Basic Special Relativity Question

[Pete]

Figure a way to measure it and you will find out. The Nobel Prize awaits the one who does the experiment.

I'd like to know what you think.
You said it's real, but not measurable. To me, that seems inconsistent, so I'm trying to understand what you're thinking.

Measuring it is fairly trivial in principle, but the practicalities are something else. If we could have a timer precise to the millisecond moving on a rail at 100km/s, synchronized (by einstein synchronization) with a similar timer on a similar track 1000km away, then it could be done.

Not Nobel prize worthy, I'm afraid.

 

[Tach]

Measuring it is fairly trivial in principle, but the practicalities are something else. If we could have a timer precise to the millisecond moving on a rail at 100km/s, synchronized (by einstein synchronization) with a similar timer on a similar track 1000km away, then it could be done.

Not Nobel prize worthy, I'm afraid.

How? Let's see the details. You waste so much time with repeating the same question, you could have used all this time figuring out the details of the experiment. This should be an incentive, since no one else, to date , has come up with an experimental setup. You do not seem worried that there is no "RoS test" section here, so go for it!

 

[Tach]

There's not much to think about, it's a pretty trivial experiment in principle.
But, it's not practical. You're not going to get a precision synchronizable clock running on a rail at 100km/s.

Try this:
Place two clocks 1000 km apart. Synchronize them using Einstein synchronization.
Beside each clock is a rail, on which runs another clock (two rails, two clocks, 1000km apart). The rails are long enough that the clocks on the rails can be accelerated to 100km/s, then synchronized with each other using Einstein synchronization.

The clocks on rails are precisely accelerated and synchronized, so that they pass the stationary clocks at the same instant (as measured by the stationary clocks.)

As the moving clocks pass the stationary clocks, each clock records its current time.
If the experiment is a success, the stationary clocks will record the same time, the moving clocks will record a difference of approximately 1 microsecond.

What you need to get is the times $$t^"_k$$ and the corresponding positions $$x^"_k(t^"_k),y^"_k(t^"_k)$$ when the rod is coming into contact with the car floor. How do you do that? Your above setup doesn't cover any of this.

 

[Pete]

Your above setup doesn't cover any of this.

The above setup is a basic test of RoS.
And I'm really interested in understanding your position:
Do you think RoS is physically meaningful? Surely not, since you think it can't be measured. But then why do you think it is real?

 

[Tach]

The above setup is a basic test of RoS.

So, how do you measure the positions $$x^"_k(t^"_k),y^"_k(t^"_k)$$? Your setup shows nothing of that. It only shows that you never ran an experiment.

 

[Pete]

So, how do you measure the positions $$x^"_k(t^"_k),y^"_k(t^"_k)$$? Your setup shows nothing of that. It only shows that you never ran an experiment.

You seem confused. This simple RoS test setup is not related to the thread scenario. It's a separate, simpler test, involving four clocks and no rods.

 

[Tach]

You seem confused. This simple RoS test setup is not related to the thread scenario. It's a separate, simpler test, involving four clocks and no rods.

I have been very precise : show the setup for the falling rod. Please do so.

 

[Pete]

You asked for a test of RoS, I gave you one. Do you agree that it would in principle measure RoS?

 

[Tach]

You asked for a test of RoS, I gave you one. Do you agree that it would in principle measure RoS?

I was very precise on what I asked you. I asked you for a test of the "rod bending".
You came up with a "RoS test". But it has serious flaws, you obviously rushed without thinking it through, so, please address the shortcomings of your "RoS test"

 

[Undefined]

If the platform observer has a rod-dropping setup too, and both the train observer and platform observer drop their respective rods as the train passes, OR as the platform passes "relatively speaking", then if Tach's claim that the "clocks" labels are meaningless for one frame (platform S") then they would also be meaningless for the other frame (train S', insofar as train observers clock timing of platform is concerned). I don't mention rod frame S because that is proper frame and the observer clocks are what is being questioned by Tach. Can someone clarify naively for me why SR even exists as a theory if, as in this two-way rod-dropping relativity exercise I just described, both the platform and the train clock "labeling" may be considered "meaningless" after all, as Tach claims?

 

[brucep]

If the platform observer has a rod-dropping setup too, and both the train observer and platform observer drop their respective rods as the train passes, OR as the platform passes "relatively speaking", then if Tach's claim that the "clocks" labels are meaningless for one frame (platform S") then they would also be meaningless for the other frame (train S', insofar as train observers clock timing of platform is concerned). I don't mention rod frame S because that is proper frame and the observer clocks are what is being questioned by Tach. Can someone clarify naively for me why SR even exists as a theory if, as in this two-way rod-dropping relativity exercise I just described, both the platform and the train clock "labeling" may be considered "meaningless" after all, as Tach claims?

No measurements whether they are conducted in the local proper frame or from a remote coordinate frame are meaningless. Just like the theoretical predictions for the local and remote coordinates are not meaningless. Maybe you should ask Tach to explain why a empirical measurement or theoretical prediction is 'meaningless'. I really hate bullshit terminology. Meaningless bullshit.

 

[Undefined]

No measurements whether they are conducted in the local proper frame or from a remote coordinate frame are meaningless. Just like the theoretical predictions for the local and remote coordinates are not meaningless.

I agree.

Maybe you should ask Tach to explain why a empirical measurement or theoretical prediction is 'meaningless'.

I tried asking him to explain himself before. He thinks my questions are "gibberish". And I have found that Tach's "explanations" so far are the "gibberish". He says he has stopped "free lessons" for me even though his "lessons" have been useless so far. So I stopped asking Tach to explain himself because he just posts his usual links which do not support his "explanations" and claims so far. Can you ask Tach to explain himself there, he respects your questions more than mine I suspect.

I really hate bullshit terminology. Meaningless bullshit.

Yes indeed, me too, that's why I always ask for the naive explanation based on clear terminology that isn't confusing because it is used loosely or in the wrong context and such. I like precise terms for precise things too!

 

[eram]

No measurements whether they are conducted in the local proper frame or from a remote coordinate frame are meaningless. Just like the theoretical predictions for the local and remote coordinates are not meaningless. Maybe you should ask Tach to explain why a empirical measurement or theoretical prediction is 'meaningless'. I really hate bullshit terminology. Meaningless bullshit.

It's alright, Undefined is not really fluent in English.

 

[Pete]

90 posts of sidetrack have been moved to a separate thread: [post=134678]Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?[/post]

 

[Pete]

Back to the topic.

If you didn't understand by now that the bit with the so-called "bending" is not happening , that it is an artifact of a non-measurable set of time stamps, you never will.

Of course RoS is real, it is just not measurable through direct experiment.

Your argument seems self-contradictory.
You say that the bending of the rod predicted by the Lorentz transform is not real, because you think it is not measurable.
But you say that RoS is real, even though you think it is not measurable.

So why the double standard?