# Thread: On Einstein's explanation of the invariance of c

1. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Use the other method of syncing I describe. You don't understand the relevance of one watch's rotational velocity changing. If the rotational velocity changes, they will not measure the same elapsed times, as one will tick faster than the other, so it will say more time has elapsed then the other one will.
Perhaps your definition of "synchronized" is that the clocks tick at the same rate? My definition is that the clocks display the same time as each other. When you move the clocks from the middle of the continent to the coasts, they change rate, but once they are at rest on the coasts, they are ticking the same rate again. The only difference is that they are no longer display the same time as each other.

Anyway, I gave you the new one-way times: They are 2.63 hours, in both directions. The round trip time is still 5.26. What do you think happened, if the clocks didn't go out of synch? Do you think the continent suddenly came to absolute rest?

2. Originally Posted by Neddy Bate
Perhaps your definition of "synchronized" is that the clocks tick at the same rate? My definition is that the clocks display the same time as each other. When you move the clocks from the middle of the continent to the coasts, they change rate, but once they are at rest on the coasts, they are ticking the same rate again. The only difference is that they are no longer display the same time as each other.

Anyway, I gave you the new one-way times: They are 2.63 hours, in both directions. The round trip time is still 5.26. What do you think happened, if the clocks didn't go out of synch? Do you think the continent suddenly came to absolute rest?
So do you propose that one shaft accelerated and one shaft decelerated, when starting to travel, and then the one that accelerated decelerated, and the one that decelerated accelerated upon stopping? Did they do this proportionally?

3. Originally Posted by Neddy Bate

Anyway, I gave you the new one-way times: They are 2.63 hours, in both directions. The round trip time is still 5.26. What do you think happened, if the clocks didn't go out of synch? Do you think the continent suddenly came to absolute rest?
Like I said, forget that way of syncing the watches. Use the other way.

I never measured 2.63 hours each way, you did, with your inaccurate, asynchronous watches.

4. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
So do you propose that one shaft accelerated and one shaft decelerated, when starting to travel, and then the one that accelerated decelerated, and the one that decelerated accelerated upon stopping? Did they do this proportionally?
All that has to happen is that the clock on a certain coast ends up 2.37 ahead of the other clock. Then the 5.00 hour time would be measured to be 5.00-2.37=2.63 and the 0.26 hour time would be measured to be 0.26+2.37=2.63. The round trip time is still 2.63+2.63=5.26, but the clocks are out of synch.

I never measured 2.63 hours each way, you did, with your inaccurate, asynchronous watches.
Yes, that is what I have been saying. If the clocks go out of synch while you move them, you would have no way of knowing about it. Had the clocks measured 2.63 hours each way in the first place, you would have said the continent was at absolute rest.

5. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Gee, I deliver a truckload of horny girls to you, and you ask me if they are naked. Do I have to do everything for you?
LOL

Quick question...in your world can objects move with an absolute velocity > c? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?

6. I gave you two fresh synchronized clocks, one at each coast. Deal with it!

7. Originally Posted by RJBeery
LOL

Quick question...in your world can objects move with an absolute velocity > c? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?
Traveling at greater than c wouldn't cause a violation of causality in my world. It is impossible to violate causality in my world. Am I saying something COULD travel faster than light? No, I'm saying travel fast as you can, there is no speed limit, as it impossible to violate causality.

8. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I gave you two fresh synchronized clocks, one at each coast. Deal with it!
The flaw in all synch methods is that they cannot possibly account for time dilation. That is the reason the inertial shafts were able to slow down or speed up without any forces applied. Time itself was affecting them. Likewise, time itself will affect any synch method, including pulling on mechanical levers, wires, ropes, etc. Deal with it.

9. Originally Posted by Neddy Bate
The flaw in all synch methods is that they cannot possibly account for time dilation. That is the reason the inertial shafts were able to slow down or speed up without any forces applied. Time itself was affecting them. Likewise, time itself will affect any synch method, including pulling on mechanical levers, wires, ropes, etc. Deal with it.
Negatory!!! The watches are started simultaneously at each coast, they never moved relative to the country. There is no time dilation in my world. Deal with it!

10. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Traveling at greater than c wouldn't cause a violation of causality in my world. It is impossible to violate causality in my world. Am I saying something COULD travel faster than light? No, I'm saying travel fast as you can, there is no speed limit, as it impossible to violate causality.
Forgive me but this sounds a little hand-wavy. I have a feeling you're making this up as we go along maybe? Anyway let's say the fictitious country is absolutely cruising along at 180MPH and we accelerate it another 30MPH (remember, c = 200MPH). Newtonian physics allows this. Does your world?

11. Originally Posted by RJBeery
Forgive me but this sounds a little hand-wavy. I have a feeling you're making this up as we go along maybe? Anyway let's say the fictitious country is absolutely cruising along at 180MPH and we accelerate it another 30MPH (remember, c = 200MPH). Newtonian physics allows this. Does your world?
Good one! Now Motor Daddy's got a country where light never travels east. LOL!

12. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
With sync'd watches it's easy, just send a light signal and record the time of departure, and record the time of arrival on the other coast from the other clock. Since the clocks are sync'd, you can tell how much actual time has elapsed.

If the light is sent at 12:00:00 from one coast, and it arrives at the other coast at 5:00:00, the light took 5 hours to get there. Simply perform the light travel time measuring in the opposite direction to get the opposite direction of travel time.
-It sounds like a simple and straightforward method, but...
previously you said

"When they get to the end of the wire, the plastic is removed simultaneously from each watch at each coast. The watches start ticking simultaneously."

This assumes the persons removing the plastic have their clocks previously synchronized! So how was that done?

13. He's saying you "yank the wire" from the country's midpoint, pulling the wire from both watches simultaneously.

14. To those who point out that MD ignores time dilation, of course he does. He denies relativity in toto, therefore there can be no time dilation.

15. Originally Posted by RJBeery
Forgive me but this sounds a little hand-wavy. I have a feeling you're making this up as we go along maybe? Anyway let's say the fictitious country is absolutely cruising along at 180MPH and we accelerate it another 30MPH (remember, c = 200MPH). Newtonian physics allows this. Does your world?
I've previously thought and posted about not being able to violate causality. Ask Pete, he knows. I'll get the quote if need be.

I already said yes. You can not violate causality because no matter how fast you travel, you can not get from point a to point b instantly, or sooner.

Impossible. Change takes time to occur.

How much time does it take to travel 100 miles at 100 MPH? 1 hour
How much time does it take to travel 100 miles at 600 MPH? 10 minutes
How much time does it take to travel 100 miles at 6,000 MPH? 1 minute
How much time does it take to travel 100 miles at 600,000 MPH? .01 minutes
How much time does it take to travel 100 miles at 600,000,000 MPH? .00001 minutes

etc.....

You can't violate causality by traveling faster, impossible.

16. Originally Posted by Tach
Really? What have they helped you with, so far?

I realise it must be difficult living with a serious disability like yours. The one you think is a personality, I mean.

17. Originally Posted by phyti
-It sounds like a simple and straightforward method, but...
previously you said

"When they get to the end of the wire, the plastic is removed simultaneously from each watch at each coast. The watches start ticking simultaneously."

This assumes the persons removing the plastic have their clocks previously synchronized! So how was that done?
Magic.

If he knew how to answer this he might have argument.

18. Motor Daddy, I wasn't addressing causal problems yet, I'm still trying to envision the world you're describing...

Place an omni-directional photo-sensor in the middle of a spherical room with a uniform light source along the walls. The photo-sensor would detect equal light from all directions, in your world, only at absolute zero velocity. The reason has to do with incident light rays.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5046/...d8b34af8_z.jpg
The light does not always have an approach velocity (w.r.t. the direction of the sensor's travel) of c+v or c-v. Actually it's something like c*cos(theta)+v, where theta is the angle of incidence. When theta = 0, the approach velocity is c+v, when it is 180, it's c-v. When c*cos(theta) = v, the approach velocity = zero. Therefore with a value of v>0 there will always be a theta which gives has a light beam approach velocity of 0. Given the spherical nature of our sensor, a larger value of v will result in a growing range of theta for the incident photons that are unable to reach it.

In short, the above experiment would detect a brighter light in the direction of the absolute velocity vector of the sensor, and a dimmer one on the trailing side.

Here's another feature of the world in question: I believe that when v > c*cos(theta), all photons observed along that angle of incidence will be done so in reverse order. This can most easily be seen when theta = 0 and v > c.
If the source was throwing baseballs at the rate of 1 per second, and your distance from the source doesn't change, you will have 1 baseball per second hit you, regardless of the absolute velocity.
Do the above, but number the balls before you shoot them. Then approach the "stream of balls" faster than they are travelling and you will see exactly what I mean.

19. Originally Posted by RJBeery
He's saying you "yank the wire" from the country's midpoint, pulling the wire from both watches simultaneously.
Then his method is no different than the SR synch method using light signals to start or set the clocks. It still only produces 'relative' simultaneity.

20. Originally Posted by phyti
Then his method is no different than the SR synch method using light signals to start or set the clocks. It still only produces 'relative' simultaneity.
No, it produces absolute simultaneity. Do you understand the concept of two watches ticking as one in NY and Florida?