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

[geistkiesel]

DrChinese it just occurred to me that there is a void in our discussion that needs some attention. For the most part I have been respoding to SR theorists and those supporting the the SR doctrine. Most, if not llopf your latest questions are directed, to a large extent at my concepts and how they fit into SR as criticism or objections. I may be over simlifying here but bear with me.

I introduced an analytic system that I structured and is an original piece, as far as I know, that describes a method of determining whether events simultaneous in one frame can be determined as simultaneous in another. I have not seen any serious criticism that specifically attacks any specific aspect of the model, good bad or indifferent. As the examples used in the model have all been described as showing the inability of determining simultaneity of events in different frames and as I have found a number of exceptions I claim the flaw is intrinsic in SR regardless of all the supportiing material I have seen in these posts intended to elucidate the contrary. If you want to provide something unambiguously specific of my thesis for serious criticism, there is a best way to go about it, directly.

There is nothing particlularly complex with the method used and flaws should be easily discoverable, if existing.

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

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Well uhh i didn't really read any of the posts exept for the first page, i was just saying by what i understood from that animation his error was to start off with only 1 astronuat and with him being in the middle :-/

Because if he is in the middle he would obviously see the events happen at the same time.

Then he put the other 2 in after the light had reached both sides.

if i had flash or wut ever i would make an animation and show you what i mean.

 

[wespe]

Geistkiesel, hi.
I never claimed I'm an expert and I just want to say this: I don't support this anymore so I stopped posting after a point. But I see that your argument is basically the same. On one of your pages, you say: "We don't even need moving platforms to run the experiment once the stationary event recordings are located". This was the same assumption I made (and now abandoned). If this is true, relativity of simultaneity is wrong, because they are basically opposite claims. But to prove the assumption, you need to go faster than light and relativity evades by prohibiting FTL travel. Now, as you are reading this, I imagine you have an objection but I wasn't there to clarify. Although I hate it when someone presents a different example and not focus on my example, I have to do it now, bear with me please. Suppose an alien claims that events in your kitchen are not simultaneous with events in your bedroom. He says your kitchen is lagging 5 minutes in time. To check this: you leave your bedroom and enter your kitchen, nothing happens, but supposedly you have traveled 5 minutes back in time. You exit the kitchen and go back to your bedroom. If the alien was right, you should find there a duplicate of yourself 5 minutes ago. But here's the catch: the alien sets another rule: you cannot travel from your bedroom to your kitchen under 5 minutes. Therefore you cannot disprove the alien's claim. It's kind of circular. But suppose you could go FTL and verify that assumption. Then you have trouble explaining how the midpoint observer on the moving platform measures speed of lights coming from both directions the same. It all boils down to constancy of speed of light, so maybe MMX was flawed. Please excuse my english.

 

[Hurkyl]

I don't see how you could have missed the link

I haven't; I've now read it three times.

Let me make it trivially easy for you to determine if two events are simultaneous, where some have informed me SR says it can't be done.

If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.

So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.


More later, but I'm basically going to be bringing up the same objections others have. And BTW, the link you keep linking to me starts with the assumption that simultaneity in one frame means simultaneity in all frames; could you please link to what you feel is the proof of this statement?

 

[DrChinese]

A. I am constructing a theoretical midpoint that is invariant, that is all. Any two wave fronts, wherever located and unrelated to the technical or reasonable ability to measure the situation have a midpoint that is invariant. If the concept is new to you, well then join the club, becaue it is new to me also, but coneptually and physically the description should hold. Do you see a flaw? Applying the description to our hypotheticals is reasonable. Look at my links again , I make much of this in cocnstructing the method for determining whether the photons were emtited simultaneosly.

B. If I understand you yes. The midpoint can be of the type we have been discussing in our hypotheticals, or on the grander scale of simultaneously or even nonsimultaneously errupting supernovae. Liike I mentioned, an expanding wave front chugging along for a million years has a huge number of midpoints between itself and all the other wave fronts in the universe. When a new pulse (photon) comes along, for any reason, another midpoint between the new wave front and the ancient is established.

C. In the hypotheticals we have been discussing, the midpoint is everything. For instance I argued in a previous thread to someone claiming one of the lights had to be pulsed on earlier than the other that he could be correct up to a point. Without any information locating a source, then the wave front is all that matters and that wave fronts could have been pulsed on at any time. I have not expressly used the used the term 'absolute space' in any argument that I recall, and only offered the concept here that under the conditions that the construct of the 'midpoint system' is an effective absolute space, then if SR denies the concept of absolute space SR would would be defective for that reson, right? You and I are debating an issue. You make a statement, any statement, denying the physical reality of 'absolute space'. I take this as meaning you are jusifying SR or something of which I am completely ignorant, but at least I was able to blunt the claim of any making the habitual claim of the lack of an ' absolute sapce' . OK I may have been in the dark, but so what? If one of an infinite number of inebriated Peruvian llamas suddenly handed us a single piece of paper with all the issues laid to rest with all the ambiguities, would you deny using the llama paper, just because it came from a llama?, an inebriated llama at that? or would the truth of the matter be sufficient?

D. Without some information other than the detection of the photons all the observer can determine is the point of collision, that we have been referring to as the "midpoint", can only be determined with certainty as the midpoint of the oncoming wave front originating from the sources wherever located.
In a hypothetical where the moving ovserver passes he midpoint just as the light sources are pulsed on and subsequently measuring the oncoming light then the light from the rear the observer can determine if the "midpoint" he crossed is the midpoint of the sources (because that is a given,) of light, but his information is restricted to the midpoint of the colliding wave fronts. Do you follow what I am saying? The moving observer, knowing his velocity and the fact he zeroed his timer when crossing the midpoint can determine if the subsequent pulses (photons) were emitted simultaneously, this moving observer can only do this with respect to (analysis of) the wave fronts of the emitted lights, each wave front moving at equal velocities and each wave front is located equidistant from the midpoint from the instant the pulses (photons) were turned on.

e. No there isn't any reason I cannot use 'photon' in place of 'pulse'. Was this terminology that confusing?

A. This is new to me. What are you talking about? How do 2 photons sources have a single midpoint which is equidistant from both? You also tried to explain this in D. and I have no idea what you are getting at. There are an infinite number of locations that meet the criteria you describe. And what is special about this point?

B. Midpoints. New and ancient. What are you talking about? Why do you talk about wavefronts and pulses instead of photons? Is there some purpose to this language?

C. More midpoints, pulse and waves. Of what? And you again say that midpoints define an absolute space ("the construct of the 'midpoint system' is an effective absolute space"). In Cartesian geometry, the "midpoint" of 2 points has location relative to the other 2 points, and does not gain any "absolute" status due to being the midpoint. So how do you go from relative positions to absolute positions?

D. You mention that an observer knows his velocity. How? An observer can know their velocity only relative to some other object, which in turns has a relative velocity to other objects. If you are walking down the street at 3 mph, that is not your absolute velocity.

E. Yes, it is a problem to use language which is not specific because it is impossible to discuss the subject intelligently. You use midpoint, pulses, and wavefronts. If you were trying to somehow use one of Einstein's train examples, you would note he is much more specific as to what the positions A, B and M represents, and specificly uses the term "light" to specify we are talking about EM radiation. Light or photon, same thing.

 

[StargateX1]

Come on!

Oh please! We already proved relativity a long time ago. What are you trying to do, win a nobel prize?

 

[DrChinese]

DrChinese it just occurred to me that there is a void in our discussion that needs some attention. For the most part I have been respoding to SR theorists and those supporting the the SR doctrine. Most, if not llopf your latest questions are directed, to a large extent at my concepts and how they fit into SR as criticism or objections. I may be over simlifying here but bear with me.

I introduced an analytic system that I structured and is an original piece, as far as I know, that describes a method of determining whether events simultaneous in one frame can be determined as simultaneous in another. ...

There is nothing particlularly complex with the method used and flaws should be easily discoverable, if existing.

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

Your example is hard to understand. It is very similar to the one by Einstein quoted by Martin Miller HERE. I am not sure if yours is intended to provide a different perspective than this one or not. At any rate, that one has been torn to death in the other thread To summarize its conclusion:

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

I agree with this statement. This is the realtivity of simultaneity, in Einstein's words. I see nothing in your example that contradicts this. All observers will not agree on the time (possible simultaneity) of specific events unless they are first given information as to reference frame to measure against. Seems pretty simeple to me. Where's the beef?

 

[loseyourname]

If wespe ever reads through this again, I'd like to point out that you still haven't dealt with the fact that if you place an astronaut anywhere other than between the two clocks, his readings will not agree with an astronaut's who is between the clocks.

To the rest of you, there seems to be a very basic semantic error that is causing all of this misunderstanding. Geistkiesel is speaking of time as if time itself is an absolute frame of reference, but that is speaking as if time is something tangible. Time cannot be seen; time is only a medium that we move through. The central idea of relativity, the thread that binds SR and GR, is that all objects are moving at the speed of light. It isn't just the maximum speed; it is the only speed. But this speed must be parcelled out through each of four dimensions. Therefore, the faster an object moves through space, the slower it must move through time, with the speed of light being the upper barrier at which all movement through the temporal dimension ceases.

The point to this being that simultaneous events will occur simultaneously, but they will still occur at different times depending on who is watching. The prescient bit of info here is that these different times occur simultaneously. I have to admit that our language is ill-equipped to deal with this reality, and it seems inconsistent in that I am essentially saying that different times occur at the same time, but it is important to distinguish between a single moment and movement through time. If one clock says that it is 10:23 and another says that it is 10:22, they can do so simultaneously even if they are both correct, because their movement through time is not taking place at the same speed.

I admit that I am having difficulty following what I just typed myself, and again, I don't think the english language is well-equipped to express these ideas adequately, so feel free to ask for clarification on any point.

 

[wespe]

If wespe ever reads through this again, I'd like to point out that you still haven't dealt with the fact that if you place an astronaut anywhere other than between the two clocks, his readings will not agree with an astronaut's who is between the clocks.

Lol, here we go again. Yes, what you are saying is correct. But it is irrelevant. I did not say readings would agree if astronauts are not between the clocks. What I presented is a valid method for synchronizing clocks. It works, provided that: the two clocks and the astronauts are all stationary wrt each other, and the astronauts are on the line between the clocks. Beauty of it is that the two clocks need not be synchronized at the beginning, and you don't have to know the speed of light, and you don't have to measure the distances between clocks or astronauts. It works. It can also be used to synchronize any number of clocks in 3D space. Imagine two astronauts standing next to the two clocks. They synchronize their own clocks and then they replace those clocks with their own! [Then continue with the next two pairs of clocks]. Simple and useful. No need to resort to slow transport method or something else.
(please no more posts asking what if clocks move, what if astronauts not between, etc. Lol)

edit: If some of you think that my method is unimportant and it shouldn't be a problem to synchronize two stationary clocks, I'm interested in how this can be done. For example if you just reset two co-located clocks and send one of them to a distant place, they would be out of synch since you accelerated one of them due to relativity effects. If you send a signal from one clock to a distant one, you need to know the speed of light and the distance. If you send a signal from a midpoint to reset two distant clocks, you first have to measure and find the midpoint. I'm no expert, please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[loseyourname]

If that is all you're saying, wespe, I can't see how that refutes, or even has anything to do with relativity. Synchronizing two clocks isn't the issue; the rate at which each clock moves through time is. The thing is that if one clock is moving at an extremely high speed (that is, a statistically significant fraction of the speed of light), then the time it reads will change at a slower pace that of a clock that is not moving at such a high speed. This effect has been verified simply by placing one atomic clock on a high-speed train and leaving another stationary and observing the different in the rates they read. With this taken into consideration, your example is null when one clock is moving very fast, as one clock will not be reading each second as the other clock is. One clock will read 1 as the other reads 20, but then it will read 2 as the other reads 18, 3 as the other reads 16, 4 as the other reads 14, etc. (if one moves at exactly twice the rate of the other). In this case, the averages will be the same, but so what? You can clearly see that his does not mean the clocks are then moving through time at the same pace. Can you see how the average read by someone between the clocks is not relevant and why so many people just laughed you off at the start of the thread?

 

[wespe]

If that is all you're saying, wespe,

Yes, that is all I am saying now. I have now edited my first post.

 

[loseyourname]

Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?

*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*

 

[Olias]

Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?

*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*

Surely if his theory is correct, then he would find this no problem!..he could alter all of 'OUR' clocks and we would be answering to different questions..in another thread somewhere.

 

[wespe]

Are you going to now edit the title of the thread?

*I know you can't. I'm being facetious.*

yeah, "How I failed to refute relativity"

 

[wespe]

Surely if his theory is correct, then he would find this no problem!..he could alter all of 'OUR' clocks and we would be answering to different questions..in another thread somewhere.

you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)

 

[Olias]

you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)

Many have tried to swim against the Tide of the Sea of Relativity, but they all end up on the same shores, Time after Time!

You can get a good speed up by going with the Flow, I somehow think even if you could swim 'faster than the flow', you would still end up on the shore of Relativity, more than likely in another Universe. And there you would get another chance to tell everyone there how you believe in other Universe's..or life elsewhere in the Cosmos!

 

[DrChinese]

you will all be so sorry when I invent the time travel machine :)

So true... :D

 

[geistkiesel]

Many have tried to swim against the Tide of the Sea of Relativity, but they all end up on the same shores, Time after Time!

You can get a good speed up by going with the Flow, I somehow think even if you could swim 'faster than the flow', you would still end up on the shore of Relativity, more than likely in another Universe. And there you would get another chance to tell everyone there how you believe in other Universe's..or life elsewhere in the Cosmos!

It is posts such this one that amplifies a point I have been making.

A metaphorical poem without a scintilla of scieitific reasoning, or even relativity reasoning is supposed to capture our imaginations and to ponder the ease of mind one can achieve by just believing in the postulates of some theory. Neither Olias, or any other 'soldier of relativity' has shown any but the slightest inklings of interest in engaging in 'hypothetical objective discourse. Instead we see a united front of SR theorists joined at the hip in denying any suggestion of error in the theory. RT that is.

All participants, whether offering posts to this tread or are observing from afar an unambiguous constatnt is the historical fact that no theory lasts forever. Most of those involved here have some how developed a thinking train that allows them to conclude that the knowledge enjoyed by mankind is the resultant of a sum of past acquired knowledge through some natural evolutionay process. To these, now are the times of the 'highest sum'. The errors of the past have been corrected and we are now, basically home.

The postulates of RT are dropped like soothing elixers designed to entice the wanderer to return to the prevailing majority, or as you Olias would say, "go with the flow'.

You can ignore the fact that there is a demonstrated exception to the dictates of relativistic simultaneity appearing in this thread. This exception is seen in many difereing forms. It is see in thehttp://frontiernet.net/~geidstkiesel/index_files
that has not been directly attacked, analyzed, considered or discussed with any rational means. All of this in the face of the claimed unambiguous nature of the truth of RT/SR , and the overwhelming experimental results supporting these concepts such as the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence of frames, the shrinking of mass in the direction of motion and simultabneity there remains the reluctance to scrutinize discuss the matter rationally. Go with the flow, seems to the operable argument of the day, doesn't it?

The relativistic application of SR leading to the simultaneity state you perceive as a pure "perception" or psychological frame of mind is such that the negation of an unbambiguous physical event is substituted for by a rejection of the rational concept of observed simultaneity. The physical reality of the simultaneous activity of two events, in a stationary frame for inistance, can be altered by the mere perceptions of persons moving in other inertial frames. Your perceptions are everything. As strongly and energetically you deny even the merest hypothetical suggestion of RT erroor, you cannot engage in substantial objective dialogue have the light of contradcition begin to smolder, so even in information exchange mechanisms like this forum the formulation of truth becomes an organized raising of the drawbridge.

OK so you get to perceive your world as you choose, as yours is the final theory, the ultimate, the past now completely and finally corrected, everything cast in the hardest of stainless steel theoretically imaginable and you have expressed, to my perception a disturbing fear of learning. You have your options and metaphorical prose ain't gettin the jopb done. There is a crack in your dike and Hans, fed up with whimsical scientific mediocrity has pulled his thumb form the hole in disgust..

 

[geistkiesel]

circuity in discarding simultaneity

Geistkiesel, hi.
I never claimed I'm an expert and I just want to say this: I don't support this anymore so I stopped posting after a point. But I see that your argument is basically the same. On one of your pages, you say: "We don't even need moving platforms to run the experiment once the stationary event recordings are located". This was the same assumption I made (and now abandoned). If this is true, relativity of simultaneity is wrong, because they are basically opposite claims. But to prove the assumption, you need to go faster than light and relativity evades by prohibiting FTL travel. Now, as you are reading this, I imagine you have an objection but I wasn't there to clarify. Although I hate it when someone presents a different example and not focus on my example, I have to do it now, bear with me please. Suppose an alien claims that events in your kitchen are not simultaneous with events in your bedroom. He says your kitchen is lagging 5 minutes in time. To check this: you leave your bedroom and enter your kitchen, nothing happens, but supposedly you have traveled 5 minutes back in time. You exit the kitchen and go back to your bedroom. If the alien was right, you should find there a duplicate of yourself 5 minutes ago. But here's the catch: the alien sets another rule: you cannot travel from your bedroom to your kitchen under 5 minutes. Therefore you cannot disprove the alien's claim. It's kind of circular. But suppose you could go FTL and verify that assumption. Then you have trouble explaining how the midpoint observer on the moving platform measures speed of lights coming from both directions the same. It all boils down to constancy of speed of light, so maybe MMX was flawed. Please excuse my english.

I see your point, but consider the following. Assume for th esake of argument that the link I posted is an example of violations of that simultabeity principle supossedly demanded by RT. If the simultaneity concept is proved flawed then we must examine whether the reasoning leading to the flaw is rationally consistent, or f the postulates offerred as the demanding force have been erroneously constructed. In either event to assume that RT remains 'untouched' and is therefore logically coherent as an argument against the flawed system is logically erroneus and unnaccetable. The hypothetical of placing the measuring equipment and performing the expeiment without a moving frame should not necessarily be discarded. There is no need to go faster than light, though this is not so rigid that theorists discard the concept out of hand, but I see no need to exceed c in order to perform the static experiment, the result of which is trivially obvious.

The question then regarding your alien story is are the events not simultaneous because the alien claimed it? Not scientifically sufficient is it? The further claim that passage to the kitchen must be greater than 5 minutes is either a statement of physical truth or a subeterfuge to prevent your even attempting verification. You are correct the SR argument is circular and sophomoric, but it isn't rational.

 

[geistkiesel]

Confidene in theoretical integrity offerred as scientific rationale

I haven't; I've now read it three times.

If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.

So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.

You have the link for your perusal and scrutiny. What kind of rational value can be placed on your statement, "If you really have done so [proved some errors in RT]" Do you have to offer your analytic result with an "If you are correct"? Are you able to demionstrate the error? Then prove what you said that my proof claims 0=1.

What is the scientific value of your personal confidence being equated as a rational opposition to my thesis as if I claimed 1=2? Are those reviewing this thread supposed to nod in silent agreement just because the famous Hurkyl is confident in a particular theoretical belief.

More later, but I'm basically going to be bringing up the same objections others have. And BTW, the link you keep linking to me starts with the assumption that simultaneity in one frame means simultaneity in all frames; could you please link to what you feel is the proof of this statement?

I do not recall the assumption you just referred to. I did say that moving observers were going to perform an analysis before jumping to the knee jerk simultaneioty consequences following the mere arrival of two light pulses at different times.

What objections others brought up? You warn us of intended repetition in the future? ... that RT is a properr theory because someone showed it to you in a book, or a lot of books?

You can at the vey best use an SR theory argument using flawed posutlates and a rationally skewered logic.

 

[Hurkyl]

I will offer you a challenge I have offered several times to 'anti-SR soldiers' like yourself; write up your "disproof" analytically. That is, choose coordinate systems and actually give the exact space and time coordinates of each event, in each relevant reference frame.

None have ever taken up this challenge; I imagine because most of them never bothered to learn enough about special relativity to do so. It's too bad because it makes obvious just about every conceptual mistake people have about SR.


Anyways, an example.

In the "stationary" reference frame, two (stationary) supernovae are located at x-coordinates -c * 1s and c * 1s. (one light second to the left and right of the origin, respectively) The supernovae started at time 0s in the stationary reference frame. More succinctly, we say that these events occurred at space-time coordinates (-c * 1s, 0) and (c * 1s, 0).

Consider another reference frame moving to the right at 0.6c with respect to the stationary frame, and that the origins of the frames coincide. According to the Lorentz transformations, in the moving frame, the supernovae events occur at space-time coordinates (-c * 1.25s, .75s) and (c * 1.25s, -.75s). In particular, they occur at different coordinate-times in this reference frame. Speaking relativistically, the events are not simultaneous in this frame.

 

[Hurkyl]

What kind of rational value can be placed on your statement

You accuse everyone who doesn't reject SR of merely being indoctrinated, and don't seem willing to accept that they might actually have rational justification for not rejecting SR. I attempted to show one such rational justification for immediately rejecting any suggestion that the logic of SR is flawed.

(I put emphasis on "logic" because there's a vast difference between suggesting the logic is flawed and between suggesting SR doesn't describe the "real world")


I'm certainly willing to go through the proof, if you're serious about following it. The sketch of the proof goes as follows, and will be done with only one spatial dimension for simplicity (unless you insist otherwise):

I will define the universe to be the Euclidean plane.
I will define what "inertial reference frame" means.
I will show that if an object travels at the speed of light in one inertial reference frame, it does so in all inertial reference frames.
(Thus, I have constructed a model of SR)
I will select two events that, in one reference frame, have the same time coordinate (and thus are simultaneous).
I will select another reference frame that, in this model, will have a time difference of 1 between these two events.
I will then apply your hypothesis that, in SR, if events are simultaneous in one frame they are simultaneous in all frames, and thus the time difference between the two events is 0.
Thus, 0 = 1.

 

[geistkiesel]

Winning noble prizes

Oh please! We already proved relativity a long time ago. What are you trying to do, win a nobel prize?

Do you have a problem with this? Do you think anyone whoever did win the prize didn't want to win it?

What is your scientific argument here, that I do not seem modest enough for your standards, therefore SR wins and I lose? So, you think this thread is in the class of potential Noble awards, do you? Very interesting.

 

[geistkiesel]

I will offer you a challenge I have offered several times to 'anti-SR soldiers' like yourself; write up your "disproof" analytically. That is, choose coordinate systems and actually give the exact space and time coordinates of each event, in each relevant reference frame.

None have ever taken up this challenge; I imagine because most of them never bothered to learn enough about special relativity to do so. It's too bad because it makes obvious just about every conceptual mistake people have about SR.


Anyways, an example.

In the "stationary" reference frame, two (stationary) supernovae are located at x-coordinates -c * 1s and c * 1s. (one light second to the left and right of the origin, respectively) The supernovae started at time 0s in the stationary reference frame. More succinctly, we say that these events occurred at space-time coordinates (-c * 1s, 0) and (c * 1s, 0).

Consider another reference frame moving to the right at 0.6c with respect to the stationary frame, and that the origins of the frames coincide. According to the Lorentz transformations, in the moving frame, the supernovae events occur at space-time coordinates (-c * 1.25s, .75s) and (c * 1.25s, -.75s). In particular, they occur at different coordinate-times in this reference frame. Speaking relativistically, the events are not simultaneous in this frame.

How many events were there? One or two? How do you determine the positions and times? I assume the moving observer at the midpoint arrives simultaneously at the midpoint just as the photons from the supernovae reach this point. OK you have a Lorentz thjeory to moderate the observations. However, all you have proved is that Loentz mathematics gives the results it does.

Would it unfairly alter the hypothetical by having stationary and moving observers located at the points when the supernovae erupted and they were shorlty evaporated? Each moving observer passes the stationary observer at the instant the explosions occur. I assume Lorentz contraction mathematics will provide the same calculations you presented. If you are correct in the statement that "Speaking relativistically, the events aren't simultaneous . . ." just what do you mean? Thirty observers moving, thirty observers stationary, how many events are there?

Did I read your mathematics correctly? The moving frame has the otherwise simultaneous events separated by 1.50 seconds in the moving frame? Which value of start time is asigned to which event? It depends on the direction of motion of the observer? Or What?

 

[geistkiesel]

You accuse everyone who doesn't reject SR of merely being indoctrinated, and don't seem willing to accept that they might actually have rational justification for not rejecting SR. I attempted to show one such rational justification for immediately rejecting any suggestion that the logic of SR is flawed.

(I put emphasis on "logic" because there's a vast difference between suggesting the logic is flawed and between suggesting SR doesn't describe the "real world")


I'm certainly willing to go through the proof, if you're serious about following it. The sketch of the proof goes as follows, and will be done with only one spatial dimension for simplicity (unless you insist otherwise):

I will define the universe to be the Euclidean plane.
I will define what "inertial reference frame" means.
I will show that if an object travels at the speed of light in one inertial reference frame, it does so in all inertial reference frames.
(Thus, I have constructed a model of SR)
I will select two events that, in one reference frame, have the same time coordinate (and thus are simultaneous).
I will select another reference frame that, in this model, will have a time difference of 1 between these two events.
I will then apply your hypothesis that, in SR, if events are simultaneous in one frame they are simultaneous in all frames, and thus the time difference between the two events is 0.
Thus, 0 = 1.

Good. I would appreciate a 'complete' description of the physical construction of your hypothetical.

 

[Hurkyl]

How many events were there? One or two?

Depends on what you're counting; there's at least two events under consideration, supernova A and supernova B.

How do you determine the positions and times?

I selected position and time for each event in the "stationary" reference frame. After fully specifying the "moving" frame, I applied the Lorentz transformations to compute the position and time that would be computed for each supernova in the "moving" frame.

I assume the moving observer at the midpoint arrives simultaneously at the midpoint just as the photons from the supernovae reach this point.

I have not introduced the photons; the "stationary" observer is at the midpoint between the two events. According to the "stationary" reference frame, the "moving" observer passed the "stationary" observer simultaneously with the two supernovae. Both observers consider their meeting as time 0.

If we add the photons, we will find that the "stationary" observer will intercept the photons from each event at time 1s, according to his reference frame. The "moving" observer, according to his reference frame, will intercept one photon at time .5s and one at time 2s.

However, all you have proved is that Loentz mathematics gives the results it does.

SR uses the Lorentz transformations to transform one reference frame to another, so I have also proevd that SR gives those results.

Would it unfairly alter the hypothetical by having stationary and moving observers located at the points when the supernovae erupted and they were shorlty evaporated?

Nope. The net effect would just be a translation of the coordinates.

Speaking relativistically, the events aren't simultaneous . . ." just what do you mean?

I object to the omission of "in this frame". When I say "The events aren't simultaneous in this frame", I mean that, in this frame, the events occurred at different time coordinates. This statement applies to any number of events greater than 1.

 

[Hurkyl]

Good. I would appreciate a 'complete' description of the physical construction of your hypothetical.

Why? Physical reality has nothing to do with logical consistency.



But in any case, a physical construction of one of Einstein's inertial reference frames maybe useful to demonstrate, so this is how it works:

Pick an inertial observer to be the "master timekeeper". Any other clock that is stationary to the master timekeeper can be synchronized in a number of ways; the simplest to describe would be:


Send a signal to the master timekeeper. Upon receiving the signal, the master timekeeper will immediately transmit to you the time on his clock.

With your clock you can measure the elapsed time, and thus figure out the time time delay for transmission in this frame (half the elapsed time). Thus, you can adjust the time received from the master timekeeper to find the correct time for "now" and set your clock.

In this way, any collection of clocks that are stationary with respect to each other can be synchronized according to an inertial reference frame. This means that, in this frame, all clocks will read the same time simultaneously.

Then, the (coordinate) time of any event according to this frame is given by the reading of the clock that happens to be located at the event as it occurs.

 

[Doc Al]

geistkiesel's folly

You can ignore the fact that there is a demonstrated exception to the dictates of relativistic simultaneity appearing in this thread. This exception is seen in many difereing forms. It is see in thehttp://frontiernet.net/~geidstkiesel/index_files
that has not been directly attacked, analyzed, considered or discussed with any rational means.

Now this is getting funny! I've personally ripped apart this very link--your so-called "analytical system" several times! And I am by no means the only one to have done so. (Anyone interested can just do a search on your posts--and read the responses. It's all there.)

Your modus operandi is to just ingore any criticism--and then just keep reposting that same silly link.

Of course, any discussion of your "analytical system" that makes use of accepted (experimentally and theoretically) facts of modern physics--or questions the logic of your assumptions--you discount as "irrational". You have boxed yourself into a logical corner, geistkiesel. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

 

[DrChinese]

Now this is getting funny! I've personally ripped apart this very link--your so-called "analytical system" several times! And I am by no means the only one to have done so. (Anyone interested can just do a search on your posts--and read the responses. It's all there.)

Your modus operandi is to just ingore any criticism--and then just keep reposting that same silly link.

Of course, any discussion of your "analytical system" that makes use of accepted (experimentally and theoretically) facts of modern physics--or questions the logic of your assumptions--you discount as "irrational". You have boxed yourself into a logical corner, geistkiesel. Don't expect to be taken seriously.

Perhaps geistkiesel is one of those who likes to see his hit counter increment. I guess I fell into the trap, thinking there would be some actual intelligent discussion go on in the debate. But as you correctly point out, this thread is going in circles. And it appears to me that geistkiesel is moving in circles intentionally.

geistkiesel, while the rest of the world is using SR & GR for our GPS tracking, you can operate in a world in which ALL events occur simultaneously. After all, if everyone sets their watch to the same time and then they remove the battery out of the watch... LOL.

 

[Olias]

Thanks for the link, the information relayed is this:The page cannot be found
The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please try the following:

If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.

Open the frontiernet.net home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
Click the Back button to try another link.
Click Search to look for information on the Internet.

Is this some sort of metaphorical response to my post?

The 'poem' I created at the spur of the moment, not meant to be anything other than a response to a poster.

If you follow a lot of my posts elsewhere, I do not conform to the 'whole' of SR + GR or QT, QED..String or MT, I have a understanding somewhere in the 'open-ground', that each theory seems to provide.

But the work of Einstein, Born and Pauli are my least problamatic in Theoretical Understanding, so I walk upon their ground more often than others.

 

[wespe]

I see your point, but consider the following. Assume for th esake of argument that the link I posted is an example of violations of that simultabeity principle supossedly demanded by RT. If the simultaneity concept is proved flawed then we must examine whether the reasoning leading to the flaw is rationally consistent, or f the postulates offerred as the demanding force have been erroneously constructed. In either event to assume that RT remains 'untouched' and is therefore logically coherent as an argument against the flawed system is logically erroneus and unnaccetable. The hypothetical of placing the measuring equipment and performing the expeiment without a moving frame should not necessarily be discarded. There is no need to go faster than light, though this is not so rigid that theorists discard the concept out of hand, but I see no need to exceed c in order to perform the static experiment, the result of which is trivially obvious.

The question then regarding your alien story is are the events not simultaneous because the alien claimed it? Not scientifically sufficient is it? The further claim that passage to the kitchen must be greater than 5 minutes is either a statement of physical truth or a subeterfuge to prevent your even attempting verification. You are correct the SR argument is circular and sophomoric, but it isn't rational.

Geistkiesel,
For the reason I mentioned, I don't think you can find an example that disproves the simultaneity principle, because it seems circular.

Let's do assume that both events are really simultaneous in both frames (for the experiment at http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html). M' sees the two lightenings at different times. Relativity explains this by saying lightenings did not stike simultaneously in his frame. But we are assuming they did. So, how will we explain that M' measures the speed of light the same in both directions? (Note that: speed of light is independent of its source, M' was at the midpoint of locations where the lights were emitted and M' considers himself stationary.)

We could say that even if he is not aware, M' was in fact moving. Thus the speed of light was not the same in both directions (it was c+v, c-v). Yet he measures them the same. This is possible, because there is no measuring one way light speed, it is always measured by timing round-trip of light, +v -v cancels each other. (if you try to measure one way speed by using two synchronized clocks and timing the passage of a light ray between them, it is still no good, because all synchronization methods rely on light speed being the same in both directions, including my method. If it is not, the result of the synchronization method will cancel the effect of +v -v.)

So we can explain everything like this, as seen by the stationary observer. Relativity can also explain everything too, as seen by the moving observer. Problem is, we need the stationary observer to explain what is really happening, relativity doesn't need it. It may not be rational, but it looks more practical. And the measurements are not merely an illusion, because everything seems dependent on speed of light, even mechanical processes, so what you measure is what you get.

In my opinion, the only way to disprove relativity is to find a method to measure one way light speed (a method which of course doesn't rely on light speed to synchronize clocks). Even if this can be found, we have to look at the actual measurements of speed of light for different directions in a moving frame. Then we can conclude if relativity is flawed and circular or if that's really how nature works.

Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.

PS. I think I have adressed your questions about the alien story by what I said above.

edit: please also see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests

 

[geistkiesel]

Geistkiesel,
For the reason I mentioned, I don't think you can find an example that disproves the simultaneity principle, because it seems circular.

Let's do assume that both events are really simultaneous in both frames (for the experiment at http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html). M' sees the two lightenings at different times. Relativity explains this by saying lightenings did not stike simultaneously in his frame. But we are assuming they did. So, how will we explain that M' measures the speed of light the same in both directions? (Note that: speed of light is independent of its source, M' was at the midpoint of locations where the lights were emitted and M' considers himself stationary.)

OK maybe SR predicits this but see the fallacy. The moving observer sees two photons of light consecutive in time. She can conclude a number of possibilities. That she was at the midpoint of the light sources as she crossed the midpoint measured from the stationry observer, or that one light preceded the other, http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/ and which light it was.

The most basic of common sense does not restrict the moving observer to conclude only the lack of simultaneity. Blue/red analysis of the photons measured indicates the observer is moving wrt the sources of the light if you assume the light photons are identical when emitted, plus the stipulated fact of her crossing the midpoint when he light were emitted in the stationary frame.. Unless we define the moving observer as a total science gumball she can evaluate a number of possibilities.

We could say that even if he is not aware, M' was in fact moving. Thus the speed of light was not the same in both directions (it was c+v, c-v). Yet he measures them the same. This is possible, because there is no measuring one way light speed, it is always measured by timing round-trip of light, +v -v cancels each other. (if you try to measure one way speed by using two synchronized clocks and timing the passage of a light ray between them, it is still no good, because all synchronization methods rely on light speed being the same in both directions, including my method. If it is not, the result of the synchronization method will cancel the effect of +v -v.)

There is no synchronnization of clocks necessary here. The moving observer times the dt between t1 and t2 in her moving frame, period.

So we can explain everything like this, as seen by the stationary observer. Relativity can also explain everything too, as seen by the moving observer. Problem is, we need the stationary observer to explain what is really happening, relativity doesn't need it. It may not be rational, but it looks more practical. And the measurements are not merely an illusion, because everything seems dependent on speed of light, even mechanical processes, so what you measure is what you get.

I trust you aren't saying the moving observer knows nothing of her crossing the midpoint at t = 0, in her moving frame? Otherwise the problem is ambiguous.

What is wrong with assuming the speed of light is constant in all moving frames as measured in that moving frame? Whether she is moving or not she will always measure c constant. The moving observer you call M' arrives with the incoming light the same instant the stationary observer also measures the oncomig light, say at t1 measured in the moving frame, which is different than the stationary mesured time of t1 (we assume). The two observers need not swap information for the moving observer to determine the simultaeity of the emitted photon events. Similarly for the light from the rear, the moving observer knows her velocity wrt the stationary frame, right, let's say v = 1? and during t = dt = t2 - t1 = 1 for the time between the arrival of the 2nd photon at t2 we equate the times for the arrival of the photon 2t1 + 1 = v(dt) = 1, where here we assume the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame. We equate the distance as 2t1 + 1 = 1 or rearranging, t1 = (c - 1)/2. A calculation where the measured t1 = (c - 1)/2 means the photons were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame and that our assumption was correct. Variations from the measured t1 will show which light preceded the other.

In my opinion, the only way to disprove relativity is to find a method to measure one way light speed (a method which of course doesn't rely on light speed to synchronize clocks). Even if this can be found, we have to look at the actual measurements of speed of light for different directions in a moving frame. Then we can conclude if relativity is flawed and circular or if that's really how nature works.

Please, anyone, correct me if I'm wrong.

Place 100 light detectors 10 km apart, approximately, and zero the optical distance distance of each leg. over a 90 degree angle. by monitoring any deviations from the optical path equivalence as the Earth rotates and moves around the sun,etc. temperature and other non light speed perturbations can be statistically accounted for. Each measurement is one way. What is wrong with this experiment? carried over 5 years say?

The above is an exception to your postultion that there is only one way to disprove SR. One does not have to disprove SR to disprove it. One has to merely find an exception to the derivation of the simultaneity consequences predicted by the application of the fundmental postulates of SR. The logic applying in reverse will take care of itself. You surrendered to the SRists prematurely.

PS. I think I have adressed your questions about the alien story by what I said above.

edit: please also see:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests

[/QUOTE]

I did not see any contradiciton in your 'Baez' link of the short analysis that derived the t1 = (c - 1)/2 expression (also seen in my link above),except of course, the implication that any variation from predictions of SR are wrong, period.

 

[geistkiesel]

where is the proof adjustment theorem?

I haven't; I've now read it three times.

If you really have done so then there is a theorem that states that your proof can be adjusted to prove things like Euclidean geometry is inconsistent, or that 0 = 1.

So while it's entirely possible that you are correct, I can say that you are wrong with as much confidence as if you claimed that 1 = 2.

So where is the theorem that "adjusts" my proof?

I also see that it is the SRists claiming 1 = 2. I guess that the truth of the matter is in the perception of the perceiver, right? Physical law is inconsequential. All observers see a simultaneous event in the stationary frame as nonsimultaneous in their moving frame? A million different frames all adjusting the simutaneous event measured in the stationary frame as not simultaneous in the moving frames. Think of the consequences of this kind of ratioanle offered in court rooms where the "one who did it" claims that everybody is off base because he was in a movng fame and did not perceive that he in fact did it.
Hurkyl can appear as the "one who did it"'s expert witness.

 

[geistkiesel]

Your example is hard to understand. It is very similar to the one by Einstein quoted by Martin Miller HERE. I am not sure if yours is intended to provide a different perspective than this one or not. At any rate, that one has been torn to death in the other thread To summarize its conclusion:

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

I agree with this statement. This is the realtivity of simultaneity, in Einstein's words. I see nothing in your example that contradicts this. All observers will not agree on the time (possible simultaneity) of specific events unless they are first given information as to reference frame to measure against. Seems pretty simeple to me. Where's the beef?

If you are saying that the moving observer has no information of when she passed he midpoint or some other infromaion there is nothing the moving observer can conclude about simulaneity., the problem is ambiguous.

So you do not like my link? You have not pointed to any specific fallacy with any specificity that would allow me to rationally respond to your criticism in this post of yours above.

 

[geistkiesel]

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

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.

I disagree regarding Einstein's using relativity theory to disprove simultaneity. It is the fact that the moving platform detects first the oncoming light , then the light from the rear that AE uses to show why simultaneity, in the instance used, must be discarded. Read it agani. The observer need not conclude the emission of the photons was not simultaneous by the mere fact of detecting the photons at different times. The moving observer may ask first, "If I am moving what do my mesurements mean? perhaps I am moving such that the emission of the lights was simultaneous in both my moving frame and the frame of a stationary observer."
Read it again Mac Al, AE used the example in a simplistic manner. My link discusses this completely. Can you find a specific flaw?