The Relativity of Simultaneity

Oh, okay. I thought you were implying that you could detect motion by measuring torque in a drive shaft.

Anyway, do you agree that the red times shown in my Embankment drawings match the times you calculate using your method?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

MotorDaddy's basic premise is that there is an absolute frame of reference.

If you can't accept that, you don't belong in MD's non-reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I posted this in another thread, but I thought it was appropriate for this thread too, because it is in fact impossible to violate causality by traveling faster than the speed of light. As a matter of fact, if you could travel a hundred billion times faster than the speed of light you could not violate causality.

 

I saw that on the other thread and thought it was well said. Did you write it?

It does apply to this topic but does not in anyway refute the soundness of the math of SR. Light itself always travels at c and you are basing your postulate on that fact. Would you address if your postulate agrees with the first postulate of SR:

1. First postulate (principle of relativity)
The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion.

In other words the laws of physics work the same from all perspectives of motion, i.e. in all inertial frames of reference.

 

Yes, I wrote it.

"Undergo change" compared to what?

 

Well said.

Under go change follows from the laws that can affect objects. In this context I consider that to refer to changes in motion which translates to a change in perspective, also referred to as a change in frame of reference.

 

Thanks. My point is that no matter how fast you travel you can't break causality. It is impossible to go back in time because the clock keeps ticking no matter how fast you travel. The person traveling in that example started his journey in the year 2011 where he was. It was also the year 2011 on the star, as the light was originally emitted in the year 1911, and arrived at his position in the year 2011. So the light traveled for 100 years at the rate of c, which means the distance the light traveled was 100 light years, and it was the year 2011 on the star when the light arrived at the travelers start position. So it was 2011 at both positions (perfectly synchronized clocks) when the traveler started his journey. NO MATTER HOW FAST THE TRAVELER TRAVELED, HE COULD NOT GET TO THE STAR IN ZERO TIME OR LESS, AS IT TAKES TIME TO TRAVEL!

Einstein's sync method is bogus!

 

But we use it with the GPS system. The GPS system is bogus (??)

Actually, it's bogus for a moron who doesn't understand what a rest frame is, or what "at rest" really means, to say that Einstein's method is bogus.

You are a moron. Therefore your claim is bogus. It doesn't even make sense.
How does the fact it takes time to travel mean synchronisation is bogus? That's ridiculous. You are ridiculous.

You keep coming out with totally incongruent objections, that only demonstrate your misunderstanding of Einstein's theory. Yet you keep claiming he's wrong; you don't even know what he was wrong about so you just make shit up.

You're a total fuckwit.

Yuh huh.

 

Pretty interesting.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/CMS-en.html

I guess you are a professional undeclared cult member. Or is that a professional undeclared non-cult member, lol.

 

I know you don't believe in it, but Relativity predicts there could be a violation of causality if information is sent faster than the speed of light.
Consider the following diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Let's say that at time 3.732 an instantaneous transmission of information is sent from the back of the train to the front of the train.
As you can see in the diagram, the train clock at the rear of the train says time 2.732 and train clock at the front of the train says time 1.000.

What would this look like in the train's own frame?
At the time the signal was received at the front of the train, it would look like the third frame in this diagram:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

So the information would be being received at a time when all clocks in the train say time 1.000.
Yet, the signal would not be sent until time 2.732, which is a full 1.732 seconds later.
Thus, the signal would be received before it was sent.
Hence, this type of information transfer represents a violation of causality.

 

You could be making the mistaken assumption that MD understands what causality is.
Or that he's prepared to consider any information that doesn't fit his moron model.

 

That's just an indication that Einstein's SR and his clock sync method is wrong, that is not a reality!

It is impossible for travel to occur instantaneously.

Again, Einstein's faulty clock sync method causes this problem.


Address my scenario that I showed traveling at 2c to a star 100 light years away, and then we can talk. It is only possible in Einstein's world to cause a violation of causality due to his inaccurate methods. In reality, if you could travel 100 million times faster than the speed of light, you could NOT cause a causality violation. You can not go back in time!

Einstein's methods cause all kinds of paradoxical illusions due to his faulty ways.

My method has none of that garbage because it is correct.

 

Good point, I might as well spell out what causality is, just in case. The "sending" of the information was the primary cause of the "receiving" of the information. If the information is received before it is sent, then the information is being received without any primary cause. Or, looking at it another way: If the information is received at time 1.000 but it is will not be sent until later at time 2.732 then it would be possible for the sender to decide not to send the information at all, even though it had already been received.

Are you getting all this, MD?

I know that he is very, very, resistant to considering anything that doesn't fit his model. In the occasional rare case where he does consider such a thing, he soon abandons that line of thought, and returns to his bold claims. It does not seem to bother him when his claims do not match reality, because he just rejects the reality. I don't know how he does it.

 

Again, if you want to talk, address my scenario.

Should I make it 100 times the speed of light and see what happens???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

But his method can explain why light takes exactly 1/299,792,458 second to travel the length of a 90% platinum metre stick on earth. Your method cannot explain this at all.

I used an instantaneous travel time in my example, but I didn't have to. Look at my diagram. The clock at the rear of the train says time 2.732 and the clock at the front of the train says time 1.000. So let the information require .001 seconds to travel the length of the train. The information is sent at time 2.732 and received at time 1.001. The information still has to arrive before it was sent, according to the train frame.

You can't blame it on the synch method. Einstein would get the same results if he used YOUR synch method. If the two clocks on the train are started by pulling strings, they will both start simultaneously in the train frame. (Notice that the train-clocks are all synchronized to each other, according to my Train Frame diagrams.) But in the embankment frame, the two strings do not start the clocks at the same time, because of the relativity of simultaneity. Another thing you don't believe in.

What's the point? If I address it by telling you how relativity works, you'll just say relativity is wrong. If I address it by using your method, I'd probably just agree with you.

But it cannot be correct if it cannot explain why light takes exactly 1/299,792,458 second to travel the length of a 90% platinum meter stick on earth.

 

Tell you what. I'll give you a stick of unknown length and you tell me how much time it takes for light to travel each way along the stick. Stop trying to BS everyone. Light takes more or less time to travel the length of a meter in motion. The meter was in motion on the earth, so please, save the BS.

The problem you represent is a problem created by Einstein's methods. If his methods were correct, like mine are, there would be no paradoxical BS!

You understand my method, run the numbers using my method and see if there is a problem. Ned, just admit it's Einstein's incorrect method that causes the problem. It is not a reality.

Right. My method doesn't stumble and start talking crazy talk at the speed of light, it just resumes as peaceful as can be, at any speed!

BS! Measure the time of light travel of an unknown length of stick and get back to me.

 

The 90% platinum metre stick was not in motion relative to the reference frame in which it was measured. So the light travel time is the same in both directions, just like my Train Frame diagrams show.

If the 90% platinum metre stick had been moving when they tried to measure it, the light travel times would not be the same in both directions, just like my Embankment Frame diagrams show.

Your method is compatible with certain parts of my diagrams. The red times in the Embankment Frame diagrams match your calculations. Why don't you go back and take a look at them?

 

I don't live in Einstein's world, I live in mine. My world doesn't have paradoxical nonsense. You admitting that Einstein's world has causality violations is admitting to an error in his method, as in the real world, it is impossible to violate causality.

His sync method is not of an absolute sync where the two clocks read as one. That causes the problems.

Pay attention, James, I am talking about the scenario with the traveler traveling to the star at the rate of 2c.

I asked you repeatedly to respond to my acceleration diagram or create one to show me you can use SR and acceleration like you claimed you could.

You never gave me numbers in SR of my train and embankment scenario in which both were in motion. You are simply dodging the questions and then pretending I owe you something. Answer the questions before I respond to yours, James. You are boring me with your one line responses which lack substance.

Like causing causality violations by traveling faster than light, for example.

My method doesn't have problems at speeds above c.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!