Standard SRT problem need a standard SRT solution.

What a crock of crap. Shsssh.


So where is that data I asked you for and you said you would go find? Contrary to your flase claim here that SRT has been proven many times. It hasn't been proven once.

The only thing ever proven has been gamma. Data proves SRT false. (Unless you can find a bonafide case of data supporting reciprocity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

First Welcome to SciForums.

Contrary to what others here might want you to believe I don't understand SRT but I reject it with good cause.

Let me suggest you take one thing at a time. Start by putting the good book on the back burner and analyze what you just said.

1 - Do you agree that the shift in simultaneity can be calculated using relativity? Yes or No.

This has no bearing on the issue, using precalculated and correlated timers, accounting for simultaneity shift, clocks can be turned on and off in synch. You can't claim something physical and can be calculated cannot also be timed with preset correlation accounting for that shift.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, it is a theory about physics. There is a differance. The way you stated it makes claims of validity. I hope to at least give you cause to reconsider your views.

I won't answer for Geist but this issue is the very heart of the problem. The fact is there is absolutely NO data supporting the reciprocity inherent and claimed by SRT.

All data supports only one clock dilating. GPS functions and the orbiting clocks are adjusted for relavistic affects of being in orbit, regarding earth (ignore GR for a moment since it is not at issue). GPS orbiting clocks are compensated for velocity of orbit, not relative velocity to the surface.

Further if reciprocity were a fact then there would be no need for such adjustment since both clocks would slow equally and remain in synch.

Acceleration yes, but timing can be done ONLY during inertial periods. Tick rate is not subject to simultaneity.

The only thing screwed up is the interpretation suggesting an experiment which shows a gamma result proves SRT. It doesn't unless reciprocity can be applied. ALL such data only proves one way gamma function relativity, not Einsteins relativity.

I agree that name calling is not a demonstration of our best side but before you get to sympathetic for SL you should understand he has a bad habit of calling names first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

SL, thanks again for your offer, however I do wish to finish this thread with it's objectives in mind.

How to word the question and how to word the answer about what has become known as the twin paradox.?

I find I have enough difficulty with just wording the question [with out reference to a thought experiment] let alone provide a standard answer.

The answer has to include how symmetry of time is broken by accel and deaccel and that this is caused by shifting in spacetime asymmetrically.

So how would you word the question with out reference to the "twin paradox" thought experiement?

 

QQ,

It all stems from the two postulates

1) The speed of light is invariant for all observers.

2) There are no preferred frames.

So, in any inertial frame, you will measure c to be c and all experiments done locally will obey newtonian physics.

This requires observers outside your moving (relatively) frame to see you time-dilated, mass-increased, and length-contracted.

Since your frame is no better or worse than my frame, I see you dilated, and you see me dilated. Remember, we are in uniform motion.

When one or the other observer takes a different spacetime path and shifts frames, the time deficit for that observer is "carried along" with him and shows up in the new frame.

???

 

Here is what I actually said QQ that differs from the blue words above you tried to put in my keyboard. Maybe you had been drinking and it just got away from you?

Did you err? If so would you please repair this error?

Well why then do you not see that the forces causing the so called Lorentzian contractions are due to real forces acting on the tested objects?

Well your thoughts are bullshit and are not offerred with anything but empty words. You don't even attempt to justify anything you say (about your beliefs), well then why did you bother responding at all?

What the hell is a space-time differential? It sounds like you have been infected with some SRT virus - do you feel that your mind is driven to describe reality uniquely, scoentiofically uniquely?

QQ, why don't you model the universe based on the earth being the only object at rest, rotationally, sun-orbitally, sun linear emotionally, the milky way orbitally, to the 1st level gallactic clusterly, to the great walls of super-clusters and beyond and beyond beyond, then you can say, "Well I found another way to express all activity of the universe and then watch the world will fall at (your) the feet of the timid Beatle's, "Nowhere Man"?

get on the right page QQ. If you think light doesn't move then prove it or shut the fuck up, I am personally tired of hearing you mutter something every few posts abouit what you believe light is doing, as you believe. You fart around with all this meaningless SRT crap which you don't buy into any way. Do it or get out of it. What's thre matter QQ, are you afraid you might look silly?

SL wil for sure scorn you.

but until then don't worry, QQ, SL will be along with his consoling epithets, in his latest recruiting drive.

Geistkiesel ​

 

Absolutely in error. You should be embarrassed. The light will strike the rear of the truck first as long as the truck is in motion with velocity toward the front of the truck.

Proof: The front and rear of your truck have photon sensitive clocks do they not? And of course you provided these clocks properly synchronized aren't didn't you?

When a photon arrives at a rear or foward clock the clocks spit out the arrival time on piece of paper and then send the information back to the center of the truck where the observer there has a clock also. As the photon also hit the forward clock after the photon hit the rear of the truck these times will be imprinted on the paper that was spit out by the clocks when the photons arrived. And of course the signals returned to the center of the truck simultaneously, BTW, this will expose the difference in the arrival of the photons at the rear and front of the truck.

The moving observer can only conclude bty virtue of his point of view that he is moving and that the time difference between his moving experiment and one that is stationary with respect to the embankment is

t' = t(2v)/(c - v)

where t is the time it takes the rearward moving photon to reach the back of the truck, v is the velocity of the truck wrt the embankment, Ve, and c is the speed of light. Assume all of your observers know of this experiment with your trucks, they have seen the stationary experiment run thousands of times, they havwe seen the moving experiment condcted thousands of times. They know there is a tinme difference between the round trip of the photons from center back to center of the truck.

If t' is zero there is no motion if t' > 0 the frame is moving.

What is the moving observer's point of view? We all agree the stationary observer ultimately agrees with the moving observer, but only aftyr the moving observer, observes. The observer's observations are limited by the information she has available.

The only information the moving observer sees is,

1. the time the photons left the middle of the truck and

2.the time of arrival of the photons back at the midpoint, which includes the time of arrival of the photons at the front and rear clocks. Of course the arrival times at the midpoint of the truck for the two photons are simultaneous.

This is the limit to the moving observer's "point of view". Your SRT observers are nothing more than bribed idiots, that claim superhuman observational powers that gives your bribed idiot observers the ability see faster than light can move information.

Wow, Sebejias, where have you been keeping yourself? Jus kidding!

S eriously though Sebejias, I betcha didn't think of all that stuff above dija? well did ya? This hasn't been published in Phys Rev Letts, (and it wont be) that's probably why you missed it.

Like when all those professors of yours were infecting your mind with all that SRT sickness? Did you ever question them for the truth of what they professed? Anything? even once?

Now, Sebejias, don't you think you have preached about enough of your naive SRT bullshit on this forum?

Geistkiesel ​

 

Geist,
Actually, I learned about SRT when I was in eighth grade, so I think that by now I would have questioned at least some of what my professors werre shoving down my head. I got experimental proof that c is constant and of tiem dilation.

Now, to your example, when you say "properly synchronized", to whose point of view are they synchronized? If they are synchronized to the truck, then guess what! our observers (I'll get to them in sec) will observe the clock in the rear to be ahead of that in front. There is no way to disprove lack of universal simultaneity without assuming that it exists.

As for my observers, if you were standing 3,000,000,000 meters away from a lighthouse, and you saw a light pulse at 3:10:40, (40 seconds after 3:10) then a little basic math and knowing the speed of light will show you that the pulse was emitted at 3:10:30. I didn't realize that a physics forum would have people so full of shit that I would have to explain that.

You suffer from the anti-SRT disease called intuition. You believe in universal simultaneity, so you will use that in order to prove that universal simultaneity exists.

Now, Geistkiesel, don't you think you have preached about enough of your naive intuition bullshit on this forum?

Sabejias

 

Thank you.

How can you reject something that you don't understand?

Yes, definately. I think that the only math involved is algebra and maybe a bit of Trig.

What I am saying is that there is no such thing as universal simultaneity and therefore you can only have two clocks synchronized within a given referance frame. You are using a forbidden trick in math called circular reasoning. You are using the opinion that there is universal simultaneity to prove universal simultaneity.

What I mean by "see" is that by A's perspective, B stops his clock first and in B's perspective, A stops his clock first. A will calculate when B actually stopped his clock by accounting the speed of light and B's speed and doing some basic algebra. (see my post above)

Let's examine what the people not moving relative to the star see. They watch the hypothetical you travel .8666...c 10 lyrs. The starians see youtravel at .8666...c and they see that you age slower. Nobody sees anything travel FTL.
Meanwhile, you see the star traveling towards you at .8666...c. It travels toward you at that rate over a distance of about 5 lyrs. (I have decided to ignore the acceleration because that becomes GRT) You don't see anything travelling FTL either. When you arrive at star and somehow stop, if you do a little math and realize that you travlled 10 lyrs in 8.6 years, you are combining observations from two different referance frames. Nobody observed anything moving FTL.

Sabejias

 

Find for me some data that proves SRT false and explain why I or SL should trust it.

 

post deleted due to personal insults and obscenity

 

Sabejias,

Geist never got to go to school, so he trashes anyone with an education and throws math out the window. We've seen all the diagrams before. Neither Geist nor MacM accept that observers in different frames have different spacetime coordinates in SPACE and TIME (hint: it's why they call it SPACETIME! Imagine that). For them this is completely beyond comprehension and therefore not part of their universe, so they must justify the pyhsical world in the only way they know how. Pure intuition. The truth and real wonder of the universe will forever be beyond these folks.

 

Anger management! Sheesh!

Is this a physics forum or a name-calling forum?



I hope you've heard of Michelson and Morley.



There were thousands of experiments that all agree that c is constant.



The lighthouse example was an easy example of how an observer would be able to exactly measure and calcullate when something happened according to his frame of referance.



HOW WOULD THE FREAKIN CLOCKS BE SYNCHRONIZED?!?!?!?!



Assume Einstein's postulate (proven by thousands) to be true.

If you are sitting in the middle of the truck and you send out light in both directions, and have the clocks programmed in such a way that when the light hits each clock then they will automatically start at 12:00, that would do it, FROM YOUR FRAME OF REFERANCE. Imagine what someone standing on the sidewalk must see (sorry, observe and calculate). He would see the light take longer to get to the front because c is constant and the distance is greater. Therefore, the clock in front will appear to be slightly behind (timewise) the one in back in his frame of referance.

Sabejias

 

Sabejias,

"There were thousands of experiments that all agree that c is constant."

This is stated as completely FALSE by the "anti-SRTists" here and is a whole can of worms in itself. They see a small bias present in various MM type experiments (which I have explained adequately before) and conclude that all evidence shows that light is NOT isotropic!!! Good luck.

 

to this request I replied:

To which you replied:

You challenged me to re-write Newton and I have.......

If you don't want my thoughts then don't ask for them.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

QQ,

Is this the time/place to address your idea regarding forces and the existence of an object?

 

SL, if it is able to remain just a discussion I would be happy to. The problem that occurs most of the time is that we posters get on the ole' soap box and end up arguing and not discussing.

I think if you look at modern thought on motion, entropy and spacetime you will find that it is the difference in forces that allows movement to occur. The movemnet being a necessary outcome of that difference.

If two forces are identicle and opposed then the net result is zero.

Nothingness or Absolute vacuum could be said to be the net result of equal forces. The universes existence could be said to be due to the imbalance of those forces with in the vacuum.

So when I state a postion of:

"When the sum of external and internal forces on an object are zero the object will cease to exist"
I am talking in absolute terms.......

Can you suggest why this position may be incorrect?

 

If the imbalance in forces is stable then so to is the movement they inspire.

 

Two comments:
First of all, if the sum of the the forces acting on an object are zero, then the object will not change at all, but it won't vanish from the universe.
Second, that is an interesting topic and you might want to start a new thread on it.

 

Sab, thanks for your comments.
If you wish, by all means start another thread on the topic.

You have stated:

My response to this is that one thing that is constant in this universe as time moves forward and that is change. Everything is constantly changing. I would suggest that this constant change is due to the imbalance of forces.

If change ceases where does our object exist in spacetime?