A Train, Three Clocks, and an Observer

I understand the concept of distance and time, and how to measure them properly. I can understand when someone misapplies the concepts to get erroneous results. Are you interested in learning where the current system fails, or do you take it as gospel?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you even looked at the experiments in question?
You want to disagree with reality? Go ahead. Good luck.

Design your method of measuring absolute velocity. Conduct the experiment.
If it fails, will you be interested in learning how things really work?
Or do you take your navel gazing as gospel?

Personally, I'd rather learn how things work by looking and measuring. Knowing what looking and measuring others have done before saves time.
If your experiment succeeds, then I'll be happy to learn how.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Redshift only applies if the objects concerned are moving relative to each other, or if the system were accelerating. Since neither of these are the case here, redshift doesn't come into play. You may of heard of it, but you obviously don't understand it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In that case your original setup doesn't even conceptually work!

You've also just admitted to Pete that you're not remotely interested in examining the actual experiments that prove that you are wrong!

Note to mods: Motor Daddy is trolling. I suggest the swift and judicious use of the banhammer, or (at the very least) a move to pseudo.

 

Both motions seconded.

 

No. There is a de-facto absolute reference frame in the CMBR. Motor Daddy isn't correct, but he's angling at something that he finds unsatisfactory, that leads to deeper understanding. Shouting him down and accusing him of trolling to attempt to censor this discussion is not good scientific conduct.

Motor Daddy, in the heat of the debate you perhaps missed what I said. I'm all for relativity. I get it. And I know what you're getting at:

If we set aside the expansion of the universe along with gravity, we can envisage a simplified scenario wherein light moves at a uniform velocity throughout the whole of space. Since the CMBR pervades the universe, and provides us with a de-facto method of determining our absolute motion through the universe, we can assert that we indeed have an absolute reference frame, and absolute space. We measure distance and time using the motion of light, but when we ourselves move through this absolute space, our measurements of distance and time are skewed. However there is a subtlety to this "skew" that I'm afraid you've missed - your train is affected too. But on the bright side, with that CMBR, all your observer really needs to do is look out of the window.

See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity for an interesting read. IMHO this is what you're grasping for.

 

Remarkable how the CMBR-selected frame (where measurement of CMBR anisotropy has zero dipole moment) does not translate into a preferred frame in which to do physics or a measured violation of Lorentz invariance.

But that assumption destroys Motor Daddy's claims about a train in motion versus a train at rest, because if Farsight is correct, then Motor Daddy has never seen a train, jet fighter, or space probe at rest. The solar system is moving at 368±2 km/sec with respect to Farsight's preferred definition of rest. And Motor Daddy never noticed because only relative motions seem to have any bearing on experience and physics. Further speed of light measurements don't have 0.001 km/s anisotropy let alone 370 km/sec discrepancies.

 

I never assumed that any train experiment conducted would show an absolute zero velocity. I simply state that IF the end clocks were to appear to the midpoint observer as in sync with each other that would indicate an absolute zero velocity. I am telling you what each condition would mean.

Let's look at this from another angle.

Let's assume the train is at an absolute zero velocity in space. According to Einstein's clock synchronization method, would the mid point observer acknowledge that his clock reads ahead of the two end clocks?

 

The term "absolute zero velocity in space" has no meaning in our universe. We could assume that the train was in such a universe where it did have meaning, but that would tell us nothing about our universe.

 

So according to your answer, the end clocks could never appear to the midpoint observer as being in sync with each other?

 

Just how dense are you? My answer is, always has been, and always will be that the clocks will always appear as being in sync to the midpoint observer as long as they are in sync.

 

You have good thoughts.

However, experiments have been done with GPS shooting multiple satellites at the same time at a common source.

Correcting for the rotational sagnac of the earth, the strikes to the ground based observer are simultaneous and hence, the orbital motion of the earth is not see let alone the motion of our solar system with the milky way.

But, these folks here have no clue as to why the earth's orbital sagnac is in the GPS light speed but not the earth's orbital sagnac and the milky way's orbital sagnac.

 

Will they appear to the midpoint observer as reading differently than his midpoint clock?

 

He is telling you SR. All clocks will remain in sync. This means light is c in the frame in all directions with that theory.

You are claiming objects in the universe move relative to am absolute constant standard of light.

These folks believe light moves relative to the frame's motion. Thus, if a frame emits a light at its center and is moving relative to you, that light will spread out spherically at the origin of the moving frame. Hence, the light sphere rides with the frame in their theory.

That is what they are telling you except they are calling the theory fact.

In short, what you are saying is what they call false.

 

I am trying to show them the error of their ways.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Light travels away from point of origin in all directions at c. The growing light sphere remains spherical, regardless if the source moves during the light travel time or not. A moving source only means the source is no longer at the center, it has no affect on the outer light that is traveling away at c relative to the point in space it was emitted.

 

According to Einstein's clock sync method, does the train's midpoint observer view the end clocks as running behind his?

 

There is a problem.

You should be seeing the earth's orbital sagnac in GPS with this logic. Do you understand that?

On the other hand, they use this to validate SR in the light is always measured c in the frame in all directions.

Then, the earth's orbital sagnac does show up in GPS and the speed of light is not measured c in all directions.

Hence, SR is true of Sagnac is true and false.

Funny no?

Anyway, your logic does not work either.

What I am saying, light is doing something else to make these conflicting experiments true and false with sagnac.

 

yes.

 

I know what you are driving at.

You cannot use the clock sync method with one way transfer. The only real accepted logic is two way.

But, let's assume Einstein who claimed 2 way = 1/2 one way of either path.

The correct answer under SR, is if all clocks are synched, then all will agree on the same time that light strikes the midpoint assuming they were emitted simultaneously in the view of the train frame..

That is the 1/2 clock sync method under SR.

 

I think the problem arises in the clock sync method. Clocks need to be sync'd in such a manner that from the point of one clock, distance is determined by light travel time. ie, if there is two sync'd clocks separated by ~186,000 miles, from each of the clocks perspective, the other clock is 1 second behind his clock.

No two clocks could read the same from any one point if they are properly synchronized. If they do read the same from a distance, that is sure that they are NOT in sync.