 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / November 2008Relatvity of Simultaneity Revisited
In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train observer and the track observer are coincide with each other two lighting strikes occur at the ends of the train simultaneously for the track observer and that the track observer sees the two light fronts from the strikes arrive at him simultaneously. He then use the perceived closing velocities between the two light fronts and the train observer to arrive at the conclusion that the train observer will see the front light front first before the rear light front. In other words the light fronts will not arrive at the train observer simultaneously. This means that the front light front will take a transit time of L/c+v to arrive at the train observer and the rear light front will take a transit time of L/c-v to arrive at the train observer. This appears to be in conflict with the fact that the train observer measures the speed of light to be isotropic in his frame. The SRians get out of this conflict by insisting that the front strike happened first before the rear strike for the train observer and that's why the train observer sees the front light front first. The problem with such assertion is that it is basedd on the following two conflicting initial conditions: 1. The strikes happened simultaneously. 2. The strikes did not happen simultaneously. If the strikes happened simultaneously, all observer who are at equal distance from the strikes will see the light fronts arrive at them simultaneously. Why? Because the speed of light is isotropic in the track and train frames. If the strikes did not happened simultaneously no observer at equal diistance from the strikes will see the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously. This interpretation will preserve the fact that the speed of light is isotropic in both frames. Now I want to ask the SRians the following question: If we stipulate that the train observer sees the strikes to be simultaneous, what will the track observer see? Ken Seto > In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of > relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Ken Seto This is a duplicate of your post of some two hours ago. You already have 5 responses to it there. Do you want to remove this one? Just click on "more options" on the top line. > In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of > relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Ken Seto These show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it. 43. Velocity and Time Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time. >> In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of >> relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > depends on who measures it. Sammy, you got it all wrong. It is the Relativity Model that causes clocks and rulers and twins to change when one runs toward them.  SignatureTom Potter http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/ http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm >> These show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical >> Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > clocks and rulers and twins to change > when one runs toward them. Yeah, Potter, tell that to the particle accelerator designers. Get a clue, Potter. Nature doesn't work the way you want it to. > >> In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of > >> relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > clocks and rulers and twins to change > when one runs toward them. Indeed it is only the model. ~~ The famous Lorentz transformation ensures that the velocity of light is invariant between different inertial frames, and also reduces to the more familiar Galilean transform in the limit v << c. ~~ http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node109.html Sue... > -- > Tom Potter > These show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical > Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. > http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html Who gives a damn about mysticism in science? > 42. The Lorentz Transformation > If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > depends on who measures it. This does not apply because the Lorentz transform only calls out for the constancy in the observed speed of light for one single observer. <shrug> > 43. Velocity and Time > Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, > resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time. This is utterly bullshit since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. Einstein was nobody. <shrug> Pointing out Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being merely nobody who was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar should not be construed as an obsession or jealousy in Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. After all, just how can one be obsessed or jealous of nobody who is a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar in which Einstein was one that fits this description 100%? <shrug> >> These show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical >> Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > liar in which Einstein was one that fits this description 100%? > <shrug> There are many who are not comfortable with non-intuitive aspects of modern physics, such as the quantum mechanics and relativity. You Keebee, in particular, seem to dislike the people. I doubt you would have found Isaac Newton very engaging. What is important is that the resulting physical theories are very fruitful. Take relativity, for example. Are you aware that there has never been a prediction of relativity that was contradicted by an observation? Koobee, you should do some self education about those theories pioneered during the 20th century. You might learn something! Those episodes from "The Mechanical Universe" might be a good place for you to start. Give it a go. > > Pointing out Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being > > merely nobody who was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are many who are not comfortable with non-intuitive aspects > of modern physics, such as the quantum mechanics and relativity. <shrug> > You Keebee, in particular, seem to dislike the people. Yes, you are very correct. I do not like crowds. I do not like traffic. I do not like waiting in lines. It sounds like you got me all figured out. <shrug> > I doubt you > would have found Isaac Newton very engaging. Isn’t he the one Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar tried very hard to measure himself upon? While Newton was standing on the shoulders of giants, Einstein the same nitwit, the same plagiarist, and the same liar was standing on the shoulders of amoebas as Professor Draper suggested. <shrug> > What is important is that the resulting physical theories are very > fruitful. Nonsense. You are speaking as a priest defending your religious belief. <shrug> > Take relativity, for example. Are you aware that there has > never been a prediction of relativity that was contradicted by an > observation? Well, have you not understood my postings? The Voigt transform also predicts the null results of the MMX. It does not satisfy the principle of relativity. <shrug> > [stupid accusations snipped] >>> Pointing out Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being >>> merely nobody who was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > >> [stupid accusations snipped] Des the Voigt transform predict the correct time dilation for satellite clocks? > > Well, have you not understood my postings? The Voigt transform also > > predicts the null results of the MMX. It does not satisfy the > > principle of relativity. <shrug> > > D[o]es the Voigt transform predict the correct time dilation for > satellite clocks?- Hide quoted text - No, the Voigt transform does not predict the observed time dilation. So, we have a catch whatever situations as described below. ** Ballistic theory of light satisfied MMX but does not satisfy electromagnetism. ** Lorentz transform satisfies MMX and observed time dilation but manifests the absurdity of the twin’s paradox. ** Voigt transform satisfies MMX and does not manifest the craziness of the twin’s paradox but does not satisfy the observed time dilation. So, scientifically all three do not agree with both logic and observations, and yet you choose to vote for the least of the three evils. This is not a political voting trial but a scientific inquiry if you have not figured it out yet. <shrug> You chose to settle on the Lorentz transform and came up with religious believe to resolve the twin’s paradox. In doing so, physics is now a religious not science. <shrug> >>> Well, have you not understood my postings? The Voigt transform also >>> predicts the null results of the MMX. It does not satisfy the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > religious believe to resolve the twin’s paradox. In doing so, physics > is now a religious not science. <shrug> :-) You should learn relativity theory. > > D[o]es the Voigt transform predict the correct time dilation for > > satellite clocks?- Hide quoted text - [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > religious believe to resolve the twin’s paradox. In doing so, physics > is now a religious not science. <shrug> The twin paradox is not a violation of logic. It is a violation of a particular intuition concerning the nature of time. Neither ballistic theory nor Voight's theory are capable of satisfying observation. The Lorentz transform -repeatedly- satisfies observational challenge. The conclusion is that the particular intuition is false, that labels the twin paradox as "crazy". Jerry > > No, the Voigt transform does not predict the observed time dilation. > > So, we have a catch whatever situations as described below. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > The twin paradox is not a violation of logic. It is a violation > of a particular intuition concerning the nature of time. Speaking like a religious zealous as usual. <shrug> > Neither ballistic theory nor Voight's theory are capable of > satisfying observation. This is utterly false. <shrug> > The Lorentz transform -repeatedly- > satisfies observational challenge. It does not matter if the Lorentz transform agrees with everything in sight. The Lorentz transform is self contradictory through its manifestation of the twin’s paradox. > The conclusion is that the particular intuition is false, that > labels the twin paradox as "crazy". There seem to be three camps of Einstein Dingleberries supporting zealously in SR. ** Conveniently f.cking up the mathematics of the Lorentz transform (especially in gross violation of the principle of relativity). This is championed by Professors Draper and Andersen. ** Vehement denial of experimental data. All experimental data concerning time dilation in the context of the twin’s paradox falsify the principle of relativity and thus emphasizing in the stupidity of the twin’s paradox. The only recourse for observed time dilation is through abandoning the principle of relativity. Otherwise, it is the twin’s paradox. This is championed by Professor Roberts. ** Championed by Jerry, this group do not give a damn about what the mathematical implications and logical deductions. They don’t know why they BELIEVE IN SR, but they do. They’d rather die than facing the overthrow of the Lorentz transform. >> These show quite nicely as an animation in the Mechanical >> Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the constancy in the observed speed of light for one single observer. ><shrug> All observers. Get it right. >> 43. Velocity and Time >> Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, >> resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time. > >This is utterly bullshit since Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, >and a liar. Einstein was nobody. <shrug> Einstein had a BS, PhD, and Nobel to his name - all in physics. What do you have? >Pointing out Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar being >merely nobody who was nothing but a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >liar in which Einstein was one that fits this description 100%? ><shrug> Could you be any more angry and jealous? > In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of > relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 1. The strikes happened simultaneously. > 2. The strikes did not happen simultaneously. You are dealing with two different coordinate systems. When riding down the road at 60 mph is the dash board moving at 60 mph? Depends whether you are riding in the car or sanding on the side of the road doesn't it? The train observer declares that light travels at c. He doesn't car what the track observer says it is traveling at. Bruce On Nov 23, 2:09 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > In Enistein's train gedanken to illustrate the SR concept of > > relativity of simultaniety (RoS) he specified that when the train [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > doesn't it? The train observer declares that light travels at c. He > doesn't car what the track observer says it is traveling at. What is your point? Do you realize that there is no such thing as closing speed between any object and light? That's why the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. Ken Seto > On Nov 23, 2:09 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sure there is such a thing as closing speed. It is the speed I calculate light to be traveling in relation to something moving in my coordinate system. My coordinate system is based on the fact that light travels at c relative to me. The moving observer still measures the speed of light to be isotropic c relative to him because his coordinate system is based on light traveling at c relative to him. There is no reason to expect us both to get the same answer when we are using two entirely different coordinate systems. Bruce On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2:09 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Sure there is such a thing as closing speed. I said that there is no such thing as closing speed between an observer and light fronts. Ken Seto >It is the speed I > calculate light to be traveling in relation to something moving in my [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Ken Seto You can say it all you like. That doesn't make it so. I just explained to you how they are calculated. Perhaps you would care to explain how you get c+v=c. Bruce > >It is the speed I > > calculate light to be traveling in relation to something moving in my [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2:09 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > There is no reason to expect us both to get the same answer when we > are using two entirely different coordinate systems. But the relativity of simultaneity is based on what the train observer will see....not what the track observer predict what the train observer will see using closing velocities. If the track observer want to predict what the train observer will see he must use the LT. Ken Seto > Bruce- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Same result either way. Uncle Ven > On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Ken Seto The track observers don't need to predict what the train observer sees, they can observe it with him. Nothing limits the number of observers you can have. There was a track observer next to M' when he saw the flash from the front, and a different track observer present when he observed the flash from the back. The fact that M' saw the flashes at different times is not open to debate. Nor is the fact that the strikes were at equal distances from M'. And we know that light took the same time to travel from each strike to M', as measured in his own frame. The only way to reconcile all these facts is to conclude that in the frame of M' the strikes were made at different times. Bruce On Nov 25, 1:17 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 10:07 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > when he observed the flash from the back. The fact that M' saw the > flashes at different times is not open to debate. ROTFLOL....so you are saying that RoS is true because I say so????? >Nor is the fact > that the strikes were at equal distances from M'. And we know that > light took the same time to travel from each strike to M', as measured > in his own frame. The only way to reconcile all these facts is to > conclude that in the frame of M' the strikes were made at different > times. Your assertion is not a valid arguement. Ken Seto > Bruce- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > On Nov 25, 1:17 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > > ROTFLOL....so you are saying that RoS is true because I say so????? Not at all. You have been claiming that M' sees both flashes at the same instant. I am saying that it can be proven that he sees them at two seperate times. Just line observers up shoulder to shoulder along the side of the track from M to the front strike point. We know that the only track observer that will see both flashes at the same instant is M, and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. We know that all of the other track observers will see the front flash before M, and that one of them will be opposite M' when the front flash reaches him. And we know that none of the other observers will see the back flash until after M, and one of them will be opposit M' when it reaches him. So the fact that the two flashes do not reach M' at the same instant is an observed fact. You can debate something is observed but the observations are not debateable. > >Nor is the fact > > that the strikes were at equal distances from M'. And we know that [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 25, 7:11 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 1:17 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > same instant. I am saying that it can be proven that he sees them at > two seperate times. No you can't. >Just line observers up shoulder to shoulder along > the side of the track from M to the front strike point. We know that > the only track observer that will see both flashes at the same instant > is M, assertion is not a valid arguement. >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. This statement is bogus. Closing speed as observed by M has no effect on how the light fronts will arrive at M'. If it does the speed of light in the M' frame is not isotropic. > We know that all of the other track observers will see the front flash > before M, and that one of them will be opposite M' when the front [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at the same instant is an observed fact. You can debate something is > observed but the observations are not debateable. All your arguement is based on your naive assertion that relative velocity and direction of relative velocity will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. Ken Seto > > >Nor is the fact > > > that the strikes were at equal distances from M'. And we know that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Nov 25, 7:11 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > assertion is not a valid arguement. The wave fronts meet at only one point on the tracks, and that would be at the mid point between them. M is the one and only track observer at that point. If you think any other track observer sees both flashes at the same instant you need to explain how it can happen. > >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. > > This statement is bogus. Closing speed as observed by M has no effect > on how the light fronts will arrive at M'. If it does the speed of > light in the M' frame is not isotropic. Closing speed has nothing to do with this. M and M' were face to face for only one instant. Since M' is moving with the train he will be closer to the front of the train than M any time after they met. The speed of light will still be measured as isotropic c on the train using train coordinates. > > We know that all of the other track observers will see the front flash > > before M, and that one of them will be opposite M' when the front [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > velocity and direction of relative velocity will affect the isotropy > of the speed of light in the train. No. As I wrote above and explained in your new thread the speed of light on the train will still be measured isotropic c. Bruce On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 7:11 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > both flashes at the same instant you need to explain how it can > happen. Wrong....the lightning strikes are light spheres they meet at infinite number of locations simultaneously. Two light rays R1 and R2 from the strikes arrive at M simultaneously. Two different light rays R3 and R4 from the strikes arrive at M' simultaneously. > > >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > speed of light will still be measured as isotropic c on the train > using train coordinates. exactly closing speed has nothing to do with this....similarly the direction of relative motion has nothing to do with this. Your problem is that you assume that direction of relative motion will affect the simultaneity of events in M' frame It does not....if it does the speed of light is not isotropic in M' frame.. Ken Seto > > > We know that all of the other track observers will see the front flash > > > before M, and that one of them will be opposite M' when the front [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Nov 27, 8:44 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > On Nov 26, 8:11 pm, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > strikes arrive at M simultaneously. Two different light rays R3 and R4 > from the strikes arrive at M' simultaneously. The tracks are a straight line between the centers of those two spheres. We are only concerned with what happens on that line. The spheres first meet on that line and they only meet in one place on it. > > > >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > exactly closing speed has nothing to do with this.... So the argument you made above had no merit. > similarly the > direction of relative motion has nothing to do with this. Your problem > is that you assume that direction of relative motion will affect the > simultaneity of events in M' frame > It does not....if it does the speed of light is not isotropic in M' > frame.. There you go making things up again. I never claimed the tracks had to be pointed in any particular direction. And M' will measure the speed of light to be isotropic using train coordinates reguardless of what observers in other frames measure using their coordinate systems. Bruce On Nov 27, 10:13 am, bsr3...@my-deja.com wrote: > On Nov 27, 8:44 am, "kens...@erinet.com" <kens...@erinet.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > spheres. We are only concerned with what happens on that line. The > spheres first meet on that line and they only meet in one place on it. This is wrong. If you are only talking about the two light rays that hit M simultaneously then these two light rays will not be seen by M'. Why because they had been absorbed by M. M' sees two different light rays simultaneously because he is in a different frame. > > > > >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > speed of light to be isotropic using train coordinates reguardless of > what observers in other frames measure using their coordinate systems. Einstein did. He said that the train observer rushes toward the light front from the front of the train and receding away from the light front from the rear of the train. Ken Seto > Bruce- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > Einstein did. He said that the train observer rushes toward the light > front from the front of the train and receding away from the light > front from the rear of the train. > > Ken Seto These could clear up a number of misconceptions--the Mechanical Universe series--Albert and Henry with their light clocks. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it. 43. Velocity and Time Einstein is motivated to perfect the central ideas of physics, resulting in a new understanding of the meaning of space and time. > On Nov 27, 10:13 am, bsr3...@my-deja.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > Why because they had been absorbed by M. M' sees two different light > rays simultaneously because he is in a different frame. The two spheres of light first meet at M. After that the points where they meet expand out as a circle in the plane passing through M and perpendicular to the line connecting the centers of the spheres. Since M' had already passed through that plane, never to return, there is no way that both sheres can reach him at the same instant. > > > > > >and we know that M' has already passed him when that happens. > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > front from the front of the train and receding away from the light > front from the rear of the train. He did not claim that there was any importance to the direction the tracks pointed. As a matter of convention we generally align the x axis with the tracks, but it is not a requirement. > On Nov 23, 2:09 am, "bsr3...@my-deja.com" <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > closing speed between any object and light? That's why the speed of > light is isotropic in all inertial frames. Coordinate systems and terms you may invent have nothing to do with light speed or its isotropy. Light speed is isotropic in all inertial frame because light has no mass to couple to the gravito-inertial field. << A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate transformation will convert electric or magnetic fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields, but no transformation mixes them with the gravitational field. >> http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml << where $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ are physical constants which can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments which involve measuring the force of attraction between two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments must yield the same values for $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ in all inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the same in all inertial frames. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Sue... > Ken Seto |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.