A test of absolute motion.

An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock.

1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized.

2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

By your definition of the experiment, and your definition of "absolute velocity", the observer on the train will measure an "absolute velocity" of zero every time, and this result will not change even as you vary the speed of the train.

Gosh, how bored one gets with trains, clocks and light flashes. But let's play the game....
An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock.

1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized.Define " actually". But OK, let's play.


2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint. I can make little sense of this. How can two clocks "appear to the observer as being in sync" and yet read different times? I am lost (perhaps not for the first time)

It seems to me you are claiming that at something called "absolute zero velocity" light signals travel instantaneously? This is implied by your (1) and (2) above


3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.So let me get this straight.

All the above suggests you are claiming that at "absolute rest" light travels faster than light speed, but in "absolute motion" it doesn't?

I suggest a class in logic dear boy

By your definition of the experiment, and your definition of "absolute velocity", the observer on the train will measure an "absolute velocity" of zero every time, and this result will not change even as you vary the speed of the train.

Not so. There are three different situations as I already explained. Do you agree the observer at the midpoint can view each end clock to read the same, but different than his own clock? Do you agree that the midpoint observer can view each end clock to be different from each other, and different from his own clock?

I can make little sense of this. How can two clocks "appear to the observer as being in sync" and yet read different times? I am lost (perhaps not for the first time)

He views the two end clocks as reading the same time, but different than his own clock.



It seems to me you are claiming that at something called "absolute zero velocity" light signals travel instantaneously? This is implied by your (1) and (2) above

Nobody said anything about light traveling instantaneously. Just the opposite as the example shows clocks are synchronized, and yet due to light travel time due to the distance between the clocks, the clocks can not be seen as being synchronized from any one point.


So let me get this straight.

All the above suggests you are claiming that at "absolute rest" light travels faster than light speed, but in "absolute motion" it doesn't?

I suggest a class in logic dear boy

Light travels faster than light speed? How do arrive at that conclusion?

A test of absolute motion.

An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock. Detailed calculations indicate that this is not the best synchronization procedure. Better would to rig a pulley system such that all three clocks start at the middle of the train and the two clocks at the center and simultaneously cranked out to the ends of the train at the same rate. Also note that you never utilize the clock at the center, so it appears superfluous to your setup.


1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized. Already you have assumed absolute time in violation of physically established principles and conflate questions of simultaneity with geometrical signal propagation times. But if you use the improved synchronization procedure above, both the Absolutist and the Relativist agree that the clocks at the end of the train are synchronized with each other in the viewpoint of an observer at the center of the train.


2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint. Here you make a claim without any reasoning, and reasoning is crucial. Here you assert that in the absolute rest frame that the speed of light is equal in both directions, therefore the geometrical signal delay (of the two clocks that we have agreed are synchronized) is equal. The Relativist believes based on 150 years of evidence that this is true in any inertial frame, not just the putative frame of absolute rest.


3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint. Again, you reason in an Absolutist sense than the velocity of signal propagation to is be composed with the absolute velocity of the train as v = \frac{v_1 \pm v_2}{1 \pm K \times v_1 \times v_2} and assert that K = 0. Yet, K = c^{-2} is also self-consistent and is better supported by 150 years of experiment. If K = c^{-2}. as the Relativist will believe, then v = \frac{c \pm u}{1 \pm \frac{c \times u}{c^2}} = c \times \frac {1 \pm u/c}{1 \pm u/c} = c in both directions, and so no failure of synchronization is observable.

This was spelled out in a lengthy post which was referred to you (http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2540784#post2540784), but it looks like it was not read.

You have failed to argue for your viewpoint, but simply asserted it.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2039656#post2039656

Detailed calculations indicate that this is not the best synchronization procedure. Better would to rig a pulley system such that all three clocks start at the middle of the train and the two clocks at the center and simultaneously cranked out to the ends of the train at the same rate. Also note that you never utilize the clock at the center, so it appears superfluous to your setup.

No need for a pulley setup, as there is not a requirement to place the clocks on each end "simultaneously." The clocks remained synchronized at all times. You can place the clocks on the ends of the train however you want, run to one, crawl to the other, etc, and once returned to the midpoint, the clocks are an equal distance away from the midpoint observer, all the while remaining synchronized. The clock at the center is crucial to the experiment. It allows the midpoint observer to observe the difference between the time on his clock, and the time he sees on the other two clocks at any given time.

A test of absolute motion.

An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock.

1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized.

2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

As rpenner has alluded to, this would have been considered a valid argument 150 yrs ago. Since then, we have learned otherwise.

As rpenner has alluded to, this would have been considered a valid argument 150 yrs ago. Since then, we have learned otherwise.

The definition of a meter is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter

The metre (or meter), (IPA: ['miːtəʳ] ), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Since 1983, it is defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.

If the midpoint observer observes his clock to be 1⁄299,792,458 of a second ahead of each end clock, what does that mean to you? Careful, there might be a meter stick on board that train somewhere. ;)

You can place the clocks on the ends of the train however you want, run to one, crawl to the other, etc, and once returned to the midpoint, the clocks are an equal distance away from the midpoint observer, all the while remaining synchronized. This is not what experiment shows.

This is not what experiment shows.

What, that the midpoint isn't really the midpoint? Is that what experiments contradict?

What's your purpose with these threads?

Specious and insincere -- the troll traits are strong in this one.

What's your purpose with these threads?

To show that when you get stuck in space in a box with no windows and nothing external to relate to, and you can't tell if you are moving or not, that there is a way to tell, using clocks, and the knowledge that light travels at c.

Hello Motor Daddy
Are you alluding to the differences in the time-of-flight for the clock images from the front and rear of the moving train?
:)

A test of absolute motion.

An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock.

1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized.

2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

I wil assume your model except replace the center of the train with a hand held gps unit.

With no loss of generality, I will assume a gps satellite in the east and one in the west.

BTW, this has been done.

The signals are emitted simultaneously from the satellites.

Guess what, they reach the ground based observer simultaneously.

Now, the timing has been corrected for GR effects and the earth's rotational Sagnac as well as ionsphere.

But, we are not seeing the motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun in the GPS timing which is required for your argument to be true.

Hence, your logic is inconsistent with GPS and the earth's orbit.

I left a hole here, let's see if you can find it.

The definition of a meter is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter

The metre (or meter), (IPA: ['miːtəʳ] ), symbol m, is the base unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). Since 1983, it is defined as the distance travelled by light in free space in 1⁄299,792,458 of a second.

If the midpoint observer observes his clock to be 1⁄299,792,458 of a second ahead of each end clock, what does that mean to you? Careful, there might be a meter stick on board that train somewhere. ;)


Please drop the act, you aren't that clever.

Yes, light travels one meter in 1/299,792,458 of a second, and this means that the light from the end clocks reach the midpoint clock in 1/229,792,458 sec if they are one meter from the midpoint (according to the clocks on the train) .

The statement that you make that is conflict to what we know to be true is:


3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

What know to be true is that as long as the clocks are in sync, (according to the train observer) the midpoint observer will always see them as being in sync and 1/229,792,458 sec behind his.

You can have a second train identical to your own, but has some velocity relative to yours, and he see the same thing regarding his clocks.

This very fact is the reason that we define the meter as the distance light travels in 1/229,792,458 sec.

You are sitting in that black box you mentioned in another post. You shine a light and make two marks on the floor to mark the distance that it traveled in 1/229,792,458 sec. That is 1 meter. You shine the light in the opposite direction, and repeat the measurement and get the same length.

Now you fire up some rockets to change your velocity. You perform the same two experiments as above. You will get the same result. You will not find the the light traveled a shorter distance relative to the floor of your box when it is shone in one direction than when it is shown in the other. Or put another way, if your box is two meters across, the light will always take 2/229,792,458 sec to cross from one side to the other, no matter how much you change the velocity of your box.

And this is why we define a meter in this way, because we know that all we have to do is measure the distance light travels relative to ourselves in 1/229,792,458 sec to determine the length of a meter without worrying about how fast we are or are not moving.

Please drop the act, you aren't that clever.

Yes, light travels one meter in 1/299,792,458 of a second, and this means that the light from the end clocks reach the midpoint clock in 1/229,792,458 sec if they are one meter from the midpoint (according to the clocks on the train) .

The statement that you make that is conflict to what we know to be true is:



What know to be true is that as long as the clocks are in sync, (according to the train observer) the midpoint observer will always see them as being in sync and 1/229,792,458 sec behind his.

You can have a second train identical to your own, but has some velocity relative to yours, and he see the same thing regarding his clocks.

This very fact is the reason that we define the meter as the distance light travels in 1/229,792,458 sec.

You are sitting in that black box you mentioned in another post. You shine a light and make two marks on the floor to mark the distance that it traveled in 1/229,792,458 sec. That is 1 meter. You shine the light in the opposite direction, and repeat the measurement and get the same length.

Now you fire up some rockets to change your velocity. You perform the same two experiments as above. You will get the same result. You will not find the the light traveled a shorter distance relative to the floor of your box when it is shone in one direction than when it is shown in the other. Or put another way, if your box is two meters across, the light will always take 2/229,792,458 sec to cross from one side to the other, no matter how much you change the velocity of your box.

And this is why we define a meter in this way, because we know that all we have to do is measure the distance light travels relative to ourselves in 1/229,792,458 sec to determine the length of a meter without worrying about how fast we are or are not moving.


This very fact is the reason that we define the meter as the distance light travels in 1/229,792,458 sec.

We humams are so clever don't you think?

The earth's rotational sagnac has been verified by GPS.

Hence, the definition of the meter is directionally based.

Yes, humans are so clever.

No need for a pulley setup, as there is not a requirement to place the clocks on each end "simultaneously." The clocks remained synchronized at all times. You can place the clocks on the ends of the train however you want, run to one, crawl to the other, etc, and once returned to the midpoint, the clocks are an equal distance away from the midpoint observer, all the while remaining synchronized. The clock at the center is crucial to the experiment. It allows the midpoint observer to observe the difference between the time on his clock, and the time he sees on the other two clocks at any given time.

To the contrary, how you do this experiment is very important.

If you carry clock all three clocks to 1 end, leave one, walk back to the other end, drop of the second clock and then return to the center with the third clock, you will get different results then if you just carried each end clock to its end by itself and left the third clock at the midpoint.

You will get a different result if you walked at a different speed while carrying one of the clocks than you did with the other.

Even if you are careful to move each clock to the endpoint at exactly the same speed, you will find that the difference between the time you see on your midpoint clock and the end clocks will be slightly more than the distance to the clock divided by the speed of light.

You will get a different result if you move the clocks to the ends of the train and then change the velocity of your train than you will if the change the velocity of your train and then move the clocks to the ends of the trains.

This is the difference between the real universe and the imaginary one you propose in your experiment. In the real universe, it does matter how the clocks got to the ends in terms as to whether or not they stay synchronized during the process.

To show that when you get stuck in space in a box with no windows and nothing external to relate to, and you can't tell if you are moving or not, that there is a way to tell, using clocks, and the knowledge that light travels at c.
In that case nature disagrees.

(I had hoped that you might be doing it to learn where you were wrong. Trust me, there nothing original about your idea.)

Motor Daddy: Synchronizing clocks complicates your experiment. Just stand in the middle of a square box. Mount mirrors on the four walls. Flash a strobe pulse toward each mirror & measure how long it takes each reflections to get back to you. If relativity is invalid & the box is moving, some reflections get back sooner than others.

Read about Michaelson-Morley experiments. The Earth took the place of the moving box.

The original goal of the experiments was to determine the absolute motion of the Earth. The results could be interpreted as proving that the Earth was stationary. Nobody was willing to accept that interpretation.

If the experiments were performed in Galileo's time, the church (and probably Galileo) would have accepted that interpretation.

Those experiments led to Special Relativity, which you are now trying to disprove.

1. The midpoint clock is a distance away from each end clock.
2. Light takes time to travel a distance.
3. If light leaves an end clock at one time, it will arrive at the midpoint clock at a different time.
4. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as reading the same, just different than his own clock.
5. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer to read different than each other, and also different than his own.

Can anyone refute any of these claims?

1. The midpoint clock is a distance away from each end clock.
2. Light takes time to travel a distance.
3. If light leaves an end clock at one time, it will arrive at the midpoint clock at a different time.
4. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as reading the same, just different than his own clock.

This can be compensated for by knowing the distance to the endpoints.


5. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer to read different than each other, and also different than his own.

They could, if we were living in another universe with different laws of nature. In this universe, thousands of experiments starting more than a 100 years ago shows this not to be the case. Every day, billions of micro-experiments corroborate the isotropy of light propagation by our use of devices on which such effects are significant, and which simply would not work if relativity theory did not describe our universe well. (Some of these experiments are also known as the "Global Positioning System", or "GPS". You may have heard of it.)


Can anyone refute any of these claims?
What claims? There's nothing precise in there to refute.

It's classic crank behaviour: "I dare you to refute my vague claims!" No, do your own damn work!

This can be compensated for by knowing the distance to the endpoints.

But distance is defined by light travel time. Are you saying light travel time does not define distance?


They could, if we were living in another universe with different laws of nature. In this universe, thousands of experiments starting more than a 100 years ago shows this not to be the case. Every day, billions of micro-experiments corroborate the isotropy of light propagation by our use of devices on which such effects are significant, and which simply would not work if relativity theory did not describe our universe well. (Some of these experiments are also known as the "Global Positioning System", or "GPS". You may have heard of it.)

What claims? There's nothing precise in there to refute.

It's classic crank behaviour: "I dare you to refute my vague claims!" No, do your own damn work!

Those are very precise statements. Refute each one to the best of your ability, and stop making general statements that don't refute each statement in a very precise manner.

GPS. Refutation done.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

GPS. Refutation done.

Move along now, nothing to see here.

Again, you can't refute any of those claims. But I knew that.

Are you saying you disagree with all of those statements?

Those are very precise statements. Refute each one to the best of your ability, and stop making general statements that don't refute each statement in a very precise manner.You're missing the point. The issue you have is about whether or not special relativity has a viable description of motion and light etc. As such you've come up with a convoluted physical set up to try and justify your views. Experiments of that nature have been done, they have been used to test special relativity, as funkstar commented, and the theory has passed. The issue of whether or not someone here can hold your hand and walk you through the algebra is irrelevant, professional relativity researchers have computed the predictions of special relativity in a variety of systems (Pound-Rebka, atomic clocks on planes, quantum field theory, muon decay times etc) and its passed them all. If SR weren't at least extremely close to reality then it would show up in some or all of those phenomena, the effects/results of which you speak would be observed. Sure they might not have done exactly the set up you talk about but ones which have qualitative behaviour very similar. At the very least such mistakes in SR would bleed through into other predictions. But they don't so the observed experimental accuracy of SR goes against your claims. We don't need to sit around taking you through fiddly and tedious coordinate transformations for your particular set up and so you falling back on the "If you can't do the workings for this specific set up then I am going to ignore you" behaviour is little more than attempt to ignore clear and relevant retorts to your claims.

Jack tried the same arguments, demanding people provide algebra to counter his claims, he'd accept nothing else, and when people did provide the algebra he didn't understand it. You and he attempt to argue that SR is wrong because you find (or you think you find) a particular inconsistency, you're working on the premise that you need to only provide one contradiction or refutation and you knock over the model. This is true but then its also true for people providing a contradiction or refutation of your claims. Funkstar (or anyone else) doesn't have to pander to your wish only to be provided with algebra, he (or anyone else) can provide any kind of refutation they want, all that's relevant is the validity of the argument, not the form is comes in.

When Jack started his whining and demands for maths I commented I wasn't interested in doing tedious algebra for some convoluted set up (though I ended up providing it as Jack didn't understand what I'm about to link to), as considering specific cases is inelegant and often simply confuses more people than it helps (the crank is usually the most confused). Instead there's a much more elegant way to argue against the SR nay-sayers who claim SR is inconsistent and that's to strip away the specific case and consider the underlying mathematical structure of special relativity. More than once I explained it to Jack (though he obviously failed to understand) and given you're making similar mistakes I suggest you read the first large quote in this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2517136&postcount=197) of mine. SR is basically the physical implications of saying "Space-time has a metric such that ds^{2} = -c^{2}dt^{2} + d\mathbf{x} \cdot d\mathbf{x} = \eta_{ab}dx^{a}dx^{b}", which is a straight forward implication of the two SR postulates (I can outline this further if needed).

If SR is inconsistent then Minkowski space-time is but then so is its symmetry group but then (via the Weyl trick) so is the Euclidean rotational symmetry group and then so is Euclidean geometry! SR is simply saying space-time has a particular geometry, which makes an examination of it much simpler. Your convoluted physical set up only confuses you, as you obviously lack experience with SR on a working level.

Are you saying you disagree with all of those statements?
Do you think this is debate class? There's no particular point to me agreeing or disagreeing: In science, nature is the ultimate arbiter. And nature says that there's no such thing as absolute motion. The isotropy of light propagation has been tested so many times over the last 150 years that arguing against it is at best ignorant, and at worst delusional.

You're wrong. End of.

You're wrong. End of.

Which of the 1-5 statements am I wrong about, and why?

1. The midpoint clock is a distance away from each end clock.
Okay, but it should be noted that not everyone will agree as to how much that distance is.

2. Light takes time to travel a distance.
Okay, with the stipulation that not everyone agrees to what the distance traveled is.

3. If light leaves an end clock at one time, it will arrive at the midpoint clock at a different time.
Yes, but again, not everyone will agree as to what time the light left the end clock, and what time it arrived at the midpoint clock. They will agree as to what time the end clock read when the light left it and what time the midpoint clock reads when the light reaches it.

4. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as reading the same, just different than his own clock.
As long as the clocks are synchronized in that frame.

5. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer to read different than each other, and also different than his own.
No, not as long as the clocks remain synchronized to each other. Now, there are situations, such as if you were to accelerate the whole system, where, even if the clocks keep perfect local time, the observer in the middle will see them drift out of sync. But this would be because they will actually drift out of sync.


Can anyone refute any of these claims?

Claim 5 is refuted by nature. The other claims are too rife with hidden assumptions to be of much value.

I would say Yes to number 2, but I would be agreeing with something completely different to what you would agree to by saying yes. This is why I qualified my answers. The reason I say this is that you still seem to be laboring under the false assumption that time and space are absolutes, While the rest of modern science realizes that they are not.

You say not everyone will agree? There is one observer at the midpoint of the train. That's it. I am talking about the midpoint observer's observations, from that one point, the midpoint. That midpoint observer is trying to determine if the train is in motion or not, and he can do that from just his own midpoint, with nothing to relate to except the light from each endpoint clock.

Sure, since the other endpoint clocks are in sync with the midpoint clock, if there were observers at each of the end points, they would see the other two clocks as reading behind theirs, as the other two clocks would be a distance away from that clock. But, that is not the task at hand. The task at hand is for one observer, at a midpoint position, to determine if the train has an absolute motion, and I just described to you why and how he does that.

Stick with my ORIGINAL scenario, and think about what I am saying, and how it's done. There is no other observer in the train except the one at the midpoint, until we can agree on that scenario, then, we will add more discussion with other observers, which will have no problem fitting in.

No, not as long as the clocks remain synchronized to each other. Now, there are situations, such as if you were to accelerate the whole system, where, even if the clocks keep perfect local time, the observer in the middle will see them drift out of sync. But this would be because they will actually drift out of sync.

Wrong. If the train has a velocity the two end clocks will not appear to the midpoint observer as reading the same as each other at any time.

Basically, the two end clocks are light sources. Since light always travels at c, the only way the light from each end clock can reach the midpoint observer simultaneously is if the train has an absolute zero velocity, as if the train has a velocity, the midpoint observer will not be at the light meeting place. That means, if the train has a velocity, the light from each end clock will hit the midpoint observer at different times, making him view each end clock as reading different than each other at all times. If the train has a zero velocity, the midpoint observer will remain at the end clock light meeting place, so he will view each end clock as reading the same, but behind his own clock, even though all the while the clocks remain in sync, which can be verified.

Motor Daddy: The Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that the fifth situation will not occur.
1. The midpoint clock is a distance away from each end clock.
2. Light takes time to travel a distance.
3. If light leaves an end clock at one time, it will arrive at the midpoint clock at a different time.
4. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as reading the same, just different than his own clock.
5. The two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer to read different than each other, and also different than his own.

Can anyone refute any of these claims?The fifth situation will not occur for the train moving at constant velocity.

The results of the Michaelson-Morley experiments are counter intuitive, but they provide experimental evidence that your notions are invalid.

Motor Daddy: The Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that the fifth situation will not occur.The fifth situation will not occur for the train moving at constant velocity.

The results of the Michaelson-Morley experiments are counter intuitive, but they provide experimental evidence that your notions are invalid.

There is no valid experiment that could invalidate that concept. If you are centered between the two clocks, and the light from each clock leaves the clocks simultaneously, the light leaves each clock with the same "time stamp" of what time it left the clock. Both lights from the end clocks leave with the same "time stamp" traveling towards each other at the same speed. They each travel the same distance until they crash into each other, regardless of what the train did during that light travel time. If the train remained motionless, ie, absolute zero velocity, each "time stamp" will hit the midpoint observer simultaneously. Since the midpoint observer's clock continued to tick until the endpoint clocks time stamped light impacted him, the midpoint observer's clock will read ahead of the timestamps from the end clocks.

If the train moved during the light travel time, ie, had an absolute velocity greater than zero, the mid point observer will travel a distance towards one time stamp and away from the other. That means the two time stamps will impact him at different times, ie, the end clocks light appear to him as out of sync with each other.

That is not even debatable, it is a rock solid fact.

That is not even debatable, it is a rock solid fact.

Nature says the contrary.

Your statement that no valid experiment can dispute your claim reminds me of those who, even after looking at the mountains on the Moon with Galileo's telescope, still claimed that they couldn't be there, because it was a "rock solid fact" that the Moon was a smooth sphere.

I've come to the conclusion that you are either:

A. Unteachable. One of those people whose brain is so inflexible, that they can never except that something they "know" could ever be wrong. Once you accept something as "true", it is true forever and ever and ever, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

Or

B. A troll. One of those people with so little of real interest to offer that the only way they can call attention to themselves is to be a deliberate nuisance.

In either case, I pity you

Nature says the contrary.

Your statement that no valid experiment can dispute your claim reminds me of those who, even after looking at the mountains on the Moon with Galileo's telescope, still claimed that they couldn't be there, because it was a "rock solid fact" that the Moon was a smooth sphere.

I've come to the conclusion that you are either:

A. Unteachable. One of those people whose brain is so inflexible, that they can never except that something they "know" could ever be wrong. Once you accept something as "true", it is true forever and ever and ever, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

Or

B. A troll. One of those people with so little of real interest to offer that the only way they can call attention to themselves is to be a deliberate nuisance.

In either case, I pity you

I'm neither, so you've come to another false conclusion. Maybe you can show me why my facts are incorrect, rather than name calling?

If the train moved during the light travel time, ie, had an absolute velocity greater than zero, the mid point observer will travel a distance towards one time stamp and away from the other. That means the two time stamps will impact him at different times, ie, the end clocks light appear to him as out of sync with each other.

That is not even debatable, it is a rock solid fact.
Motor Daddy, the Michelson Morley experiment is equivalent to this.
The end clocks always appear in sync. That's what actually happens. This is not a thought experiment - it's reality.


Maybe you can show me why my facts are incorrect
You claim a particular result for an experiment.
Conducting the experiment produces a different result.

Motor Daddy, the Michelson Morley experiment is equivalent to this.
The end clocks always appear in sync. That's what actually happens. This is not a thought experiment - it's reality.


You claim a particular result for an experiment.
Conducting the experiment produces a different result.

It is impossible for the clocks to appear in sync from a midpoint observer with a velocity. That is like saying the mid point isn't the mid point. Simply impossible.

There is no valid experiment that could invalidate that concept.

And with that I think we've established your understanding of the scientific process perfectly.


That is not even debatable, it is a rock solid fact.

A "fact" contradicted by experiment.


It is impossible for the clocks to appear in sync from a midpoint observer with a velocity. That is like saying the mid point isn't the mid point. Simply impossible.

And yet, it is what actually happens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment) when you try to conduct this experiment. You know, when you do science rather than assertion.

You are free to keep on believing that it's impossible, but that makes you either delusional or a troll. Either way, good luck in Pseudoscience: I predict you'll be going there very soon.

But distance is defined by light travel time. Are you saying light travel time does not define distance?
Light travel time defines the 1983 SI metre, which is an arbitrary unit of distance measurement, chosen for its ability to be reliably and precisely duplicated anywhere. If the distance between the lines etched on the 1799 platinum prototype could be duplicated as precisely, reliably, and conveniently, then that would still be the standard.

Perhaps most people would consider the concept of distance to be better defined by the size of physical objects (eg the length of a rod), and there's no problem with that.


Fundamentally, I think you could define distance as the magnitude of the spacetime interval between simultaneous events.

It is impossible for the clocks to appear in sync from a midpoint observer with a velocity. That is like saying the mid point isn't the mid point. Simply impossible.
And yet experiments indicate that it is. Clearly, there is a problem with the theory you are using to prove it is impossible - when theory and reality conflict, reality must win. The theory must be modified. And that's what Einstein ad his contemporaries did.

Einstein's theoretical resolution is that there is no such thing as absolute velocity - ie no observer has absolute velocity - and that theoretical nature of time and space is such that time and length measurements made by observers in relative motion will differ.

Lorentz proposed a similar resolution. He also suggested that the nature of time is such that the time measurements depend on location and absolute motion in such a way that any velocity appears to be zero absolute velocity. In this context, Lorentz would suggest that moving the from the middle to the ends changes their time so that they will still appear sunchronized.

The two explanations (Einstein and Lorentz) are equivalent paradigms - they give exactly the same experimental results. The first is generally preferred, because the second proposes an unmeasurable entity (an absolute velocity standard).

Light travel time defines the 1983 SI metre, which is an arbitrary unit of distance measurement, chosen for its ability to be reliably and precisely duplicated anywhere. If the distance between the lines etched on the 1799 platinum prototype could be duplicated as precisely, reliably, and conveniently, then that would still be the standard.

Perhaps most people would consider the concept of distance to be better defined by the size of physical objects (eg the length of a rod), and there's no problem with that.


Fundamentally, I think you could define distance as the magnitude of the spacetime interval between simultaneous events.

That's not the issue. The issue is, the lights travel an equal time to impact each other, so they travel the same distance by definition. If the observer moves during that time, he is no longer at that place of impact. He is impacted earlier by one and later by the other, so again, light travel times are different to impact him, which means the distances are different, as he had a velocity. It is a fact that can't be disputed.

That's not the issue. The issue is, the lights travel an equal time to impact each other, so they travel the same distance by definition. If the observer moves during that time, he is no longer at that place of impact. He is impacted earlier by one and later by the other, so again, light travel times are different to impact him, which means the distances are different, as he had a velocity.

Stop and think, for a moment: What's so special about light? What would happen if your light sources were replaced by, say, identical paintball guns? Are you denying Galilean relativity as well?


It is a fact that can't be disputed.
Clearly, since we're all hassling you, it can be disputed. Also, it's known to be false, by experiments that explicitly test your claims. Nature says you're wrong.

Stop and think, for a moment: What's so special about light? What would happen if your light sources were replaced by, say, identical paintball guns? Are you denying Galilean relativity as well?

Clearly, since we're all hassling you, it can be disputed. Also, it's known to be false, by experiments that explicitly test your claims. Nature says you're wrong.

Nothing is special about light, except that it's the fastest we can measure.

If two paint balls were launched simultaneously towards each other at the same speed, they will each travel the same distance to impact each other. If you placed them 10 feet apart and fired them at each other, the balls will impact each other at the midpoint, 5 feet away from each other. If there was an observer at that 5 foot mark when the balls were fired, and he moved during that time of flight, one ball would travel say 4 feet to hit him and one would travel 6 feet to hit him. One ball would hit him first, and a time interval later the second would hit him. He was 1 foot from the midpoint. Figure the time difference and you can figure his velocity. This is all done in the volume of space, of course.

Did you miss post 41, MD?

I think funkstar was thinking of paintball launchers on the train, one at each end. When fired simultaneously, they'll always meet in the middle regardless of the train's motion.

But, this is not quite how light works either, although it is similar in that the velocity of light is always the same relative to the train.

Nothing is special about light, except that it's the fastest we can measure.
It's the speed that is special. It's the fastest local speed there is. It's built in to the fabric of the universe. It's the speed that is equivalent to infinite rapidity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity) (rapidity is the distance travelled by a moving clock divided by the time elapsed on that clock. Or the proper length of a moving rod divided by the time it takes that rod to pass a given location.)

I think funkstar was thinking of paintball launchers on the train, one at each end. When fired simultaneously, they'll always meet in the middle regardless of the train's motion.

Pretty much. MotorDaddy, would you agree?


But, this is not quite how light works either, although it is similar in that the velocity of light is always the same relative to the train.
(That was the point: I was trying to figure out the extent of the madness.)

Pretty much. MotorDaddy, would you agree?

(That was the point: I was trying to figure out the extent of the madness.)

If paint balls always traveled at 50 m/s, and the train was 100 meters long, and each was fired from opposing ends towards each other simultaneously, the balls would impact each other in exactly one second. If there was a midpoint observer and the train had a zero velocity, the balls would impact the observer simultaneously. If the train had a velocity, the observer would travel with the train, which doesn't affect the balls flight, hence the observer would be hit by one ball in less time than the other, as one would have to travel further than the other to impact him, as he was no longer at the original midpoint. Note, if the balls continued flight without hitting the midpoint observer, the balls would impact each other at the original midpoint in space, but the observer would no longer be there to be hit simultaneously.

And yet experiments indicate that it is. Clearly, there is a problem with the theory you are using to prove it is impossible - when theory and reality conflict, reality must win. The theory must be modified. And that's what Einstein ad his contemporaries did.

Einstein's theoretical resolution is that there is no such thing as absolute velocity - ie no observer has absolute velocity - and that theoretical nature of time and space is such that time and length measurements made by observers in relative motion will differ.

Lorentz proposed a similar resolution. He also suggested that the nature of time is such that the time measurements depend on location and absolute motion in such a way that any velocity appears to be zero absolute velocity. In this context, Lorentz would suggest that moving the from the middle to the ends changes their time so that they will still appear sunchronized.

The two explanations (Einstein and Lorentz) are equivalent paradigms - they give exactly the same experimental results. The first is generally preferred, because the second proposes an unmeasurable entity (an absolute velocity standard).

Looks like I'm being ignored?

If paint balls always traveled at 50 m/s, and the train was 100 meters long, and each was fired from opposing ends towards each other simultaneously, the balls would impact each other in exactly one second. If there was a midpoint observer and the train had a zero velocity, the balls would impact the observer simultaneously. If the train had a velocity, the observer would travel with the train, which doesn't affect the balls flight, hence the observer would be hit by one ball in less time than the other, as one would have to travel further than the other to impact him, as he was no longer at the original midpoint. Note, if the balls continued flight without hitting the midpoint observer, the balls would impact each other at the original midpoint in space, but the observer would no longer be there to be hit simultaneously.
Just so we're clear: The paint ball guns are on the train, in this scenario.*

*This turns out not to matter for light sources, but I'm trying to establish whether you disagree with Galilean relativity as well.

Looks like I'm being ignored?
Me too, he completely ignored my post, not even acknowledging I'd made it and he replied to the posts around it.

What's the matter MD? You demanded responses and now you've got them have you realised you're in over your head? At least be honest and admit it rather than hoping if you blank any reply you can't understand they'll go away. Jack tried that method and look at what a failure his claims are.

It's the speed that is special. It's the fastest local speed there is. It's built in to the fabric of the universe. It's the speed that is equivalent to infinite rapidity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapidity) (rapidity is the distance travelled by a moving clock divided by the time elapsed on that clock. Or the proper length of a moving rod divided by the time it takes that rod to pass a given location.)

What "given location?" Do you mean to say an absolute location in space, as if that location had an absolute zero velocity in space?

What "given location?" Do you mean to say an absolute location in space, as if that location had an absolute zero velocity in space?

A given location in a given reference frame. Like New York, New York. Or Japetus. Or the middle of the train. Or Barnard's Star.

Me too, he completely ignored my post, not even acknowledging I'd made it and he replied to the posts around it.

What's the matter MD? You demanded responses and now you've got them have you realised you're in over your head? At least be honest and admit it rather than hoping if you blank any reply you can't understand they'll go away. Jack tried that method and look at what a failure his claims are.

I'm not Jack and that seems to be all you want to talk about. You never responded to the 5 statements, and whether you agree or disagree with them. Stick to my scenario and tell me where I am wrong. Tell me where my mistake is. Just saying "that's the way nature is" is a cop out, and sounds like a religious person saying, "it's faith." Tell me exactly where my mistake is in my example. Heck, tell me why paint balls that are 100 meters apart and fired towards each other simultaneously, that always travel at 50 m/s, don't impact each other in exactly one second.

A given location in a given reference frame. Like New York, New York. Or Japetus. Or the middle of the train. Or Barnard's Star.

Do you acknowledge that objects can have a velocity in this universe?

Do you acknowledge that objects can have a velocity in this universe?
Only relative to something else. What do you think about what I said in post 41?

Only relative to something else. What do you think about what I said in post 41?

Velocity has nothing to do with another object. Velocity is directional. Each object in this universe has a velocity of its own. Space is an infinite volume. There are objects of mass in motion in that volume. Volume has measurements. The velocity of an object in motion in that volume is relative to the measurements of the volume. The velocity of an object has nothing to do with another object's motion.

I'll give a short example:

Say a bus is 100 feet long. There is a man with a ball at midpoint of the bus. The bus leaves the bus station and is traveling away from the bus station at the rate of 25 feet per second. If the man on the bus throws the ball towards the back of the bus in such a manner that the ball hits the back door of the bus 50 feet away from his location on the bus, and the time of travel of the ball is exactly one second, what is the ball's velocity? 50 ft/sec? No. Because during the time of flight, the back of the bus moved towards the ball in flight, so the ball only really traveled 25 feet in that one second duration. That can be verified by measuring the distance between the ball and the bus stop, as the ball is traveling towards the bus stop at a rate of 25 ft/sec, even though on the bus the man insists the ball traveled 50 ft/sec. He fails to acknowledge the bus's velocity, which is a major mistake.

If paint balls always traveled at 50 m/s, and the train was 100 meters long, and each was fired from opposing ends towards each other simultaneously, the balls would impact each other in exactly one second. If there was a midpoint observer and the train had a zero velocity, the balls would impact the observer simultaneously. If the train had a velocity, the observer would travel with the train, which doesn't affect the balls flight, hence the observer would be hit by one ball in less time than the other, as one would have to travel further than the other to impact him, as he was no longer at the original midpoint. Note, if the balls continued flight without hitting the midpoint observer, the balls would impact each other at the original midpoint in space, but the observer would no longer be there to be hit simultaneously.

So let's get this straight. So let's say that I'm sitting in the back seat of a car at a stop and toss a ball to a passenger in the front seat at say 5 mph.

Now say the car is driving at 70 mph. I make the same toss. Your saying that since the ball is only traveling forward at 5 mph and the car is moving forward at 70 mph, the ball will land behind me in the car?

Velocity has nothing to do with another object. Velocity is directional. Each object in this universe has a velocity of its own. Space is an infinite volume. There are objects of mass in motion in that volume. Volume has measurements. The velocity of an object in motion in that volume is relative to the measurements of the volume. The velocity of an object has nothing to do with another object's motion.
Says you.


I'll give a short example:

Say a bus is 100 feet long. There is a man with a ball at midpoint of the bus. The bus leaves the bus station and is traveling away from the bus station at the rate of 25 feet per second. If the man on the bus throws the ball towards the back of the bus in such a manner that the ball hits the back door of the bus 50 feet away from his location on the bus, and the time of travel of the ball is exactly one second, what is the ball's velocity? 50 ft/sec?
Yes, relative to the bus.

No. Because during the time of flight, the back of the bus moved towards the ball in flight, so the ball only really traveled 25 feet in that one second duration. That can be verified by measuring the distance between the ball and the bus stop, as the ball is traveling towards the bus stop at a rate of 25 ft/sec, even though on the bus the man insists the ball traveled 50 ft/sec. He fails to acknowledge the bus's velocity, which is a major mistake.
This is all correct... relative to the ground.

You're assuming that the ground isn't moving, which is fine... but it's also fine to assume that the ground is moving. For example, if you assume the bus to be at rest, then you also assume the ground is moving at 25 ft/sec backwards.

Do you think that the ground is absolutely at rest, like the folks that got all grumpy at Galileo?

So let's get this straight. So let's say that I'm sitting in the back seat of a car at a stop and toss a ball to a passenger in the front seat at say 5 mph.

Now say the car is driving at 70 mph. I make the same toss. Your saying that since the ball is only traveling forward at 5 mph and the car is moving forward at 70 mph, the ball will land behind me in the car?

The ball is already traveling with the car, so the ball has the same velocity as the car. If you accelerate the car you accelerate the ball, as the additional force can be verified, ie torque. Ever put extra passengers in your car and notice how the the car accelerates at a slower rate with the additional weight?

If the ball is stationary relative to the car, the ball has the same velocity as the car. If the car is doing 70 MPH, so is the ball.

You're assuming that the ground isn't moving, which is fine... but it's also fine to assume that the ground is moving. For example, if you assume the bus to be at rest, then you also assume the ground is moving at 25 ft/sec backwards.

Do you think that the ground is absolutely at rest, like the folks that got all grumpy at Galileo?

You can not correctly assume the bus to be at rest, just because you didn't test or don't know it's absolute velocity. That would be like saying light can be at rest and everything else is moving. Light moves relative to space, and the dimensions of space. Volume has dimensions, yes?

You can not correctly assume the bus to be at rest, just because you didn't test or don't know it's absolute velocity.
By that logic, you can not correctly assume the ground to be at rest, just because you didn't test or don't know its absolute velocity.

By that logic, you can not correctly assume the ground to be at rest, just because you didn't test or don't know its absolute velocity.

I agree, you can't. But light speed isn't relative to the ground, it is relative to the dimensions of space. Light always travels at c. If two light sources are in space, and emitted simultaneously, they will impact each other at a specific point in space, regardless of what is at that point now or then, or what the sources do after emission. If the sources were ~372,000 miles apart at time of emissions, the light will impact each other in 1 second, regardless of the motion of the sources.

I agree, you can't. But light speed isn't relative to the ground, it is relative to the dimensions of space.
Wrong. It is relative to any rest reference.

Light always travels at c.
Yes. The speed of a flash of light passing the bus is c relative to the bus, and c relative to the ground.

Wrong. It is relative to any rest reference.

Yes. The speed of a flash of light passing the bus is c relative to the bus, and c relative to the ground.

Do you deny that light travels ~186,000 miles per second in a vacuum in space? What does that mean to you? Do you acknowledge space has dimensions, and that objects travel relative to those dimensions?

You don't understand velocity.

...and certainly, nobody in a car has the right to say the car is at rest, just because they are not moving relative to the car. That is absurd.

Do you deny that light travels ~186,000 miles per second in a vacuum in space? What does that mean to you?
What I just said. Light travels at that speed relative to any rest reference you care to choose. No, space itself is not a rest reference.

Do you acknowledge space has dimensions, and that objects travel relative to those dimensions?
No. That's a concept you've made up on your own.


You don't understand velocity.
:rolleyes:


...and certainly, nobody in a car has the right to say the car is at rest, just because they are not moving relative to the car. That is absurd.
And yet you're comfortable with saying that the road is at rest?

What I just said. Light travels at that speed relative to any rest reference you care to choose. No, space itself is not a rest reference.

So you are saying space doesn't have dimensions? You are saying volume doesn't have dimensions?




And yet you're comfortable with saying that the road is at rest?

I didn't say the road was at rest, I measured the distance of the road, as the train passenger would measure the distance of the train. Measuring the distance of the train doesn't mean the train is at rest, and neither does measuring the distance of a road mean the road is at rest.

I didn't say the road was at rest,
In your bus example, you assumed the road to be at rest.
Don't you agree that it was a natural and reasonable thing to do?

In your bus example, you assumed the road to be at rest.
Don't you agree that it was a natural and reasonable thing to do?

I didn't assume the road to be at rest, I measured the distance the ball traveled against the bus, the road, and the distance the bus traveled against the road. And while I measured the distance the ball traveled in relation to the road, I have no idea what the velocity of the road was. That doesn't mean the road can be assumed to be at absolute rest. Testing the velocity of the road with light gives a true velocity relative to space.

There is a big difference in the ball's velocity in space, and the relative motion of the ball compared to another object that also has its own velocity relative to space. Light isn't at rest, it travels relative to space at the rate of c.

I didn't assume the road to be at rest, I measured the distance the ball traveled against the bus, the road, and the distance the bus traveled against the road. And while I measured the distance the ball traveled in relation to the road, I have no idea what the velocity of the road was.
OK.
So why can you measure the ball's travel distance against the road, but not against the bus?

OK.
So why can you measure the ball's travel distance against the road, but not against the bus?

I did both. I told you the distance compared to the bus was 50 ft, and the road was 25 feet.

The ball is already traveling with the car, so the ball has the same velocity as the car. If you accelerate the car you accelerate the ball, as the additional force can be verified, ie torque. Ever put extra passengers in your car and notice how the the car accelerates at a slower rate with the additional weight?
the effort in getting the car up to speed is not the point. Quit trying to clutter up the issue. quote]


If the ball is stationary relative to the car, the ball has the same velocity as the car. If the car is doing 70 MPH, so is the ball.[/QUOTE]

You just contradicted what you said about the paint balls. There is no difference between them and the ball tossed in the car.

So you are saying space doesn't have dimensions? You are saying volume doesn't have dimensions?


No, he is saying that the terms "dimension" and "volume" do not carry the connotations that you think they do. They have no connection to absolute motion and do not imply that it exists. The idea that they do is an invention of your own without one whit of evidence to support it.

You just contradicted what you said about the paint balls. There is no difference between them and the ball tossed in the car.

The paint balls move towards each other in opposite directions of travel, at the same rate. They travel the same distance and time to reach each other. I am not talking about the distance the paint balls travel in relation to the train, I am talking about the distance the paint balls travel, and the time they travel to meet each other. The train's motion is irrelevant. The only thing relevant if the balls are released simultaneously is the distance between the balls at time of emission, and the velocity the balls travel towards each other.

No, he is saying that the terms "dimension" and "volume" do not carry the connotations that you think they do. They have no connection to absolute motion and do not imply that it exists. The idea that they do is an invention of your own without one whit of evidence to support it.

Space has dimensions that we measure with light travel time, do we not? Can light travel space? Is distance defined by light travel time? So the time light travels in space defines distance, correct? What does another object's motion, or lack thereof, have to do with that?

I'm not Jack and that seems to be all you want to talk about. You never responded to the 5 statements, and whether you agree or disagree with them. Stick to my scenario and tell me where I am wrong. Tell me where my mistake is. Just saying "that's the way nature is" is a cop out, and sounds like a religious person saying, "it's faith." Well done on failing to even read and understand my post. Your arguments are wrong if any valid argument goes against them, demanding people stick to only one approach is simply denial.

I mention Jack because you're making all the mistakes he did. He believed he was doing something new and you believe you're putting new things infront of us. You aren't. He wasn't. Cranks never do.


Tell me exactly where my mistake is in my example. Heck, tell me why paint balls that are 100 meters apart and fired towards each other simultaneously, that always travel at 50 m/s, don't impact each other in exactly one second.If you were well read in relativity you'd know how poorly you just outlined the physical set up you're thinking of. I suggest you redescribe it being careful with frames. Neither I nor others are responsible for your inability to communicate.

Space has dimensions that we measure with light travel time, do we not? Can light travel space? Is distance defined by light travel time? So the time light travels in space defines distance, correct? What does another object's motion, or lack thereof, have to do with that?

Time and space are not absolutes, they are relative. Every frame of reference defines time and space relative to itself. Every frame of reference measures the speed of light as c relative to itself. Frame of references in relative motion with respect to each other will measure time and space differently.

There is no such thing as absolute motion; it has no meaning in our universe.

Clinging to that concept is just holding you back from understanding how the universe really works.

Time and space are not absolutes, they are relative. Every frame of reference defines time and space relative to itself. Every frame of reference measures the speed of light as c relative to itself. Frame of references in relative motion with respect to each other will measure time and space differently.

There is no such thing as absolute motion; it has no meaning in our universe.

Clinging to that concept is just holding you back from understanding how the universe really works.

The entire Earth's (and ultimately the entire universe's) clocks are supposed to be synchronized as one at all times. If you get on a plane in NY at 1:00 PM on Jan 1st, and fly for a duration of 9 hours and land in Germany, the local time there is supposed to be 10:00 PM on Jan 1st. The time of flight needs to match up, and Einstein's methods don't do that.

If it is exactly 10:00 PM, and I travel for 10 minutes, regardless of the speed or direction at which I travel, the time is exactly 10:10. That is so easy to comprehend, and yet the relativists just don't get it. Sad, very sad.

I did both. I told you the distance compared to the bus was 50 ft, and the road was 25 feet.

You said that using the distance compared to the bus was a mistake. You said "the ball only really traveled 25 feet", that "He fails to acknowledge the bus's velocity, which is a major mistake".

Why?
Why is the distance compared to the road better than the distance compared to the bus?
Why is failing to acknowledge the bus's velocity a major mistake, but failing to acknowledge the Earth's velocity not?

The entire Earth's (and ultimately the entire universe's) clocks are supposed to be synchronized as one at all times.
"Supposed to be"? Supposed by you? Do you think that the universe is required work the way that you personally suppose it to work?

Are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?

You said that using the distance compared to the bus was a mistake. You said "the ball only really traveled 25 feet", that "He fails to acknowledge the bus's velocity, which is a major mistake".

Why?
Why is the distance compared to the road better than the distance compared to the bus?
Why is failing to acknowledge the bus's velocity a major mistake, but failing to acknowledge the Earth's velocity not?

It is a major failure to assume the Earth at rest, or any other velocity. Velocities are not based on assumption, they are based on distance and time. To assume any object is at rest is absurd. The observer on the bus doesn't have a right to assume the bus at rest. The only thing he can say is that the ball traveled 50 feet relative to the bus. That is a statement that can not be refuted. That isn't what we are talking about, though. We are talking about absolute distance and time, as measured in space by light travel time. Big difference.

The entire Earth's (and ultimately the entire universe's) clocks are supposed to be synchronized as one at all times. If you get on a plane in NY at 1:00 PM on Jan 1st, and fly for a duration of 9 hours and land in Germany, the local time there is supposed to be 10:00 PM on Jan 1st. The time of flight needs to match up, and Einstein's methods don't do that.
Einstein's method's work perfectly well. If they didn't our GPS system wouldn't work as designed and timing for it is very critical. Just because you don't know how means nothing.



If it is exactly 10:00 PM, and I travel for 10 minutes, regardless of the speed or direction at which I travel, the time is exactly 10:10. That is so easy to comprehend, and yet the relativists just don't get it. Sad, very sad.

And the world isn't round because the people on the underside would fall off. That is so easy to comprehend, yet the round earthists just don't get it.

What you don't get is that your "so easy to comprehend" concepts do not match up with reality. The universe is under no obligation to be "easy to comprehend".

"Supposed to be"? Supposed by you? Do you think that the universe is required work the way that you personally suppose it to work?

Are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?

Nature doesn't define distance and time, we do. We defined the standards of each, and we don't use the standards properly.

Einstein's method's work perfectly well. If they didn't our GPS system wouldn't work as designed and timing for it is very critical. Just because you don't know how means nothing.

Really? Then why is it that people state that when on an inertial train, with nothing to relate to externally, that one can't determine whether the train is in motion or not?

Do Einstein's methods acknowledge that on an inertial train, a midpoint observer will see his clock as different than two end clocks on the train? Does he admit that the two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as being out of sync with each other, and out of sync with the midpoint observer's clock, even thought the clocks remain in sync at all times?

It is a major failure to assume the Earth at rest, or any other velocity. Velocities are not based on assumption, they are based on distance and time. To assume any object is at rest is absurd.
And yet that is exactly what you did in that scenario, and it is exactly what everyone does as a matter of course every day. Interesting.

Do you honestly think it is "absurd" to consider the ground to be at rest?


The observer on the bus doesn't have a right to assume the bus at rest. The only thing he can say is that the ball traveled 50 feet relative to the bus. That is a statement that can not be refuted. That isn't what we are talking about, though. We are talking about absolute distance and time, as measured in space by light travel time. Big difference.
OK. Listen carefully.
When we measure distance and time, as measured in space by light travel time, we always find that our measuring instruments are at rest.

At all times of the year, at all times of the day, we find that light travel measurements in a lab always indicate that the lab is at rest.

This is reality, MD. The universe works according to its own rules, not according to your supposition.

And yet that is exactly what you did in that scenario, and it is exactly what everyone does as a matter of course every day. Interesting.

I told you the distance the ball traveled in relation to the bus and in relation to the ground. I didn't say the ground was at rest.


Do you honestly think it is "absurd" to consider the ground to be at rest?

Yes, as that statement assumes the Earth is stationary in space. That is an absurd assumption.



OK. Listen carefully.
When we measure distance and time, as measured in space by light travel time, we always find that our measuring instruments are at rest.

At rest with what?


At all times of the year, at all times of the day, we find that light travel measurements in a lab always indicate that the lab is at rest.

This is reality, MD. The universe works according to its own rules, not according to your supposition.

And yet we know the lab is not at rest. What does that tell you about your measurements?

Nature doesn't define distance and time, we do. We defined the standards of each, and we don't use the standards properly.
We defined certain standards to communicate measurements of distance and time.
We don't define the quantities themselves, they're a fundamental property of the universe.

Do you think that you can make the Mars-Sun distance less than the Earth-Sun distance just by defining it that way? :bugeye:

We defined certain standards to communicate measurements of distance and time.
We don't define the quantities themselves, they're a fundamental property of the universe.

Do you think that you can make the Mars-Sun distance less than the Earth-Sun distance just by defining it that way? :bugeye:

No, because it takes more time for light to travel from the Sun-Earth than Sun-Mars.

When a wise man argues too long with a fool, it be comes difficult to determine who is the fool !

I told you the distance the ball traveled in relation to the bus and in relation to the ground. I didn't say the ground was at rest.
You said "the ball only really traveled 25 feet". Defend your statement.


At rest with what?
According to you, at absolute rest.


And yet we know the lab is not at rest. What does that tell you about your measurements?
How do we know the lab is not at rest? According to you, these measurements dictate that the lab is at absolute rest.

You said:

We are talking about absolute distance and time, as measured in space by light travel time.
The absolute distance that the lab moves in some finite time, as measured in the lab by light travel time, is exactly zero.

That tells me that any rest reference is as good as any other.
That the measured speed that light travels is the same no matter what rest reference you use.
That it's OK to behave as if the ground is not moving (duh!)
That assuming the train is at rest gives a good model of reality.
That your conception of the constancy of light speed does not match reality.

No, because it takes more time for light to travel from the Sun-Earth than Sun-Mars.
Your using a defined standard.
Can you choose any other standard of distance that changes that relationship?

You said "the ball only really traveled 25 feet". Defend your statement.

I was showing that in relation to the road, the bus traveled a distance, and the man says the ball traveled 50' and yet the distance compared to the road is 25'. That shows how foolish it is to assume an object is at rest. I didn't mean to imply the road was at rest, and I didn't say that.



According to you, at absolute rest.

Absolute rest? Are you now saying there is such a thing?



How do we know the lab is not at rest? According to you, these measurements dictate that the lab is at absolute rest.

I just told you how to tell if an object is at rest or not. You don't want to acknowledge that the two end clocks can read different than each other on the train. You are not understanding reality.



The absolute distance that the lab moves in some finite time, as measured in the lab by light travel time, is exactly zero.

So you are telling me the Earth doesn't rotate once a day, and revolve around the Sun, but that the Earth is stationary in the universe?

Has your cheese slid off your cracker? ;)


That tells me that any rest reference is as good as any other. That the spped that light travels is the same no matter what rest reference you use. That it's OK to behave as if the ground is not moving (duh!)
That assuming the train is at rest gives a good model of reality.
That your conception of the constancy of light speed does not match reality.

I never said the speed of light is different using different frames of reference.

I was showing that in relation to the road, the bus traveled a distance, and the man says the ball traveled 50' and yet the distance compared to the road is 25'. That shows how foolish it is to assume an object is at rest. I didn't mean to imply the road was at rest, and I didn't say that.
So, the ball didn't "only really travel 25 feet"?
You can't say how far it travelled at all?
That it is just as correct and useful to say that it travelled 50 feet with respect to the bus as it is to say that it travelled 25 feet with respect to the ground?

Is it foolish to say that the ball travels at 25ft/sec with respect to the ground?
Is it foolish to say that the ball travels at 50ft/sec with respect to the bus?


Absolute rest? Are you now saying there is such a thing?
No, according to your logic, Earth labs are always at absolute rest.


I just told you how to tell if an object is at rest or not.
Using your method, we find that Earth labs are always at rest.


So you are telling me the Earth doesn't rotate once a day, and revolve around the Sun, but that the Earth is stationary in the universe?
No, that's what "measuring absolute rest using light travel time" says.
So clearly, that method does not measure absolute rest at all.
Light travel time does not tell if an object is at absolute rest or not.
There seems to be no way of telling if an object is an absolute rest at all - we can only tell if it is at rest with respect to some arbitrary reference (like the ground, the Sun, a star, a bus, a train).

Your using a defined standard.
Can you choose any other standard of distance that changes that relationship?

No, distance is distance. But what I am saying is that a standard can be defined, and then applied wrong to give false conclusions.

No, distance is distance. But what I am saying is that a standard can be defined, and then applied wrong to give false conclusions.

Right. Distance is distance, like I said. Defined by nature, not by us.

So once again, are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?

So, the ball didn't "only really travel 25 feet"?
You can't say how far it travelled at all?

In relation to the ground, it really traveled 25 feet.


That it is just as correct and useful to say that it travelled 50 feet with respect to the bus as it is to say that it travelled 25 feet with respect to the ground?

I don't deny relative motion. Where did I say that? I even told you that in relation to the bus the man says the ball traveled 50'. But for him to assume the bus at rest, is absurd. He can say the ball traveled 50' compared to the bus, but that is like saying you only traveled the distance of 10' on a 9 hour flight if you switch seats to 3 rows in front of you. Is that what you believe, that if you stay in one place on a plane the entire duration of the flight that you traveled zero feet in 9 hours?


Is it foolish to say that the ball travels at 25ft/sec with respect to the ground?
Is it foolish to say that the ball travels at 50ft/sec with respect to the bus?

You can measure distance on any object, but that doesn't mean the object is at rest. It is foolish to assume an object to be at rest without measuring if it is or not.



No, according to your logic, Earth labs are always at absolute rest.



Using your method, we find that Earth labs are always at rest.

Wrong, that is not what my example shows. To the contrary I show the exact opposite.



No, that's what your method of telling if an object is at rest or not says.
Clearly, your method is not measuring absolute rest at all.

Clearly it is, reread the OP.

Right. Distance is distance, like I said. Defined by nature, not by us.

It is not defined by nature, we define it by a standard measure.


So once again, are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?

Sure I am interested. Are you interested in learning where you go wrong in measuring distance and time?

I'm a relativist, Motor Daddy. I get it. If we set aside the expansion of the universe along with gravity, we can envisage a simplified scenario wherein light moves at a uniform velocity throughout the whole of space. Since the CMBR pervades the universe, and provides us with a de-facto method of determining our absolute motion through the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#CMBR_dipole_ anisotropy), we can assert that we indeed have an absolute reference frame, and absolute space. We measure distance and time using the motion of light, but when we ourselves move through this absolute space, our measurements of distance and time are skewed. However there is a subtlety to this "skew" that I'm afraid you've missed - your train is affected too. But on the bright side, with that CMBR, all your observer really needs to do is look out of the window. See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity (http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc) for an interesting read.

In relation to the ground, it really traveled 25 feet.
Interesting qualifier. Not in your original scenario, where your clear conclusion was that the distance in relation to the ground was the "real" distance, while the distance in relation to the bus was a mistake.


I don't deny relative motion. Where did I say that? I even told you that in relation to the bus the man says the ball traveled 50'. But for him to assume the bus at rest, is absurd. He can say the ball traveled 50' compared to the bus, but that is like saying you only traveled the distance of 10' on a 9 hour flight if you switch seats to 3 rows in front of you.
Right, you get up, walk ten feet, sit down. Do you need to know how fast the plane is flying in order to do that? To get to your new seat, is it "foolish" to walk ten feet as though the plane is at rest?

Is that what you believe, that if you stay in one place on a plane the entire duration of the flight that you traveled zero feet in 9 hours?
Relative to the plane, you stayed in one place.
Relative to the ground, you travelled (say) 3000 miles.
But how far did you really travel? Does it matter? Is the question even meaningful or answerable?
You think it is foolish to say you didn't move.
Do you think it is foolish to say that you travelled 3000 miles?


You can measure distance on any object, but that doesn't mean the object is at rest. It is foolish to assume an object to be at rest without measuring if it is or not.
Really? You never assume the ground to be at rest? How often do you measure it?


Wrong, that is not what my example shows. To the contrary I show the exact opposite.
Your example was pulled from your navel. In reality, we find that your navel-gazing is wrong.
In reality, by actual real not-hypothetical experiments, the distance that a lab moves, measured in space by light travel time, always results in a measurement of zero.

You claim that absolute distance travelled is measurable by light travel time.
Reality shows that it is not.


Clearly it is, reread the OP.
Clearly, it is not. Read up on the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Pete, I fully understand the usefulness of measuring how far you travel compared to an object, as 50' on a bus, or 10' on a plane, or 20 miles on a road. That is what we do all the time. But what is not correct to do is assume a plane's, or bus's, or Earth's motion to be zero. That is absurd to say that just because you remain motionless compared to an object, that the object is motionless in the universe.

Fine, the ball traveled 50' compared to the bus, but that doesn't mean the bus was at rest, so don't make that statement unless you have verified the motion of the bus.

It is not defined by nature, we define it by a standard measure.
Dude, we just agreed that "Distance is distance", that you can't alter an actual distance relationship by defining a different standard.


Sure I am interested. Are you interested in learning where you go wrong in measuring distance and time?
Good. Now prove you are interested. Go and look at the experiments that do what you suggest, that use light travel time to measure distance travelled.

Acknowledge that if the experimental results differ from what you think they should be, then you just might be wrong.

Dude, we just agreed that "Distance is distance", that you can't alter an actual distance relationship by defining a different standard.


Good. Now prove you are interested. Go and look at the experiments that do what you suggest, that use light travel time to measure distance travelled.

Acknowledge that if the experimental results differ from what you think they should be, then you just might be wrong.

Is it possible for the end clocks on the train to read different than each other from the mid point? Answer that directly.

Pete, I fully understand the usefulness of measuring how far you travel compared to an object, as 50' on a bus, or 10' on a plane, or 20 miles on a road. That is what we do all the time. But what is not correct to do is assume a plane's, or bus's, or Earth's motion to be zero. That is absurd to say that just because you remain motionless compared to an object, that the object is motionless in the universe.

Fine, the ball traveled 50' compared to the bus, but that doesn't mean the bus was at rest, so don't make that statement unless you have verified the motion of the bus.
Right. I agree.
But what if it is impossible to verify the motion of the bus with respect to the universe? What if any test we try (without external references like the ground, or the GPS) always says that the bus is at rest?
What if relative measures of velocity are all there is?
Then we can never say that anything is at rest, right?

Well, we can't say anything is absolutely at rest.
But, we can say something is at rest relative to something else. For example, it is trivial true to say that the bus is at rest with respect to itself.

When we say "assume the bus is at rest", we don't mean "assume it is at rest with respect to the universe". We mean "use the motion of the bus as our rest reference - all velocities mentioned are with respect to the bus unless otherwise specified."

Can you agree that this is not foolish?

Is it possible for the end clocks on the train to read different than each other from the mid point? Answer that directly.
Experiments indicates that they will always read the same for a non-accelerating train.

Dude, we just agreed that "Distance is distance", that you can't alter an actual distance relationship by defining a different standard.


You can't alter the actual distance, but you can have a system that is inconsistent with the concept of the standards. Like for instance, A ball is on the beach. What is the velocity of the ball towards the center of the Earth? 0 m/s? So is acceleration the rate of change of velocity? At what rate is the 0 velocity changing when on the beach? Zero? So the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is zero? Hmmmmmmm.

Experiments indicates that they will always read the same for a non-accelerating train.

No way Jose! Ever hear of redshift?

You can't alter the actual distance,
So you agree that distance is defined by nature?

but you can have a system that is inconsistent with the concept of the standards.
More importantly, you could define a system that is inconsistent with nature. Such a system would be wrong. Right?

Like for instance, A ball is on the beach. What is the velocity of the ball towards the center of the Earth? 0 m/s?
With respect to the ground, yes.

So is acceleration the rate of change of velocity? At what rate is the 0 velocity changing when on the beach? Zero? So the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is zero? Hmmmmmmm.
With respect to the ground, yes.
What's your point?

No way Jose! Ever hear of redshift?
Yes way.
See if you can find experiments that use doppler to try and measure absolute velocity. Let us know what you find.

So you agree that distance is defined by nature?

Distance is defined by light travel time. There is space between objects in space.


More importantly, you could define a system that is inconsistent with nature. Such a system would be wrong. Right?

Right, and the current system is wrong. Good point.


With respect to the ground, yes.

With respect to the ground, yes.
What's your point?

My point is just that, that the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is 0 ft/sec^2. Agreed?

Really? Then why is it that people state that when on an inertial train, with nothing to relate to externally, that one can't determine whether the train is in motion or not?

Because, It's true


Do Einstein's methods acknowledge that on an inertial train, a midpoint observer will see his clock as different than two end clocks on the train?
Yes, no one has ever implied that they don't.

Does he admit that the two end clocks could appear to the midpoint observer as being out of sync with each other, and out of sync with the midpoint observer's clock, even thought the clocks remain in sync at all times?

Of course not, because the observer wouldn't.

And every actual experiment done in the real world confirms this.

Distance is defined by light travel time.
No, that's an arbitrary standard (albeit a very useful one).


There is space between objects in space.
That's more like it.


Right, and the current system is wrong.
According to you.
MD, if an actual experiments show that your system is inconsistent with reality, would you consider that you might be wrong?


My point is just that, that the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is 0 ft/sec^2. Agreed?
Relative to the ground, the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is 0 ft/sec^2.
Agreed?

Relative to the ground, the acceleration of the ball towards the center of the Earth is 0 ft/sec^2.
Agreed?

Whoops, you forgot the last one.

Is the ball accelerating towards the center of the Earth?

Whoops, you forgot the last one.

Is the ball accelerating towards the center of the Earth?
You implying that there is a single absolute answer for this question.
I suggest that there is not. Like velocity, acceleration is relative to some reference.

The obviously implied rest reference in this case is the ground.
So, the simple answer is yes.

But, other references are possible.

MD, actual experiments show that your system is inconsistent with reality.
Don't you think that this indicates that you might be wrong?

You implying that there is a single absolute answer for this question.
I suggest that there is not. Like velocity, acceleration is relative to some reference.

The obviously implied rest reference in this case is the ground.
So, the simple answer is yes.

But, other references are possible.

Acceleration is simply the rate of change of velocity. If the ball has a zero velocity, and the velocity doesn't increase or decrease in a time interval, then the ball's acceleration is 0 ft/sec^2. So at the surface of the Earth, for the ball, gravity is zero, correct?

MD, actual experiments show that your system is inconsistent with reality.
Don't you think that this indicates that you might be wrong?

You can't admit the end clocks can be viewed as out of sync by the mid point observer when the train is inertial. Why can't you understand that if the train has a velocity, the end clocks will not appear to the midpoint observer as being in sync with each other?

Acceleration is simply the rate of change of velocity. If the ball has a zero velocity, and the velocity doesn't increase or decrease in a time interval, then the ball's acceleration is 0 ft/sec^2. So at the surface of the Earth, for the ball, gravity is zero, correct?
No, that's stupid, and off topic.


Have you given up on arguing that you can measure absolute distance travelled using light travel times?

You can't admit the end clocks can be viewed as out of sync by the mid point observer when the train is inertial. Why can't you understand that if the train has a velocity, the end clocks will not appear to the midpoint observer as being in sync with each other?

Why can't you understand that actually looking at what happens says you're wrong?

MD, do you understand that if a theory predicts some result, but experiments show a different result, then the theory must be wrong?

If actual experiments give a different result to your theory, will you realise that your theory is wrong?

No, that's stupid, and off topic.

It was an example of a misapplied notion of distance and time. The ball's velocity towards the center of the Earth while on the beach is 0 ft/sec, and the acceleration is 0 ft/sec^2, correct? How is that "stupid?"



Have you given up on arguing that you can measure absolute distance travelled using light travel times?

I already explained how in the OP. I suggest you take it to heart.

How is that "stupid?"
You said that if the acceleration of something lying on the ground is zero, that means gravity is zero. That's stupid, and off topic.

I already explained how in the OP. I suggest you take it to heart.
Dude, you're arguing with reality. You navel-gazing OP disagrees with actual experiments.

Once more:
Are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?
Would you rather believe your personal introspection about how things should happen, or actual observations about how things happen?

Dude, you're arguing with reality. You navel-gazing OP disagrees with actual experiments.

Once more:
Are you interested in looking to see how the universe actually works?
Or are you happy with gazing into your own navel, supposing how it might work?
Would you rather believe your personal introspection about how things should happen, or actual observations about how things happen?

I understand the concept of distance and time, and how to measure them properly. I can understand when someone misapplies the concepts to get erroneous results. Are you interested in learning where the current system fails, or do you take it as gospel?

I understand the concept of distance and time, and how to measure them properly. I can understand when someone misapplies the concepts to get erroneous results. Are you interested in learning where the current system fails, or do you take it as gospel?
Have you even looked at the experiments in question?
You want to disagree with reality? Go ahead. Good luck.

Design your method of measuring absolute velocity. Conduct the experiment.
If it fails, will you be interested in learning how things really work?
Or do you take your navel gazing as gospel?

Personally, I'd rather learn how things work by looking and measuring. Knowing what looking and measuring others have done before saves time.
If your experiment succeeds, then I'll be happy to learn how.

No way Jose! Ever hear of redshift?

Redshift only applies if the objects concerned are moving relative to each other, or if the system were accelerating. Since neither of these are the case here, redshift doesn't come into play. You may of heard of it, but you obviously don't understand it.

I never said the speed of light is different using different frames of reference.
In that case your original setup doesn't even conceptually work!

You've also just admitted to Pete that you're not remotely interested in examining the actual experiments that prove that you are wrong!

Note to mods: Motor Daddy is trolling. I suggest the swift and judicious use of the banhammer, or (at the very least) a move to pseudo.

Both motions seconded.

No. There is a de-facto absolute reference frame in the CMBR. Motor Daddy isn't correct, but he's angling at something that he finds unsatisfactory, that leads to deeper understanding. Shouting him down and accusing him of trolling to attempt to censor this discussion is not good scientific conduct.

Motor Daddy, in the heat of the debate you perhaps missed what I said. I'm all for relativity. I get it. And I know what you're getting at:

If we set aside the expansion of the universe along with gravity, we can envisage a simplified scenario wherein light moves at a uniform velocity throughout the whole of space. Since the CMBR pervades the universe, and provides us with a de-facto method of determining our absolute motion through the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#CMBR_dipole_ anisotropy), we can assert that we indeed have an absolute reference frame, and absolute space. We measure distance and time using the motion of light, but when we ourselves move through this absolute space, our measurements of distance and time are skewed. However there is a subtlety to this "skew" that I'm afraid you've missed - your train is affected too. But on the bright side, with that CMBR, all your observer really needs to do is look out of the window.

See The Other Meaning of Special Relativity (http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc) for an interesting read. IMHO this is what you're grasping for.

Remarkable how the CMBR-selected frame (where measurement of CMBR anisotropy has zero dipole moment) does not translate into a preferred frame in which to do physics or a measured violation of Lorentz invariance.

But that assumption destroys Motor Daddy's claims about a train in motion versus a train at rest, because if Farsight is correct, then Motor Daddy has never seen a train, jet fighter, or space probe at rest. The solar system is moving at 368±2 km/sec with respect to Farsight's preferred definition of rest. And Motor Daddy never noticed because only relative motions seem to have any bearing on experience and physics. Further speed of light measurements don't have 0.001 km/s anisotropy let alone 370 km/sec discrepancies.

Remarkable how the CMBR-selected frame (where measurement of CMBR anisotropy has zero dipole moment) does not translate into a preferred frame in which to do physics or a measured violation of Lorentz invariance.

But that assumption destroys Motor Daddy's claims about a train in motion versus a train at rest, because if Farsight is correct, then Motor Daddy has never seen a train, jet fighter, or space probe at rest. The solar system is moving at 368±2 km/sec with respect to Farsight's preferred definition of rest. And Motor Daddy never noticed because only relative motions seem to have any bearing on experience and physics. Further speed of light measurements don't have 0.001 km/s anisotropy let alone 370 km/sec discrepancies.

I never assumed that any train experiment conducted would show an absolute zero velocity. I simply state that IF the end clocks were to appear to the midpoint observer as in sync with each other that would indicate an absolute zero velocity. I am telling you what each condition would mean.

Let's look at this from another angle.

Let's assume the train is at an absolute zero velocity in space. According to Einstein's clock synchronization method, would the mid point observer acknowledge that his clock reads ahead of the two end clocks?

Let's assume the train is at an absolute zero velocity in space.

The term "absolute zero velocity in space" has no meaning in our universe. We could assume that the train was in such a universe where it did have meaning, but that would tell us nothing about our universe.

The term "absolute zero velocity in space" has no meaning in our universe. We could assume that the train was in such a universe where it did have meaning, but that would tell us nothing about our universe.

So according to your answer, the end clocks could never appear to the midpoint observer as being in sync with each other?

So according to your answer, the end clocks could never appear to the midpoint observer as being in sync with each other?

Just how dense are you? My answer is, always has been, and always will be that the clocks will always appear as being in sync to the midpoint observer as long as they are in sync.

I never assumed that any train experiment conducted would show an absolute zero velocity. I simply state that IF the end clocks were to appear to the midpoint observer as in sync with each other that would indicate an absolute zero velocity. I am telling you what each condition would mean.

Let's look at this from another angle.

Let's assume the train is at an absolute zero velocity in space. According to Einstein's clock synchronization method, would the mid point observer acknowledge that his clock reads ahead of the two end clocks?

You have good thoughts.

However, experiments have been done with GPS shooting multiple satellites at the same time at a common source.

Correcting for the rotational sagnac of the earth, the strikes to the ground based observer are simultaneous and hence, the orbital motion of the earth is not see let alone the motion of our solar system with the milky way.

But, these folks here have no clue as to why the earth's orbital sagnac is in the GPS light speed but not the earth's orbital sagnac and the milky way's orbital sagnac.

Just how dense are you? My answer is, always has been, and always will be that the clocks will always appear as being in sync to the midpoint observer as long as they are in sync.

Will they appear to the midpoint observer as reading differently than his midpoint clock?

Will they appear to the midpoint observer as reading differently than his midpoint clock?

He is telling you SR. All clocks will remain in sync. This means light is c in the frame in all directions with that theory.

You are claiming objects in the universe move relative to am absolute constant standard of light.

These folks believe light moves relative to the frame's motion. Thus, if a frame emits a light at its center and is moving relative to you, that light will spread out spherically at the origin of the moving frame. Hence, the light sphere rides with the frame in their theory.

That is what they are telling you except they are calling the theory fact.

In short, what you are saying is what they call false.

He is telling you SR. All clocks will remain in sync. This means light is c in the frame in all directions with that theory.

You are claiming objects in the universe move relative to am absolute constant standard of light.

These folks believe light moves relative to the frame's motion. Thus, if a frame emits a light at its center and is moving relative to you, that light will spread out spherically at the origin of the moving frame. Hence, the light sphere rides with the frame in their theory.

That is what they are telling you except they are calling the theory fact.

In short, what you are saying is what they call false.

I am trying to show them the error of their ways. ;)

Light travels away from point of origin in all directions at c. The growing light sphere remains spherical, regardless if the source moves during the light travel time or not. A moving source only means the source is no longer at the center, it has no affect on the outer light that is traveling away at c relative to the point in space it was emitted.

He is telling you SR. All clocks will remain in sync.

According to Einstein's clock sync method, does the train's midpoint observer view the end clocks as running behind his?

I am trying to show them the error of their ways. ;)

Light travels away from point of origin in all directions at c. The growing light sphere remains spherical, regardless if the source moves during the light travel time or not. A moving source only means the source is no longer at the center, it has no affect on the outer light that is traveling away at c relative to the point in space it was emitted.

There is a problem.

You should be seeing the earth's orbital sagnac in GPS with this logic. Do you understand that?

On the other hand, they use this to validate SR in the light is always measured c in the frame in all directions.

Then, the earth's orbital sagnac does show up in GPS and the speed of light is not measured c in all directions.

Hence, SR is true of Sagnac is true and false.

Funny no?

Anyway, your logic does not work either.

What I am saying, light is doing something else to make these conflicting experiments true and false with sagnac.

Will they appear to the midpoint observer as reading differently than his midpoint clock?

yes.

According to Einstein's clock sync method, does the train's midpoint observer view the end clocks as running behind his?

I know what you are driving at.

You cannot use the clock sync method with one way transfer. The only real accepted logic is two way.

But, let's assume Einstein who claimed 2 way = 1/2 one way of either path.

The correct answer under SR, is if all clocks are synched, then all will agree on the same time that light strikes the midpoint assuming they were emitted simultaneously in the view of the train frame..

That is the 1/2 clock sync method under SR.

I think the problem arises in the clock sync method. Clocks need to be sync'd in such a manner that from the point of one clock, distance is determined by light travel time. ie, if there is two sync'd clocks separated by ~186,000 miles, from each of the clocks perspective, the other clock is 1 second behind his clock.

No two clocks could read the same from any one point if they are properly synchronized. If they do read the same from a distance, that is sure that they are NOT in sync.

I know what you are driving at.

You cannot use the clock sync method with one way transfer. The only real accepted logic is two way.

But, let's assume Einstein who claimed 2 way = 1/2 one way of either path.

The correct answer under SR, is if all clocks are synched, then all will agree on the same time that light strikes the midpoint assuming they were emitted simultaneously in the view of the train frame..

That is the 1/2 clock sync method under SR.

So in my example in the OP, if the clocks were all sync'd and placed at the ends and one in the middle, will the observer in the middle see the end clocks as running behind his own clock?

I think the problem arises in the clock sync method. Clocks need to be sync'd in such a manner that from the point of one clock, distance is determined by light travel time. ie, if there is two sync'd clocks separated by ~186,000 miles, from each pf the clocks perspective, the other clock is 1 second behind his clock.

No two clocks could read the same from any one point if they are properly synchronized. If they do read the same from a distance, that is sure that they are NOT in sync.

This does not work. You are igoring the scinetific evidence that the earth's orbital sagnac is not showing up in GPS.

That means once light is emitted from the GPS satellite, the earth moves in its orbit. This should change the measured speed of light because of the earth's orbit. It does not. If you refuse to accept this factual information, then you are not being scientific.

This does not work. You are igoring the scinetific evidence that the earth's orbital sagnac is not showing up in GPS.

That means once light is emitted from the GPS satellite, the earth moves in its orbit. This should change the measured speed of light because of the earth's orbit. It does not. If you refuse to accept this factual information, then you are not being scientific.

Let me get this straight.

If I have two clocks in perfect sync, and I separate them by a distance of 186,000 miles, will an observer at each clock see the other as 1 second behind his clock? That MUST happen! Every clock in the universe needs to be synchronized to the same time. When you are at one clock, the other clocks will all appear to be behind yours. No matter which clock you travel to, regardless of the speed, the clock you go to will agree with your clock when you get there. You can accelerate however you want to, crawl, walk, run, drive 1,000 mph, they will always read the exact time as yours when you get there.

So in my example in the OP, if the clocks were all sync'd and placed at the ends and one in the middle, will the observer in the middle see the end clocks as running behind his own clock?

Oh, sorry, I do not use visuals in my logic to determine time.

That means, in your OP, the two end clocks would appear out of sync with the center, but based on the distance and light travel, one could determine they are in sync at "absolute rest". I simply do not use eyeball calculations.

Now, NASA is sending out a satellite soon that will determine lorentzian invariance to one part in 10-17 using frequency differentials, ie MMX.

They claim this measures a constant speed of light in all directions and validates SR.

I am trying to show them the error of their ways. ;)
Never going happen, because all the errors are on your side of the argument.
Relativity has all the evidence also. All you've got is your "gut feeling" of how things "should" be.



Light travels away from point of origin in all directions at c. The growing light sphere remains spherical, regardless if the source moves during the light travel time or not. A moving source only means the source is no longer at the center, it has no affect on the outer light that is traveling away at c relative to the point in space it was emitted.

Since the ends of the train are not moving with respect to the midpoint observer, the light emitted from a source at the ends will expand as a sphere from the ends of the train and the ends of the train will always remain at the centers of those spheres as far as anyone on the train is concerned.

Your argument assumes that absolute motion exists in order to demonstrate absolute motion. Its circular logic, and you're chasing your own tail.

Real life experiments have shown again and again that the concept of absolute motion does not exist in our universe.

Your belief that it does means absolutely nothing.

Oh, sorry, I do not use visuals in my logic to determine time.

That means, in your OP, the two end clocks would appear out of sync with the center, but based on the distance and light travel, one could determine they are in sync at "absolute rest". I simply do not use eyeball calculations.

Now, NASA is sending out a satellite soon that will determine lorentzian invariance to one part in 10-17 using frequency differentials, ie MMX.

They claim this measures a constant speed of light in all directions and validates SR.

Visuals are a concept of light travel time, I'm not saying our eyes are good enough, just showing how it works. It's not about human vision capabilities, it's about light travel time. Simply put, if two clocks are in perfect sync and placed ~186,000 miles apart, light takes one second to travel ~186,000 miles. So if you are at one clock and it says 12:00:00, the other clock's light hitting you has an 11:59:59 time stamp on it, as it left the clock at 11:59:59 and took one second to reach you.

Let me get this straight.

If I have two clocks in perfect sync, and I separate them by a distance of 186,000 miles, will an observer at each clock see the other as 1 second behind his clock? That MUST happen! Every clock in the universe needs to be synchronized to the same time. When you are at one clock, the other clocks will all appear to be behind yours. No matter which clock you travel to, regardless of the speed, the clock you go to will agree with your clock when you get there. You can accelerate however you want to, crawl, walk, run, drive 1,000 mph, they will always read the exact time as yours when you get there.

This is a different question. If one accelerates and the other does not, this is well worn material called the twins paradox.

That would need to be specified. Anyway, if one accelerates uniformly, then the following timing differential occurs in the accelerating frame.

c/a sinh(aBT/c)

a is the acceleration in the moving frame and BT is the acceleration time in the moving frame.

Say local time in NY and local time in Florida are the same, in sync. Does it matter what you do to get from one to the other? No, when you get there the time from your Florida watch matches EXACTLY the time on the NY wall clock. It doesn't matter what you do, when you get there, they will read the same. Take an 8 hour nap, drive 100 MPH, stop for gas, get on a plane...when you get there your watch will read the same, as the clocks remained sync'd the entire duration.

BUT..If you were in Florida, observing the NY wall clock from your florida position, light would take time to travel from NY to florida, hence the NY wall clock would appear to be a touch behind your watch in florida.

Visuals are a concept of light travel time, I'm not saying our eyes are good enough, just showing how it works. It's not about human vision capabilities, it's about light travel time. Simply put, if two clocks are in perfect sync and placed ~186,000 miles apart, light takes one second to travel ~186,000 miles. So if you are at one clock and it says 12:00:00, the other clock's light hitting you has an 11:59:59 time stamp on it, as it left the clock at 11:59:59 and took one second to reach you.

No, you cannot use visuals under SR. Oh, it is in the liturature, but those that use it are stupid.

Correct visual interpretations of light in a frame from another requires frame to frame clock sychronization to understand the timing differentials.

Currently, there is no published method to solve this. That is why visuals are not used and should not be used under SR.

Say local time in NY and local time in Florida are the same, in sync. Does it matter what you do to get from one to the other? No, when you get there the time from your Florida watch matches EXACTLY the time on the NY wall clock. It doesn't matter what you do, when you get there, they will read the same. Take an 8 hour nap, drive 100 MPH, stop for gas, get on a plane...when you get there your watch will read the same, as the clocks remained sync'd the entire duration.

BUT..If you were in Florida, observing the NY wall clock from your florida position, light would take time to travel from NY to florida, hence the NY wall clock would appear to be a touch behind your watch in florida.

correct, so what?

you are trying to prove objects move relative to light.

I could use the SR clock synch method to determine these clocks are in sync.

Why would I be so stupid as to wait for the light from the clock to reach my eyes?

correct, so what?

you are trying to prove objects move relative to light.

I could use the SR clock synch method to determine these clocks are in sync.

Why would I be so stupid as to wait for the light from the clock to reach my eyes?

Again, it's not about eyes.

It's showing that if light always travels at c from the light sphere, and two sources are separated by a distance, the light will meet at the midpoint in space, to which if there was an observer there at time of emission, and he moved after emission and before the lights met, one light would hit him sooner than the other, ie, there is NO WAY he could see the "clocks" as reading the same.

Let me get this straight.

Every clock in the universe needs to be synchronized to the same time. When you are at one clock, the other clocks will all appear to be behind yours. No matter which clock you travel to, regardless of the speed, the clock you go to will agree with your clock when you get there. You can accelerate however you want to, crawl, walk, run, drive 1,000 mph, they will always read the exact time as yours when you get there.

There you go again, dictating to reality how it must behave.

I don't know which is worse, the fact that you do it, or that you seem totally unaware that you are doing it.

Again, it's not about eyes.

It's showing that if light always travels at c from the light sphere, and two sources are separated by a distance, the light will meet at the midpoint in space, to which if there was an observer there at time of emission, and he moved after emission and before the lights met, one light would hit him sooner than the other, ie, there is NO WAY he could see the "clocks" as reading the same.

Again, you are refusing to absorb that GPS is not picking up the earth's motion around the sun.

So, GPS beams the signal in the rotating earth frame built into the message with its time.

The ground based unit moves in its revolution around the sun as the light moves toward it.

The ground based units reads the signal/message. Guess what, the unit did not travel in the orbit around the sun based on the coords received. That is what I am trying to tell you. The measured speed of light is perfectly c ignoring junk and the earth's rotational sagnac.

Again, you are refusing to absorb that GPS is not picking up the earth's motion around the sun.

So, GPS beams the signal in the rotating earth frame built into the message with its time.

The ground based unit moves in its revolution around the sun as the light moves toward it.

The ground based units reads the signal/message. Guess what, the unit did not travel in the orbit around the sun based on the coords received. That is what I am trying to tell you. The measured speed of light is perfectly c ignoring junk and the earth's rotational sagnac.

I am sticking with the absolute basics that can't be refuted, as light always travels at c, and distance is defined by light travel time. Sync'd clocks don't lie, GPS does, and needs to be corrected for constantly.

People performing experiments also lie, change results, and perform tests until they get results that fit the bill. Does everybody do that? No, but it is done. I have no idea who fudged what. I do know what I know, that light always travels at c, distance is defined by light travel time, and sync'd clocks beat as one. Those are rock solid facts. I'll stick to them for now.

I am sticking with the absolute basics that can't be refuted, as light always travels at c, and distance is defined by light travel time. Sync'd clocks don't lie, GPS does, and needs to be corrected for constantly.

People performing experiments also lie, change results, and perform tests until they get results that fit the bill. Does everybody do that? No, but it is done. I have no idea who fudged what. I do know what I know, that light always travels at c, distance is defined by light travel time, and sync'd clocks beat as one. Those are rock solid facts. I'll stick to them for now.

Nope, you are not sticking to facts.

Put a satellite in the east at the equator at noon.

Let the satellite emit.

Now, in your logic, the unit must travel at 18.55 mps toward the signal because of the motion of the unit through space by the earth's revolution around the sun.

Also, because the earth is rotating at 1000 mPH, that should be pick up also.

Only the earth's rotation is being picked up. This is GPS unless they are lying about the orbital correction.

I hope you can see, this is a contradiction.

Folks other than MotorDaddy: You are wasting your time. You are also creating distractions & obfuscations by introducing GPS & issues other than the Michaelson-Morley experiments. MotorDaddy believes the following.
If the train moved during the light travel time, ie, had an absolute velocity greater than zero, the mid point observer will travel a distance towards one time stamp and away from the other. That means the two time stamps will impact him at different times, ie, the end clocks light appear to him as out of sync with each other.

That is not even debatable, it is a rock solid fact.For Motor Daddy, the above is a matter of unshakable faith like a religious belief.

He has been told that his belief is contrary to experimental evidence, in particular the Michael-Morley experiment (an easy to understand experiment). His view is that the experimental evidence is wrong.

If he is unwilling or unable to study & understand the Michaelson-Morley experiment, there is no way he will pay attention to or understand GPS physics.

BTW: I think it is a a shame that many promising physics students are taught classical physics for years without any mention of Relativity or Quantum Theory. I have read several books by experts who admitted to having erroneous notions about modern physics for years before being able to put aside the very intuitive (but incorrect notions) taught to them for 3-6 years in high school & college prior to graduate school.

Given MD's clear statement he believes that the GPS network and any other experiment which contradicts him is the result of people lying and fiddling and thus really not evidence against him he's passed from honesty to delusion and deception. The thread should be locked or put into pseudo and all future threads by MD treated likewise.

I second that motion

Accord to Einstein's methods, If local time in NY is the same as local time in Florida, ie, synchronized clocks at each, does an observer in Florida see the NY clock as reading behind his own clock in Florida?

Do Einstein's methods acknowledge that no matter what you do to travel from one point in Florida to another point in NY, that the clocks will always read the same when you get there?

That is nature and that is reality, and that is verified millions of times per day by millions of people. The reality is, Time ticks as one in the entire universe, regardless of what you do while traveling.

We know you love to pontificate, but the universe doesn't care what your opinion is or how forcefully you assert it. Repeated claims are not proof.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the physics is in the doing and comparing to nature. That's why your thought experiments are meaningless, as they are not informed by the results of experiments done -- experiments that show that even the color of gold is evidence that time is not the same for all. And when you refuse to be informed by experiment is why all your posts are Pseudoscience at best.

No doubt a physics textbook raped you as a child or killed your dog and that is why you hate physics so much, but it does not make for interesting conversation that you literally ignore the whole of the universe to talk only about the world inside your head.

We know you love to pontificate, but the universe doesn't care what your opinion is or how forcefully you assert it. Repeated claims are not proof.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the physics is in the doing and comparing to nature. That's why your thought experiments are meaningless, as they are not informed by the results of experiments done -- experiments that show that even the color of gold is evidence that time is not the same for all. And when you refuse to be informed by experiment is why all your posts are Pseudoscience at best.

No doubt a physics textbook raped you as a child or killed your dog and that is why you hate physics so much, but it does not make for interesting conversation that you literally ignore the whole of the universe to talk only about the world inside your head.

Your stuff doesn't add up.

How do you explain the fact that if you sync three clocks, take one to NY, one to Florida, and one to Virginia (Mid point between clocks) that each observer will see their own clock as running ahead of the others, and that the Virginia clock observer will see the other two clocks in sync with each other, but behind his own clock?

So previously, it was agreed that each observer at each clock would send a light signal at precisely 12:00:00.

The clocks all strike 12:00:00 simultaneously, and the light signals are sent.

During the time of light travel, the observer in Virginia travels a distance away from his original mid point position, so the light from Florida reaches him at an earlier time (according to his clock) than the light from NY reaches him.

So since the observer in Virginia traveled a distance during the time of light travel, it is impossible for him to see the other clocks as in sync with each other, and different than his own.

Given MD's clear statement he believes that the GPS network and any other experiment which contradicts him is the result of people lying and fiddling and thus really not evidence against him he's passed from honesty to delusion and deception.

Yeah, that does seem to be the last nail in the coffin of his mental stability and intellectual honesty.

Nope, you are not sticking to facts.

Put a satellite in the east at the equator at noon.

Let the satellite emit.

Now, in your logic, the unit must travel at 18.55 mps toward the signal because of the motion of the unit through space by the earth's revolution around the sun.

Also, because the earth is rotating at 1000 mPH, that should be pick up also.

Only the earth's rotation is being picked up. This is GPS unless they are lying about the orbital correction.

I hope you can see, this is a contradiction.

If the clocks are sync'd on the satellite and the receiving unit, and they remain in sync at all times, if a signal with a time stamp is sent from the satellite to the receiver, it is impossible for the receiver's clock to read exactly as the time stamp when it is received, ie, if the signal is punched like a punch clock with a given time at time of emission, when it is punched at the receiver, the times do not match if the clocks were in perfect sync at all times, because light takes time to travel. The difference between the two punched times is the time of travel, which, if it was light traveling indicates the distance traveled, as distance is defined by light travel time.

Confusing statements of relativity with statements of geometry does not help your case.

Your stuff doesn't add up.

How do you explain the fact that if you sync three clocks, take one to NY, one to Florida, and one to Virginia (Mid point between clocks) that each observer will see their own clock as running ahead of the others, and that the Virginia clock observer will see the other two clocks in sync with each other, but behind his own clock?

So previously, it was agreed that each observer at each clock would send a light signal at precisely 12:00:00.

The clocks all strike 12:00:00 simultaneously, and the light signals are sent.

During the time of light travel, the observer in Virginia travels a distance away from his original mid point position, so the light from Florida reaches him at an earlier time (according to his clock) than the light from NY reaches him.

So since the observer in Virginia traveled a distance during the time of light travel, it is impossible for him to see the other clocks as in sync with each other, and different than his own.

Because he is closer to the Florida clock than he is to the New York clock. He has moved relative to those clocks. This is entirely different from the situation where he remains at the midpoint of the Train and does not move relative to the end clocks.

Because he is closer to the Florida clock than he is to the New York clock. He has moved relative to those clocks. This is entirely different from the situation where he remains at the midpoint of the Train and does not move relative to the end clocks.

It has nothing to do with Florida's position after emission, it has to do with the light from Florida. Once the light is emitted, the source is irrelevant. This situation is the same as the train. The end clocks position is irrelevant to the example after the light is emitted. So on the train, the mid point observer and the end clocks move as one, but since the end clocks don't matter after emission, it is simply the mid point observer moving relative to both lights that were already emitted.

The light is timestamped at time of emission, you can't change that time stamp, you can however change the position of the midpoint observer in relation to the light before the light reaches him, which changes the light travel time of impacting the midpoint observer.

It has nothing to do with Florida's position after emission, it has to do with the light from Florida. Once the light is emitted, the source is irrelevant. This situation is the same as the train. The end clocks position is irrelevant to the example after the light is emitted. So on the train, the mid point observer and the end clocks move as one, but since the end clocks don't matter after emission, it is simply the mid point observer moving relative to both lights that were already emitted.



Yes, we all know what you believe happens. But there is nothing that requires it to happen that way, and in reality, it doesn't.

Yes, we all know what you believe happens. But there is nothing that requires it to happen that way, and in reality, it doesn't.

It has to, that is the reality of light travel time and synchronized clocks. There is no two ways around it, traveling takes time, regardless of how fast you travel.

Here's an interesting tidbit:

If all three clocks were perfectly synchronized and a light signal was emitted simultaneously from each, if the midpoint observer were to start traveling towards Florida at that time of emission, there is no speed he could travel to get to Florida before the light signal was sent. That's right, regardless if he traveled 10 times faster than the speed of light, he would not get there in time. If he traveled at the speed of light, he would meet that signal half way between Virginia and Florida. Twice the speed, half that distance, and such, but it would be impossible to get there at emission or before.

We know you love to pontificate, but the universe doesn't care what your opinion is or how forcefully you assert it. Repeated claims are not proof.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the proof of the physics is in the doing and comparing to nature. That's why your thought experiments are meaningless, as they are not informed by the results of experiments done -- experiments that show that even the color of gold is evidence that time is not the same for all. And when you refuse to be informed by experiment is why all your posts are Pseudoscience at best.

No doubt a physics textbook raped you as a child or killed your dog and that is why you hate physics so much, but it does not make for interesting conversation that you literally ignore the whole of the universe to talk only about the world inside your head.

Wow, it seems you have it all figured out.

Can you help me.

Can you explain please why the earth's rotational sagnac is in GPS but not the earth's orbital sagnac.

This answer is crucial to this thread. The rotational sagnac supports the OP's argument that light is an absolute constant speed in space at c and thus any motion of an object is relative to that absolute constant.

Thanks in advance.

The rotational sagnac supports the OP's argument that light is an absolute constant speed in space at c and thus any motion of an object is relative to that absolute constant. No it doesn't since ring laser gyroscopes measure rotation, not velocity.

The laboratory is attached to the rotating Earth, and it is this angular change with time that is measured, not the radius of the Earth. Likewise if you got a telescope mount programmed to remain orientated at the Sun, a ring laser gyroscope would be rotating at the rate of 1 rev per orbit, and this would measure the orbital sagnac effect. Likewise, if you had the same rig programmed to follow Sirius, you would not be able to measure any Sagnac signal from the gyroscope, even though from the laboratory (which is attached to the Earth) the rig would have the appearance of (slow) rotation.

Motor Daddy, it sounds like I'm the only one who will help you here. What you're missing is this: what is the train made of? This is the conversation we need to have:

Farsight: MotorDaddy, what is the train made of?
MotorDaddy: Steel.
Farsight: OK, so what is the steel made of?
MotorDaddy: Iron atom and carbon atoms.
Farsight: And what are those atoms made of?
MotorDaddy: Electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Farsight: So what are electrons, protons, and neutrons made of? Let's start with the electron. What is the electron made of?
MotorDaddy: We can't say, it's a fundamental particle.
Farsight: Not so. You can make an electron, and a positron, via pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). The electron is quite literally made from light.
MotorDaddy: Hmmn. What about the proton and the neutron?
Farsight:Low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation typically results in two neutral pions which decay in a femtosecond to gamma photons. That's light. A free neutron undergoes beta decay and turns into an electron, a proton, and an antineutrino after about 15 minutes. The antineutrino isn't light, but it has very little mass and travels very fast, so it's not too dissimalir for you to get the drift: in essence, your train is made of light. Now try out your scenario from scratch with a train that's made out of light.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Pairproduction.png

Motor Daddy, it sounds like I'm the only one who will help you here. What you're missing is this: what is the train made of? This is the conversation we need to have:

Farsight: MotorDaddy, what is the train made of?
MotorDaddy: Steel.
Farsight: OK, so what is the steel made of?
MotorDaddy: Iron atom and carbon atoms.
Farsight: And what are those atoms made of?
MotorDaddy: Electrons, protons, and neutrons.
Farsight: So what are electrons, protons, and neutrons made of? Let's start with the electron. What is the electron made of?
MotorDaddy: We can't say, it's a fundamental particle.
Farsight: Not so. You can make an electron, and a positron, via pair production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production). The electron is quite literally made from light.
MotorDaddy: Hmmn. What about the proton and the neutron?
Farsight:Low-energy proton-antiproton annihilation typically results in two neutral pions which decay in a femtosecond to gamma photons. That's light. A free neutron undergoes beta decay and turns into an electron, a proton, and an antineutrino after about 15 minutes. The antineutrino isn't light, but it has very little mass and travels very fast, so it's not too dissimalir for you to get the drift: in essence, your train is made of light. Now try out your scenario from scratch with a train that's made out of light.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/Pairproduction.png

It has nothing to do with what the train is made of. This example is enforcing the standards of distance and time. It's the way distance and time are defined, and it applies to all measures of them.

Take for example the speed of your car relative to the ground. Say your car travels at a constant 60 MPH from Florida to NY. Another person is also driving the same type of car that also travels at a constant 60 MPH from NY to Florida. Say the midpoint of that distance is in Virginia with another person and car that is capable of traveling any speed the operator desires. You all have synchronized clocks and agree that the NY car and the Florida car will start traveling at exactly 12:00:00 towards Virginia. The cars leave at exactly 12:00:00 traveling towards each other. If the midpoint observer stays in place, each other car travels exactly the same distance and time to reach the midpoint. If the midpoint car drives 30 MPH towards Florida before the cars reach him at the midpoint, the Florida car will reach him in less distance in less time. The NY car will have to travel a much greater distance and time to reach the observer at his new position. If the midpoint observer travels towards Florida at 12:00:00, there is no speed he could travel to get to Florida when the Florida car leaves or before that time. He could travel a million times the speed of light and still not be there, as traveling a distance takes time. You have to understand, Distance and time are standards, and those standards must be used properly to get correct results, or you get erroneous information and all kinds of weird paradoxes. There is no paradox using this method!

It is, MotorDaddy. Go back to your original example and think of a train that's made of electrons etc, and electrons etc being made of light just like pair production tells us. And make sure you read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity (http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc) by Robert Close. This is why you always measure the speed of light to be the same. Because you're made of it. When you move fast it's like everything tilts and skews, like a sunset shadow. Only you are the shadow, trying to measure your length with the shadow of your ruler. It always measures the same.

It is, MotorDaddy. Go back to your original example and think of a train that's made of electrons etc, and electrons etc being made of light just like pair production tells us. And make sure you read The Other Meaning of Special Relativity (http://www.classicalmatter.org/ClassicalTheory/OtherRelativity.doc) by Robert Close. This is why you always measure the speed of light to be the same. Because you're made of it. When you move fast it's like everything tilts and skews, like a sunset shadow. Only you are the shadow, trying to measure your length with the shadow of your ruler. It always measures the same.

So as in my example, two cars won't meet at the midpoint if they each drive the same speed and start traveling towards each other simultaneously?

They will meet at the midpoint if
1) The road is all at rest in reference to itself.
2) The road itself is moving inertially, without acceleration
3) They travel at constant speed with respect to the road
4) Either of Galilean or Special Relativity applies to the universe of discourse.

So this example does not depend on experiments which have different experimental outcomes depending if Galilean or Special Relativity is correct.

No it doesn't since ring laser gyroscopes measure rotation, not velocity.

The laboratory is attached to the rotating Earth, and it is this angular change with time that is measured, not the radius of the Earth. Likewise if you got a telescope mount programmed to remain orientated at the Sun, a ring laser gyroscope would be rotating at the rate of 1 rev per orbit, and this would measure the orbital sagnac effect. Likewise, if you had the same rig programmed to follow Sirius, you would not be able to measure any Sagnac signal from the gyroscope, even though from the laboratory (which is attached to the Earth) the rig would have the appearance of (slow) rotation.

I am really lernin' from you.

No it doesn't since ring laser gyroscopes measure rotation, not velocity.

How exactly do ring laser gyroscopes measure rotation? What change are they measuring????


to remain orientated at the Sun, a ring laser gyroscope would be rotating at the rate of 1 rev per orbit, and this would measure the orbital sagnac effect

Well. mathpages does not agree with you and neither do I.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Angular velocity is one variable but so is the radius which is the distance from the sun to the earth.

So, your argument falls apart.

Is there any way you can make your argument consistent with the mathpages argument? If not, I can help you.

Two light sources a distance away emit light simultaneously. Each light travels the same amount of time to reach each other. That light travel time defines the distance of light travel.

Comparing light to another object's motion has no affect on the light travel time (distance) in which the light travels, as light's motion is not defined relative to other objects.

If those lights were emitted above Earth, and the Earth rotated during the time of light travel, the fact that the Earth rotated doesn't change the time or distance that the light travels to reach each other. If the Earth has an absolute zero rotational velocity, the midpoint on the Earth at time of emission will be where the lights impact each other. If the Earth moved during the time of light travel, that midpoint on Earth will not be the place where the lights impact, but the Earth's absolute motion is what determines that, not the light's distance and time traveled.

Again, light's distance traveled is defined by light travel time, by definition, it has nothing to do with another object.

Look at it this way, every point in the universe is a synchronized clock, all beating as one. If you are at one point, and you travel to a different point, the time you leave is stamped on you, it is a starting time. The time you arrive at the new point is also stamped on you, it is a finish time. The difference is the time of travel, and if you are light, that light travel time defines the distance of light travel. It really is as simple as that, and there is no paradox, or way of violating causality, as traveling takes time.


Say for instance you are an observer at the midpoint of a train, and a light strikes you from each end at different times. There are different possibilities as to what really happened, one that the train was in motion and the lights could have been emitted from each end of the train simultaneously, hence reaching the observer at different times, or that the train was at an absolute zero velocity, and that the lights were emitted at different times. To assume the later is absurd, as when the lights hit you, the light has a time stamp of when it was emitted. If two lights hit you at different times, but have the same departure times stamped on them, guess what???

So as in my New York, Virginia, Florida example, if two cars leave from NY and Florida simultaneously and travel towards the midpoint Virginia observer, and the midpoint Virginia observer moves before the cars get to him, why does he insist that the NY and Florida based cars must have started traveling at different times, just because they reached him at different times? Is he really that stupid to not see that he changed his position and that caused the cars to reach him at different times? Why does he insist he was at rest the entire time? Some people's kids, I tell ya. :rolleyes:

A test of absolute motion.

An observer in a train synchronizes three clocks. He places one clock at one end of the train, one clock at the other end of the train, and returns to the midpoint of the train with one clock.

1. The observer looks at each end clock and sees the clocks as out of sync with his own clock. That is due to the fact that the end clocks are a distance away from his clock at the midpoint. Light takes time to travel, hence the observer will see the clocks on the end as reading differently than his own, even though the clocks actually remain synchronized.

2. If the train were to have an absolute zero velocity, the two end clocks would appear to the observer at the midpoint as being in sync with each other, but just reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

3. If the train were to have an absolute velocity of greater than zero, the two end clocks will appear to the observer at the midpoint as being out of sync with each other, and reading differently than his own clock at the midpoint.

Using Einstein's synchronization method, after the distant
clocks are positioned, from the midpoint you send a light
signal to both, and record the transit time t.
Next you send a signal to both to set each at current time +
t/2. The distant clocks are now synched to the middle clock
for all measurement purposes. Even though the observer may
have a motion relative to a fixed frame of reference in an
absolute sense, it doesn't matter. The method doesn't require
you to know it, because it uses the 2-way path of light. The
observer will receive the same earlier readings from both
clocks, which he attributes to propagation time.
Since this method works for all uniform motion, and is
independent of speed, case 3 will not happen.

Using Einstein's synchronization method, after the distant
clocks are positioned, from the midpoint you send a light
signal to both, and record the transit time t.

If the train has a velocity, there will be two different transit times. How do you reckon that with the fact that you are midway between the two clocks, since light travel time defines distance?

So you took a piece of string and ran it from one end of the train to the other, cut it to the exact length, and then folded it in half so the ends lined up and cut it at the fold, to have two equal pieces of string. You take one string and start it at one end, and sit at the other end of the string, and whala, you are at the midpoint of the length of the train. If the transit time of light takes a different amount of time to go from the middle to each end, how do you justify your midpoint position, since light travel time defines distance?

Well. mathpages does not agree with you and neither do I.
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Angular velocity is one variable but so is the radius which is the distance from the sun to the earth. You seem deeply confused on this issue. The commercially available ring laser gyroscopes (and related fiber-optic gyroscopes) do not, as in diagram 1, have the sun at their center. You must go further down the page to the calculation for an arbitrary rigid light path, and discover that the location (or distance to) the center of rotation does not appear in the final calculation, but that the effect is proportional to the rate of change of angle, \omega and the (signed) area enclosed by the rigid light path.

If the train has a velocity, there will be two different transit times. How do you reckon that with the fact that you are midway between the two clocks, since light travel time defines distance?

So you took a piece of string and ran it from one end of the train to the other, cut it to the exact length, and then folded it in half so the ends lined up and cut it at the fold, to have two equal pieces of string. You take one string and start it at one end, and sit at the other end of the string, and whala, you are at the midpoint of the length of the train. If the transit time of light takes a different amount of time to go from the middle to each end, how do you justify your midpoint position, since light travel time defines distance?

You are talking one way paths which are different, but the synch convention uses both out and back times. The path lengths forward equal those backward, but in the opposite order.

You are talking one way paths which are different, but the synch convention uses both out and back times. The path lengths forward equal those backward, but in the opposite order.

So you take a round trip time of light travel and divide it in half to come to the conclusion that light traveled the same time there and back, while disregarding the fact that the "mirror" placed at the end could have moved in the same direction of travel as the light during light travel towards it, until it impacts the mirror, and then disregard the fact that the mid point could be moving towards the returning light? That is too funny. You take a round trip time of travel and assume that the light traveled the same time there and back, and then have the nerve to say the train was at rest? You take an average and say, see, they are the same!:rolleyes:

How much time did it take the light to impact the end, and how much time did it take to impact the midpoint? The distance is not an average, it is light travel time.

So in effect, what you are saying is that if I drive 1 hour to a point, and turn around and drive .5 hours in the opposite direction, I actually drove .75 hours there and .75 hours back. If my speed was always 60 MPH, I drove 45 miles each way? That is absurd!

You seem deeply confused on this issue. The commercially available ring laser gyroscopes (and related fiber-optic gyroscopes) do not, as in diagram 1, have the sun at their center. You must go further down the page to the calculation for an arbitrary rigid light path, and discover that the location (or distance to) the center of rotation does not appear in the final calculation, but that the effect is proportional to the rate of change of angle, \omega and the (signed) area enclosed by the rigid light path.

I am guessing the gyroscopes do not use the earth's radius as their radius either.

Let's look at math pages.

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

If two pulses of light are sent in opposite directions around a stationary circular loop of radius R,

Thus, the radius for the calculation of the earth's orbital sagnac is the distance of the sun to the earth.

The earth's rotational sagnac radius is the earth's radius.

The gyroscope's rotational sagnac radius is the gyroscope's radius.

See how that works.

Now, if you use angular velocity, then you must use the area swept out by the radius of the loop of the path.

I would hate to make such a silly public error. Perhaps, you should debate someone else.

As such, my contention that the orbital sagnac sould be greater than the rotational sagnac is valid.

If the train has a velocity, there will be two different transit times. How do you reckon that with the fact that you are midway between the two clocks, since light travel time defines distance?

So you took a piece of string and ran it from one end of the train to the other, cut it to the exact length, and then folded it in half so the ends lined up and cut it at the fold, to have two equal pieces of string. You take one string and start it at one end, and sit at the other end of the string, and whala, you are at the midpoint of the length of the train. If the transit time of light takes a different amount of time to go from the middle to each end, how do you justify your midpoint position, since light travel time defines distance?

You are simply not getting their position.

They believe light is relative to the frame.

You do not.

They think you look silly with your contention and you continue to repeat your argument in different ways in which they cannot ever see.

Again, they believe light is relative to the frame, ie c to the frame.

Then, the relativity postulate asserts each frame will apply the same rules of physics and hence, light is c to all frames.

So you take a round trip time of light travel and divide it in half to come to the conclusion that light traveled the same time there and back, while disregarding the fact that the "mirror" placed at the end could have moved in the same direction of travel as the light during light travel towards it, until it impacts the mirror, and then disregard the fact that the mid point could be moving towards the returning light? That is too funny. You take a round trip time of travel and assume that the light traveled the same time there and back, and then have the nerve to say the train was at rest? You take an average and say, see, they are the same!:rolleyes:

How much time did it take the light to impact the end, and how much time did it take to impact the midpoint? The distance is not an average, it is light travel time.

-In the drawing, M is at the midpoint with his M-clock, the B-clock at
the back, the A-clock at the front, and moving to the right in the x
direction.
The clocks are synchronized with the B-clock ahead of the M-clock by t/2,
and the M-clock ahead of the A-clock by t/2, with t equal to the time for
light to travel out and back along d. It's obvious the time out is
different from the time back, as observed by anyone NOT moving with M.
The purpose of defining simultaneity and a practical method to establish
it, is to provide a consistent method of measurement for all observers in
motion, knowing only their relative speed in space. The method allows M
to consider his reference point as equivalent to the fixed reference frame.

Consider any container with M inside, moving at v relative to earth.
Everything in the container has a parallel translation of v. Whatever
motions occur in the container are going to include this translation, but
since this translation does not change the relative postions of any
objects inside, it's not detectable. Only change can be detected, but
uniform motion does not change.
If M sends simultaneous signals to A and B, and receives simultaneous
signals from A and B, and both clocks read the same time, then M
concludes they are equally distant and in synch, i.e., his frame is
symmetrical as a fixed frame should be.
Using this simultaneity convention does not imply the frame is not
moving, it just transforms it to an equivalent or pseudo rest frame.


So in effect, what you are saying is that if I drive 1 hour to a point, and turn around and drive .5 hours in the opposite direction, I actually drove .75 hours there and .75 hours back. If my speed was always 60 MPH, I drove 45 miles each way? That is absurd!
-That's what you are saying, but you're correct.
You traveled 1.5 hr @ 60 mph = 90 miles.
The trips are equivalent, i.e., 60 + 30 = 45 + 45.
https://www.qdrive.net/en/home/images/?userid=2104&ky=NP4XpX5xxBHj2X3EsXsXpmD3E9LX9qKxx1m&id=128830&fn=train%20simult%20axis.gif

-In the drawing, M is at the midpoint with his M-clock, the B-clock at
the back, the A-clock at the front, and moving to the right in the x
direction.
The clocks are synchronized with the B-clock ahead of the M-clock by t/2,
and the M-clock ahead of the A-clock by t/2, with t equal to the time for
light to travel out and back along d.

Synchronized clocks beat as one. There is no time difference between synchronized clocks, regardless of how far apart they are.

The synchronization method you speak of is entirely wrong. If I synchronize three clocks and place one clock at B, one clock at A, and one clock at M, all three clocks beat as one. Given that fact, if you were at M, and a light signal was sent from A and B simultaneously, if all the clocks had an absolute zero velocity the light signals would arrive at M simultaneously. If those light signals had a time stamp of when they were sent, they would both have the same exact time stamp. When they arrived at M, M would also note the time of arrival, which would be at a later time then the time stamps from A and B. The difference between the departure time stamp and the arrival time stamp is the time of travel.

No clock is set ahead of the other, they are all synchronized clocks beating as one. The way it is supposed to work is that if every point in the universe has a synchronized clock, the time is exactly the same every place in the universe. The universe has one "timezone", if you will. Same as the concept of the Eastern timezone on the East coast. There is distance between Florida and NY, but the time is exactly the same. That's the way it's supposed to be everywhere in the universe. Universal time. There is supposed to be ONE timezone for a UNIverse.

-That's what you are saying, but you're correct.
You traveled 1.5 hr @ 60 mph = 90 miles.
The trips are equivalent, i.e., 60 + 30 = 45 + 45.


Going 60 miles in one direction and 30 miles in the opposite direct is not equal to 45 miles in one direction and 45 miles in the opposite direction. Are you even understanding what you are saying?


I said:


So in effect, what you are saying is that if I drive 1 hour to a point, and turn around and drive .5 hours in the opposite direction, I actually drove .75 hours there and .75 hours back. If my speed was always 60 MPH, I drove 45 miles each way? That is absurd!

I specially said I drove 1 hour to a point and .5 hours in the opposite direction. I didn't say I drove .75 hours one way and .75 hours the other way. Are you now telling me what I did?

Here's a test, drive 60 miles in drive (forward), and then throw it in reverse and drive 30 miles and see if you end up in the starting position. Now drive 45 miles in drive and 45 miles in reverse. How can you possibly say those two situations are equal??

Synchronized clocks beat as one. There is no time difference between synchronized clocks, regardless of how far apart they are.

The synchronization method you speak of is entirely wrong. If I synchronize three clocks and place one clock at B, one clock at A, and one clock at M, all three clocks beat as one. Given that fact, if you were at M, and a light signal was sent from A and B simultaneously, if all the clocks had an absolute zero velocity the light signals would arrive at M simultaneously. If those light signals had a time stamp of when they were sent, they would both have the same exact time stamp. When they arrived at M, M would also note the time of arrival, which would be at a later time then the time stamps from A and B. The difference between the departure time stamp and the arrival time stamp is the time of travel.

No clock is set ahead of the other, they are all synchronized clocks beating as one. The way it is supposed to work is that if every point in the universe has a synchronized clock, the time is exactly the same every place in the universe. The universe has one "timezone", if you will. Same as the concept of the Eastern timezone on the East coast. There is distance between Florida and NY, but the time is exactly the same. That's the way it's supposed to be everywhere in the universe. Universal time. There is supposed to be ONE timezone for a UNIverse.

How do you define points in the universe?

Further, the earth's motion in orbit is not picked with GPS.

Your argument says it should be.

Tell me I am wrong.

How do you define points in the universe?

Light is emitted from a source in the universe. The light sphere expands independent of what the source does. At 1 second the sphere has a radius of ~186,000 miles. If the source moved during that one second, it is no longer at the center point of the light sphere. Just because the source moves doesn't mean there isn't a center point of the sphere. The sphere keeps expanding from the point in space it was emitted, independent of what the source does. The sphere's center will always be the point in space where the sphere's light originated, and the light will travel away from that point at c, independent of all other motion. Light simply travels at c relative to space.

Synchronized clocks beat as one. There is no time difference between synchronized clocks, regardless of how far apart they are.
...
No clock is set ahead of the other, they are all synchronized clocks beating as one. The way it is supposed to work is that if every point in the universe has a synchronized clock, the time is exactly the same every place in the universe. The universe has one "timezone", if you will. Same as the concept of the Eastern timezone on the East coast. There is distance between Florida and NY, but the time is exactly the same. That's the way it's supposed to be everywhere in the universe. Universal time. There is supposed to be ONE timezone for a UNIverse.

Motion alters the rate of a clock (time dilation). If you synch your clocks, then move them to a designated location, they aren't in sych anymore.
Google 'time dilation' and see how it works.

If I knew this topic was going to last this long, I would have brought tea and tarts!

Motion alters the rate of a clock (time dilation). If you synch your clocks, then move them to a designated location, they aren't in sych anymore.
Google 'time dilation' and see how it works.

If I knew this topic was going to last this long, I would have brought tea and tarts!

Let's just use one timezone for an example, the Eastern timezone. Once you get the idea, you will know how distance, time, and clocks work, and then you can transform that concept to a universal scale using a universal timezone.

NY and Florida are in the same timezone, so theoretically all watches and clocks in NY and Florida remain in sync at all times. If you are in Florida, you can look at your watch and know EXACTLY what time it is 1,000 miles away in NY. EXACTLY, as the clocks remained synchronized at all times. If you were standing in Virginia (which is also synchronized with Florida and NY, because it too is in the Eastern timezone) you could look at your watch and know what exact time it is in NY and Florida. But say you were in Virginia and once your clock struck 12:00:00:00 there was a light signal sent from Florida. You know since your clock says 12:00:00:00 and the Florida time is synchronized to your watch, that the signal is on its way to your location. It takes time for light to travel, so it doesn't arrive at 12:00:00:00, it arrives at a later time.

Agreed so far?

NY and Florida are in the same timezone, so theoretically all watches and clocks in NY and Florida remain in sync at all times. Either you misuse the scientific sense of the word theory or you have not a clue about the way things work in our universe.

That's a god-awful theory, easily refuted by any of:
1) clocks which are not orginally synced with the standard (lazy out-of-towners, people who set their clocks ahead, etc.)
2) clocks which don't keep even time (sundials, wristwatchs, etc)
3) precise and accurately synced clocks which don't account for capricious and arbitrary changes to the standard (like daylight savings time and the nefarious leap second)
4) precise and accurately synced clocks which are in motion with respect to the reference
5) precise and accurately synced clocks which are at a different altitude than the reference

You aren't addressing the physics. You aren't even addressing the engineering realities of the man-made fiction of a time zone.

Either you misuse the scientific sense of the word theory or you have not a clue about the way things work in our universe.

That's a god-awful theory, easily refuted by any of:
1) clocks which are not orginally synced with the standard (lazy out-of-towners, people who set their clocks ahead, etc.)
2) clocks which don't keep even time (sundials, wristwatchs, etc)
3) precise and accurately synced clocks which don't account for capricious and arbitrary changes to the standard (like daylight savings time and the nefarious leap second)
4) precise and accurately synced clocks which are in motion with respect to the reference
5) precise and accurately synced clocks which are at a different altitude than the reference

You aren't addressing the physics. You aren't even addressing the engineering realities of the man-made fiction of a time zone.

Yeah, it isn't the same time in NY and Florida because Grandma forgot to put new batteries in her wall clock, junior's watch doesn't work in the pool, and Jethro never adjusted his clock for daylight savings time. :rolleyes:

However in spite of those ridiculous statements, synchronized clocks beat as one, and light takes time to travel. Facts that can't be refuted.

You want to address physics properly? We don't live in a vacuum. No matter how much you scream and holler insisting your train is at rest, you will travel a distance and it will take time, and you will start at one point and end at another point. You can proclaim to be at rest on the highway, but if the guy in front of you slams on the brakes you are going through the windshield if you aren't wearing your seat belt! You can demand all you want that the Earth is at rest, but we both know you are wrong, don't we?

Why is this thread still open? Neither Jack nor MD have any interest in learning from their mistakes and both have made it clear they firmly believe its everyone else's fault but theirs, with MD going so far as to basically deny experimental fact. I have considerably less time to spend on forums due to actually having a real job now but even if I had a week long holiday they aren't worth the time. Rpenner, phyti, your time is worth more than this.

Why is this thread still open? Neither Jack nor MD have any interest in learning from their mistakes and both have made it clear they firmly believe its everyone else's fault but theirs, with MD going so far as to basically deny experimental fact. I have considerably less time to spend on forums due to actually having a real job now but even if I had a week long holiday they aren't worth the time. Rpenner, phyti, your time is worth more than this.

What?

All my logic has left you submissive.

My twins thread was never refuted.

When in the time of the stationary frame does the moving frame see light a distance r.

Is there an answer?

I know the answer do you?

To sum this thread up, The OP is correct, and the reason the relativist can't see it is because they don't understand what synchronized clocks are because of Einstein's incorrect synchronization method, and the fact that there is no relativity of simultaneity. Is it any wonder that relativity has so many paradoxes. Just to be clear, a paradox is an indicator that something is not right.

I mean, if you synchronize three clocks, and start walking from a midpoint of a train at exactly 12:00:00, walk for one second to one end of the train and place a clock there, it is 12:00:01. If you then leave that position when all the clocks read 12:00:07 and walk to the other end of the train, and it takes you two seconds to get there, and place a clock there, the two clocks read 12:00:09. If you leave there at 12:00:33 and go to the midpoint of the train, and it takes you one second to get there, your clock reads 12:00:34 when you get there. All the clocks are in sync, and have remained in sync the entire time.

However, the fact that the midpoint is an equal distance away from each end clock means that the light from each end clock will take time to travel to the midpoint, so if it leaves each end at 12:00:57, it will arrive at the midpoint at a later time, as light takes time to travel. This can be verified by time stamping the light signals of the departure time they left the endpoints, and the arrival time at the midpoint. It is an absolute fact.

Just to be clear, a paradox is an indicator that something is not right.
Just to be clear, you do realize that there aren't any paradoxes there, right?

I second AN - this thread should have been an abortion, but euthanasia will do.

Just to be clear, you do realize that there aren't any paradoxes there, right?

So you agree Einstein's sync method is wrong, and there is no relativity of simultaneity?



I second AN - this thread should have been an abortion, but euthanasia will do.

I'm sure you would like to see it go away. Nobody likes it when facts contradict their fiction. They just want it to go away. They refuse to accept the reality.

To sum this thread up, The OP is correct, and the reason the relativist can't see it is because they don't understand what synchronized clocks are because of Einstein's incorrect synchronization method, and the fact that there is no relativity of simultaneity. Is it any wonder that relativity has so many paradoxes. Just to be clear, a paradox is an indicator that something is not right.


True summation:

MD, if we are to take his word for it and he is not yanking people's chains, believes in absolute space and time. This belief is so deeply rooted in his psyche that he has elevated it in his mind to absolute truth. He has attempted to provide proofs of his beliefs, but since every one of these proofs start off by assuming that which they are meant to prove, they just end up as exercises in circular logic.

He has even gone as far as to asserted that countless experiments and observations made by countless people for more than 100 yrs have been fudged and falsified in order to prop up relativity. (In spite of the fact that one of the biggest of these experiments was performed decades before Relativity was conceived and that the results were not what they were expected to be at the time it was done.)

He would rather accept this than accept that his position could be wrong. IOW, Everyone other than himself is either wrong or lying.

In this, he is not unlike those, who to this day, refuse to accept that the world is round. It is, in their minds, inconceivable, or to use MD's favorite word, absurd.

It is a perfect example of the mindset that says "Any idea that I can not wrap my mind around must automatically be false."

His claim that Einsteins' synchronization method produces a paradox is evidence of this mindset. This claim is purely based on the fact that it is in conflict with his cherished belief in absolute time and space. Relativity is logically consistent in all ways, it just doesn't accept the concept of absolute time and space. Since MD can not even hypothetically conceive of a universe in which time and space are not absolute, he sees paradox where there is none.

So you agree Einstein's sync method is wrong, and there is no relativity of simultaneity?

You're either being disingenuous, which, in addition to not winning you any points would make you a bit of a prick, or you're being stupid, which isn't really in your favour, either.

In case it's the latter: There are no paradoxes and you're wrong.


I'm sure you would like to see it go away. Nobody likes it when facts contradict their fiction. They just want it to go away. They refuse to accept the reality.
Let's see: You have a poorly formulated thought experiment, absolutely no technical proficiency in the theory you're trying to refute, vanishing logical skills, and you refuse to even acknowledge the actual experiments that directly refute your "points" (insofar as they can be made comprehensible).

I'm not the one who has a problem with reality, here. Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

I'll fart in your general direction.

...and I'll also provide an example of distance and time that has no paradoxes.

The Rocket ship

Twin brothers are standing next to each other on Earth. One brother is showing the other brother his new rocket ship. He says "this baby will go from 0 to 93,000 miles per second (.5c) in one second." He explains to the brother that an acceleration rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 is the rate of change of velocity. If an object's initial velocity is zero, and the object accelerates (thrusts) at the rate of 93,000 mi/sec^2 for one second, one second later the object will have traveled a distance of 46,500 miles, and will be traveling at the velocity of 93,000 mi/sec.

The brother says, "cool, can I take a spin?" The other brother says, "no problem." The brother immediately jumps into the rocket, ready to go. The rocket ship has on board data acquisition systems that will record the exact distance traveled per time interval, and a state of the art time device. The ship also has an accelerometer that records the acceleration of the ship at all times in every direction.

The brother flips the switch that activates the data acquisition systems and the max thrust engines at the same time. He turns off the thrust when one second has elapsed. He is now traveling at the velocity of 93,000 miles/sec. The brother continues to travel at that velocity for 10 seconds at which time he reverses thrust and "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 miles/sec^2 for a duration of 1 second.

His velocity is now zero miles per second and he is 1,023,000 miles away from his brother. He just traveled a total of 1,023,000 miles in the duration of 12 seconds. The brother decides to get some sleep.

Exactly 8 hours after arriving, the brother activates all systems, including max thrust that starts the return journey. The brother accelerates at the same rate (93,000 miles/sec^2) for one second. After one second has elapsed he turns off thrust. He again travels at the velocity of 93,000 miles per second for 10 seconds, at which time he "decelerates" at the rate of 93,000 mi/sec^2 (reverse thrust) for a duration of 1 second. Total elapsed time of return travel is 12 seconds, and again, the distance traveled is 1,023,000 miles.

The ship traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in one direction, and 8 hours later traveled 1,023,000 miles in 12 seconds in the opposite direction.

Actual travel distance- 2,046,000 miles
Actual travel time- 24 seconds
Layover time- 8 hours
Total time- 8 hours 24 seconds
Max acceleration- 93,000 mi/sec^2
Min acceleration-0
Maximum velocity- 93,000 mi/sec
Minimum velocity-0
Average speed- 85,250 mi/sec

I mean, if you synchronize three clocks, and start walking from a midpoint of a train at exactly 12:00:00, walk for one second to one end of the train and place a clock there, it is 12:00:01. If you then leave that position when all the clocks read 12:00:07 and walk to the other end of the train, and it takes you two seconds to get there, and place a clock there, the two clocks read 12:00:09. If you leave there at 12:00:33 and go to the midpoint of the train, and it takes you one second to get there, your clock reads 12:00:34 when you get there. All the clocks are in sync, and have remained in sync the entire time.

However, the fact that the midpoint is an equal distance away from each end clock means that the light from each end clock will take time to travel to the midpoint, so if it leaves each end at 12:00:57, it will arrive at the midpoint at a later time, as light takes time to travel. This can be verified by time stamping the light signals of the departure time they left the endpoints, and the arrival time at the midpoint. It is an absolute fact.

Wrong, this fails.

To walk means to accelerate the clocks.

Accelerating clocks beat slower.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0411/0411233v1.pdf

MD;
Just checking in to see if you're progressing.

There can be no motion in an inertial frame. If you are moving with your clocks, you are no longer part of the train frame. You and your clocks will run at a different rate, because you have a different speeds, moving from one end to the other.
You're not considering time dilation in your experiment.