Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 10:00:49 -0400
"Non Ame" <noname@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:daomai$2fbf$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "sue jahn" <susysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >"Non Ame" <noname@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:d8k7km$1i6u$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >>
> >> ><<Your argument has done nothing to
> >> >invalidate relativity of simultaneity. >>
> >>
> >> >It doesn't need to. Einsten does that for us:
> >>
> >> I note that you did not try to invalidate my proof. And the fact is that
> >> there was nothing wrong with my proof.
> >>
> >> ><< Observers who take the railway train as their
> >> >reference-body
>
> >[won't live to conclude because the first step is a doozy]
>
> Whatever that means. It looks like you are trying to distract from the
> point at hand.
>
> > >> must therefore come to the conclusion that the
> >> >lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A.
> >> >We thus arrive at the important result:
> >> > Events which are simultaneous with reference to the
> >> >embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train,
> >> >and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). >>
> >> >http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
> >>
> >> >Observers won't reach the conclusion that Einstein claims
> >> >if they are good physicists and they correct for the the paths'
> >> >unequal lengths
> >>
> >> Since the paths are not of equal length, then light will take different
> >> amounts of time to reach the platform observer, in the frame of the train.
> >>
> >> But in the case that Einstein was discussing above, he noted that the
> >> flash from B reached the midpoint of the train before the flash from A.
> >> Since the flashes from A and B originate at equal distances from the
> >> midpoint of the train, in the frame of the train, then they take the same
> >> amount if time in transit to the midpoint of the train, in the frame of
> >> the train, and so the flash at B took place before the flash at A.
> >> Working in the frame of the train, no other conclusion is possible. In
> >> your comment of "paths' unequal lengths" above, you are asserting that
> >> there is something wrong with taking the train's frame of reference, but
> >> you haven't told us what is wrong.
> >>
> >> >or if they are doubters and they test fhe
> >> >paths for equal length with a simple ballistic experiment.
> >>
> >> You look like you have assumed that the frame of the embankment holds a
> >> special significance that the frame of the embankment does not. This
> >> assumption is inconsistent with relativity. In making such an assumption,
> >> you have completely invalidated any "proof" of inconsistency of relativity
> >> that you come up with. This is because the assumption itself could be
> >> wrong, and it could be the falsity of the assumption which leads to the
> >> "proof" of inconsistency. A proof of inconsistency of relativity must be
> >> made WITHIN the theory of relativity. Introducing assumptions that are
> >> OUTSIDE relativity can never lead to any demonstration of inconsistency.
> >>
> >> >Einsten's "natural definition of simultaneity" :
> >>
> >> ><<But we have just seen that this assumption is incompatible
> >> >with the most natural definition of simultaneity; >>
> >>
> >> >is not necessarily a *valid* notion of simultaneity. The mid-point
> >> >collision of two equally accelerated projectile is valid and it works
> >> >for all all speeds and will be seen as a midpoint collision by all
> >> >observers.
> >>
> >> WRONG!!!!! The projectiles must also start simultaneously at equal and
> >> opposite velocities relative to the observer
>
> >The first A bomb did this with equal length cables. It should still work.
>
> And you are ignoring features like the relation between the initial
> velocities. It only requires simple mathematics to derive the fact that
> is stated above. If the fact is beyond you, then that proves that your
> mathematics is insufficient.
>
> >(so that they are travelling
> >> with equal and opposite velocities when they collide) in order for this to
> >> work. A counterexample to your assertion that it will be seen as a
> >> midpoint collision if this initial condition is not met is trivial to
> >> construct. It is impossible to guarantee that they start simultaneously
> >> at equal and opposite velocities for all observers, so your definition
> >> ends up being worthless. Try again.
> >>
> >> >The argument for independent notion of time is not a valid argument
> >> >when based on the obviously flawed comparison of events viewed
> >> >over unequal path lenths.
> >>
> >> The path lengths are EQUAL in the frame of the train. The front half of
> >> the train and the back half of the train have equal lengths.
>
> >Boxcars don't look the same as flatcars.
> >Fizeau's moving media experiment.
>
> The set-up requires the observer on the train to be half way between the
> front and the back of the train. Show me where it is not required.
>
> >>> The
> >> postulates of relativity are very explicit about what happens in such
> >> a case. If your brain can't handle it, then find some other topic that
> >> it *can* comprehend.
>
> >Relativity of simultaneity is not necessary to resolve the postulates
> >and the first one should be taken with a grain of salt when Coulomb
> >force is considered just as you exempt gravity in some cases.
>
> Maxwell's Equations are invariant under the Lorentz Transformations.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
> That fact seems to have escaped you. Coulomb's law does not need
> to be invariant, since it is a statement specifically in the frame
> of reference in which the charges are stationary. Once again,
> your lack of knowledge has betrayed you.
>
> >> >A spear fisherman gets his lunch by correcting for the refraction of
> >> >the water's surface... not by lecturing to the fish. ;-)
> >>
> >> Irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is your inability to understand
> >> relativity.
>
> >Special Relativiy is not something you "understand" it is something you
> >"participate" in. Real clocks don't go as they are judged over non-zero
> >length paths. So your participation is required.
>
> And this is presumably the reason why you wrongly believe that an
> understanding of relativity is unnecessary. That belief presumably
> also bolsters you in the fact that presumably the requisite understanding
> is beyond you.
>
> -*-*-*-
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Non Ame
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- References:
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- From: Non Ame
- Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Prev by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Next by Date: Re: Question about light clock and derivation of time dilation
- Previous by thread: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Next by thread: Re: relativity of simultaneity - real or perceived?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
