A mechanical couple can move at fastest at the speed of sound in the substance which the couple is made of. And under SRT sound, being a physical movement, can never reach the speed of light. The events can be set up beforehand so as to be synchronised in the carriage frame, but then by SRT they aren't in the embankment frame (e.g. using the Lorentz transform). The only events that are synchronised in every frame are those that occur at the same place as well as the same time. Because if that didn't hold, reality would go wonky (e.g. in one frame, an object hits another and by Newton's law the second reacts ... in the other frame the first object hits and the Newtonian reaction happens five seconds later? Wouldn't work.)
Perhaps. But at the most basic physics level if a process can be upheld then it becomes an alternative explanation.
Isn't the speed of sound for a particular substance just the speed at which that substance conducts mechanical impulses? If so, mechanical impulses obviously can't be conducted faster than the speed of sound Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'm not sure what you meant by this: I thought you may have meant using a rigid rod to synchronise the light emission and putting the trap in its initial positions. But if it comes down to making the events simultaneous in both frames, it can't work. E.g. a rod would 'synchronise' the two events (by mechanical impulse) more slowly than a light signal, so it's not practical for a situation like this.
The shaft couples two rotating disk, one at each end of the train such that the disks are synchronized as to position at the time of the flash. Envision an embankment observer midway between the traps at the moment the observers sees the flash and it pass through the caboose trap enroute to the engine trap. The engine trap is also viewed as being in the same postion at that instant. However upon arrival the engine trap disk is not in the same position as it is in the train frame when the light flash arrives. That is in fact your simultaneity affect. That affect precludes passages of the light through both traps in both frames.
True and proven in the thread which this one grew from. (Is time universal - No and its proof.) MacM earned 16 "duck and weave" credits there and was working on number 17 when he abandon it. I forget which number his "other photons" concept was but he continued that concept in the start of this thread. I.e. according to MacM, the red and blue shifted photons available for observation in the embankment frame are not the same photons as the yellow ones in the train frame and consequently the red and blue photons can not trigger the explosions because they do not pass thru the yellow pass filters. I.e. he claims that SRT predict no explosions in the embankment frame and explosion in the train frame. All agree this is nonsense, but most people understand that MacM's understanding of SRT and physics is the source of the nonsense, not SRT itself. The original thread's proof did not even need to assume that the speed of light is the same in all frames to prove your statement quoted above. Nor did it have any transit time delays so the standard objection of anti-SRT people that it was all due to observational or perceptual delays was not available, but MacM found 16 ways to still object - he is very creative. Sad he is also missinformed. Physics Monkey gave a simple and clear reason why the blue shifted light of the embankment frame pass thru the yellow pass only filters. - The yellow pass filter at front of the train is running away in the embankment frame, so that blue shifted light is red shifted FOR THE MOVING FILTER back exactly to its original yellow again. See MacM's own words in the first post of this thread to see how badly he thinks about all this. He contiues to try to find ways that event "A" and event "not A" can both occur only by changing the frame one used to describe the event in. E.g. pass and not pass his "velocity filter", or pass and not pass the color filter, etc. Now something about rotating wheels also, I think, but I have not read. Perhaps, if these wheels have nothing to do with this thread's initial post, which he made, he should get credit for duck and weave 17 now? That would be a new first if he is ducking and weaving away from his own post!
Nah, this latest stuff is just another re-hash of his plan to synchronize clocks in multiple frames at once. Surely that's already been counted?
Intersting how you can comment on issues you admit to not having read or understanding. But then again that has always been your style. Speaking of creative what happened to all our claims of gravity attraction between particles on the surface of a spherical shell going to zero as the shells (hence particles) approached the center of the main sphere?
Hahaha! It is extremely amusing for you to call one of my posts "babble". I am vastly entertained. If you knew anything about Gravity Probe B you would know that it is testing frame dragging by means of the most sophisticated and perfect flywheels ever developed. If you knew anything about relativity you would know that time dilation is a first-order effect and frame dragging is a higher-order effect. If you knew anything about science you would know that it is not possible to test for higher-order effects without considering the lower-order effects. I notice that you have carefully avoided addressing my rather elegant analysis. I guess this is a new corollary to your favorite proof, "Ignore X until X ceases to be true". The most interesting thing about this thread is how convinced you are that SR is wrong. Although you are convinced that it is wrong you have no idea what it actually predicts. Your conviction can only be based on prejudice until you understand SR's claims. As it is, your current attack on SR stems not from an understanding of any flaws but instead from your flawed understanding. -Dale
I keep telling everyone, it's no problem to synchronize clocks in multiple reference frames at once. Simply use a stable pulsar as a reference. Suppose quadraphonics is on the Earth and I am in a spaceship at a relativistic velocity relative to the Earth. quadraphonics sees no problem keeping HIS clock synchronized with the pulsar, but he thinks mine is beating too slow and I have to keep adjusting it everytime I change to a different relative velocity. On my spaceship, I say no, MY clock is beating normally, it's quadraphonics's clock that keeps beating slower as he moves away from me at different relative velocities. I don't need to adjust MY clock, the rotational velocity of the pulsar, and hence its steady beat, does not change. Neither of us needs to change our clock's beat rate in our own frame of reference, correct? The rotational speed of the pulsar does not change when viewed from either frame of reference, correct?
Hi 2inquisitive, We covered this before, back in the [thread=51810]Length Contraction[/thread] thread. Why do you think that the rotational speed of a pulsar is not frame dependent?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! MacM, DaleSpam has totally destroyed you, with a rather elegant refutation of why the trap will allow the light to enter in all frames according to str. If you knew a bit more of the technical side of special relativity (perhaps starting here) you could understand why, too. Very nicely done, DaleSpam!
No it changes just like any other doppler shift. Imagine a very low frequency radiowave with frequency equal to the rotational pulse rate and perhaps you will understand. Both shift their frequencies to higher frequencise if you are running towards the pulse stream approaching you (blue shift or in each of your seconds, you see more pulses) and they shift towards lower frequencies if you are receeding from the source (red shift or fewer pulses reach you each second as you run from the appoaching pulse stream.).
As is typical you (and others) do not understand the differance between perception and reality. The doppler shift change in pulse frequency has absolutely nothing to do with any change in rotational speed of the pulsar. It did not change. Doppler shift compensation (red or blue) brings both frames to a common pulse per pulse standard. Tick rate of the respective clocks can be adjusted according to the amount of doppler correction.
Yet more babble and rhetoric. Nicely done funkstar. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Billy T, the rotational rate of a celestial object is not Doppler shift. The LIGHT from a quasar will be Doppler shifted due to relative velocity, but not rotational frequency. Think of it this way. We measure the rotational rate of edge-on spiral galaxies by comparing the Doppler shift of the approaching side (left) with the Doppler shift of the receeding side (right). The rotational rate is the difference between the two Doppler shifts. If we move toward the galaxie at a relativistic velocity, BOTH the right side light and the left side light will both be Doppler shifted to the blue by the same relative amount. The DIFFERENCE in the Doppler shifts between right and left sides will be the same, the rotational velocity will not change. Or do you propose light from one side of the galaxy will be blue shifted by a different amount than the light from the other side?
Hi BillyT, what you are describing here is a classical-physics Doppler effect. It has nothing to do with time dilation and would occur in a purely Newtonian universe. The relativistic Doppler shift is "redder" than that predicted by classical physics by a factor of gamma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transverse_Doppler_effect). That is the part that is relevant for time dilation and is the part that is really what 2inq is interested in (I think). -Dale
