A Train, Three Clocks, and an Observer

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Motor Daddy, May 14, 2010.

  1. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    So in my example in the OP, if the clocks were all sync'd and placed at the ends and one in the middle, will the observer in the middle see the end clocks as running behind his own clock?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    This does not work. You are igoring the scinetific evidence that the earth's orbital sagnac is not showing up in GPS.

    That means once light is emitted from the GPS satellite, the earth moves in its orbit. This should change the measured speed of light because of the earth's orbit. It does not. If you refuse to accept this factual information, then you are not being scientific.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Let me get this straight.

    If I have two clocks in perfect sync, and I separate them by a distance of 186,000 miles, will an observer at each clock see the other as 1 second behind his clock? That MUST happen! Every clock in the universe needs to be synchronized to the same time. When you are at one clock, the other clocks will all appear to be behind yours. No matter which clock you travel to, regardless of the speed, the clock you go to will agree with your clock when you get there. You can accelerate however you want to, crawl, walk, run, drive 1,000 mph, they will always read the exact time as yours when you get there.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Oh, sorry, I do not use visuals in my logic to determine time.

    That means, in your OP, the two end clocks would appear out of sync with the center, but based on the distance and light travel, one could determine they are in sync at "absolute rest". I simply do not use eyeball calculations.

    Now, NASA is sending out a satellite soon that will determine lorentzian invariance to one part in 10-17 using frequency differentials, ie MMX.

    They claim this measures a constant speed of light in all directions and validates SR.
     
  8. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    Never going happen, because all the errors are on your side of the argument.
    Relativity has all the evidence also. All you've got is your "gut feeling" of how things "should" be.
    Since the ends of the train are not moving with respect to the midpoint observer, the light emitted from a source at the ends will expand as a sphere from the ends of the train and the ends of the train will always remain at the centers of those spheres as far as anyone on the train is concerned.

    Your argument assumes that absolute motion exists in order to demonstrate absolute motion. Its circular logic, and you're chasing your own tail.

    Real life experiments have shown again and again that the concept of absolute motion does not exist in our universe.

    Your belief that it does means absolutely nothing.
     
  9. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Visuals are a concept of light travel time, I'm not saying our eyes are good enough, just showing how it works. It's not about human vision capabilities, it's about light travel time. Simply put, if two clocks are in perfect sync and placed ~186,000 miles apart, light takes one second to travel ~186,000 miles. So if you are at one clock and it says 12:00:00, the other clock's light hitting you has an 11:59:59 time stamp on it, as it left the clock at 11:59:59 and took one second to reach you.
     
  10. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    This is a different question. If one accelerates and the other does not, this is well worn material called the twins paradox.

    That would need to be specified. Anyway, if one accelerates uniformly, then the following timing differential occurs in the accelerating frame.

    c/a sinh(aBT/c)

    a is the acceleration in the moving frame and BT is the acceleration time in the moving frame.
     
  11. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Say local time in NY and local time in Florida are the same, in sync. Does it matter what you do to get from one to the other? No, when you get there the time from your Florida watch matches EXACTLY the time on the NY wall clock. It doesn't matter what you do, when you get there, they will read the same. Take an 8 hour nap, drive 100 MPH, stop for gas, get on a plane...when you get there your watch will read the same, as the clocks remained sync'd the entire duration.

    BUT..If you were in Florida, observing the NY wall clock from your florida position, light would take time to travel from NY to florida, hence the NY wall clock would appear to be a touch behind your watch in florida.
     
  12. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    No, you cannot use visuals under SR. Oh, it is in the liturature, but those that use it are stupid.

    Correct visual interpretations of light in a frame from another requires frame to frame clock sychronization to understand the timing differentials.

    Currently, there is no published method to solve this. That is why visuals are not used and should not be used under SR.
     
  13. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    correct, so what?

    you are trying to prove objects move relative to light.

    I could use the SR clock synch method to determine these clocks are in sync.

    Why would I be so stupid as to wait for the light from the clock to reach my eyes?
     
  14. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Again, it's not about eyes.

    It's showing that if light always travels at c from the light sphere, and two sources are separated by a distance, the light will meet at the midpoint in space, to which if there was an observer there at time of emission, and he moved after emission and before the lights met, one light would hit him sooner than the other, ie, there is NO WAY he could see the "clocks" as reading the same.
     
  15. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,394
    There you go again, dictating to reality how it must behave.

    I don't know which is worse, the fact that you do it, or that you seem totally unaware that you are doing it.
     
  16. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Again, you are refusing to absorb that GPS is not picking up the earth's motion around the sun.

    So, GPS beams the signal in the rotating earth frame built into the message with its time.

    The ground based unit moves in its revolution around the sun as the light moves toward it.

    The ground based units reads the signal/message. Guess what, the unit did not travel in the orbit around the sun based on the coords received. That is what I am trying to tell you. The measured speed of light is perfectly c ignoring junk and the earth's rotational sagnac.
     
  17. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    I am sticking with the absolute basics that can't be refuted, as light always travels at c, and distance is defined by light travel time. Sync'd clocks don't lie, GPS does, and needs to be corrected for constantly.

    People performing experiments also lie, change results, and perform tests until they get results that fit the bill. Does everybody do that? No, but it is done. I have no idea who fudged what. I do know what I know, that light always travels at c, distance is defined by light travel time, and sync'd clocks beat as one. Those are rock solid facts. I'll stick to them for now.
     
  18. Jack_ Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,383
    Nope, you are not sticking to facts.

    Put a satellite in the east at the equator at noon.

    Let the satellite emit.

    Now, in your logic, the unit must travel at 18.55 mps toward the signal because of the motion of the unit through space by the earth's revolution around the sun.

    Also, because the earth is rotating at 1000 mPH, that should be pick up also.

    Only the earth's rotation is being picked up. This is GPS unless they are lying about the orbital correction.

    I hope you can see, this is a contradiction.
     
  19. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Folks other than MotorDaddy: You are wasting your time. You are also creating distractions & obfuscations by introducing GPS & issues other than the Michaelson-Morley experiments. MotorDaddy believes the following.
    For Motor Daddy, the above is a matter of unshakable faith like a religious belief.

    He has been told that his belief is contrary to experimental evidence, in particular the Michael-Morley experiment (an easy to understand experiment). His view is that the experimental evidence is wrong.

    If he is unwilling or unable to study & understand the Michaelson-Morley experiment, there is no way he will pay attention to or understand GPS physics.

    BTW: I think it is a a shame that many promising physics students are taught classical physics for years without any mention of Relativity or Quantum Theory. I have read several books by experts who admitted to having erroneous notions about modern physics for years before being able to put aside the very intuitive (but incorrect notions) taught to them for 3-6 years in high school & college prior to graduate school.
     
  20. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Given MD's clear statement he believes that the GPS network and any other experiment which contradicts him is the result of people lying and fiddling and thus really not evidence against him he's passed from honesty to delusion and deception. The thread should be locked or put into pseudo and all future threads by MD treated likewise.
     
  21. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    I second that motion
     
  22. Motor Daddy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,425
    Accord to Einstein's methods, If local time in NY is the same as local time in Florida, ie, synchronized clocks at each, does an observer in Florida see the NY clock as reading behind his own clock in Florida?

    Do Einstein's methods acknowledge that no matter what you do to travel from one point in Florida to another point in NY, that the clocks will always read the same when you get there?

    That is nature and that is reality, and that is verified millions of times per day by millions of people. The reality is, Time ticks as one in the entire universe, regardless of what you do while traveling.
     
  23. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    We know you love to pontificate, but the universe doesn't care what your opinion is or how forcefully you assert it. Repeated claims are not proof.

    The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the physics is in the doing and comparing to nature. That's why your thought experiments are meaningless, as they are not informed by the results of experiments done -- experiments that show that even the color of gold is evidence that time is not the same for all. And when you refuse to be informed by experiment is why all your posts are Pseudoscience at best.

    No doubt a physics textbook raped you as a child or killed your dog and that is why you hate physics so much, but it does not make for interesting conversation that you literally ignore the whole of the universe to talk only about the world inside your head.
     

Share This Page