The Relativity of Simultaneity

[Motor Daddy]

Oh, wow, a diagram.

If there's a diagram, it must right, no matter what actual experimental results say.


MD, you're insane.

You call me insane when your motto is "Arguing with a crank - useless" and yet you continue to talk to me. If you think I'm a crank why are you talking to me, and if you don't think I'm a crank then you agree with me, correct?

 

[quantum_wave]

That's the idea.

How would you prove it's really true? Draw a diagram?

It is not to prove anything. Graphics are used to help convey the idea. Get off the "draw a picture" rant, it sounds stupid to deny their usefulness.

 

[Tach]

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

He should know, he measures the speed of light over and over and over and expects different results.

"He" doesn't. You think "he" does. This is, among many other things, what makes your insanity incurable.

So who is the insane one?

Look in the mirror and you'll find out.

 

[AlexG]

You call me insane when your motto is "Arguing with a crank - useless" and yet you continue to talk to me. If you think I'm a crank why are you talking to me, and if you don't think I'm a crank then you agree with me, correct?

You are insane crank. Arguing with you is useless. So I don't. Poking fun at you is another matter.

 

[Motor Daddy]

You are insane crank. Arguing with you is useless. So I don't. Poking fun at you is another matter.

How about you just stay off the thread instead of trolling? If you have nothing useful to add to the conversation, act like a tree and leave.

 

[quantum_wave]

Such a simple concept and yet they can't figure it out. :shrug:

They are so far up Einstein's butt they can't see the light.

OK, everyone is acting silly today. Let's discuss the graphic. It depicts the emission of light. It depicts that light expanding spherically from the point of emission. It depicts a moving box (frame of reference) moving relative to the point of emission. The box has receptors. The receptors report the duration between the flash and the reception. Is that right so far?

 

[AlexG]

If you have nothing useful to add to the conversation, act like a tree and leave.

If you're taking part in the conversation, then nothing useful is being said.

Upon being presented with the evidence you asked for, you reject it because it doesn't agree with what you want to believe. This is the very essence of the crank.

You and MD are two of a kind, with you as MD's spear carrier.

 

[arfa brane]

Graphics are used to help convey the idea.

Quite so.

If the idea is wrong, you can still draw a diagram to convey a wrong idea. That is, an idea that has no supporting evidence.

In MD's case, there is no evidence at all that his diagram represents anything physical.
He also claims that absolute velocity is real; there is no evidence for it, and there are convincing arguments that show it has no physical existence, nor does an absolute frame of reference, nor does absolute time exist. It's all relative--that's the idea too.

 

[quantum_wave]

Quite so.

If the idea is wrong, you can still draw a diagram to convey a wrong idea. That is, an idea that has no supporting evidence.

In MD's case, there is no evidence at all that his diagram represents anything physical.
He also claims that absolute velocity is real; there is no evidence for it, and there are convincing arguments that show it has no physical existence, nor does an absolute frame of reference, nor does absolute time exist. It's all relative--that's the idea too.

So you and everyone who is attacking MD says. But that is what I'm trying to sort out.

You so far agree that the light sphere can be depicted in the graphic. You take exception to the concept of a light box, right.

It is a thought experiment.

 

[quantum_wave]

OK, everyone is acting silly today. Let's discuss the graphic. It depicts the emission of light. It depicts that light expanding spherically from the point of emission. It depicts a moving box (frame of reference) moving relative to the point of emission. The box has receptors. The receptors report the duration between the flash and the reception. Is that right so far?

And do it undertand correctly that the box or the on-board computer knows the speed of light?

 

[quantum_wave]

Quite so.

If the idea is wrong, you can still draw a diagram to convey a wrong idea. That is, an idea that has no supporting evidence.

In MD's case, there is no evidence at all that his diagram represents anything physical.
He also claims that absolute velocity is real; there is no evidence for it, and there are convincing arguments that show it has no physical existence, nor does an absolute frame of reference, nor does absolute time exist. It's all relative--that's the idea too.

Just work with me here. I’m a pea brain, you’re a troll; every dog has a few fleas.

The light sphere is depicted in the graphic as if it was expanding at c, which you accept.

The moving box which you say is unrealistic is depicted anyway, and is moving as the light sphere expands, right.

The on-board computer knows the speed of light.

The receptors record the duration between the flash and the reception.

The on-board computer calculates the speed of the box.

That is the graphic.

Now, be calm; try to express the flaws from the view point of SR. I know, I know, you all have already done that but you are the one’s perpetuating this thread instead of resolving the issue. What is the reason that the on-board computer gets the calculation wrong?

 

[arfa brane]

Forget about graphics and drawings. If you're in a box and you emit light from the centre of the box, it will reach the centre of each wall at the same time. You don't need a diagram, what you need is a light source and some detectors and timers.


If the box is in motion, this will have no effect at all on the times or the distances. This also assumes that the box is 'rigic' and retains its shape and volume at all times. And it assumes you know where the centre of the box is.

You can't use this method to determine if the box is in motion, because that requires an external reference; the source is not external to the box.

It's a simple matter of assuming the speed of light is constant, the distances from the source to the walls are equal and do not change, and all clocks are synchronised.

 

[quantum_wave]

Forget about graphics and drawings. If you're in a box and you emit light from the centre of the box, it will reach the centre of each wall at the same time. You don't need a diagram, what you need is a light source and some detectors and timers.


If the box is in motion, this will have no effect at all on the times or the distances. This also assumes that the box is 'rigic' and retains its shape and volume at all times. And it assumes you know where the centre of the box is.

You can't use this method to determine if the box is in motion, because that requires an external reference; the source is not external to the box.

It's a simple matter of assuming the speed of light is constant, the distances from the source to the walls are equal and do not change, and all clocks are synchronised.

You just stated SR theory. You win, right?

But wait, this is a thought experiment that takes the position that the light emitted at a point in space expands from that point at c. You agreed with that. Do you not see that in a thought experiment you can move through space at the same time the light sphere also expands through the same space? You do agree that the light keeps expanding out into space don't you?

 

[Motor Daddy]

You can't use this method to determine if the box is in motion, because that requires an external reference; the source is not external to the box.

This is where you go wrong.

Light doesn't travel at c relative to the source, it travels at c relative to space.

Light travels at c from the point of emission. The source was at the point of emission when the light was emitted, but that doesn't mean it is there 1 second later. You have a problem understanding that the source can be in motion in space during the same duration of light travel. Your problem is that you always assume the source is incapable of motion, and that the light travels relative to the source, which is simply incorrect. The speed of light is not relative to the source, it's relative to the point in space the light was emitted, which doesn't change.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Light is emitted from a point in space. It expands spherically from that point. What are you trolls trying to say, it is not true?

In SR, the light expands as a sphere in all reference frames. That means it expands as a sphere inside the cube, and hits the center of all six walls at the same time.

 

[Motor Daddy]

In SR, the light expands as a sphere in all reference frames. That means it expands as a sphere inside the cube, and hits the center of all six walls at the same time.

The only way that is possible is if the cube has a zero velocity. The light sphere doesn't travel in space, it expands in space.

SR makes it sound like the light sphere travels with the cube as it expands. That is not possible!

 

[Neddy Bate]

This is a one-way travel time:
t_forward = 0.50 / (1.0c - 0.8c)
t_forward = 2.50 seconds

This is a one-way travel time:
t_backward = 0.50 / (1.0c + 0.8c)
t_backward = 0.28 seconds

Are you trying to compare what I predict using my method, compared to what SR predicts using SR method? SR uses round trip time and uses a different clock sync, along with length contraction and time dilation.

I'm using your method. The cube has an "absolute velocity" of 0.80c along the x-axis. There is no y or z component to its velocity. Do you agree that the one-way times along the x-axis are 2.50 seconds and 0.28 seconds?

 

[Motor Daddy]

I'm using your method. The cube has an "absolute velocity" of 0.80c along the x-axis. There is no y or z component to its velocity. Do you agree that the one-way times along the x-axis are 2.50 seconds and 0.28 seconds?

I haven't done the math but I presume you are using my method so yes, I agree.

 

[Neddy Bate]

The only way that is possible is if the cube has a zero velocity. The light sphere doesn't travel in space, it expands in space.

SR makes it sound like the light sphere travels with the cube as it expands. That is not possible!

So, if light expands as a sphere on earth, you have two choices:
1. You can proclaim that the earth has a zero velocity
OR
2. You can admit you are wrong

Do you agree to that idea?

 

[quantum_wave]

In SR, the light expands as a sphere in all reference frames. That means it expands as a sphere inside the cube, and hits the center of all six walls at the same time.

Agreed. That is exactly how I understand the SR position on this.

What I'm replying with is that you can conceive of the light sphere in one frame expanding into space and that same light sphere being encountered out there in space by receptors. With the knowledge of the duration of the expansion of the light sphere on a clock as if the clock was in the rest frame, then the distance from the point of emission to the receptor can be calculated. It is a thought experiment after all.