The Relativity of Simultaneity

[arfa brane]

All I need to do is measure the time of light travel from the source to the receivers in the box and I know the motion of the box.

If that is all you need to do, why haven't you done it, ever?

The center of the sphere never changes position in space.

But there is no "position" in space. There's nothing in space.

So SR can handle acceleration? Lets see some numbers of acceleration using SR.

Let's see you demonstrate that you've actually read anything about the theory of special relativity.

Otherwise you'll just look like an idiot with an axe to grind. You already do, especially after 74 pages.
You don't seem to know very much about the theory you insist is wrong, and you haven't managed to back that up with anything except some diagrams.

Do you seriously expect people to doubt Einstein because you can draw diagrams?

 

[James R]

Motor Daddy:

Here are the diagrams I drew earlier, again.

Do you agree that the right-hand set of diagrams correctly shows things in the box/train frame in your universe?

No James, I don't play the old, "which one is in motion" game, I KNOW which one is in motion. There is only one object in space, and that is the cube. The source remains at the center of the cube. The times are measured to the receivers in the cube. The motion of the cube is calculated, period. There are no other times or objects to compare to. There is no "embankment frame."

The times you use are actually embankment- or "space"-frame times. You claim that these are also train times, and that's fine in your universe since clocks everywhere can be synchronised. That is not true in the real universe.

In the real universe, your description of the situation is most similar to the Einstein embankment frame (see diagram above). In fact, the only difference in that frame between your description and Einstein's is the length contraction of the box in the Einstein picture (which doesn't occur in the MD universe).

You still haven't attempted an analysis in the box/train frame. I doubt that you can actually cope with two frames.

Where do you think the times come from? When I say it takes .65 seconds, that means the receiver in the box reads .65 seconds. All I need to do is measure the time of light travel from the source to the receivers in the box and I know the motion of the box. The absolute velocity of the box is not relative to anything except the point of emission, and that is not an object. There is no object at the point of emission.

I agree that all this is correct in the Motor Daddy universe. In Einstein's universe, box clocks don't read the same times as embankment clocks.

Do you agree that the above diagram correctly represents the Motor Daddy train frame? The black dot, by the way, is the "point of emission", not the "source".

The light sphere expands in space, the light sphere doesn't travel as a sphere in space. The center of the sphere never changes position in space. You seem to think the light sphere is traveling in space along with the source as it expands. That's absurd, James.

You don't get it. I don't believe in your "space". I believe that the speed of light is the same in all directions, as measured in the train frame. You do not. My Einstein train-frame diagram appears above, right next to yours. See the difference?

I've already showed you the train frame analyses. What do you want to know? Where do you think I get the times from? Those times were measured in the train/cube.

I agree with your times in the embankment frame. I do not agree with your times in the train frame, because you simply carry over times from the embankment frame to the train frame, which you can't do in the real world.

So SR can handle acceleration? Lets see some numbers of acceleration using SR.

What exactly do you want to know?

Show me your numbers of the situation where the train and the embankment are in motion.

There's no point. As I said before, we don't have any major disagreement about your numbers in the Motor Daddy universe.

What you need to do is to address any problems in Einstein's universe that you perceive. Let's see your Einstein-universe calculations. Point out where Einstein's numbers go wrong given his postulates, if you can.

If, on the other hand, you want to dispute Einstein's postulates, then post some real-world evidence that his postulates are wrong and yours are right.

Maybe you don't understand that if the earth is in motion in space at say 1,000 m/s, and a bar is resting on the earth with no relative motion to the earth, the bar also has a velocity of 1,000 m/s in space along with the earth.

You're constantly claiming that I don't understand this or that, or that Neddy Bate doesn't understand this or that, or that przyk doesn't understand this or that.

We understand just fine. I can as happily work with your imaginary universe as I can work with Einstein's real universe. The same does not apply in reverse. You are incapable of even working two frames in your own universe, let alone being able to do calculations in Einstein's universe. Because fundamentally you don't understand how Einstein's universe works in a mathematical or physical sense. Moreover, you don't want to learn, it seems. And so you go on and on, uselessly covering the same ground over and over again.

You have demonstrated not a single flaw in anything Einstein ever said. You have provided zero evidence for your own views. You have never shown any inconsistency in Einstein's picture.

So, what are you achieving? Nothing. All you have is a bunch of assertions:

"That's ridiculous!"
"That's impossible!"
"I don't like that, so I refuse to believe it!"
"I'm shutting my eyes so I don't see the nasty Einstein relativity!"
"I refuse to learn about Einstein's relativity, because I'm comfortable in my own fantasy world!"
"To tell the truth, I can't understand the maths of Einstein's relativity, so it must be wrong!"

You need to come to grips with the fact that an object can have a 1,000 m/s absolute velocity while it is resting on the earth with no relative motion to the earth.

That's all just hunky dory in the Motor Daddy universe.

You need to come to grips with the fact that there is no absolute velocity in the real world.

If a bar is rest on the earth with no relative motion to the earth, all that means is that the bar posses the same absolute velocity of the earth.

No. All that means is that the bar possesses the same velocity as the Earth. Nothing absolute about it.

Just because a bar doesn't have a relative motion to the earth doesn't mean it doesn't have an absolute velocity. Get a grip on yourself, James.

It doesn't have an absolute velocity because there's no absolute reference frame to have an absolute velocity in. Get a grip, Motor Daddy.

 

[Motor Daddy]

Do you agree that the right-hand set of diagrams correctly shows things in the box/train frame in your universe?

Yes.

The times you use are actually embankment- or "space"-frame times. You claim that these are also train times, and that's fine in your universe since clocks everywhere can be synchronised. That is not true in the real universe.

Yes it is true. I can use force, acceleration, RPM, and torque, along with work, and power to prove my point about the absolute nature of distance and time. All you have is a transformation equation that can do none of that. In the real world, when I turn on the ceiling fan, the earth doesn't rotate and the fan stay at rest. Get a grip on yourself, James. You are living in a fantasy world where you think there is no way to tell which object is at rest and which object is in motion. That is Einstein's fantasy world, not the real world. In the real world, when I turn on the fan, the fan is in motion. In the real world, the engine in a car is doing work, with torque on the drive shaft as the car goes down the street. Stop pretending the car is at rest just because you are in the car and can't tell reality from an illusion!

In the real universe, your description of the situation is most similar to the Einstein embankment frame (see diagram above). In fact, the only difference in that frame between your description and Einstein's is the length contraction of the box in the Einstein picture (which doesn't occur in the MD universe).

Again, my world knows the motion of each object, it doesn't assume a train is at rest just because there is a relative motion between a train and an embankment, and that I'm in the train with no relative motion to the train. You are living in a fantasy world where you believe there is no way to tell which is in motion, the train or the embankment. I can tell, you can't! All you ever do is perform transformation equations after the fact.

I agree that all this is correct in the Motor Daddy universe. In Einstein's universe, box clocks don't read the same times as embankment clocks.

But in the real world, there is not two durations of time, there is one. Stop living in Einstein's world of illusions and start understanding what distance and time really are, and what motion really is! Stop pretending your object never has motion. That's absurd, James.

Do you agree that the above diagram correctly represents the Motor Daddy train frame? The black dot, by the way, is the "point of emission", not the "source".

Yes, and I am fully aware what the black dot is. It is Einstein that doesn't know what a black dot is. He thinks the light sphere always travels with the source in the train frame. He thinks that because he pretends the train is at rest, that the light sphere expands in the train as if the train was really at rest.

You don't get it. I don't believe in your "space". I believe that the speed of light is the same in all directions, as measured in the train frame. You do not. My Einstein train-frame diagram appears above, right next to yours. See the difference?

You don't believe in my space? Space is volume. The universe is an infinite volume of which there are objects of mass which have motion. There is light in the volume which travels, along with the objects in the volume which travel during the same duration of time. It's a race between the light emitted from a source, and the source, just like a race between two people in the 40 yard dash. When the race starts and the stop watch is started, the source and the light start racing from the start line. Sure, the light is always the fastest racer, but the source travels a distance in the time it takes light to cross the finish line.

I agree with your times in the embankment frame. I do not agree with your times in the train frame, because you simply carry over times from the embankment frame to the train frame, which you can't do in the real world.

In the real world there is one duration of time, not more. Why do you believe there are two durations of time in the universe?

What exactly do you want to know?

I want either SR's numbers to my acceleration diagram, or I want you to make a similar diagram in which there is acceleration, showing the SR numbers of distances and times.

There's no point. As I said before, we don't have any major disagreement about your numbers in the Motor Daddy universe.

Humor me. I want to see SR's numbers of the scenario in which the train and the embankment are each in motion. There is no object at absolute rest in the scenario. Unless of course you agree with those numbers using SR?

What you need to do is to address any problems in Einstein's universe that you perceive. Let's see your Einstein-universe calculations. Point out where Einstein's numbers go wrong given his postulates, if you can.

If, on the other hand, you want to dispute Einstein's postulates, then post some real-world evidence that his postulates are wrong and yours are right.

I've already done that, James. I showed you that if a ruler is perpendicular to the line of motion, the speed of light can't be measured to be c along the ruler. There is no length contraction to the perpendicular ruler, and you say there is time dilation, so how do you explain the fact that it takes more time for light to travel the length of the ruler than it should if the speed of light was actually measured to be c?

You have demonstrated not a single flaw in anything Einstein ever said. You have provided zero evidence for your own views. You have never shown any inconsistency in Einstein's picture.

See above. You ignore it, and then pretend it never happened.

You need to come to grips with the fact that there is no absolute velocity in the real world.

No, you need to come to grips with the fact that there is absolute velocity, and that just because you are confused and bewildered about which is actually in motion, the train or the embankment, doesn't mean the universe doesn't know which is which. You have an illusion and then you proclaim the universe doesn't know? Get a grip on yourself, James.

No. All that means is that the bar possesses the same velocity as the Earth. Nothing absolute about it.

Dead wrong, James. The light sphere doesn't travel along in space with the source. Drop the, "I can't tell which one is in motion and which one isn't, so I'm just gonna pretend that I am at rest" act now. It's OK now, I've found the absolute frame. No need to worry about which one is in motion, I can tell you which one is in motion.

It doesn't have an absolute velocity because there's no absolute reference frame to have an absolute velocity in. Get a grip, Motor Daddy.

Again, I have discovered the absolute reference frame, so you can sleep well now. No need to stay awake at night and lose sleep over wondering if the absolute frame will ever be discovered. You can finally get some sleep now.

 

[Tach]

Yes.



Yes it is true. I can use force, acceleration, RPM, and torque, along with work, and power to prove my point about the absolute nature of distance and time.

What you are "proving" is the absolute nature of accelerated motion. What you cannot prove is the absolute nature of uniform motion. You are mixing the two and nothing will cure you of your confusion.

No, you need to come to grips with the fact that there is absolute velocity,

Delusions....

It's OK now, I've found the absolute frame. No need to worry about which one is in motion, I can tell you which one is in motion.

....more delusions....

Again, I have discovered the absolute reference frame.

...and even more delusions.

 

[quantum_wave]

...Currently our best shot of observing a Lorentz violation is an accelerator on the French-Swiss border that cost billions and accelerates protons to 99.999999% the speed of light. As a rule of thumb, usually anything above about 10% the speed of light is considered relativistic.

I have been an on-line and hard copy subscriber to the Fermilab/slac publication, Symmetry, the magizine since 2008 and keep all of the issues for reference. It seems really strange to hear someone refer to CERN as, "an accelerator on the French-Swiss border" as if they couldn't remember CERN or LHC or ATLAS.

http://warmlittlepond.wordpress.com/2011/04/26/lhc-how-do-we-accelerate-particles/

http://microcosm.web.cern.ch/Microcosm/RF_cavity/ex.html

Here a good page:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/cms/?pid=1000253

Cool.

 

[przyk]

It seems really strange to hear someone refer to CERN as, "an accelerator on the French-Swiss border" as if they couldn't remember CERN or LHC or ATLAS.

I've visited the place, actually. I don't work in high energy physics personally, but at my university there's a group participating in the CMS experiment. I did a couple of projects with them when I was still an undergrad.

 

[quantum_wave]

I've visited the place, actually. I don't work in high energy physics personally, but at my university there's a group participating in the CMS experiment. I did a couple of projects with them when I was still an undergrad.

I envy that. I knew a guy on-line that had planned a visit. When he got to Amsterdam he canceled the trip to CERN and hung out in the café's, lol

 

[Motor Daddy]

James, BTW, In my scenario of the embankment and the train in motion, BOTH observers agree that the strikes occurred at A and B at t=0, simultaneously. There is no relativity of simultaneity in the scenario. My observers are smart enough to know their own velocity, and they use that in their calculations to arrive at the CORRECT conclusion that the strikes occurred at A and B simultaneously at t=0, even though each light impacted each observer at different times.

Einstein's observers aren't smart enough to come to the correct conclusion. They think the strikes occurred at different times at A and B. They get it wrong because they assume they are at rest.

I'm really looking forward to your numbers and analyses of that scenario, James. It should be a real hoot!

It should be even a bigger laugh when you show me the acceleration numbers according to SR! I can't wait!!

 

[arfa brane]

It is Einstein that doesn't know what a black dot is.

Well, that's understandable. Einstein didn't get to see your diagram, so that's a bit unfair, isn't it?

Again, I have discovered the absolute reference frame

Does it look like a black dot in a diagram?
Man, all these years, and all someone had to do was draw a black dot! Didn't they realise it was supposed to be black?
I guess that's just how it is with science sometimes.

 

[Neddy Bate]

The following diagram shows the train according to the embankment frame.
Notice that the clocks on the train are not all synchronized to each other:

The following diagram shows the train according to the train frame.
Notice that the clocks on the train are all synchronized to each other.
Also notice that the train is not length-contracted in its own frame:

 

[Neddy Bate]

Now some folks might object to the train being a rectangle instead of a cube.
They were probably thinking the train should be like this, according to the train frame:

That is fine; there is nothing wrong with that.
But in that case, the embankment frame would find the cube to be length-contracted, like this:

 

[Motor Daddy]

...and again, you use length contraction and time dilation, with a different sync method, so we are not talking about an apples to apples comparison between my method and Einstein's method.

How about we start the train at a station, at rest with the tracks and measure the length and sync the clocks with the station observer so everything is on the same sheet of music and everyone agrees. Then, we will accelerate the train to a constant velocity and have lightening strike the A and B point at the next train station as the train passes by. Then we will have the train decelerate to a stop at the following station and gather all observers and find out what happened, and who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't have a clue.

I can do it, can you?

 

[Neddy Bate]

...and again, you use length contraction and time dilation, with a different sync method, so we are not talking about an apples to apples comparison between my method and Einstein's method.

I know your method is different from Einstein's. But if you look at either of my "embankment" diagrams, your method gives the same numbers at the red time. If you want to check it, the speed I used is 0.866025c, and the length of the traincube is 1.000 lightseconds when it is drawn as a perfect square. If you need any other information, I'd be happy to provide it.

How about we start the train at a station, at rest with the tracks and measure the length and sync the clocks with the station observer so everything is on the same sheet of music and everyone agrees. Then, we will accelerate the train to a constant velocity and have lightening strike the A and B point at the next train station as the train passes by. Then we will have the train decelerate to a stop at the following station and gather all observers and find out what happened, and who knows what they are talking about and who doesn't have a clue.

I can do it, can you?

That is fine, but instead of two lightning strikes, can we please just use one light source mounted to the center point of the cube? I've already drawn my diagrams that way. Thanks!

 

[Motor Daddy]

That is fine, but instead of two lightning strikes, can we please just use one light source mounted to the center point of the cube? I've already drawn my diagrams that way. Thanks!

We will use two lightening strikes as Einstein does in Chapter 9. I have to start from scratch so you do too.

We will agree on the distances along the track and of the train between A and B, and between stations etc.. when all the observers are on the embankment in the same frame before starting. We will sync clocks to be absolutely in sync, so they all read as one. We will give the times each light hits each receiver and the point along the tracks that the light hit each receiver.

Agreed?

 

[Neddy Bate]

We will use two lightening strikes as Einstein does in Chapter 9. I have to start from scratch so you do too.

We will agree on the distances along the track and of the train between A and B, and between stations etc.. when all the observers are on the embankment in the same frame before starting. We will sync clocks to be absolutely in sync, so they all read as one. We will give the times each light hits each receiver and the point along the tracks that the light hit each receiver.

Agreed?

No thanks. My diagrams already demonstrate "The Relativity of Simultaneity." Notice how the light sphere hits the left and right sides of the train at different times in the embankment frame, but the light hits the left and right sides simultaneously in the train frame.

Do you at least agree that the red times in the embankment frames match your method? If you don't want to work the math, you can just take my word for it.

 

[Motor Daddy]

No thanks.

Yeah, that's what I thought. You aren't interested in the truth, you're only interested in defending Einstein's BS!

In the real world, trains are at rest with the tracks at the station. Then the train accelerates according to HP=torque*RPM/5252. In the real world, the train's wheels have a circumference which means the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel times the RPM of the wheel. The wheel accelerates according to the torque of the engine at the specific RPM of the crankshaft. The torque is multiplied by the gear ratio at a cost of RPM directly proportion to the gear ratio.

See, in the real world, the train is not at rest, the engine is doing work, and power=work/time. In the real world, the wheels rotate and the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel every rotation of the wheel.

We can find the torque of the engine at every RPM by placing the engine on a dyno and measuring the torque at RPM.

Get a clue, Ned!

 

[Neddy Bate]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You aren't interested in the truth, you're only interested in defending Einstein's BS!

In the real world, trains are at rest with the tracks at the station. Then the train accelerates according to HP=torque*RPM/5252. In the real world, the train's wheels have a circumference which means the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel times the RPM of the wheel. The wheel accelerates according to the torque of the engine at the specific RPM of the crankshaft. The torque is multiplied by the gear ratio at a cost of RPM directly proportion to the gear ratio.

See, in the real world, the train is not at rest, the engine is doing work, and power=work/time. In the real world, the wheels rotate and the train travels the distance of the circumference of the wheel every rotation of the wheel.

We can find the torque of the engine at every RPM by placing the engine on a dyno and measuring the torque at RPM.

Get a clue, Ned!

Um, you do realize that acceleration can also be used to make an object stop moving, right?

 

[Motor Daddy]

Um, you do realize that acceleration can also be used to make an object stop moving, right?

Yeah, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. It is also referred to as deceleration for decreasing velocity. I said the train would decelerate to a stop at the last station.

 

[Neddy Bate]

Yeah, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. It is also referred to as deceleration for decreasing velocity. I said the train would decelerate to a stop at the last station.

So you admit that "force," "torque," "work," "energy," and "power" don't tell you anything about the absolute motion of an object, correct?

 

[Motor Daddy]

So you admit that "force," "torque," "work," "energy," and "power" don't tell you anything about the absolute motion of an object, correct?

I didn't say they did, I said the train will start at rest at the station, accelerate to a constant velocity, lightening will strike A and B at the midway station, and then the train will decelerate to a stop at the final station. The observers will then compare notes and find out who doesn't have a clue what happened.