Neddy Bate
Last Activity:
Mar 19, 2024
Joined:
Apr 2, 2005
Messages:
2,548
Likes Received:
141
Trophy Points:
0

Following 2

Share This Page

Neddy Bate

Valued Senior Member
Neddy Bate was last seen:
Mar 19, 2024
    1. timewarp
      timewarp
      ----------
      Do you see the problem?
      ----------
      First of all, let me say that I do not have an agenda other than to discover the truth.
      This should be clear from my postings. For example, I quoted the imminent Dr.
      Wheeler, and no one even mentioned this in their reply [think "snipped], so I got no
      credit for this credible citation. Instead, I get the reprimand that I "have an angenda."
      To me, this is not playing fair. There are two sides to every story, even SR's, and both
      should be heard if both are presented as credibly and as sincerely as possible, don't
      you agree?
    2. timewarp
      timewarp
      Before your [Neddy's] above, it may be helpful to clear up the "closing velocity" claim.

      The first clue that the w = c - v case is not a closing velocity case lies in the simple
      fact that Einstein stated explicitly that this was the speed of light relative to the
      carriage.

      Here is how Einstein put it:
      "The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes
      out smaller than c."
    3. timewarp
      timewarp
      Here's another clue:
      It is not a closing velocity because such velocities cannot conflict
      (or even apparently conflict) with the principle of relativity.

      And here is another clue:
      The entire story takes place prior to special relativity and prior to
      Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, and yet the embankment
      observer got c for the speed of light. This cannot happen outside of
      special relativity even with the use of closing velocities. Indeed, it
      can only happen outside of SR if absolute time is involved (i.e. only
      if truly or absolutely synchronous clocks are used).
    4. timewarp
      timewarp
      Here is how Einstein put it:
      "... the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment."
      [_prior_ to Einstein synchronization, as I said]

      Here is another clue:
      No closing velocity case even apparently produces two laws. But Einstein
      clearly stated that the observers found two different laws of physics.
      (This was of course his reason for inventing relativity.)

      Here is another clue:
      No mere closing velocity could cause Einstein to discard absolute time.
    5. timewarp
      timewarp
      Here is another clue:
      No closing velocity case would require a complete revolution of physics,
      with relative time replacing absolute time, but, as we saw, the final or
      end result or conclusion of Einstein's story was the use of relative
      simultaneity and the creation of relativity.

      The only way to get rid of the (perceived) conflict with the principle of relativity
      was to replace the absolutely synchronous clocks (on paper) with Einstein's
      asynchronous clocks (relative time = relative simultaneity).

      Here is how Einstein put this:
      "... if we discard this assumption [absolute synchronization or absolute time],
      then the conflict between the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and the
      principle of relativity disappears." http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
    6. timewarp
      timewarp
      Now to address your above query:


      ----------
      The clocks in the embankment frame measure the speed of light relative to the train to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction.
      ----------
      No. At no point did Einstein say anything about the embankment
      observer measuring the speed of light relative to the train. The only
      thing that these observers did was to measure the one-way speed of
      light relative to them [i.e., relative to their embankment], and, as
      Einstein clearly stated, their result was c. (Ask yourself how this
      could happen prior to SR.)
    7. timewarp
      timewarp
      ----------
      But how did they come to be synchronized in exactly the way they are? They were set by sending a round-trip light signal, thus ensuring the speed of light would be c in both directions.
      ----------
      No, at this pre-SR point in the game, there was no Einsteinian definition of clock synchronization. Einstein was still using classical clocks, those which are truly or absolutely synchronous (on paper). This is absolute time, and it is what Einstein specifically discarded at the very end of his tale. Since it was only on paper, Einstein called it an assumption.
    8. timewarp
      timewarp
      ----------
      But that same synchronization method could be used on the train, and then the train would measure the speed of light relative to the embankment to be c+v in one direction, and c-v in the other direction. So, by your definition, the clocks on the train would be absolutely synchronized in that case. So now you have "absolutely synchronized" clocks on both the train and the embankment, and yet those clocks do not agree with each other
      ----------
      As I just noted, Einstein "synchronization" did not exist at this point. SR did
      not exist. SR's closing velocities did not exist. It's classical physics. And the
      train observers did not measure light's speed relative to the embankment.
      They simply measured light's one-way speed relative to themselves. Did
      you not notice Einstein's query suggestion "Let us inquire about the velocity
      of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage."
    9. timewarp
      timewarp
      I do not understand your statement that by my definition, the clocks on the
      train would be absolutely synchronized when synchronized per Einstein's
      definition. Everyone knows that Einstein does not have (because he flatly
      rejected it) absolute synchronization.

      Absolutely synchronous clocks do not disagree, but can of course obtain
      different spedific results, just as Einstein told us. His train observers got
      c - v for the one-way speed of light, whereas his embankment observers
      got only c.
    10. timewarp
      timewarp
      Since the only way to obtain c for light's one-way speed prior to SR was
      to use absolutely synchronous clocks while being at absolute rest in space,
      this tells us that whenever the embankment observers got v for the speed
      of the train that this was the train's absolute velocity. This is why the train
      observers got c - v for light's one-way speed.

      But, as I said, mathematically speaking, there were not two different
      general laws, but only two different specific results, so there was
      never any conflict (apparent or otherwise) with the PoR.
  • Loading...