geistkiesel: Let me introduce you to the concept of the relativity of simultaneity. Suppose I am sitting at my computer tying this post. At the exact moment I typed the word "computer", somebody in the next room was sipping a drink. What do I mean when I say "at the exact moment"? I mean that my watch and the other person's watch read exactly the same time when these events occurred. Consider now somebody flying in a fast aeroplane overhead. When they look down through their binoculars at my house, suppose they see me typing the word "computer" at some given time on their watch. Believe it or not, it is a fact of nature that they will NOT see the person in the next room sipping their drink at that exact moment (i.e. at the same time on the plane observer's watch). The other person will be sipping their drink either a little before or a little after I typed the word "computer", according to the observer in the plane (the before or after depends on the direction of travel of the plane). In other words, events that I regard as occurring simultaneously are NOT regarded as occurring simultaneously by the plane observer. This is a basic outcome of relativity. You won't believe it, I'm sure, but at least now you know about it.
You are confusing. you mean, for the observer in the plane no clock in your reference frame would show the same time? this has to with perception rather than breaking of simultaneity. OR give the drink to the observer in the plane. as you see, if the observer in the plane sips the drink when you type - a simultaneous event for you, but not for him.
My turn now: Nice post, but probably useless as some don't want to understand things that are counter intutive (I.e. nature as she is, not as we would like her to be.)
Sorry, James R and Billy T, but I am going to have to agree with everneo on this one. What James R illustrated was based on perception, not the breaking of simultaneity. Let me change the parameters a little to illustrate what I mean. Instead of a fast moving airplane, replace it with a stationary balloon high in the atmosphere. By stationary, I mean with no relative velocity with respect to two different observers on the Earth's surface. Let the surface observers be located 500 miles (or you can use kilometers if you prefer) apart and the baloon not directly overhead, but located 45% from verticle measured by one observer, but in line with both observers. Both surface observers each set off a bomb at precisely the same time, using synchronized watches. The observer on the stationary balloon also has a watch synchronized with the surface observers's watches, no 'adjustments' necessary as they are all in the same frame of reference, no motion between them. The balloon observer will see the bombs explode at slightly different times, as one is closer to his location than the other, light takes time to travel. This is not a loss of simultaneity, just a perception difference based on the travel time of light.
Wow, who would have thought of that? At the instant the events were occuring were the same. OK you want to define time by the ticks on your watch or whatever you choose, the frequency of ants pissing wiould be another standard, so what? The fact that you have technologicvally defined your self as noncreative, limited, walled in, that is your misfortune. You are unable to project the fact that events happen simultaneously and there are speed of light maxuima for the transport of the information has nothing to so with fact that event all over the universe, every activity of every photon, galaxy, copulations, snorting crank, typing posts, what ever are occring now. If you want to make a religion out of your limited thinking that you can't measure the simultaneuity of it, that is your problem. If you are in front of me and someone infront of you speaks, then you hear her before I do, but the fact remains as the first sound is uttered from the speakers voice that event is happening in our collective world, you just haven't hearrd it yet. You poor poor man, trying to introduce me to something you should be ashamed of believing.You can get a sense Geistkiesel,
All one has to do is change the word "see" to "determine after factoring out the light delay time." in James' post to get what he was talking about. It just get's so tiresome to have to type that out every time. IOW, in real time according to the plane observer, the sipping of the drink and the typing at the computer do not happen at the same instant, even though '' in real time" they do according to the typist and the sipper.
Yes, now here is the confusing part, Janus 58. After you factor out the delay time of the light, what 'time' do you have left? Of course, both yourself and James R are stating that the rate of time aboard the fast moving plane is relatively slower than the typer and sipper's time in the surface frame of reference, but without specifying an earlier event in both time frames, both plane clock and Earth clock CAN agree to the particular time this sipping event happened, they just will not STAY in synchronization with each other as one is assumed by STR to be beating slower than the other. Now, which clock will gain on the other?
It's very simple. The plane observer "sees" each event (typing and sipping). He knows his speed relative to the sipper and typer, and he knows how fast light travels. Therefore, upon seeing each event he can "backtrack" the light to the moment, according to him, each event occured. Doing so, he will determine that the two events did not happen at the same time.
Understanding SR is made difficult because our is that our intuitive notions are misleading and few are willing to take the time to work with the mathematics which provides a good model of the reality. Even many of those willing and able to work with the mathematics are not willing and able to accept the conclusions and the experimental evidence supporting the mathematics. The English (or any other natural) language does a poor job of describing the laws of physics. All of the anti-SR folks avoid using mathematics, preferring English language descriptions of their concepts. This introduces all sorts of hidden assumptions conforming to classical physics which happens to be very consistent with our intuition. It is a lot of work to use the mathematics. Even James R. who (I am sure) is capable of using the mathematics has not done so in any thread I have read. Perhaps this due to not wanting to expend the effort. Perhaps it is due to considering it a waste of time, since MacM, Geistkiesel, and other anti-SR people would not be able or willing to follow the analysis. The following is an attempt to suggest the nature of the mathematics required to deal with modern physics. The concept of the Interval was not necessary to classical physics, but would probably been adopted even if Relativity had not been developed. As Einstein once said. An event occurs at (x, y, z, t). Relativity mathematics uses this notation and the concept of an interval between two events. Descriptions of thought experiments and/or actual experiments which do not use formal mathematics are prone erroneous conclusions. To illustrate the basic mathematics, consider two events. one at (x<sub>1</sub>, y<sub>1</sub>, z<sub>1</sub>, t<sub>1</sub>), the other at (x<sub>2</sub>, y<sub>2</sub>, z<sub>2</sub>, t<sub>2</sub>) Interval<sup>2</sup> = DeltaX<sup>2</sup> + DeltaY<sup>2</sup> + DeltaZ<sup>2</sup> - c<sup>2</sup>*DeltaT<sup>2</sup>, where DeltaX = X<sub>2</sub> - X<sub>1</sub> DeltaY = Y<sub>2</sub> - Y<sub>1</sub> DeltaZ = Z<sub>2</sub> - Z<sub>1</sub> DeltaT = T<sub>2</sub> - T<sub>1</sub> Descriptions of thought experiments not using the above notation to specify the events being described are suspect, and likely to lead to erroneous and/or ambiguous conclusions. I seldom try to analyze such descriptions. If paid to do such an analysis and comment on it, I would first attempt to list all the events described and assign (x, y, z, t) coordinates to each. This is too damn much work to do for free. Now SR claims that the interval between two events is the same for all observers. This is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation developed to explain the results of the Michaelson-Morley experiment. Classical physics assumes absolute space & time, using the Galilean transformation when changing from one reference frame to another. All the experimental evidence supports the Lorentz transformation and the SR point of view rather than the Galilean Transformation and the classical point of view. Two observers in different inertial reference frames will always agree on the interval between two events. Due to this agreement, the interval should be considered a real quantity. Note that the first three terms in the formula for defining the interval is the square of the distance between the events, while the fourth term is the square of the time difference. SR claims that observers in different inertial reference frames disagree about the distance and time between events. Due to this disagreement, the distance between events and the time between them should not be considered real quantities. The above SR claims are supported by much experimental evidence. Saying that the distances and times measured by one observer are real quantities is not a valid statement. Measurements of distance and time must be considered as some sort of illusion no matter who is making the measurements. The Lorentz transformation leads to various counterintuitive conclusions, one of which is that events viewed as simultaneous by one observer are not simultaneous as viewed by another observer. It helps me to consider an analogy between the interval and a 3D object. Our senses and measurements do not directly deal with an interval. They deal with distance and time measurements. Imagine not being able to directly observe a 3D object. Suppose our observations were restricted to viewing 2D shadows of the object. As the object rotated, the shadows would change, although the object remained the same. Similarly, when an interval is viewed from different reference frames, the distance and time measurements would change, although the interval remained the same. The above analogy has helped me and others understand the problems inherent in dealing with SR concepts.
Nothing but misleading and selfserving rhetoric. I state flat out that you assumptions (those of SRT) are baseless and are easily shown false. Using mathematics based on false assumptions only leads to false conclusions and predictions. Don't come back with the nonsense about the thousands of proofs in experiments. Those experiments are one way gamma calculation under special conditions, which can be replicated using my three frame referance system. The differance is that the inherent and advocated reciproicty in SRT (which has never been observed nor recorded in 100 years in any experiment) is prohibited in the three point (frame) system. To assume there are only two views A and B is the falicy. The universe has other points of referance which can and must be used to properly predict the physical consequences of motion. If you disagree and continue to claim SRT is valid you are obligated to show us at least one case of recorded reciprocity, or to give a clear and concise method whereby you can cause two clock to accumulated less time than each other due to their motion. If you disagree you are obligated to explain why given a case where A and B clocks have a relative velocity of 0.866c the predicted gamma = 2.000 does not exist but a gamma of 1.000 does exist between such clocks.
I was waiting for you to state this. I really am familiar with how relativity of simultaneity is said to work in STR. In my previous post, I brought up the question of 'time' AFTER the distance calculations were subtracted. The light from one event takes longer to reach the airplane than from the other event. Calculate the light from each event separately, corresponding to the different distances traveled by light from each event and they can be said to arrive at the plane 'at the same time'. That 'time' may be different than on the watches of the typer and sipper's watches if all the watches were synchronized earlier. I mean a certain 'time' like 1:00pm. However, the watches can be synchronized in 'beat' so they will all agree as to when the two events occured. I realize STR says this cannot be done, that relativity of simultaneity will prevent the two events from occuring at precisely the same instant in time on all three watches. But remember GPS? Signals, the same thing as your event signals, are broadcast from satellites to single GPS receiver on the ground, which moves with the rotation of the Earth relative to the satellite. The GPS receiver, corresponding to your plane, will time the transit of the signals to determine its location from trilateralization. To do this, the GPS receiver has to know exactly where each of the satellites were at an exact moment in time, all three satellites. The fourth satellite is used to get all clocks in synch. The loss of simultaneity is nothing more than a clock synch error which accumulates over a time period, thus my question of establishing a 'time period' beginning earlier in the exercise. If all three clocks are not given a 'time period' to drift out of synch, then it is not improper to assume the clocks just started ticking at the moment of the events. Remember, GPS delivers precise time to locations all over the world from relatively moving satellites. The radio telescope at Arecibo used GPS time signals to establish the timing rate of a Pulsar recently.
Welcome. Let me suggest you ignore the posters that like to cast innuendo at others they disagree with. The issue of "Reciprocity" is of paramount importance in that it clearly shows SRT to be false. It is caused by the assumption that the universe consists of only to frames of referance. Clocks A and B. According to SRT (and Einstien) if these clocks have an inertial relative velocity, neither can sense their own motion and that all motion is relative that there is no such thing as velocity except relative velocity. On the one hand he is partially correct. The only motion we can sense is relative velocity. The stupid error was to assume that because we can't sense it it doesn't exist. The reality seems to be that absolute velocity does exist and does affect clocks. We just cannot sense or measure it and have no way of knowing what an absolute velocity is yet. Based on the false idea that not being able to measure ones own absolute velocity means he can declare himself as being at rest and that it is the other that has all velocity creating the issue of reciprocity. That is if A says I am at rest and B therefore has a relative velocity of 0.866c, his clock will be dilated by a gamma = 2.000 and will only accumulate time at one half the rate of my clock. The reciprocity is that Einstien also claimed that it was equally valid for B to take the same position and claim to be at rest and that it was A that had all velocity and hence A would be dilated by a gamma = 2.000 and will accumulate only one half as much time as B. That is reciprocity. A = 0.5 B B = 0.5 A They want to claim it is merely "Counter Intuitive". I claim it is physically impossible and simply nonsense. I prove this with the following example. Given A and B have a relative velocity of 0.866c, what is the gamma between them and what is the tick rates of the clocks? If you accept SRT you would get the answer above each has a gamma = 2.000 relative to the other and each will only run half as fast as the other. However, If you now stipulate that the 0.866c relative velocity was actually created by accelerating A and B in opposite directions from a common initial rest point C, with equal rates and durations such that A has a -0.433c velocity and B has a +0.433c velocity to "C" (Velocity Addition excluded for simplification). They "Mutually Dilate" relative to C with a gamma = 1.109 such that they both remain in synch (actual gamma = 1.000, not 2.000) and each accumulates time at about 90% the rate of clock C, even though they still have a relative velocity of 0.866c between them - NO Dilation between them occurs. So take what these people tell you with several grains of salt. SRT is nonsense.
Your post can be interpreted in two opposite ways. I'll only point out that I have no recollection of discussing UniKEF with you at all.
MacM: Still more descriptions based on classical physics notions. Intuitively very valid. Actually invalid. Always the natural language descriptions, never any formal mathematics. Just as an excercise, Try to describe your concepts using (x, y, z, t) coordinates for all of the events. Do not worry about the Lorentz transformation or relativity concepts. Just describe all events from the point of view of a single reference frame assigning (x, y, z, t) coordinates. You might discover how much effort is involved in doing real physics as contrasted with whatever you think you are doing when you claim to have discovered flaws in SR.
Rhetoric. You cannot prove a theory by citing the theory. You must look beyond it and at practical physical principles. Now address the A, B, C issue. How do you justifiy claiming SRT valid when two clocks with 0.866c relative velocity can a gamma of 1.000 (or any number) upto 2.000? Relative velocity in absence of a third point of view is unsupportable.
2inquisitive and geistkiesel: You both made the same mistake. My post about simultaneity did not involve any signalling delays. The relativity of simultaneity exists after such delays have been factored out. There is a common-sense meaning to the word "simultaneous", which people use all the time, and the usage is no different when you're talking about relativity. Suppose the Pope dies at 6 am Rome time. Where you live, the "same time" corresponds to, say, 7 pm. At 7 pm your time you were watching the evening news on TV. Would you say that the Pope dying and you watching the news happened simultaneously? I think you would, even though it might take light a few milliseconds to travel from Rome to where you are. Imagine you lived on Jupiter. There would be a one-hour delay for the news to get from Rome to Jupiter by radio signal. If you heard the news on Jupiter at 7 am (assuming your Jupiter clock was set to Rome time), what time would you say the Pope died? 6 am or 7 am, Rome time? You'd say 6 am, since you'd know that light took 1 hour to reach you from Earth, and you'd factor that out. For you, events in Rome which happened at 6 am happened simultaneously with events on your personal clock which happened at 5 am your time. The fact that you get to know about an event later doesn't affect when it happened, does it? But in my last post, I was talking about the relativity of simultaneity which exists after you've factored out any signalling delays. Back to the news from Rome. Imagine a spaceship is on route from Earth to Jupiter as the news of the Pope's death is travelling from Earth to Jupiter. The spaceship knows how far it is from Earth, and can subtract off the signalling delay the same way you did at Jupiter. But, even after doing that, according to the spaceship, the Pope's death at 6 am Rome time (on Earth) did not happen simultaneously with your Jupiter clock ticking over to 5 am. In fact, according to the spaceship, the Pope died at a time when the Jupiter clock was reading a time after 5 am, and the exact time depends on the spaceship's speed. And THAT is the effect I'm talking about.
by James R: "And THAT is the effect I'm talking about." ============================================================== Perhaps I wasn't clear in my post, but I am very much aware of signaling delays. I am not making that mistake. AFTER the signaling delays are factered out, what is left? From my above post: "The loss of simultaneity is nothing more than a clock synch error which accumulates over a time period, thus my question of establishing a 'time period' beginning earlier in the exercise. If all three clocks are not given a 'time period' to drift out of synch, then it is not improper to assume the clocks just started ticking at the moment of the events." This is what is left after the signal delays, different for each event unless the plane observer is exactly midpoint between the ground events, are factored out. The clocks on the ground are seen by the plane observer to beat slower than his. The plane's clock accumulates time at a faster rate than the ground clocks from his frame of reference. That is what leads to the loss of simultaneity, the clocks will read a different time after once being synchronized in time, but not tick rates, at some prior point. If all clocks are synchronized in time and tick rates, there will be no loss of simultaneity AFTER the different transit delays in signal propagation are factored out.
Does this mean, the plane observer can "see" the 2 wrist watches worn by the typer would not show the same time?
