# Thread: Relativity of Simultaneity Gendankin

1. Originally Posted by MacM
Considering that my train scenario is nothing more than a Sagnac affect where the radius of the circle is infinity, the following paper seems to support my view and not yours.
Hahaha! This is very funny coming from "Mr. How-Dare-You-Change-The-Scenario". I will have to consult BillyT who is the recognized expert on this subject, but personally I don't think this even classifies as a full "duck and weave" but rather simply a "dodge".

As to the specifics of the paper, I agree with zephyr and quadraphonics that the paper seems to support their reasoning, not yours. If you want to claim support from it you need to show explicitly how you can go from their work to reach your conclusion. In any case, the paper is hardly an impressive or authoritative manuscript since it is from a single unknown author and published in a non-peer-reviewed website as mentioned by 2inquisitive. Even if you could clearly demonstrate that the paper supports your view all you would establish is that you are not alone in your error.

It seems that either you are having difficulty understanding the simple geometry I presented or you understand it and can find no flaws. My derivation is clear and follows directly from the Lorentz transform. Since it follows directly from the Lorentz transform the prediction of SR is that there is no frame-dependent Doppler shift.

-Dale

2. By the way, the graphic is somewhat limited since it shows only a particular velocity and period. So I thought that it might be good to derive the same conclusion algebraically for general velocities etc.

Consider two events with timelike separation, then there exists some proper inertial frame (unprimed) where the events are separated only by time and not by space. If the proper time between the two is dt then we can write:
t1 = t
t2 = t+dt
Δt = t2-t1 = (t+dt)-t = dt

We can then use the Lorentz transform equation for time to transform into any arbitrary (primed) inertial frame:
t' = γ (t - v x)
t1' = γ (t - v x)
t2' = γ (t+dt - v x)
Δt' = t2'-t1' = γ (t+dt - v x) - γ (t - v x) = γ dt

Note that the expression for Δt' is independent of t or x, the time or location in the proper frame. It depends only on dt, the proper time between the events.

Now, the train frame is the proper frame for both the emission and the detection. In the proper frame there is clearly no Doppler shift therefore the period of the emission is the same as the period of the detection in the train frame. So, if the period of the emission and detection is dt in its proper frame then γ dt will be the period of emission and detection in any arbitrary frame. Since the period of emission (γ dt) equals the period of detection (γ dt) in any arbitrary frame there is no Doppler shift in any arbitrary frame.

-Dale

3. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
Hahaha! This is very funny coming from "Mr. How-Dare-You-Change-The-Scenario". I will have to consult BillyT who is the recognized expert on this subject, but personally I don't think this even classifies as a full "duck and weave" but rather simply a "dodge".

As to the specifics of the paper, I agree with zephyr and quadraphonics that the paper seems to support their reasoning, not yours. If you want to claim support from it you need to show explicitly how you can go from their work to reach your conclusion. In any case, the paper is hardly an impressive or authoritative manuscript since it is from a single unknown author and published in a non-peer-reviewed website as mentioned by 2inquisitive. Even if you could clearly demonstrate that the paper supports your view all you would establish is that you are not alone in your error.

It seems that either you are having difficulty understanding the simple geometry I presented or you understand it and can find no flaws. My derivation is clear and follows directly from the Lorentz transform. Since it follows directly from the Lorentz transform the prediction of SR is that there is no frame-dependent Doppler shift.

-Dale
I will simlly note that 2Inquisitive's comment is appropriate and lack of peer review should be noted. However, it would be of equal appropritness to point out that I ran across this via Physics Forum where it was being discussed by a Phd.

It was stated there that there is a doppler shift in a Sagnac device, although that does not explain the Sagnac affect.

So the lack of peer reviewed journal status should not be interpreted to mean that it is simply pie in the sky by completely inept day dreamers.

Pointing out that the train scenario is effectively a Sagnac device with an infinite radius is not a change in scenario. It merely brings the affect into a tested arena.

4. Originally Posted by MacM
I will simlly note that 2Inquisitive's comment is appropriate and lack of peer review should be noted. However, it would be of equal appropritness to point out that I ran across this via Physics Forum where it was being discussed by a Phd.
Even if it was being discussed by Einstein and Schrodinger that doesn't mean it supports your position.

Originally Posted by MacM
It was stated there that there is a doppler shift in a Sagnac device, although that does not explain the Sagnac affect.
Wonderful. So what? The paper still seems support zephyr and quadraphonic's position.

Originally Posted by MacM
Pointing out that the train scenario is effectively a Sagnac device with an infinite radius is not a change in scenario. It merely brings the affect into a tested arena.
And the Doppler effect and the Lorentz transform are somehow untested ?

You are really reaching here. Is it honestly that difficult for you to just admint that SR doesn't predict a frame-dependent Doppler effect? I just don't understand such a stubborn desire to be wrong.

-Dale

5. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
I just don't understand such a stubborn desire to be wrong.

-Dale
I am not convienced that your transformations are not infact merely adjustments which restore the reception to the detector frame.

I am pursueing other inputs once I have received replies from those which I trust to not merely say whatever they must to protect their view then I will conceede if that is warranted.

However at this time comments about how the Sagnac affect is not physically the same as the linear train scenario or that this paper supports some other view, etc are really just beyond belief and do not merit acceptance at face value.

********************** e-mail *************************
Hello Dan:

I think I see what you mean here.

"I happen to agree but I have also seen relativists argue it is explained by SRT.

My question however is not in what actually may be going on but within the context of SRT how one can argue that the relative light velocity to the detectors on the train as seen from the embankment are not doppler shifted. Mathematically it seems it is required since c - v is different (slower rate of approach and passage) than "c"
I agree with this.

You had me going on this for a while. I think we are agreeing, but disagreeing on subtleties.

You are pretty good at this stuff and a lot more analytical than MOST Physicists.

Take a look at this thought I have.

NOTE: Graphics did not "Cut & Paste" - MacM

Here, 3 guys have recorders and they record the signal from a constant frequency source moving on the train.
The frequency fs is noted by each observer and recorded.

For electromagnetism, according to othodox (Textbooks) the velocity of the signals are always c = const. (That's Relativity
and all those other accepted philosophies; not emission theories!)

In emission theories, for the observer 3 on the bank, the velocity is always the Galilean transformed velocity, c+v on approach,
c-v on receive and only instantaneously, c at the transverse relative time t = t_transverse. (Important).

In emission theory, Extinction Shift Principle (Ideal Vacuum ONLY) , the UNDISTURBED wavelenths are always LAMBDA_undisturbed. The measured wavelengths, that's a different story. The Guys, 1 and 2 riding on the train
will note NO change in the wavelength at all. (Assume the train does not stretch or change its length).

The frequencies noted by Guys 1 and 2 will be always be fs, (the straight blue line), the playback 1 and 2.
In my principle, I call these frequencies the relative frequency (cannot call these Dopple frequency).
Doppler does not treat the undisturbed, measurability or extinction processes. (THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOPPLER)
I make that clear in all my lectures.

Observer, Guy 3 sees a dip in the curve, playback 3 (red curve). But, recall, the waves in vacuum have unchange wavelengths
until interference or measurement! (at extinction) Extinction Shifted.

Do go through the slides first of all Dan.

You are almost there. I believe you could be one of my experts in this once you do that.

I have a plan. Will discuss later.

EHDowdye

7. How is this thread still going?

I can see why MacM likes to talk with his little friend here: "Oh MacM, you're so smart, so much smarter than all those mean physicists who can't think. Someday, if you're a good boy and read your slides, you can be my best buddy, and we can beat those mean physicists."

Too bad the mean physicists are actually right. Why? Nature said so.

8. Originally Posted by MacM
I am not convienced that your transformations are not infact merely adjustments which restore the reception to the detector frame.

I am pursueing other inputs once I have received replies from those which I trust to not merely say whatever they must to protect their view then I will conceede if that is warranted.
Ah, is that the problem? You just don't understand what a transform is? Well, I'm sure that you will ignore whatever I can say on the subject, so I guess we are back to my original comments. This thread and all of your ramblings don't need a physics response, it needs an educational response. Go learn about transforms and the Doppler effect. Maybe next time you don't know something you will learn first and post later.

Originally Posted by MacM
However at this time comments about how the Sagnac affect is not physically the same as the linear train scenario or that this paper supports some other view, etc are really just beyond belief and do not merit acceptance at face value.
This is pretty amusing MacM. First you admit that you don't understand what a coordinate transform does and then you claim that a paper which relies heavily on coordinate transforms supports your position. Maybe if you chant "Sagnac affect therefore I'm right" and click your heels together 3 times it will work.

I don't have a problem with you claiming a Sagnac device of infinite radius, but it is up to you to show how that supports your conclusion. I have backed up my assertions and claims with solid geometry and algebra. You have neither shown any errors in my math nor have you provided any similar support for your position.

SR simply does not predict a frame-dependent Doppler shift.

-Dale

9. Apologies in advance for off-topic post...

MacM, does Dowdye know that you're posting 'private correspondence' with him in these forums? If you have his permission, that's fine, but if not, I'd prefer it if you could cut and paste the relevant details rather than the entire letter. Frankly, phrases like "I have a plan. Will discuss later." make me feel icky for reading them, because I feel as though I'm invading someone else's privacy.

10. Originally Posted by Zephyr
Apologies in advance for off-topic post...

MacM, does Dowdye know that you're posting 'private correspondence' with him in these forums? If you have his permission, that's fine, but if not, I'd prefer it if you could cut and paste the relevant details rather than the entire letter. Frankly, phrases like "I have a plan. Will discuss later." make me feel icky for reading them, because I feel as though I'm invading someone else's privacy.
Thanks for the comment. Yes, he knows I discuss these issues and his responses but you are correct I should probably do more editing. At the same time I don't want it to turn the other way and have complaints that I have edited his replies.

11. Originally Posted by Physics Monkey
How is this thread still going?

I can see why MacM likes to talk with his little friend here: "Oh MacM, you're so smart, so much smarter than all those mean physicists who can't think. Someday, if you're a good boy and read your slides, you can be my best buddy, and we can beat those mean physicists."

Too bad the mean physicists are actually right. Why? Nature said so.

Seems you also have a distaste for other Physicists that disagree with you. Dr Dowdye is a Phd Physicist at NASA. Well that is understandable since you would prefer to have this Your Qualified view" vs "My Ignorance".

12. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
Ah, is that the problem? You just don't understand what a transform is?
Of course I know what a transform is and what it is doing. It is adjusting the embankment view to agree with physical reality at the detector.

You are the jone that doesn't seem to understand the issue. I have never claimed and do not claim that at the detector the light is do0pler shifted. It is not based on the invariance postulate.

But that is not the issue. The issue is the view of the embankment where the light velocity is c - v for the engine and c+v for the caboose.

Well, I'm sure that you will ignore whatever I can say on the subject, so I guess we are back to my original comments. This thread and all of your ramblings don't need a physics response, it needs an educational response.
Correct. I hope Dr Dowdye has educated you.

Go learn about transforms and the Doppler effect. Maybe next time you don't know something you will learn first and post later.
As demonstrated by my post this is not a valid comment. The isssue is not the transform to the detector view but the embankment view. You simply seem incapable of thinking independantly in physics terms and insist on modified data based on the transform. Forget the transform. It is not the issue.

This is pretty amusing MacM. First you admit that you don't understand what a coordinate transform does and then you claim that a paper which relies heavily on coordinate transforms supports your position. Maybe if you chant "Sagnac affect therefore I'm right" and click your heels together 3 times it will work.

I don't have a problem with you claiming a Sagnac device of infinite radius, but it is up to you to show how that supports your conclusion. I have backed up my assertions and claims with solid geometry and algebra. You have neither shown any errors in my math nor have you provided any similar support for your position.
Well, I have posted information by a Phd Physicist that disagrees with your assessment. BTW: Are you a Phd PHysicist? What are your qualifications?

[/quote]SR simply does not predict a frame-dependent Doppler shift.

-Dale[/QUOTE]

For anyone that has actually read and paid attention to the issues in this thread, what SRT predicts by transform has not been at issue. You would like to make it the issue.

The bottom line is that qualified physicists that actually listen and understand the issue raised agree with my conclusion. Those that are sensative to the challenge such a view presents to SRT (which disagrees)
typically attempt to do as you are doing but that is to be expected.

13. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
Speaking to MacM: Ah, is that the problem? You just don't understand what a transform is? Well, I'm sure that you will ignore whatever I can say on the subject, so I guess we are back to my original comments. This thread and all of your ramblings don't need a physics response, it needs an educational response. Go learn about transforms and the Doppler effect. Maybe next time you don't know something you will learn first and post later.

I have backed up my assertions and claims with solid geometry and algebra. You have neither shown any errors in my math nor have you provided any similar support for your position.

SR simply does not predict a frame-dependent Doppler shift.

-Dale
MacM has said it in so many words. Here is another slant, though parallel, for you to digest along with your transforms, algebra and geometry.

En garde:
"Huis Clos" - Re Jean Paul Sartre.

Starting with the postulate that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source of light the puzzle becomes unraveled. Wherever the flasher’s location, embankment or train, each beam moves an equal distance in equal times.

Assume the rearward moving beam moves a distance ct when striking the detector on the rear of the train. The forward moving beam has also moved a distance ct and is short of the forward detector that has moved away from the forward beam the same distance the rear detector moved from the instant the flash was emitted – the distance vt, now the foward beam is 2vt short of the forward detector.

The fact that the physical location of the source has also moves is of no consequence physically. An observer on the train seeing no motion of the physical entity, who uses/assumes this point as a point of reference, has just stepped into deep theoretical doodoo, which is ignoring the independence postulate of the morion/speed of light vs. the source of the light.

The train, which has no physical influence on the motion of the beam, moving with velocity v wrt the embankment, is not moving as fast as the light beam. This is all c - v tells us, how much faster is light than the moving train.

Measured from the embankment the forward light beam is moving c – v faster than the train. The rearward moving light beam is moving c + v in a total closing velocity wrt the oncoming train and detector--measured with the embankment as inertial frame of reference.

With the flasher on the train, the two train detectors see no blue/red shift. The embankment detectors see a blue shift in the rearward placed detector and a red shift in the forward placed detector.

With the flasher on the embankment, both embankment detectors see no blue/red shift. The train detectors see shifts, blue by the rear detectors, red by the forward detectors.

There is no physical mechanism whereby the train moving wrt the embankment, can avoid detecting sequential arrival of the beams. The photons arrive first in the rear detector and then in the forward detector.

The assumption that the train and embankment frames are equivalent to the extent that the observer on the train can assume the train is at rest and the embankment moving is disproved by the measurements on both frames. The observer on the train (and embankment) sees a tie in any race of photons emitted on the embankment with those emitted on the train. Maybe the "observer", the human, sees differently, but this is of no physical consequence. To then assert that the photons will arrive simultaneously on the rear and forward detectors, wherever emitted, is a specious assertion, the laborious echo of error in the interpretation of the principles of relativity.

SR presumes the “equivalence of inertial frames” from principles of relativity. This assumption is that the laws governing the motion of light (as well as material objects) must be the same in whatever frame the laws are applied. Light moving with a velocity c wrt the embankment (THE VACUA) moves the same velocity in the moving frame. The problem is that the observer in the moving frame measures c – v, for parallel motion of frame and photon, and this is interpreted as a violation of he relativity postulate, where c – v is also measured in the embankment, but only in the embankment is v = 0. The speed of light is c in the moving frame, but THE RELATIVE VELOCITY of frame and photon is c – v, where v is not equal to zero.

Relative motion is distinguishable from absolute motion as used in developing relativity theory by Einstein.

Einstein, in interpreting (Relativity" 1916) that the laws governing the motion of light be the same in all inertial frames, made the arbitrary and unjustified assumptioon that this demands that the relative speed of light must be measured the same in all inertial frames, and therefore imferred that relative motion is equivalent to absolute motion wrt the embankment. His analysis did not include any model using measured light speed wrt the train or carriage as the inertial frame of reference. In other words he made it up on the run.

What does special relativity theory demand? The theory demands that the moving frame of reference be at rest with respect to the embankment when making measurements. Hence, light will be measured as c, with v = 0, equivalent to the embankment frame. Hence, special relativity negates the very concept of physical motion, relative or otherwise.

The twin paradox has been resolved (Feynman, Bohm et al) years ago and we may apply that resolution here. The twin on the space ship cannot physically conclude that the earth borne twin is the twin in motion and that when the space ship and earth reunite that the earth borne twin will be younger than himself on the ship. The resolution states that the space ship twin is the twin in actual motion as he is, exclusively, the one who has accelerated, therefore only the space ship twin will age slower than the earth borne twin.

Applying this concept universally, we see that it is the train that accelerated, not the embankment. Therefore the train is the entity in motion and the assumption that the train is at rest becomes a specious assumption without physical meaning, theoretical or otherwise.

There is another conclusion following the accepted in the resolved paradox of the twins. By asserting only the accelerated twin is in motion, relativity principles interpreted by those constructing relativity theory is erroneous. The equivalence of inertial frames principle requires an interpretation adjustment in the direction of physical reality.

Light and material objects do not occupy different positions in the hierarchical totality of reality of their speed. Relative motion of frame and photon are measured the same as relative motion of frame and material objects. Of course the twin paradox resolution has a major effect on SRT, to the extent that SRT is unrecognizable after proper adjustments have been made. The equivalence principle may no longer be arbitraily presumed to the extent that an observer may, without justification supported by measurement, assumne his motion is at rest and to remain in accordance with the laws of physics.

Conclusion: By asserting that observation of the relative motion of frame and photon will always be measured as, Vcf = Vc – Vf, where Vf = 0, by theoretical fiat, imposes a definitive (as opposed to physical) contradiction of the independence postulate of the motion of light and the source of light. If the concept of, “preferred frame of reference”, sticks in the craw of relativity theorists (e.g. the GPS), then application of the simple the MacM-Maneuver-Thread (analogous to the Heimlich-Maneuver applied when freeing chicken bones, and hurriedly and incompletely chewed morsels of steak, from the throats of careless diners - perhaps seeking the 'center of attraction'?) can clear the fatally clogged theoretical-craws of relativity theorists, those willing to be reborn as true scientists again [or for the first time for that matter] – then and only then, will they be begin to live!!

Geistkiesel

14. Originally Posted by MacM
Forget the transform. It is not the issue.
I disagree completely, the Lorentz transform is central. The only point of argument here is if SR predicts a Doppler shift in one frame and not in another. If you want to develop some other theory where that happens I will not argue. But you have repeatedly asserted, beginning from the first post on this thread, that the frame-dependent Doppler shift is a SR prediction. The Lorentz transform is the mathematical framework of SR so if the Lorentz transform does not show something then it is simply not a prediction of SR.

Originally Posted by MacM
Well, I have posted information by a Phd Physicist that disagrees with your assessment.
I note two things: 1) your friend failed to find any errors in my math or formulas. The c-v comments have already been addressed. 2) The bulk of your friend's presentation describes his Extinction-Shift perspective. Again, I don't care and won't argue what other theories predict, I am only disputing your claim that the frame-dependent Doppler shift is a prediction of SR.

Originally Posted by MacM
BTW: Are you a Phd PHysicist? What are your qualifications?
Yes. I am a PhD engineer working in MR physics. Your friend's qualifications neither intimidate nor impress me. Since I deal with many PhD's on a daily basis I am quite aware of our capacity to be wrong, both collectively and individually.

Originally Posted by MacM
For anyone that has actually read and paid attention to the issues in this thread, what SRT predicts by transform has not been at issue. You would like to make it the issue.
You made it the issue in the first post of this thread. If you are willing to state that you agree that SR does not predict a frame-dependent Doppler shift then I will drop the issue, as that is the only point of interest to me.

You have yet to rebut any of my mathematical conclusions which is developed according to standard textbooks SR equations. Your claims are unsubstantiated, your assertions are unfounded, your arguments are incoherent, and your authoritative support is weak.

-Dale

15. Originally Posted by Physics Monkey
How is this thread still going?

I can see why MacM likes to talk with his little friend here: "Oh MacM, you're so smart, so much smarter than all those mean physicists who can't think. Someday, if you're a good boy and read your slides, you can be my best buddy, and we can beat those mean physicists."

Too bad the mean physicists are actually right. Why? Nature said so.
I, for one, am enjoying it immensly. I think this thread has moved well beyond physics and into psychology.

It reminds me of a very interesting fMRI experiment I read about recently. They took several very strongly (politically) partisan people and presented them with some pieces of evidence that supported their political position and some pieces of evidence that contradicted their political position. They found that when presented with the contradictory evidence they quickly ignored it. The interesting thing was the regions of the brain involved. The pleasure centers of the brain lit up under fMRI, but not the logic or reasoning centers. In other words, they didn't think about it or reason about it, but dismissed the evidence and gave themselves a mental reward for doing so. I guess that not thinking about political partisanship is not surprising, but I wonder if a similar effect could happen with scientific theories.

-Dale

16. Hi Dale,

I can't argue with that! Your experiment is very interesting, and I would sure bet that a similar thing happens when people talk about science. As long as you are enjoying your talk with MacM, don't let me get in the way. I just hate to see good people waste their time, and I really hate to see good science mangled. I mean, it's part of my job to teach this stuff to people, and I love doing it, it's just disappointing to find people who refuse to learn.

17. Originally Posted by Physics Monkey
Hi Dale,

I can't argue with that! Your experiment is very interesting, and I would sure bet that a similar thing happens when people talk about science. As long as you are enjoying your talk with MacM, don't let me get in the way. I just hate to see good people waste their time, and I really hate to see good science mangled. I mean, it's part of my job to teach this stuff to people, and I love doing it, it's just disappointing to find people who refuse to learn.
Physics Monkey,

Well then why not share with us what you teach to others. I would like a brief intro what rational analysis led Einstein to determine that the expression c - v = w contradicts the laws of motion of light. Here c is the speed of light and v the speed of the carriage, both measured wrt the embankment as coordinate frame of reference. The laws of motion of light should be the same whether the embankment was the coordinate frame of reference or the carriage the coordinate frame of reference.

This does not separate the laws of motion of light from the motion of material objects without more. And when EInstein made the claim there was no more than what was stated abnove.

If both c and V were measured wrt the embankment as coordinte frame what is he referring to that w contradicts anything? After all c - v = w merely states how much faster is the speed of light than the carriage? Is this erroneous? Einstein said that w being less than the speed of light in vacuo that the laws of motion being the same in all coordinate reference frames that w is too small when the carriage is the coordinate reference frame. Chaptr VII in "Relativity", Published in 1916. It's all there.

Have you ever heard of the term, "frame shifting"? This is what Einstenin di here isn't it.

Your post above referred to science, and science bening mangled. To whom and to what were you referring?

Asan after thought Einstein substituted light motion for a man walking on a carriage without any changes in form of the equation.(The original W = v + w -- c for W, w retained as the relative velocity of frame wrt photon as measured from the embankment as coordinate frame of reference.) The motion of light, like the motion of the man, are dependant on the motion of the train according to Einstein. However, the indepndence postulate was violated here by Einstein as the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source of light. How could Einstein screw up so royally? How could any scientist absorb relativity theory without any critical assesment of what he was being taught?

Rote thinking and rote belief systems perhaps? One cannot charge you with refusing to learn can they?

And you say you teach this stuff?

Geisrkiesel

18. Geisrkiesel:

Wrong move! You have asked Physics Monkey a SPECIFIC question.

He is a proven dyed-in-the-wool generalist.

Correction. Supergeneralist.

Correction. Hypergeneralist.

Correction. Generalist proven beyond any degree of precision known or imagineable to man. ( Generically speaking ).

19. Originally Posted by geistkiesel
With the flasher on the train, the two train detectors see no blue/red shift. The embankment detectors see a blue shift in the rearward placed detector and a red shift in the forward placed detector.
Interesting. We mostly agree on the only part of your post that is relevant to the current discussion (you just have the blue and red reversed as shown in my diagram: http://img277.imageshack.us/my.php?image=lorentz5jj.png).

-Dale

PS If you wish a response to the remainder please open a new thread.

20. Originally Posted by DaleSpam
You made it the issue in the first post of this thread. If you are willing to state that you agree that SR does not predict a frame-dependent Doppler shift then I will drop the issue, as that is the only point of interest to me.

-Dale
Then I think we can resovle this quite easily. I can see how you interpreted the first post to mean I claimed SR predicted this. But on careful examination you will find it doesn't actually say that nor did I mean to imply that.

I was pointing out the SR predictions but also noting the c +/- v issue as "VIEWED" from the embankment frame. I did not address nor claim that the transforms mathematically produce that conclusion. I was aware that at the detector that conclusion was voided by the invariance postulate.

We do disagree I believe as to the function of the transforms. It is my opinion that it actually voids the embankment frame view an adjusts the data to the detector view.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•