Is Relativity Really Wrong? Exploring the Evidence on Motion and Perception

[wespe]

... To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving..

From this, I suspect that you missed the moving astronaut at the end of the animation. So, did you think "everything is stationary, this has nothing to do with relativity"?

 

[DrChinese]

edit: what's a strawman argument? I hope not some kind of mental illness

A strawman argument is the weak representation of your opponent's argument, followed by your refuting that weak argument. You need to refute your opponent's best argument.

 

[russ_watters]

From this, I suspect that you missed the moving astronaut at the end of the animation. So, did you think "everything is stationary, this has nothing to do with relativity"?

Except that you just said it doesn't work for moving frames. Or are you saying it works unless the astronaut has a clock with him to check if it works? That's like closing your eyes and saying the world isn't there anymore.

 

[wespe]

Except that you just said it doesn't work for moving frames. Or are you saying it works unless the astronaut has a clock with him to check if it works? That's like closing your eyes and saying the world isn't there anymore.

Russ, are you trying to drive me insane? If it did work, the moving astronauts wouldn't even need a clock, they could use the average value as a clock. I thought it would work and I laid my argument. That was then. Now, I changed my mind. So what else do you want.

Edit:

As an example, if I said "here's a bird. If it can fly, relativity is wrong. ..then.. OK, it can't fly, relativity is not wrong", you would be rightful to say it's irrelevant, because relativity would not be disproved even if the bird could fly. I hope you understand that's not the case here. We cool?

 

[franznietzsche]

I've found another thought experiment that gives us absolute time: The astronauts are meeting at a point, they adjust their wristwatches and they start their space journeys. And here's the key move: when the astronauts look at their watches (Swiss watches) at a given time t_o, they will all read the same time t_p (p stands for personal). This is an absolute time frame!

Physics is so easy, one must just think clearly, and now give me that damn Nobel.

I'm going to hope that was a joke...

Assuming it wasn't.. here i go...

First: you enver specified if the astronauts are traveling at the same speed or not.

Second:If they are not, then they are in completely separate frames of reference and your conclusion is erroneously based at best. So no.

Third: if they are travleing at the same velocity, relativity would predict that they would remain synchronized (provided their velocities were always equal, including during acceleration). So there is no conflict there.

And that's all i have to say about that.

 

[franznietzsche]

The words "no reason to believe relativity theory is wrong" is an inclusive statement defining the limitations of your deliefs. If reason to believe otherwise exists what are the consequences to contradicted belief systems?

For instance if the 'loss of simultaneity' construct, derived from fundamental postulates of relativity theory is proved fatally flawed would this be a "reason" to believe relativity theory is wrong?

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel

Unless you disprove the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, and/or the relativity principle you cannot wholly invalidate relativity as it proceeds entirely from those statements. otherwise the best you could show is that relativity is unknowingly based on some other false assumption, much as Newton's physics was based on the idea of absolute space and time, ideas invalidated by the logical combination of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity principle. So your best bet to invalidate relativity is to find other assumptions, a prioris, in the derivation and show those to be wrong, that would bring the house of cards down. attacking the predictions so viciously as many people do is pointless because they simply want to restore the ideas of absolute time and space without even addressing the constancy of the speed of light or the relativity principle, you must invalidate something within the theory, rather than try to use the old model to invalidate its predictions.

 

[geistkiesel]

No, you're not refuting special relativity, you are simply denying it. There's a difference!

You can't refute a theory with another theory. You can only refute a theory with contradictory evidence.

So, Tom you want contradictory evidence? I took Einsten's model re simultaneity as published in his book "Relativity" and came to the conclusion that the concept of 'relative simultaneity' or 'loss of simultaneiity' is a bogus concept.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

 

[Doc Al]

Caveat Lector

So, Tom you want contradictory evidence? I took Einsten's model re simultaneity as published in his book "Relativity" and came to the conclusion that the concept of 'relative simultaneity' or 'loss of simultaneiity' is a bogus concept.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

Hardly a challenge there. Whereas Einstein starts with two events simultaneous in one frame and then shows that they cannot be simultaneous as viewed from a moving frame, how does your version of the gedanken experiment begin? Let's see:

"Just as a moving observer arrives at the midpoint of two light sources each emit a pulse of light, later verified by a stationary observer to have arrived at the midpoint at the same time. Assigning the time base for this event, at the instant the pulses were emitted the stationary and moving platform are collocated at the midpoint of the pulses at a common base time t0 = 0."​

All your first sentence can mean is: Observers in the stationary frame observe the moving observer to pass the midpoint at the exact time that the two pulses are emitted--as viewed in the stationary frame. Your second sentence just repeats the illusion that everyone agrees that the pulses were emitted simultaneously and that a unique time can be assigned to those two emissions valid in all frames. Not off to a good start!

What you can do is have the moving observer synchronize his clock with the clock of a stationary observer at the midpoint. Is that what you are trying to do?

Then you go on:

"Later, at t1, the moving observer detects the pulse from B at a position collocated with a stationary detector that also records the B pulse (See the blue figure above). Later, at t2 the A pulse from behind is detected simultaneously by the moving observer and a collocated stationary observer."​

Ah... but you neglect to mention who is measuring t1 and t2. Or do you just assume that the moving observer (using his own clock) and the stationary observers measure the same times t1 and t2? Things are getting murkier!

But you go on:

"Assigning the events as the emission of the pulses, the detection of the B and A pulse, and the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1, each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames."​

Now things are really clouding up. Somehow all observers detected the coincidence of light pulse B and the moving observer at time t1 (whose time? who cares at this point?) but now that light pulse arrives at the midpoint at time 2t1. Huh?

And then, careening out of control now, you claim that the pulses are not only emitted simultaneously (in all frames, mind you), but are also detected by both the moving and stationary observers simultaneously.

And round and round you go, merely assuming what you presumably are trying to prove. Need I go on?

 

[geistkiesel]

Hardly a challenge there. Whereas Einstein starts with two events simultaneous in one frame and then shows that they cannot be simultaneous as viewed from a moving frame, how does your version of the gedanken experiment begin? Let's see:

"Just as a moving observer arrives at the midpoint of two light sources each emit a pulse of light, later verified by a stationary observer to have arrived at the midpoint at the same time. Assigning the time base for this event, at the instant the pulses were emitted the stationary and moving platform are collocated at the midpoint of the pulses at a common base time t0 = 0."​

All your first sentence can mean is: Observers in the stationary frame observe the moving observer to pass the midpoint at the exact time that the two pulses are emitted--as viewed in the stationary frame. Your second sentence just repeats the illusion that everyone agrees that the pulses were emitted simultaneously and that a unique time can be assigned to those two emissions valid in all frames. Not off to a good start!

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

If you read "Relativity" page 25-27 does not Einstein makes the point that just because the lights are detected at different instances that this is suffiicient to invoke the 'loss of simultaneity consequences" upon humanity? Cannot the moving ovservers test to see if they are moving, which would offer one explantion for the difference in the way the pulses are detected? DUH!

Actually nobody observed the event of the simultaneous pulses. Rather than confining our thinking to Einstein's retricitions let us look at this universally. The pulses came on simultaneously. You, sir, are talking about clocks and observers as if they are able to modify the reality of the simultaneous emitted pulses. The illusion is the appication of RT to rational thought that corrupts physical laws. The events occurred at the same instant, Thee is no dt to measure, even if clocks were relevant.

What you can do is have the moving observer synchronize his clock with the clock of a stationary observer at the midpoint. Is that what you are trying to do?

No, I would have said so had that been my intention. Evrybody just starts counting at zero. But since you ask, there is a common base time of t = 0 when everybody starts counting, or do you want to corrupt this fact also? Please advise.

Then you go on:

"Later, at t1, the moving observer detects the pulse from B at a position collocated with a stationary detector that also records the B pulse (See the blue figure above). Later, at t2 the A pulse from behind is detected simultaneously by the moving observer and a collocated stationary observer."​

Ah... but you neglect to mention who is measuring t1 and t2. Or do you just assume that the moving observer (using his own clock) and the stationary observers measure the same times t1 and t2? Things are getting murkier!

Lets say both are measuring t1 and t2.

AH, I see you are getting there though reluctantly as you struggle to avoid the anticipated end. Who said anything about clocks? The measureing devices on the stationary platform are collocated with the detectors on the moving platform as it passes. Each observer notices the other's observation that occurred at the same instant. Was this a corruption of the hypothetical? No, just string a series of small mirrors along the path and when the light strikes one it will strike both. Maybe some electronics gear and light sensitve receptors, OK? You may righteously call this cheating, but it is still good physics.

It seems you are trying to negate the collocated measurements because you anticipate this will crumble RT? I sppose if you made everybody as ignorant as possible you could invoke any wildy scheming theory that has no physical meaning, implication or reality. This is clear isn't it? Did you mean that if we remove the collocated measuring devices you get to keep RT? Wow, what a concept?

But you go on:

"Assigning the events as the emission of the pulses, the detection of the B and A pulse, and the simultaneous arrival of the light pulses at the midpoint at 2t1, each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames."​

Now things are really clouding up. Somehow all observers detected the coincidence of light pulse B and the moving observer at time t1 (whose time? who cares at this point?) but now that light pulse arrives at the midpoint at time 2t1. Huh?

Whose time did the light reach the point it was collected? It occurred at the same time to both moving and stationary detectors. Whatever timing method used each observer knows the measurements were simultaneous with the other observer. The clocks don't matter at this point, do they? Ok, I'll give a little as a show of congeniality. The moving t1 and the stationary t1 are both recorded at the measuring point and each instantly transfers his time reading to the other, let's say in a time system using x-ray size wavelengths for message resolution purposes.

If you read where I asssumed the pulses would meet at the midpoint for both observers, there is the test intrinsic to the analysis that alllows this as a valid conclusion.

And then, careening out of control now, you claim that the pulses are not only emitted simultaneously (in all frames, mind you), but are also detected by both the moving and stationary observers simultaneously.

And round and round you go, merely assuming what you presumably are trying to prove. Need I go on?

Yes, everybody has their detectors placed such that both will record the A and B light simultaneously.

Tho not quite. I recognize that the moving observer does not have a detector at the midpoint of the statioanry frame, well unless the train is long enough and the observer has detectors on the train to measure the simultaneous arrival of the pulses in both frames. If this were the case how do you wiggle out? It really isn't all that difficult to grasp, unless of course, one's mental faculties have been corrupted by the acceptance of the insanity of RT.

What is wrong? We put measuring devices along the path of the moving platform and made measuremnts when the pulses arrived. If nothing else each measurment is simultaneous with the other frame's measurement. Cannot we hypothecize extremely small mirrored reflectors a few wave lengths in area placed within a few wavelengths of each other? If you are going round and round, get a hold of yourself man. The original experimental conditions have not been altered, mthe expeiment is as pure and virignal as when Ak conjured it .up, smoking who knows what. The stationary measurement does not affect thje moving measurements and vice versa. Likewise the mesurement by any entity, consious or inert, does not alter the physical reality that the pulses were turned on simultaneously in the same universe. This ain't quntum mechanics. Does that narrow it down sufficiently for you? Ah, I get it. If they use RT the observers get to perceive a universe of their very own and this is your promise toi them, isn't it? Why didn't I see that?

Your problem is your edginess in wanting to jump right in with RT and start poluting the physical reality of the pulses emitting at the same instant.

Here is the insanity of RT: The simultaneous emission, that physical realty, no a mathematical construct, of the pulses cannot be altered by any theory, which is a simply mental construct some times offered by the most brillaint of men, some times offered by the most stupid. In the case of RT, well there are just too many of you to be other than a bit cynical, though positive in my outlook as I am, by nature, I predict that the darkness you find yourself immersed will be flooded with a bursting brilliant gleaming light which is but just simple, but firm and quick, jerk away.

So calculate, impose RT constraints, the light pulses were simulataneous in the universe and that you cannot alter. I apologize for having to say this to you, an adult, I mean.

So, appaently you got lost, took a wrong turn and discovered yourself in the theory development forum or are you just 'down here' slumming, checking on us exiled mortals? Hmmm, I get bumped from answering your inane posts earlier, but you get to scout around at leisure: trenurial privileges?. This is Amerca in the 3rd Millenium isn't it? Why do not you just crawl back . . .

 

[geistkiesel]

Unless you disprove the constancy of the speed of light for all observers, and/or the relativity principle you cannot wholly invalidate relativity as it proceeds entirely from those statements. otherwise the best you could show is that relativity is unknowingly based on some other false assumption, much as Newton's physics was based on the idea of absolute space and time, ideas invalidated by the logical combination of the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity principle. So your best bet to invalidate relativity is to find other assumptions, a prioris, in the derivation and show those to be wrong, that would bring the house of cards down. attacking the predictions so viciously as many people do is pointless because they simply want to restore the ideas of absolute time and space without even addressing the constancy of the speed of light or the relativity principle, you must invalidate something within the theory, rather than try to use the old model to invalidate its predictions.

My only intention is to discuss the inpolications of a faulty "simultaneity' consequence derived from the postulates of RT. The simultaneity conundrum has been disposed with, save the technical requirement of straining those reluctant to see the light by these posts. Why do you offer me advice on how " . . .to invalidate relativity . . ."? Do you have something to offer in this discussion of a technical matter, or are going to confine yourself as the unsolicited advisor for my 'ad campaign'. If someone wants to invoke concepts of absolte time and space, they are free to do so. These are mere concepts ingrained in insane people. Rational nethods are generally ill powered to overcome such inertia. There is also the deep and ingrained lack of scientific integrity that has been replaced by a science by the numbers "of believers".

The constancy of the speed of light is a myth as deeply imbedded not in the scientific consciousness, but in an ersatz scientific mentality. As proof, who discusses this subject matter with an arms length try at objectivity? Look at Doc Al's post answering my own. The man is intentionally belligerent and intimidating, snide insulting and much, much holier than I, by personality. I guess it pays the bills, huh? RT will take care of itself, aided pehaps as simultaneity sonsequences are seen to dissolve.

Michelson and Morely found a wave shift 1/20 of the "predictred" shift assuming the finding of an ether. Contrary to the fraudulent and criiminal statements of some leading "scientists' who, to this day, casually use the "null finding" in discussing MM. The eclipse expeiments post WWI that made Al famous overnight was another fraud perpetrated, this time by Eddington (didn't he get a Nobel?) and corrected, by few, including yourself, on this forrum. Dayton Miller gets slandered by the pompous and egotisitic prevailing mainliners who also corroborated the MM experiments.
Thank you for your reply.

 

[geistkiesel]

Quote:

It appears there is some confusion.

Responding is Doc Al]
Of course there is, that's the whole point.

eistkiesl answers:

Why do you insist on continuouslly speaking out of context. Your belligerent manner is not necessary, but it is obfuscating as everbody is expecting an analysis. You are too engrossed in kicking my butt therefore leave out crtitical elements of your theses.


Quote:

Is the question here of "agreeing astronauts", or what the laws of physics determine?

Quote=Doc Al comments:]
Both, actually. They are related.

please explain the relation.

quote:

If we have a moving platform with reflectors extended forward and rearward and a light is pulsed just at the midpoint of the two reflectors on the platform as it passes by will the moving observer see one or two pulses as a source of the light?

It's not clear what you are describing. I assume you mean that a light at the midpoint between the two reflectors is flicked on? I would assume that all observers would see two "pulses" of light: one going towards each reflector. Or do you mean something else?

Boy you got me there. Here I was assuming everyone reading had an understanding that a pulse of light would expand as a sphere and that no observer would see "two pulses". In fact they would only see a very small cross section of he expanding sphere. You see, Doc Al when a radiating sphere expands in 3pi directions there remains but one wave front. Hard to believe? Well that's the way it is. I suppose you might consider directly opposite sides of the expanding wave front as 'two pulses' for the purposes of winning argumebnts and such. Hey, I am not going to quibble about that.

So you were correct, I did mean something other than two pulses, that you assjume all observers would see as 'two pulses'.

So,now that the thought experiment is described more carefully, do you have any further comment to make regarding this unexpected nature of the 'single pulse scenario' of light, expanding as an EM sphere with its invariant midpoint located uniquely in the universe? My apologies for creating the illusion and disturbing your sensibilities, and I assume other relativity theorists and the scientifically uninitiated, illuding that 'two pulses' of light were eimitted, where in fact there was but a single pulse..

I humbly apologize to the readers for this gross scientific oversight and any unintended confusion resulting therefrom...

Clealy the moving observer determines there was only one pulse for both reflected lights. Do you not agree?


You need to describe your thouhjy experiment more carefully.

geistkiesel responds:

I made a point that measurement alone is insufficient to alter physical events. Your response is cryptic. If the astronauts measurements are the issue as well as the physical events, them why do you not explain yourself? The answer is obvious. You do not go where you are unfamiliar, with the exception that you very deliberaely strew the path before the reader with contempt and barely hidden ridicule. LIke the relativity theory you profess, the theory being nothing but a mere mental wart on the minds of otherwise scientifically intended human beings, I see little value in your post here. If you are unable to explain it to us, then ask questions with other than rhetoricallly expected responses, otherwise I suggest you remove yourself from the thread.


Here is the thought experiment, use it fot your best purposes.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

:

 

[geistkiesel]

I will clear up this and all others, but not now. At the moment I feel at the egde of insanity. Maybe another flash animation would help. (without that, I couldn't convince people in usenet forums the version with everything stationary and average readings same). take care.

If I were you I would quit arguing relativity theory and trying to overcome clock phobias. Develop your own train of thouight, which is presently corrupted with an innocent desire to tell it alll. Why not ry to formulate a theory consistent with the parts you find objectionable discard the gristle? Most here that oppose you do so not for scintific reasons, but for the sheer fact that they want the RT to survive - this is their business! . Few if any exhibit scientific curiosity, if you know what I mean? Cruriosity, and an objective frame of mind.

Consider the end point. The RTists are going suffer embarrassment, sooner or later. They opt for later, which is either the conscious or unconsious motivaion for them to break your legs and kick you while your down.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/ There is something here that you haven't seen that will be helpful.

 

[geistkiesel]

It has been possible, through Relativity, to synchronize distant clocks in different frames for quite some time. The GPS system depends on this very phenomenon.

wespe, the point here is that your thought experiment doesn't say anything relevant to Relativity. Passing a signal back and forth between two clocks separated by distance but stationary relative to each other doesn't deal with any relativistic effects.

To make Relativity relevant, either the clocks or the observers must be moving and the observers must be carrying clocks with them. Then, only by using Relativty would you be able to synchronize the clocks and reconcile the observations.

Not so.

Clocks are irrelevant to the physics of the matter. Take an event on two sides of the universe occurring this instant, like simultaneous exploding supernovae. Here we are in our stationary platform. Is there any mesurement, thought, theoretical construct, postulate or event that can change the reality of the event? Just answer no. Th exploding supernovae are simultaneously exploding in the uiniverse. The only way that one or the other can be consideed to have eruopted frist is to apply some theoretiacl construct and just corropt the reality of the event. This is apure psychological manipulation. One light puilse does nopt turn into two pulses just because one of he observers is moving. Can we measure the event? So what, what changes by the null informaion? No we cannot, only theoretically. Does the lack of a measuremnt affect the physics? No it does not.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

 

[Integral]

Not so.

Clocks are irrelevant to the physics of the matter. Take an event on two sides of the universe occurring this instant, like simultaneous exploding supernovae. Here we are in our stationary platform. Is there any mesurement, thought, theoretical construct, postulate or event that can change the reality of the event? Just answer no. Th exploding supernovae are simultaneously exploding in the uiniverse. The only way that one or the other can be consideed to have eruopted frist is to apply some theoretiacl construct and just corropt the reality of the event. This is apure psychological manipulation. One light puilse does nopt turn into two pulses just because one of he observers is moving. Can we measure the event? So what, what changes by the null informaion? No we cannot, only theoretically. Does the lack of a measuremnt affect the physics? No it does not.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

What does this have to do with Relativity? Do you think that relativity somehow states that simultaneous events do not happen? All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.

It appears to me that you have some major misconceptions about the entire idea of Relativity, what it is for and what it means.

 

[DrChinese]

The constancy of the speed of light is a myth as deeply imbedded not in the scientific consciousness, but in an ersatz scientific mentality. As proof, who discusses this subject matter with an arms length try at objectivity?

... Contrary to the fraudulent and criiminal statements of some leading "scientists' who, to this day, casually use the "null finding" in discussing MM.

That the speed of light is measured to be a constant by all observers is not in question. Is it? Because you say it is a myth, while it can be tested by anyone any day of the week. No matter which way you move, or aim your apparatus, you always get the same value: c. So while you are busy accusing others of "criminal" actions, it appears you are merely pig-headed in your ignorance of the facts.

Take the time to study SR, and then discuss that theory. Or perform your own version of MM, and report your findings - which will still be consistent with a null result for the ether.

 

[TillEulenspiegel]

Hiya Dr.C...I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.

 

[DrChinese]

Hiya Dr.C...I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.

It's better than watching Survivor...

 

[geistkiesel]

What does this have to do with Relativity? Do you think that relativity somehow states that simultaneous events do not happen? All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.

It appears to me that you have some major misconceptions about the entire idea of Relativity, what it is for and what it means.

My posts are directed at the "simultaneity" question that Einstein say we must discard. What are my misconceptions about this?

All relativity says about the situation that you describe is that we have no way of knowing that the 2 events were simultaneous.

If you want to voluntarily place yourself in a state of ignorance that is your business. I just find it objectionable when the ignorance is passed along in the disguise of "knowledge".

Two simultaneous events in a stationary frame, to simplify the description, are simultaneous throughout the universe. Someone in a moving frame can always determine the simultaneous nature of the oiginal event. In Einstein's example "Relativity" pages 25-27 he concludes the "loss of simultaneity" on a superficial examination of a gedunken where two light sources separated at their midpoint are flashed on just as a moving train passes the midpoint heading to B.

Einstein's analysis was incompetent. The moving observer, when properly applying analysis can learn the total history of the wave front activity.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

 

[geistkiesel]

That the speed of light is measured to be a constant by all observers is not in question. Is it? Because you say it is a myth, while it can be tested by anyone any day of the week. No matter which way you move, or aim your apparatus, you always get the same value: c. So while you are busy accusing others of "criminal" actions, it appears you are merely pig-headed in your ignorance of the facts.

Take the time to study SR, and then discuss that theory. Or perform your own version of MM, and report your findings - which will still be consistent with a null result for the ether.

You have falen into your own trap. I referred to the Michelson-Morley experiments being referred to "criminally" as a "null" event. You read up on it sir, as I have already done so. Was the MM result "NULL" or was the result ~1/20 of that merely "expected" from the standard model then used? Did Dayton Miller confrim MM? or was DM also "NULL"? DM found a consistent wave shift and neither yourself or your colleagues or all your self-satidified smugness going to replace the truth of the past. Was the "eclipse experiments" post WWI confirmation of relativity theory, or were the results fraudulently published? Its on the net, read up on it.

You say that everyday you get the same result? of what? Your post left no trail to the truth, rather we see just another echo of your mispent scientific education.
You mad a statement of fact. Where I come from one is tasked with proving it. I suggest you do just that, or stay off the thread.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files

 

[geistkiesel]

It's better than watching Survivor...

Yeah, I wonder who it is going to be . . .

 

[geistkiesel]

Final simultaneous event: A return to natural physical law.

Hiya Dr.C...I didn't know you had a comedy forum on this board.

This should be hillarious to you. I assume from your comment that you understand the essence of he thread. Laugh at this one.

A moving platform is on the plane passing through the midpoint of two light sources and perpendicular to the surfaces of the expanding wave fronts of two pulses emitted atsimultaneously in the stationary frame. Now under the condition that the moving platform will arrive at the midpoint at the same time the wave fronts of the expanding spheres arrive, how can the moving platform observers make ANY rational conclusion that the lights were not pulsed on simultaneously?

We might as well make this a three spaceship gedunken. One ship is moving on the plane through the midpoint perpendicular to the direction of the wave fronts. Two other ships are moving parallel to the wave fronts equidistant from the midpoint but in opposite directions. All three ships are moving at the same velocity and all three are always equidistant from the midpoint in their frame as well as the stationary frame.

Who gets to claim the pulses were not pulsed on simultaneously, A, B, or C, , especially after a stationary observer also withnessed the event of the simultaneous arrival of the wave fronts, the three space ships and the horrible collision marking this final simultaneous event?

 

[Hurkyl]

Was the MM result "NULL" or was the result ~1/20 of that merely "expected" from the standard model then used? Did Dayton Miller confrim MM?

If 1/20 is within the experimental error of the setup, then yes, the MM result was "NULL". I've found http://www.isds.duke.edu/computing/S/Snotes/node138.html , though am looking for a better online reference. (in particular, one that matches up the numerical data with the precise experimentation)

In any case, for each run, there is significant variation in the data; for example, in the first experiment, the range in the observations in the initial 10 runs is 330, a whopping 36% of the average (913), while in the after data the range is 240, 27% of the average (905). There is simply no way that such large error in observations could confirm a 5% difference as being nonnull.

 

[Hurkyl]

here is my "proof" if your anger doesn't blind you.

each of the events are physically simultaneous in all frames.

You know, it's pretty easy to prove Relativity (or anything else) wrong when your initial assumption is that Relativity is wrong.

And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like

The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

 

[russ_watters]

And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like

The enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.

How could I miss that one? That's a real gem.

 

[geistkiesel]

If 1/20 is within the experimental error of the setup, then yes, the MM result was "NULL". I've found http://www.isds.duke.edu/computing/S/Snotes/node138.html , though am looking for a better online reference. (in particular, one that matches up the numerical data with the precise experimentation)

In any case, for each run, there is significant variation in the data; for example, in the first experiment, the range in the observations in the initial 10 runs is 330, a whopping 36% of the average (913), while in the after data the range is 240, 27% of the average (905). There is simply no way that such large error in observations could confirm a 5% difference as being nonnull.

No the claim was the result was 1/20 of the predicted value. The null results imply No shift within experimenal error.

 

[Integral]

My posts are directed at the "simultaneity" question that Einstein say we must discard. What are my misconceptions about this?

If I read your post correctly you seem to be saying that Relativity prohibits simultaneous events.

This of course is total nonsense. Do you wish to reword that post so that it says what you mean?

 

[Integral]

No the claim was the result was 1/20 of the predicted value. The null results imply No shift within experimental error

Null can be used in many different ways, to say that the EXPERIMENT had a null result is simply to say that if failed to detect the predicted variation. i.e. It could not measure the velocity of Earth through the "aether", thus verifying that the speed of light did not depend on the direction of the Earth's motion.

 

[geistkiesel]

You know, it's pretty easy to prove Relativity (or anything else) wrong when your initial assumption is that Relativity is wrong.

And on a side note, why is it that the irony is always lost on crackpots that make statements like

My thesis in this tread and others is focused on the question of the loss of simultaneity as offered by Einstein as a necessarily resulting from the postulates of relativity theory.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/ mentions nothing about any intial assumption that relativity is wrong. You haven't been following the thread, certainly not my posts. I don't follow your statenment about proving something wrong being easy if he initial assumption is that it is wrong.

If you truly want to contribute to the conversation why not make some specific finding of a fault in the conclusions of my link. The pages are original. I am having the time of my life watching adults defend a theory as if they were defending Mother America herself. No one, I mean no one has found any fault with the link. which concludes that simultaneity of an event in one frame of reference is simultaneous in another, any and all others frames. If this proves relativity is wrong so be it, if it does not prove relativity is wrong so be it. So be it I thinks a wrinkle or two are showing in the unpressed fabric f relativity theory, but this is just an opinion.

What affect does a proof that an event simultaneous in one frame is simultaneous in all frames have on relativity theory? I am not a professional (this means paid) relativity theorist, so I care not a sou. If I were a professional relativity theorist, by now I would be making some serious effort in gathering sufficient assets to cover my professional funeral expenses.

I'll take the crackpot insult as one of the mildest directed at myself anf others who dare challenge the mainliners who laughingly are showing their collective paranoia and lack of scientific competence be responding as you have.

You cannot see yourself as someone driven by the sheer weight of convictions can you?
All those who have received anything of scienific value, one way or the other, in the four corners of the post quoted and discussed here raise your hand.
If you want to undermine my thesis regarding simultaneity I suggest you review the link above, which I fear it is, above your ability to comprehend, that is.

A prize to the first of you naming the author of the aphorism::"Enemies of truth. Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

I do thank you for your comments.

 

[geistkiesel]

If I read your post correctly you seem to be saying that Relativity prohibits simultaneous events.

This of course is total nonsense. Do you wish to reword that post so that it says what you mean?

You have not been reading the posts correctly. The link I reder to is a proof that events simultaneous in one frame are simultabneous in allframes. Or even without regard to simultaneity, just events in general, no event can be altered by the application of any theory or calculation. Any observer in a moving frame of reference that in any manner determines that an event simultaneous in a stationary frame, or any other frame is not simultaneous in his frame does so with tools contrary to the natural laws of physics.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

Is this clear enough for you, or do I sense that you are trying to avoid the obvious by frowning the brow and describing my posts as unclear? I know how you operate and your ability to "talk the talk of physics". There isn't anything I have posted that should honestly make you wince in confusion. Are you just putting on an act and posturing in front pf your colleagues in some kind of a defensive measure?

Face the truth man. Someone along the line fed you one and you weren't about to question someone in authority, like your graduate advisor, and hence your securty in the business, were you?

 

[geistkiesel]

Null can be used in many different ways, to say that the EXPERIMENT had a null result is simply to say that if failed to detect the predicted variation. i.e. It could not measure the velocity of Earth through the "aether", thus verifying that the speed of light did not depend on the direction of the Earth's motion.

Now you're dodging bullets. Are yousaying that the use of the word "null" is ambiguous? I claimed the experimentors, Michelson-Morley found a wave length shift 1/20 of what the predicited shift would be for the Earth moving through the aether. Why are you so obstinently trying to confuse the issue.

Again, the result did not fail to measure the velocity of the Earth through the "aether" it found that the the motion through the "aether" was 1/20 of what they predicted it should be. Is this so confounding and confusing to you? Why don't you discuss the matter wih one of he mentors. Maybe they can give some assistance that will clear matters up? You cannot possibly be this far out of line of what the expeiment did or didn't do, what is going on here?

 

[DrChinese]

You have falen into your own trap. I referred to the Michelson-Morley experiments being referred to "criminally" as a "null" event.

...

You say that everyday you get the same result? of what? Your post left no trail to the truth, rather we see just another echo of your mispent scientific education.
You mad a statement of fact. Where I come from one is tasked with proving it. I suggest you do just that, or stay off the thread.

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files

We need to agree on a base starting point. You say (at the referenced link):

"Any theory purporting to alter, or negate, or change by a ‘perception’ rational, the simultaneous measurements of the events are to infect natural physical law by an irrational corruption constituting scientific fraud. Anyone believing in the postulates and implications of relativity theory has negated their rational thinking processes. Physical law, though corrupted by mathematical abstractions veiled as legitimate descriptions of physical processes, is eternal – theories come and go, their ignorant predictions exposed by the gusting aethereal wind. "

Talk about hot air, and saying nothing. Let's agree or disagree on something specific: SR states that all observers will measure the speed of light to be c. Agree or disagree that this prediction of "irrational" SR is in fact born out in experiments? It's a simple question, can you please answer it? If the answer is disagree, can you please state under what specific circumstances a test of the speed of light yields a value different than c?

 

[DrChinese]

My thesis in this tread and others is focused on the question of the loss of simultaneity as offered by Einstein as a necessarily resulting from the postulates of relativity theory.
...

I do thank you for your comments.

How about discussing something the rest of us agree means something. As has been stated previously, Einstein's comments are merely a general discussion of the theory and you are not actually attacking the formalism of SR with your statements.

If you can convince yourself you can measure or define events as being simultaneous, that is fine with me. As a practical matter, we find this necessary frequently. As far as I know, there is nothing in SR that actually addresses this. But I don't think you can demonstrate that all observers will judge events spatially separated as simultaneous without making assumptions that render the conclusion meaningless. For instance - is simultaneous defined as occurring at the same absolute time? Or is it occurring at an agreed upon difference in times from "now"? I.E. My definition of simultaneous may well be quite different than yours.

P.S. You need a new book too, p. 25-27 of your "Relativity" book must be totally worn out by now.

 

[Doc Al]

geistkiesel's error

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

Nope, that's the same tired, incoherent, circular argument as always.

If you read "Relativity" page 25-27 does not Einstein makes the point that just because the lights are detected at different instances that this is suffiicient to invoke the 'loss of simultaneity consequences" upon humanity?

I suggest reading it one more time. What Einstein does is start with stationary observers seeing two simultaneous events. Then, using the postulates of relativity, he deduces that moving observers must disagree. Unlike you, he doesn't just assume that simultaneity is observer-independent.

Cannot the moving ovservers test to see if they are moving, which would offer one explantion for the difference in the way the pulses are detected?

Not only can the moving observers measure their relative motion, they can also decide for themselves when they detect the pulses.

Actually nobody observed the event of the simultaneous pulses. Rather than confining our thinking to Einstein's retricitions let us look at this universally. The pulses came on simultaneously.

There you go again, simply assuming what you should be demonstrating!

You, sir, are talking about clocks and observers as if they are able to modify the reality of the simultaneous emitted pulses. The illusion is the appication of RT to rational thought that corrupts physical laws. The events occurred at the same instant, Thee is no dt to measure, even if clocks were relevant.

Just repeating your mantra "the events occurred at the same instant" doesn't make it so. Since the events in question are not collocated, what makes you think they are simultaneous? A consistent way of tracking time would help. (On this planet, we have clocks.)

No, I would have said so had that been my intention. Evrybody just starts counting at zero. But since you ask, there is a common base time of t = 0 when everybody starts counting, or do you want to corrupt this fact also? Please advise.

I advise you to get serious. Unless you tell the moving observer when to starting counting, your statement is meaningless. Now, what could be agreed upon, without any fancy clocks or synchronization, is that two observers can choose to set their clocks to zero at the precise instant that they pass each other. Too unambiguous for you?

Lets say both are measuring t1 and t2.

AH, I see you are getting there though reluctantly as you struggle to avoid the anticipated end. Who said anything about clocks?

Interesting... both observers measure the time of two events... but they don't use clocks! Simply brilliant!

The measureing devices on the stationary platform are collocated with the detectors on the moving platform as it passes. Each observer notices the other's observation that occurred at the same instant.

Same instant as what? I think we're getting at the root of your confusion. Just because the pulses are detected by both stationary and moving observers at the same time (since they are collocated) does not mean that the two observers measure the same time! (Unless you have them reset their clocks with each measurement! )

Was this a corruption of the hypothetical? No, just string a series of small mirrors along the path and when the light strikes one it will strike both. Maybe some electronics gear and light sensitve receptors, OK? You may righteously call this cheating, but it is still good physics.

I just call it an illustration of your serious misunderstanding of what simultaneity means. No one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest.

It seems you are trying to negate the collocated measurements because you anticipate this will crumble RT? I sppose if you made everybody as ignorant as possible you could invoke any wildy scheming theory that has no physical meaning, implication or reality. This is clear isn't it? Did you mean that if we remove the collocated measuring devices you get to keep RT? Wow, what a concept?

Again, no one disputes that collocated measurements (space-time coincidences) are simultaneous! It's the non-collocated ones that are of interest. You've missed the entire point.

Whose time did the light reach the point it was collected? It occurred at the same time to both moving and stationary detectors. Whatever timing method used each observer knows the measurements were simultaneous with the other observer.

Does the pulse for event t1 arrive at the collocated stationary and moving observers simultaneously? Yes! (It's a space-time coincidence.) Do the two observers agree on the time it arrives on their clocks? Of course not!

The clocks don't matter at this point, do they? Ok, I'll give a little as a show of congeniality. The moving t1 and the stationary t1 are both recorded at the measuring point and each instantly transfers his time reading to the other, let's say in a time system using x-ray size wavelengths for message resolution purposes.

Of course clocks matter! That is, if you care to compare one event (t1, say) with another (t2, say). If you want to make a statement about whether an observer measures two non-collocated events (that is, events occurring at different points in space-time) to be at the same time, you must compare clock readings, or equivalently, create some signalling scheme. (Based upon real physics, of course.)

 

[fbsthreads]

http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/

do you get money every time someone clicks that link, because you've posted it many times in this thread.

 

[Edwin]

Considering with simultataneous events...

Suppose that cell phone technology gets real good over the next 10 years so that one can generate 100GHz microwave transmitions from small compact transmitters no more then the size of a small cell phone. Now assume that one sets up an array of say 10,000 microspopic microwave transmitters' antennas around the circumference of a metalic disc with a 1 ft diameter with a reciever at the center of the disc . The transmitters transmit microwaves at a frequency of 100 GHz through a disc to the receiver at the center of the disc. Now the wave length of the microwave tranmission is 0.00984 ft. 1 ft divided by 0.00984ft is how many wave cycles fit in the diameter of the 1ft disc, which happens to be 101.6260162601626 wave cycles. Now if we set each transmitter to transmit at plus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its right, and minus 360degrees/10,000 of a degree out of phase with the transmitter to its left; then a spiral pattern will be formed by the sum of 10,000 transmitters waveforms. The spiral will have the illusion of spinning one 360 degree revolution every cycle. Now, since the transmitters are all transmitting at 100GHz, the spiral will appear to spin at a rate of 1 revolution 100,000,000,000th of a second. Since microwaves are traveling across the diameter of the disc at the speed of light, and the circumference of the disc is (pi)(diameter), and since the number of cycles that reside within the disc's diameter is 101.6260162601626, thus the velocity of a point on the spiral at the outermost circumference of the disc, would appear to be (pi)(101.6260162601626)c, that is approximately 319.1056910569106 times the speed of light! The question is, does time dilation play a role in this particular case? That is, would the spiral be spiralling back in time?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen