Seedling
Well-Known Member
So which is it, Teach?
The direction of the big bang
- Thread starter high|hgih
- Start date
So which is it, Teach?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
So when called out about your song and dance, you respond with more song and dance. The MM experiments falsify your theory and you have no defense other than to double down on stubbornness. You are starting to sound like a child who thinks repeating his position louder and louder makes him more and more correct. You obviously have not reconciled the legacy of MM experiments with your views because you were ignorant of them. Either that, or you were disingenuous when suggesting the experiment could be flawed. Your recourse is to attack the very method you used for defense a few posts ago. You seem confused and biased.
You have now crossed over into special pleading. Science is too lame to accept your point, yet it's science you use to demonstrate it. Science makes room for new ideas even if they change old views; something you are not willing to do apparently. Science has not overlooked your theory, it's discounted it through rigorous testing. Science is willing to believe your are right, you have simply failed to provide convincing evidence. Where are the experiments which demonstrate your views in the real world? How would your theory falsify the experiments which rule it out? The MM experiments give any rational person the conviction they need to favor SR, you are unable to explain why they shouldn't other than to cast ambiguous doubt and to belittle science. This is not a defense of your position but an attack on opposition. You are not challenging any views, you are denying them.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
It's obviously A. When I say that I throw a ball at x velocity it is implied that I mean x speed relative to my own. I am standing on a train not moving. If I throw a ball straight up in the air, it comes straight back down to me. You would see the ball go up, and also continue moving forward at 50 mph, then descending back down to me. If I throw the ball forward, then you will see the ball moving at the speed I throw it, plus the speed I am moving relative to you. If I face the back of the train and throw it 50mph (from my frame) then you will see the ball drop straight down.
My whole point with this example is that this stuff seems very elementary and intuitive. And this stuff is accurate for the speeds we are talking because at such low velocities relative to the speed of light the 1-(v/c)^2 term approaches 0. For very fast moving objects though this intuition is NOT true. Say I have a gun that shoots a bullet at 0.5c, and I am riding on a train that is going .9c according to your measurements. I fire my gun from the front of the train (in the same direction me/train is traveling). How fast do YOU see the bullet traveling?
Intuition tells you that it will be 0.5c + 0.9c = 1.4c because that works for baseballs and trains and cars and everything we experience in regular life. That is not the case though. You will measure the bullet going faster than 0.9c, but less than 1c. I will measure the bullet as traveling 0.5c away from me though.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
There were two light sphere's emitted. The point at which they meet is the half way point between the point of origin of each light sphere. The radius of the light spheres are the same when they meet. The radius of the light sphere is inseparable from the time of light travel, by definition.
Since the man on the platform was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit him, that means he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since he had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit him at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and he is correct to state so. The train observer failed to acknowledge that the tracks are at an absolute zero velocity and the train was in relative motion to the tracks, which means the train has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the forward light sphere was less than the radius of the rearward light sphere when they impacted the train observer at the center position of the train at different times. So lesson to be learned here, don't make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' girl made a fool of herself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. She is living in a world of illusions because she doesn't know her absolute velocity and she is making judgements about simultaneity.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Then make it clear what your point is. You give a vague description as to obscure your true meaning and try to sway people into a train of thought, and then you switch the concept with later clarification. The only real problem is that you didn't explain your position well enough and created confusion.
So what is your point then? The ball is traveling 100 MPH along the tracks and you are traveling 50 MPH along the tracks. That means before you threw the ball the ball was traveling 50 MPH along the tracks and you were traveling 50 MPG along the tracks. You accelerated the ball's initial velocity from 50 MPH to 100 MPH when you threw the ball. What is your point, now that I have made you clarify your statement so as to be no confusion?
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Wait a minute there professor. Slow your roll.
Since he had a zero velocity in space
wait, how do you know he had zero velocity? The video just said he was standing on a platform. How do you know the train is not at zero velocity and the earth and tracks and platform are traveling?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Because he was at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred, and the lights hit him at the same time. That means light traveled the same distance to get to him, which means light traveled the same time to get to him, and since the lights hit him simultaneously that means the strikes occurred simultaneously. The only possible way that the embankment observer could have been equal distance from where the strikes occurred, the light traveling the same distance to reach him, and the light hit him at the same time, is that he had an absolute zero velocity in space. Each light sphere had the same radius when they hit him simultaneously.
This is simply Chapter 9 which I mentioned much earlier in this thread. http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Lets flip it and go from her perspective. A woman is sitting in the middle of a train. The ground (including the tracks and platform) appear to be moving at some velocity. Right as she moves past the observer on the platform she sees simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and rear of the train. She is equal distance from both strikes, and saw them both at the same time, therefore she concludes they were simultaneous.
She predicts her friend on the platform will have a different view. Since the strikes happened simultaneously, and equal distance from him, he will continue to travel along with the ground and the tracks, all getting pulled toward the rear of the train. Therefore he will be pulled toward the rear strike and away from the front strike. Therefore he will see the rear strike before the front strike.
Since the woman on the train was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit her, that means she had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since she had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit her at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and she is correct to state so. The platform observer failed to acknowledge that the train ise at an absolute zero velocity and the tracks/ground/platform was in relative motion to the train, which means the tracks/ground/platform has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the rear light sphere was less than the radius of the front light sphere when they impacted the platform observer at the center position of the platform. So lesson to be learned here, don;t make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' man made a fool of himself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. He is living in a world of illusions because he doesn't know his absolute velocity and he is making judgements about simultaneity.
She predicts her friend on the platform will have a different view. Since the strikes happened simultaneously, and equal distance from him, he will continue to travel along with the ground and the tracks, all getting pulled toward the rear of the train. Therefore he will be pulled toward the rear strike and away from the front strike. Therefore he will see the rear strike before the front strike.
Since the woman on the train was at the halfway point between where the strikes occurred, and the light spheres simultaneously hit her, that means she had an absolute zero velocity in space. Since she had a zero velocity in space and the lights hit her at the same time, that can only mean one thing, that the strikes occurred simultaneously, and she is correct to state so. The platform observer failed to acknowledge that the train ise at an absolute zero velocity and the tracks/ground/platform was in relative motion to the train, which means the tracks/ground/platform has an absolute velocity greater than zero. That means since the strikes occurred simultaneously that the radius of the rear light sphere was less than the radius of the front light sphere when they impacted the platform observer at the center position of the platform. So lesson to be learned here, don;t make statements about simultaneity unless you know your frame's absolute velocity. The ol' man made a fool of himself thinking the strikes occurred at different times. He is living in a world of illusions because he doesn't know his absolute velocity and he is making judgements about simultaneity.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Seedling
Well-Known Member
You didn't use the same scenario from her perspective you created a different scenario. In the original scenario the woman on the train was struck by the lights at different times. That is reality. She was not struck by the light simultaneously in the original scenario, so it wasn't a change of perspective you illustrated in the "flip," it was a entirely different scenario.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Yes, the youtube video already showed both POV for the scenario. I presented an entirely different scenario. Who is correct in the second scenario? Did the lighting strikes indeed occur simultaneously? She thinks they did, he thinks they didn't.
EDIT: To clarify what I meant by "Lets flip it and go from her perspective" Is I meant let's pretend we are her, sitting in a train, and we see simultaneous lighting strikes.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
Good, so you understand your mistake. Now do you understand that in the second scenario it is the woman on the train that has the absolute zero velocity and is correct about the simultaneity of the strikes, and the platform observer is clueless as to the simultaneity (or lack thereof) of the strikes? So what you have learned is that it is utterly foolish to make assumptions about the simultaneity of events unless you first know your absolute velocity, because a light sphere is a clock, for all intent and purposes. Furthermore, you've also learned that the relativity of simultaneity is complete nonsense, that it only exists in the mind of people that don't have a clue as to their absolute velocities and make incorrect statements about simultaneity or lack thereof.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Ok so lets go with a third scenario. It combines both of these scenarios. We will call them scenario A (youtube vid) and scenario B (my example).
The train passenger does not know if she is moving, or if the ground is moving. She doesn't know and cannot tell. It appears that the ground is moving past her.
The observer on the platform does not know if he is moving, or if the train is moving. He cannot tell. It appears to him that the train is moving past him though.
I have not made any definite statements about any velocity other than each observer thinks they are at absolute rest.
Train passes observer on platform and scenario A happens. Man on the platform thinks strikes are simultaneous. Woman in train thinks they were not simultaneous.
At this point the platform observer runs faster than the train and stops at the next platform.
Train passes observer on platform and scenario B happens. The woman thinks THESE strikes are simultaneous, and the man thinks they were not.
Which strikes were in fact simultaneous? The first set? or second? Who has the zero velocity reference frame, and why?
The train passenger does not know if she is moving, or if the ground is moving. She doesn't know and cannot tell. It appears that the ground is moving past her.
The observer on the platform does not know if he is moving, or if the train is moving. He cannot tell. It appears to him that the train is moving past him though.
I have not made any definite statements about any velocity other than each observer thinks they are at absolute rest.
Train passes observer on platform and scenario A happens. Man on the platform thinks strikes are simultaneous. Woman in train thinks they were not simultaneous.
At this point the platform observer runs faster than the train and stops at the next platform.
Train passes observer on platform and scenario B happens. The woman thinks THESE strikes are simultaneous, and the man thinks they were not.
Which strikes were in fact simultaneous? The first set? or second? Who has the zero velocity reference frame, and why?
Seedling
Well-Known Member
In scenario A the embankment observer was at an absolute zero velocity. He is correct to state that the strikes occurred simultaneously. After the strikes hit him simultaneously he runs to the next platform and gets there before the train. When he started to run he accelerated to a velocity greater than zero, and when he stopped at the next station he decelerated back to a zero velocity. He is once again at an absolute zero velocity. In scenario B the woman is struck by the light simultaneously and the man is not. The man is at an absolute zero velocity, and he is at the midpoint between where the strikes occurred. He knows the radius of each light sphere when it hits him. When the first one hits him he knows the time the strike originally occurred due to the radius acting as a clock. He then gets struck by the other light sphere a duration of time later, which also had the same radius as the first one. So he does a little simple math and KNOWS that the strikes occurred at different times, and he knows how far light traveled for each strike to reach him, and he knows the duration of time in between strikes. He has it all figured out, because he knew his absolute velocity. The woman, however, still not knowing her own velocity still has no business making statements as to the simultaneity or lack thereof of the strikes. Even though the lights hit her at the same time on the train, she still does not know if the strikes occurred simultaneously and she had a zero velocity, or if she had a velocity and the strikes occurred at different times. We know the truth, that the embankment is at a zero velocity and the train is in relative motion to the embankment, so the train must posses a velocity greater than zero. Since the train posses that velocity, and the woman was struck by the lights simultaneously, then for certain the strikes did NOT occur simultaneously, and the embankment observer is correct once again.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Wait, how do you know this? I've already asked you once. This was your reply:
Now can the women on the train not make the exact same argument?
In scenario B (the second set of strikes)
She is midway between the front and back of the train. She observes simultaneous lighting strikes at the front and back. She is equal distance from both front and back, so she concludes that SHE is the one at absolute rest. She never accelerated or decelerated, therefore she has always been at absolute rest.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Seriously, go back and reread chapter 9. You do not understand what it is saying.
Seedling
Well-Known Member
In chapter 9 there is only one point in time that the marks align and the strikes occur. It is 100% correct to say that it is impossible for 2 strikes to occur at different times if they both occurred when the marks where aligned. Einstein himself set up the scenario with the tracks having an absolute zero velocity, and he didn't seem to realize it, or he did realize it and tried to pass it off as legit, take your pick.
Pic from Chapter 9. The Relativity of Simultaneity. Einstein, Albert. 1920. Relativity: The Special and General Theory http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Go read it again, you still don't comprehend it. Only the guy on the platform agrees that all the marks were lined up and lighting struck all at the same time. The person on the train sees it differently.
Going with the nomenclature of chapter 9, lets say on the embankment the strikes occur at A and B. The man is standing in the middle at point M. The train we will say the strikes occur at A' and B', and the center of the train where the lady is is M'.
According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when A' passes A.
According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when B' passes B.
The man thinks both of these events happened simultaneously. That is what he sees. He sees M' passing him, and he sees both strikes of lighiting. He knows A->M = M->B, and c is constant, therefore both strikes must have occurred simultaneously.
The lady in the train thinks they were sequential. That is what she sees. She shes a strike at the the front when A' passes A, then a strike at the back when B' passes B. She knows A'->M' = M'->B', and c is constant, therefore one strikes must have occurred first.
Going with the nomenclature of chapter 9, lets say on the embankment the strikes occur at A and B. The man is standing in the middle at point M. The train we will say the strikes occur at A' and B', and the center of the train where the lady is is M'.
According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when A' passes A.
According to everyone's point of view a lighting strike occurs precisely when B' passes B.
The man thinks both of these events happened simultaneously. That is what he sees. He sees M' passing him, and he sees both strikes of lighiting. He knows A->M = M->B, and c is constant, therefore both strikes must have occurred simultaneously.
The lady in the train thinks they were sequential. That is what she sees. She shes a strike at the the front when A' passes A, then a strike at the back when B' passes B. She knows A'->M' = M'->B', and c is constant, therefore one strikes must have occurred first.
Similar threads
