Re: answer to YBM's bell problem

rbwinn a écrit :
Sorry you don't
like where this light is, YBM. The light will meet at the origin of B
at a time of n'=a/c.
Now getting back to the two bells that ring when light from both
directions reaches them, you will notice that from frame of reference
A, the Lorentz equations show only the bell at the origin of A
ringing. According to your rules, the bell at the origin of B will
not ring.
I say both bells will ring.
????!!!!! You'd better think before writing such absurdities...
Explain how the Lorentz equation show the light turning on the bell at
the origin of B as seen by an observer in A. �According to relativity
of simultaneity, the rays of light are not emitted simultaneously in
B. �They do not reach the origin of B at the same time. �By your own
logic, the bell at the origin of B will not ring.
right. The absurdity is "both bells will ring". BTW, explaining why
it is absurd to say that the ring at the origin of B will ring is
not a job for a physicist but for a physician (or psychiatrist).- Hide quoted text -

Well, if you scientists do not believe the Galilean transformation
equations, then there is no way to convince you that the bells ring,

Galilean transformations don't shows that idiocy that both the bells
would ring.

but I will make one more effort. First we consider the two bells from
the frame of reference of A. Light is emitted at -a and a. the light
reaches the origin of A at t=t'=a/c, and the bell at the origin of A
rings. According to t'=t, the light reaches the origin of A at t'=a/c
from both directions. An observer in B using t'=t will observe the
light to reach the origin of A and ring the bell. This was the
interpretation that scientists had of the Galilean transformation
equations until 1887. It is good enough for what we are doing here.
Using t'=t, the observer in B has no way of determining that the bell
at the origin of B will ring.

He has even a way to determine that the ring at the origin of B won't
ring.

Now we will consider the two frames of reference from B. The
Galilean transformation equations for this observation are

x=x'-v't'
y=y'
z=z'
t=t'

B is the frame of reference at rest and A is the frame of
reference in motion. A is moving relative to B with a velocity of
v'=(-v). So now we consider what the light does in each frame of
reference according to these equations. In B, the light from the -a
goes from x'=-a to the origin of B. The light from a goes from x'=a
to the origin of B. The light reaches the origin of B at a time of
t'=a/c, and the bell at the origin of B rings. An observer in A using
a t=t' clock will see the light from both directions reach the origin
of B at t=t'=a/c and will observe the bell in B ring, but has no means
of observing the light reach the clock at the origin of A using t=t',
so will not observe that bell to ring.

This does not describe the same setup : here you've made the two
light rays to travel at speed c in B... BUT the Galilean Transformation
says that if the two light rays travel at speed c in A (which is a
*given* information of the problem I propose) *then* they will
travel at speed c-v and c+v in frame B.

This is the same basic reasoning you are using with the Lorentz
equations. If you can prove that both bells ring from one frame of
reference with the Lorentz equations, I want to see the proof.

How stupid are you ? How many times should I write that :
- SAYING THAT BOTH BELLS WILL RING IS ABSURD WHATEVER TRANSFORMATION
YOU USE !
- LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION DOES NOT PREDICT THAT BOTH BELLS RING !

Otherwise, I say you are just using the same reasoning I used above
with the old interpretation of the Galilean transformation equations.
The only thing I did different was to say that A is a preferred frame
of reference when observed from A, B is a preferred frame of reference
when observed from B. In Galilean ether theory, A was always the
preferred frame of reference.

"Galilean ether theory" ?? What kind of stupidity are you, again,
making up in order to evade how absurd you are ?

All n' does is show that from B, light is observed to meet at the
origin of B.

So two impulsions of light will meet in two distinct places and time,
right ?

Isn't that ... stupid to say the least ?

But, wait a minute, it is even worse than that :

.... v being unspecified, your idiocy that light rays will meet in two
places "origin of A" and "origin of B", it true for any v one could
choose to consider... so, according to you, it's not only at two
different places that the two light rays will meet, but in infinite
number of different places... Just set up an infinite number of
bells at appropriate speed and only two light pulses will be enough
to make them ALL ring.

Stupidity really can be infinite, Einstein was right !


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... the bell at the origin of A rings. ... saying that A won't ring as seen in frame B. ... An observer in B using t'=t will observe the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... will only observe the bell in B to ring. ... You will hear both bells in both frames of reference. ... one at the origin of each frame of reference. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... bell at the origin of S is to ring when light from both ends of the ... similar bell on the train would ring, ... are saying is that if an observer in S' cannot see light from both ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Contraction has been abolished by Special Relativity
    ... beams meet at a fixed event, ... bell at the origin of S is to ring when light from both ends of the ... frame S' the beams will meet at that bell. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: answer to YBMs bell problem
    ... They meet at the origin of B from the point of view of B (so the bell, ... which is NOT at the origin of B at this time, doesn't ring) ... predict, as yours, that it rings in a frame and not in another one. ... For an observer in B, the bell at rest in B rings. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)