sphere which the source was when it emitted the light. SR can't handle that, because it length contracts the length, but not the width. The width is getting further away from the point of emission if it has a velocity greater than zero, and SR assumes it always takes .5 seconds for light to reach the receiver, which is impossible.

 

[quantum_wave]

What you probably meant to say about the diagram is that a diagram of a light sphere isn't really a light sphere (it's a diagram).

If only Einstein had diagram drawing skills as good as you or MD, the last century or so of confusion could have been avoided!

Or perhaps Einstein wasn't suffering from "diagram delusion" as bad as you and MD seem to be.

When either of you can draw a picture of how the universe works, "it will surely be a groundbreaking phenomena!".
You should start with a picture of a sack of rocks, though.

I’m pretty certain that the trolls are ignorant of the facts because if they weren’t ignorant then they would know that there are two sides to the question of the reality of SR. One is that light is electromagnetic in nature, i.e. everyone knows that light waves are electromagnetic radiation and as such they travel at c through a vacuum from the point of emission (Maxwell).

On the other hand, the distance travelled by light divided by the time of travel will always equal c (the invariance principle). That too seems indisputable.

Both cannot be true. Your choices are that light cannot be a physical entity (light wave) travelling independently through space, or the invariance principle is incorrect since those two seemly independently true concepts are incompatible with SR.

Thus we can weed out the ignorant trolls because they are the ones who insist that those of us who understand and discuss that incompatibility are somehow ignorant when in fact they are the ignorant ones.

It is entirely appropriate in a physics forum to discuss the mental picture of light as a physical wave entity travelling independently through space is wrong from the SR perspective. If one wants c to be invariant in all frames, there can only be a moment of emission and a moment of detection, and the distance between emission and detection must always be a calculation and not a measurement in all moving frames.

The fact that MD understands that and the trolls don’t leads to the trolls fueling each other by injecting ignorance, heckling, disdain and ad homonyms. They are now claiming that the legitimate topics being discussed are not physics and therefore their trolling is allowed. What has the Physics and Math forum come to?

 

[Motor Daddy]

If only Einstein had diagram drawing skills as good as you or MD, the last century or so of confusion could have been avoided!

I agree!! See, we can agree on something. Of course, in order to draw a diagram of an idea, you first must have an idea, and in order to put math to that diagram, and be consistent, the idea must be self consistent. Furthermore, the numbers must match current definitions of distance and time, otherwise you end up like SR with inconsistencies that can't be explained by your idea. See, it's actually more difficult than drawing a circle on a paper and saying, "see, I did it."

 

[arfa brane]

. . . light waves are electromagnetic radiation and as such they travel at c through a vacuum from the point of emission (Maxwell).

On the other hand, the distance travelled by light divided by the time of travel will always equal c (the invariance principle). That too seems indisputable.

Both cannot be true.

Why can't both be true? Why can't we measure different values for the speed of light?

Or, since we don't, why can't it be true that light always propagates at c, and the distance divided by the time, when both get measured, is always c? SInce it is true, why can't it be true?

Why does drawing a diagram suggest that both the constant speed and measured times and distances are wrong? Why is a diagram "more correct" than physical measurements?

In which universe? Is it the Diagram Universe?

 

[quantum_wave]

I agree!! See, we can agree on something. Of course, in order to draw a diagram of an idea, you first must have an idea, and in order to put math to that diagram, and be consistent, the idea must be self consistent. Furthermore, the numbers must match current definitions of distance and time, otherwise you end up like SR with inconsistencies that can't be explained by your idea. See, it's actually more difficult than drawing a circle on a paper and saying, "see, I did it."

Arfa, origin, and alexG are ignorant of the facts. They inadvertently become trolls as a result of their ignorance. I'm pretty sure they are mentally capable of understanding the incompatibility between frame dependence and frame independence. Speed of objects is frame dependent. The speed of light is considered frame independent in SR. Hence the incompatibility. Ignorance of that incompatibility is the stimulus for their trolling.

 

[quantum_wave]

Why can't both be true? Why can't we measure different values for the speed of light?

Or, since we don't, why can't it be true that light always propagates at c, and the distance divided by the time, when both get measured, is always c? SInce it is true, why can't it be true?

Why does drawing a diagram suggest that both the constant speed and measured times and distances are wrong? Why is a diagram "more correct" than physical measurements?

In which universe? Is it the Diagram Universe?

You are not realizing that propagated light is EM. SR does not treat light as EM in a moving frame. I've explained that. You refuse to read and understand. That is why I have to disregard your comments.

 

[arfa brane]

SR does not treat light as EM in a moving frame.

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you know what you're talking about?

If it's ok with you, I'll refuse to read or understand for a bit longer (my eyes are a bit blurry just now, anyway).

You two carry on, I'm sure there's a diagram somewhere that explains it. Or, just think, you could end up drawing one that hasn't been seen yet!

I know, I know, it's just too exciting to think about.

 

[przyk]

SR does not treat light as EM in a moving frame.

Er, yes it does. Light in a different frame is still an EM wave, just Doppler shifted.

That was a pretty silly thing to say, given that SR is integrated into electromagnetism and always has been.

 

[quantum_wave]

Er, yes it does. Light in a different frame is still an EM wave, just Doppler shifted.

That was a pretty silly thing to say, given that SR is integrated into electromagnetism and always has been.

So are you saying that doppler shifted light travels at other than c? Maybe that is where I have gone astray. Let's look it up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect

"The relativistic Doppler effect is the change in frequency (and wavelength) of light, caused by the relative motion of the source and the observer (as in the classical Doppler effect), when taking into account effects described by the special theory of relativity."

Is the change in frequency the same as the change in speed. I don't think so, otherwise the light colours would travel at different speeds, wouldn't they?

Isn't the relativistic Doppler effect derived from the Lorentz transformations and SR, and not a postulate as such. And if the Lorentz transormations are designed to reconcile the incompatibility between the SR postulates then it is still mathematics.

 

[AlexG]

Arfa, origin, and alexG are ignorant of the facts.

Too funny for words.

:roflmao:

 

[quantum_wave]

Too funny for words.

:roflmao:

Maybe so. Try to help me find the flaw in this:
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/lightspeed.htm

 

[AlexG]

SR does not treat light as EM in a moving frame.

Of course it does.

Your problem is that you have no understanding of SR or the Lorentz contraction.

 

[quantum_wave]

Of course it does.

Your problem is that you have no understanding of SR or the Lorentz contraction.

I understand that SR uses the Lorentz transformation to reconcile otherwise incomplatbile postulates.

The speed of an object is frame dependent.
The speed of light is not frame dependent.
To make those two concepts agree you have to do math.

 

[AlexG]

To make those two concepts agree you have to do math.

You have a problem with math?