Re: Proof That OWLS is Source Dependent.

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 12/30/04 

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:34:55 GMT

On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:10:32 +0000, JP <jp@nospam.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 19:48:27 +0000, kenseto wrote:
>
>>
>> "JP" <jp@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.12.29.20.35.55.887411@nospam.com...
>>> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:13:32 -0500, jahn wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > "JP" <jp@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2004.12.28.22.46.07.936280@nospam.com...
>>> >> On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:08:31 +0000, H wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > Consider this experiment.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > v<-A--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--
>>> >> > T
>>> >> > ->vB--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--c--
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A and B are two light sources that are moving in opposite directions
>> with
>>> >> > velocity v, relative to target, T.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Both have long rods attached with regularly spaced and pre-synched
>> clocks. Each
>>> >> > clock records the arrival times of light pulses emitted by the
>> corresponding
>>> >> > source, A and B.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > A and B are moving in the same line at the same speed in opposite
>> directions
>>> >> > wrt T. (This makes any claimed 'relativistic clock slowing' equal for
>> both A
>>> >> > and B)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > When A and B are adjacent, they each emit a light pulse. According to
>> both SR
>>> >> > and the ballistic theory, light from each source should move along
>> its
>>> >> > corresponding rod at c. Therefore the nth clock on each rod should
>> record the
>>> >> > same arrival times for its corresponding pulse.
>>> >>
>>> >> According to whom?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But clearly, when the mth clock on A's rod passes T, the mth clock on
>> B's rod
>>> >> > will be nowhere near T.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Consequently is must be concluded that the pulses from A and B DO NOT
>> and
>>> >> > CANNOT reach T at the same instant.
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >> FALSE. There is no such thing as absolute simultaneity. You make this
>>> >> claim repeatedly and it falls at the same problem.
>>> >
>>> > If two equal cannon fire such that their projectiles collide
>>> > midway between the muzzles, what is the word you use
>>> > to describe the timing relatioship of their firing pulses?
>>> >
>>> > Sue...
>>>
>>> It's only simultaneous to an observer at rest next to the point of impact.
>>> Any observer in motion relative to that point would measure one shell
>>> going faster than the other and the firing of the cannon would not be
>>> simultaneous from that moving observer's point of view.
>>
>> This is true with ballistic theory. It is not true with light or with SR. In
>> SR the speed of light is isotropic and therefore the moving observer will
>> also see the events to be simultaneous. Einstein derived his concept of
>> relativity of simultaneity by making the following bogus assertions: He said
>> that the train observer is rushing to meet the light ray from the front of
>> the train and receding away from the light ray from the rear of the train
>> and thus he (the train observer) see the lightning strikes to be not
>> simultaneous. The gedanken is analyzed correctly as follows: When the
>> lightnings strike simultaneously the train observer is at equal distance
>> from the strikes. The speed of light in the train is isotropic and therefore
>> the train observer will also see the strikes to be simultaneous. However,
>> the light path length in the train is longer then the light path length in
>> the track and therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be
>> simultaneous at a later time as follows:
>> T_train=T_track*gamma
>> T_train=the time interval when the train observer sees the strikes to be
>> simultaneous.
>> T-track=the time interval when the track observer sees the strikes to be
>> simultaneous.
>>>
>>> So once again, there is no abosulte simultaneity between firing events.
>>
>> So once again there IS absolute simultaneity.:-)
>>
>> Ken Seto
>
>There is a reason why you're widely killfiled, Ken. But you haven't worked
>it out yet.

Ken may say some strange things but overall he makes more sense that any SRian.

If the middle of the train was determined using light instead of rods, the
whole experiment would fall apart.

HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Proof That OWLS is Source Dependent.
    ... >> If two equal cannon fire such that their projectiles collide ... and thus he (the train observer) see the lightning strikes to be not ... there is no abosulte simultaneity between firing events. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proof That OWLS is Source Dependent.
    ... >> lightnings strike simultaneously the train observer is at equal distance ... >> the train observer will also see the strikes to be simultaneous. ... >> Ken Seto ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Proof That OWLS is Source Dependent.
    ... > and thus he (the train observer) see the lightning strikes to be not ... there is no abosulte simultaneity between firing events. ... > Ken Seto ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast