# Thread: The Relativity of Simultaneity

1. Originally Posted by MD
My method doesn't have problems at speeds above c.
You don't have a method. You have a delusion.

I don't live in Einstein's world, I live in mine.
You do live in Einstein's world. You're just in denial about it.

My world doesn't have paradoxical nonsense.
Neither does Einstein's.

You admitting that Einstein's world has causality violations is admitting to an error in his method, as in the real world, it is impossible to violate causality.
There are no causality violations in Einstein's world, because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Please re-read my previous post, where I explained.

His sync method is not of an absolute sync where the two clocks read as one. That causes the problems.
There's no way to synchronise clocks across different reference frames.

Pay attention, James, I am talking about the scenario with the traveler traveling to the star at the rate of 2c.
I already paid attention. That example is irrelevant, as I explained in my previous post.

I asked you repeatedly to respond to my acceleration diagram or create one to show me you can use SR and acceleration like you claimed you could.
No. It's your turn to do some work. No new scenarios. Show me you understand Einstein's universe.

You never gave me numbers in SR of my train and embankment scenario in which both were in motion. You are simply dodging the questions and then pretending I owe you something.
I wrote a long post that you totally ignored. Read back if you missed it. I said I would give you those answers if you spelled out your scenario in sufficient detail for me to be able to do that.

Don't accuse me of dodging questions when you regularly ignore whole slabs of posts that I write, or even entire posts.

For instance, I have now asked you more than 4 times whether you agree that an object is always at rest in its own reference frame. A simple yes/no answer (with justification) is all that is required, but you've ducked this question over and over again.

Answer the questions before I respond to yours, James. You are boring me with your one line responses which lack substance.
Right back at you.

Like causing causality violations by traveling faster than light, for example.
Nothing travels faster than light, so there are no causality violations.

My method doesn't have problems at speeds above c.
Of course it doesn't. There's no speed limit in the Motor Daddy universe, and the speed of light is nothing special.

3. Originally Posted by James R

There are no causality violations in Einstein's world, because nothing can travel faster than the speed of light.
Excuse me??? In light of the current neutrino findings, you have some serious causality problems in SR that need to be addressed.

Let's just assume the findings are true. SR is shattered because the speed of the neutrino being faster than light means it violates causality in SR.

But guess what, James?? It doesn't violate causality in my universe, as in my universe it doesn't matter how fast an object travels, it is impossible for there to be a causality violation, as is true in the REAL WORLD!

4. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

But guess what, James?? It doesn't violate causality in my universe, as in my universe it doesn't matter how fast an object travels, it is impossible for there to be a causality violation, as is true in the REAL WORLD!
Delusions...delusions...

5. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Excuse me??? In light of the current neutrino findings, you have some serious causality problems in SR that need to be addressed.

Let's just assume the findings are true.
Why should we assume that?

SR is shattered because the speed of the neutrino being faster than light means it violates causality in SR.
It means the potential is there, yes.

But guess what, James?? It doesn't violate causality in my universe, as in my universe it doesn't matter how fast an object travels, it is impossible for there to be a causality violation, as is true in the REAL WORLD!
But your universe is completely imaginary, as we have established at length previously.

6. Originally Posted by James R
Why should we assume that?
So that we can look at the effect it has on SR if proven in the future to be true beyond all doubt. In my eyes, the assumption is not unreasonable since the findings were the results of the most technologically advanced equipment, with some of the finest scientists in the world performing the experiments. Furthermore, the scientists that performed the experiments seem to have exhausted all possible explanations as to any errors that could be the cause of erroneous results.

Originally Posted by James R
It means the potential is there, yes.
I would go further and say more than potential, but that there are findings that are unexplainable as to why the results are as they are. They don't have a reason why the findings shouldn't be set in stone at the moment. How long do we wait, and how many experiments will validate the findings in your mind, James??

Originally Posted by James R
But your universe is completely imaginary, as we have established at length previously.
No it is not imaginary, it is simply distance and time, and the implications of the current definitions. There is nothing imaginary about 1 second of light travel meaning light traveled 299,792,458 meters. It is a fact, set in stone! Distance and time are inseparable by definition.

7. Does anyone else notice how MD has bumped this thread but he won't reply to my mathematics here? Looks like he's come up against a wall and rather than be honest and admit he doesn't understand he's effectively changing the subject and carrying on.

That's a little dishonest of you MD.

8. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Let's just assume the findings are true. SR is shattered because the speed of the neutrino being faster than light means it violates causality in SR.
I'm not or particle physicist, but http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562 looks extremely convincing. That seems pretty strong evidence that the findings are not true.

9. Originally Posted by funkstar
I'm not or particle physicist, but http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562 looks extremely convincing. That seems pretty strong evidence that the findings are not true.
But muons have exceeded the speed of light, isn't it?
Muon Velocity
They can carry information faster than light, isn't it?

10. Errr.... that page says muons move at 98.9% the speed of light. They even draw a box around it at the end. Where are you getting that they move faster than light from?

11. Muon Velocity

On top of a mountain at 6000 ft a muon detector measures a flux of 550 muons per hour. At a laboratory at the base of the mountain at 2000 ft, a simultaneous experiment measures 422 muons/hr. The half-life of the muon is 1.56 microseconds. How fast were the muons traveling?

Solution: First we will proceed without regard to relativity and the Lorentz transformation.

The distance traveled L=4000 ft x 0.3048 m/ft = 1219 m

The time is then calculated for the two populations as an exponential decay process using the half-life measured in the laboratory.

The results of this calculation are:

But this can't be right! This is 6.7 times the speed of light!
So they can carry information faster than light?

12. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
So that we can look at the effect it has on SR if proven in the future to be true beyond all doubt. In my eyes, the assumption is not unreasonable since the findings were the results of the most technologically advanced equipment, with some of the finest scientists in the world performing the experiments. Furthermore, the scientists that performed the experiments seem to have exhausted all possible explanations as to any errors that could be the cause of erroneous results.
Oh, yes? Why don't you recount for us what's been done so far to double-check the results, since you think they've already been verified? Have you suddenly become our resident expert on neutrino beams and detectors? Even if the results did hold up (very unlikely), there are already various schemes for fixing Relativity to match such a scenario, and even if such schemes didn't fit the puzzle, you'd be left with the mystery of why Relativity works to near perfection in a million other situations where classical physics falls apart.

13. Originally Posted by Emil
So they can carry information faster than light?

You do realise there's more text right? You can scroll down.

14. Originally Posted by Emil
But muons have exceeded the speed of light, isn't it?
Muon Velocity
No.

They can carry information faster than light, isn't it?
Also , no. Learn how to read for comprehension (i.e. engage brain).

15. Originally Posted by AlphaNumeric

You do realise there's more text right? You can scroll down.
Facts are the distance and the time which imposes the speed 2.0x10^9 m/s.
I don't wonder how and why this speed.
The question is simple:
"They can carry information faster than light?" Yes or No.
Originally Posted by Tach
No.

Also , no. Learn how to read for comprehension (i.e. engage brain).
Else can you add? If only that you have to say I will report you as Troll.

16. Originally Posted by Emil
Facts are the distance and the time which imposes the speed 2.0x10^9 m/s.
No, it doesn't. The site clearly explains why not, it is not our fault that you can't comprehend.

17. Originally Posted by OnlyMe

Or if you Emil prefer for any reason that I delete the post as an inaccurate assessment I will delete it.
Has nothing to do with Emil's inability to read English. Has everything to do with Emil's inability to understand physics and math.

18. Originally Posted by CptBork
Oh, yes? Why don't you recount for us what's been done so far to double-check the results, since you think they've already been verified? Have you suddenly become our resident expert on neutrino beams and detectors? Even if the results did hold up (very unlikely), there are already various schemes for fixing Relativity to match such a scenario, and even if such schemes didn't fit the puzzle, you'd be left with the mystery of why Relativity works to near perfection in a million other situations where classical physics falls apart.
No really, my perpetual motion machine does what I say it does. Hold on, before I show you I have to change the battery.

Start by the time issue. If no time elapses for a photon, how much time elapses for a faster moving neutrino, in your whackjob "theory" that is SR??

19. Originally Posted by OnlyMe
I have followed the thread on and off and the reason I made the post was that there were a few times that it seemed from an outside perspective that there might be some language issue, at least in part involved.

Yes. Delete.

20. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Talking to your reflection in the mirror again, MD?