A Train, Three Clocks, and an Observer

So you agree Einstein's sync method is wrong, and there is no relativity of simultaneity?

I'm sure you would like to see it go away. Nobody likes it when facts contradict their fiction. They just want it to go away. They refuse to accept the reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

True summation:

MD, if we are to take his word for it and he is not yanking people's chains, believes in absolute space and time. This belief is so deeply rooted in his psyche that he has elevated it in his mind to absolute truth. He has attempted to provide proofs of his beliefs, but since every one of these proofs start off by assuming that which they are meant to prove, they just end up as exercises in circular logic.

He has even gone as far as to asserted that countless experiments and observations made by countless people for more than 100 yrs have been fudged and falsified in order to prop up relativity. (In spite of the fact that one of the biggest of these experiments was performed decades before Relativity was conceived and that the results were not what they were expected to be at the time it was done.)

He would rather accept this than accept that his position could be wrong. IOW, Everyone other than himself is either wrong or lying.

In this, he is not unlike those, who to this day, refuse to accept that the world is round. It is, in their minds, inconceivable, or to use MD's favorite word, absurd.

It is a perfect example of the mindset that says "Any idea that I can not wrap my mind around must automatically be false."

His claim that Einsteins' synchronization method produces a paradox is evidence of this mindset. This claim is purely based on the fact that it is in conflict with his cherished belief in absolute time and space. Relativity is logically consistent in all ways, it just doesn't accept the concept of absolute time and space. Since MD can not even hypothetically conceive of a universe in which time and space are not absolute, he sees paradox where there is none.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're either being disingenuous, which, in addition to not winning you any points would make you a bit of a prick, or you're being stupid, which isn't really in your favour, either.

In case it's the latter: There are no paradoxes and you're wrong.

Let's see: You have a poorly formulated thought experiment, absolutely no technical proficiency in the theory you're trying to refute, vanishing logical skills, and you refuse to even acknowledge the actual experiments that directly refute your "points" (insofar as they can be made comprehensible).

I'm not the one who has a problem with reality, here. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll fart in your general direction.

...and I'll also provide an example of distance and time that has no paradoxes.

The Rocket ship

Twin brothers are standing next to each other on Earth. One brother is showing the other brother his new rocket ship. He says "this baby will go from 0 to 93,000 miles per second (.5c) in one second." He explains to the brother that an acceleration rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 is the rate of change of velocity. If an object's initial velocity is zero, and the object accelerates (thrusts) at the rate of 93,000 mi/sec^2 for one second, one second later the object will have traveled a distance of 46,500 miles, and will be traveling at the velocity of 93,000 mi/sec.

The brother says, "cool, can I take a spin?" The other brother says, "no problem." The brother immediately jumps into the rocket, ready to go. The rocket ship has on board data acquisition systems that will record the exact distance traveled per time interval, and a state of the art time device. The ship also has an accelerometer that records the acceleration of the ship at all times in every direction.

The brother flips the switch that activates the data acquisition systems and the max thrust engines at the same time. He turns off the thrust when one second has elapsed. He is now traveling at the velocity of 93,000 miles/sec. The brother continues to travel at that velocity for 10 seconds at which time he reverses thrust and "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 for a duration of 1 second.

His velocity is now zero miles per second and he is 1,023,000 miles away from his brother. He just traveled a total of 1,023,000 miles in the duration of 12 seconds. The brother decides to get some sleep.

Exactly 8 hours after arriving, the brother activates all systems, including max thrust that starts the return journey. The brother accelerates at the same rate (93,000 miles/sec^2) for one second. After one second has elapsed he turns off thrust. He again travels at the velocity of 93,000 miles per second for 10 seconds, at which time he "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 mi/sec^2 (reverse thrust) for a duration of 1 second. Total elapsed time of return travel is 12 seconds, and again, the distance traveled is 1,023,000 miles.

The ship traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in one direction, and 8 hours later traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in the opposite direction.

Actual travel distance- 2,046,000 miles
Actual travel time- 24 seconds
Layover time- 8 hours
Total time- 8 hours 24 seconds
Max acceleration- 93,000 mi/sec^2
Min acceleration-0
Maximum velocity- 93,000 mi/sec
Minimum velocity-0
Average speed- 85,250 mi/sec

 

Wrong, this fails.

To walk means to accelerate the clocks.

Accelerating clocks beat slower.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf

 

MD;
Just checking in to see if you're progressing.

There can be no motion in an inertial frame. If you are moving with your clocks, you are no longer part of the train frame. You and your clocks will run at a different rate, because you have a different speeds, moving from one end to the other.
You're not considering time dilation in your experiment.