Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What The Observer Saw

Special relativity simultaneity of time

  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#35 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 16 October 2018 - 08:48 PM

And the impossible light clock :

 



#36 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:56 AM

If you think SR is wrong, you need to come forward with:

 

a ) an alternative explanation for the observed atmospheric muon lifetimes I directed you to, and also,

 

b ) an alternative explanation for the observed mass defect in atomic nuclei and nuclear reactions, which derive from E=mc², another result from SR. 

 

Don't forget that science is about making predictive models to account for observed features of nature. So, if you want to chuck away relativity, you need to offer something that works as least as well in exchange.  

 

Just arguing about the assumptions relativity makes isn't good enough when it demonstrably works. 

 

As I have often pointed out, there has,prior to Einstein, long been fully rational, coherent, and complete alternatives o SR, one which has passed every test which SR has, and some which SR fails.  Einstein himself, and every competent theoretical physicists since him, explicitly acknowledged the viabilty of such theory, which incorporate absolute simultaneity rather than positing the self-refuting relative simultaneity of Einstein.

 

The fact that, despite repeated exposure to these alternatives, you refuse to acknowledge or understand them, says nothing about the validity of those alternative theories. It does, however, say a lot about you, I'm afraid.



#37 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3494 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 11:59 AM

I understand the claims of SR perfectly.  Don't take my rejections of the absurd implications of the theory as a "lack of comprehension."

 

By "understand," I actually mean understand, which is different from merely being able to parrot, from memory, the dictates I have been told to accept without any satisfactory rational explanation. 

 

 

Spoken like a true crank.



#38 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2902 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:16 PM

As I have often pointed out, there has,prior to Einstein, long been fully rational, coherent, and complete alternatives o SR, one which has passed every test which SR has, and some which SR fails.  Einstein himself, and every competent theoretical physicists since him, explicitly acknowledged the viabilty of such theory, which incorporate absolute simultaneity rather than positing the self-refuting relative simultaneity of Einstein.

 

The fact that, despite repeated exposure to these alternatives, you refuse to acknowledge or understand them, says nothing about the validity of those alternative theories. It does, however, say a lot about you, I'm afraid.

You can draw what deductions you like about me, of course, just as I can about you.

 

I do not set myself up as a relativity expert, so I go on what all the books say. From these books I am unaware of any observational tests within its scope of application that SR has failed. So I, personally, - like practically the entire scientific community, apparently -  do not see a burning need to replace SR.

 

Given the further fact that, from my experience of science forums, relativity cranks are two a penny, I do not see a great need either to devote time to considering in detail the arguments of a person on the internet with no prior credentials, who turns up attacking SR. I think to myself "Here we go again", to be honest. 

 

I do have some interest in results from relativity that affect my own discipline, including such things as E=mc², hence my rather abortive dialogue with marcospolo. But that's about as far as my motivation and competence extend in this area. 


Edited by exchemist, 21 January 2019 - 12:17 PM.


#39 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 12:43 PM

 

Given the further fact that, from my experience of science forums, relativity cranks are two a penny, I do not see a great need either to devote time to considering in detail the arguments of a person on the internet with no prior credentials, who turns up attacking SR. I think to myself "Here we go again", to be honest. 

 

 

All you're really saying here, chem is that you are quick to substitute prejudice, preconception, and unwarranted assumption for any semblance of rational analysis.  You're far from alone is this lazy-*** practice, so don't feel bad.


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 12:44 PM.


#40 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 04:50 PM

I said:

 

Einstein himself, and every competent theoretical physicists since him, explicitly acknowledged the viabilty of such theory, which incorporate absolute simultaneity rather than positing the self-refuting relative simultaneity of Einstein.

 

 

 From these books I am unaware of any observational tests within its scope of application that SR has failed. So I, personally, - like practically the entire scientific community, apparently -  do not see a burning need to replace SR....  I do not see a great need either to devote time to considering in detail the arguments of a person on the internet with no prior credentials, who turns up attacking SR. I think to myself "Here we go again", to be honest. 

 

 

 

 

Even the most rudimentary research would inform you that EVERY respectable physicist, from before Einstein (and including Einstein) to the present day acknowledges the viability of a theory of relative motion incorporating absolute simultaneity.Yet you choose to remain wilfully ignorant and to dismiss any scientific theory which you have not previously subscribed to, no questions asked,  as being the product solely of a person with no credentials.  I am not presenting my personal idiosyncratic views here, sorry, pal.  Nor is it anything "new."  Yet you presume your extremely limited (i.e. non-existent) understanding of alternate theories to be evidence of their falsity.

 

Not a very scientific attitude on your part, I'm afraid.


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 05:03 PM.


#41 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 05:18 PM

Take a little gander at this web page, Mr. Know it All.  There are hundreds more like it, if you ever care to inform yourself before making unsupportable assertions, eh?

 

An experiment to test the theory of relativity cannot assume the theory is true, and therefore needs some other framework of assumptions that are wider than those of relativity. For example, a test theory may have a different postulate about light concerning one-way speed of light vs. two-way speed of light, it may have a preferred frame of reference, and may violate Lorentz invariance in many different ways... By giving the effects of time dilation and length contraction the exact relativistic value, this test theory is experimentally equivalent to special relativity, independent of the chosen synchronization. So Mansouri and Sexl spoke about the "remarkable result that a theory maintaining absolute simultaneity is equivalent to special relativity." They also noticed the similarity between this test theory and Lorentz ether theory of Hendrik Lorentz, Joseph Larmor and Henri Poincaré.

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia...–Sexl_framework


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 05:20 PM.


#42 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 21 January 2019 - 05:35 PM

Chem, in this particular thread, you have pretty much confined your comments to expressions of relative agnosticism and skepticism, which is all fine.  But my comments to you are not confined to statements you have made in this particular thread.  In the past, you have often called me a crank and insinuated that your knowledge and understanding of SR was far superior to mine.

 

You and a lot of other ignorant blowhards, so, again, you're not alone.  Congratulations on being "in" with the irrational gang.  I'm sure it's satisfying for you to get high fives from your homeys when you pile on.


Edited by Moronium, 21 January 2019 - 05:44 PM.


#43 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:04 PM

Lol!

 

It's only a contradiction for both object A to be taller than object B and object B to be taller than object A if they're in the same frame of reference. If they're in different frames of reference then both are right and there's no contradiction. If you don't understand that the the problem is with you, not with physics.

To make sense of your counter intuitive claims that both are right, in their own frames, you first need to demonstrate that a imaginary frame of coordinates, arbitrarily chosen could POSSIBLY have the slightest influence on physical objects.

 

The truth is that there are NO frames whatsoever, anywhere.

 

So now, without further reference to your imaginary frames, please explain how two guys of different heights can both think they are taller than the other, AND they both are right.  

 The concept you are so convinced is representative of reality has no resemblance to it.  Its just a mind game, not unlike the plot  of a Sci-Fi movie. That sort of "relativity" has nothing to do with Physics or Science.



#44 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:07 PM

Spoken like a true crank.

and that phrase is also "spoken like a true crank".   It does not help the discussion, and is not a clever answer to questions you have no reply for.



#45 marcospolo

marcospolo

    Explaining

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 11 February 2019 - 08:19 PM

What the Observer saw.

Up front I admit I have only a limited understanding of Relativity and in particular what it means to have light travel at (c + v).

In order to understand this better let's consider the classical train/platform thought experiment with lightning bolts at each end of the train.

Because light travels at c in both frames then the time to reach the middle in each case is simply c/(l/2) where l is the length of the train. Both experience this in their own frame.

Now let's consider a train with a window in the middle where the passenger sits, so the station master can't see what happens inside. In this case light arrives at the passenger from both ends at the same time illuminating both sides of the passenger's face. This image is visible to the station master.

The image of the illuminated passenger then travels back to the station master who determines the time delay between the arrival of the flashes at his location and the time he sees the image of the passenger.

Surprisingly that time difference is simply the time that light takes to reach him from the passengers momentary position.

The station master concludes that both events were simultaneous in time. Yes there is a time delay but, for example, a witness could see President Kennedy's assassination in Dallas and another could view it live on television in London. Yes, there is a time difference but solely due to the transmission time.

How can both observers see the same event and determine it happened at the same time for both frames of reference and both agree on the distances, speed of light, etc.
This contradicts standard assumptions about simultaneity of time.

As far as I can determine all theory related to simultaneous of time, etc. is based on an observer theoretically seeing something he cannot see.

You can extend this line of thinking to a train with a lot of windows with some very surprising results.

Yes, you are right. SR is wrong. No way around it.  Many have figured this out for themselves aver the last 100 years. No mainstream believer will admit it though. They have too much to loose, let alone their reputation and authority. SR and GR are just the start of the errors of Physics.



#46 A-wal

A-wal

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1316 posts

Posted 17 March 2019 - 06:14 AM

To make sense of your counter intuitive claims that both are right, in their own frames, you first need to demonstrate that a imaginary frame of coordinates, arbitrarily chosen could POSSIBLY have the slightest influence on physical objects.

I don't need to demonstrate anything, it's the only way the speed of light can possibly be constant to all inertial observers and it's very well established that it is,

 

Besides, it's not my responsibility to attempt to make you understand, or establish whether or not you're even capable of understanding it.

 

The truth is that there are NO frames whatsoever, anywhere.

Oh okay. :)

 

So now, without further reference to your imaginary frames, please explain how two guys of different heights can both think they are taller than the other, AND they both are right.

Because they're in different frames.

 

The concept you are so convinced is representative of reality has no resemblance to it.  Its just a mind game, not unlike the plot  of a Sci-Fi movie. That sort of "relativity" has nothing to do with Physics or Science.

Lol!



#47 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 17 March 2019 - 01:15 PM

I don't need to demonstrate anything, it's the only way the speed of light can possibly be constant to all inertial observers and it's very well established that it is.

 

That has NEVER been "established."  Do some research.



#48 Moronium

Moronium

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2894 posts

Posted 17 March 2019 - 07:07 PM

Measurement of Differences and Relativity between Speeds of Light from Various Stars

©2014 The Physical Society of Japan

 

To check whether the speed of light is influenced by the relative motion between the source and the observer or by the travelling time, we must find a system with a very long transmission path and a large relative motion between the light source and the receiver end.

 

The speed of light is dimensional and expressed in terms of length per unit time. To measure the speed of light, we need a ruler and a watch. Especially to measure the speed of light emitting from a moving source, we encounter the simultaneity problem. Here we
design a system accordingly to directly measure the speeds of light from the distant moving sources. Because we compare the speed of light from the distant moving sources with the well-known value, c, whicTh is the speed of light from a resting source and
measured on the Earth, we can avoid the previously mentioned problems.

 

Conclusion:  We have accomplished a simple method for measuring the speeds of light from extraterrestrial sources, namely Aldebaran, Capella, Arcturus and Vega. This method compares the travelling time intervals of these starlights and the local light from the transmitter to the receiver. Such that definitions of dimensional units problem can be avoided. We also analyze the possible errors which are likely tolerable. In our measurement, the results show that the speeds of starlights are different from the speed of terrestrial light.

 

 

https://journals.jps.../JPSCP.1.014019

 

The hypothesis is merely that the speed of light will be measured to be the same in all inertial frames, while they are in fact different.

 

The only reason a moving frame measures the speed of light to be the same is because it is using distorted measuring instruments, i.e. clocks whose tick rates have been retarded, and rods whose lengths have been contracted.


Edited by Moronium, 17 March 2019 - 07:13 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Special relativity, simultaneity of time