Special Relativity "Falsified" before the first equation - Page 11

Fortis · #**301** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 06:38 PM

RussT, I would really like to see a response to my directy asked question.

Quote:

RussT, do you know what the two fundamental postulates of Special Relativity are, and do you disagree with either of them?

gzhpcu · #**302** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

And if you do not find out about an event, did it happen? I have found that closing my eyes, sticking my fingers in my ears, and loudly saying "La, la, la, la....!" can prevent a lot of things happening.

Reminds me of the old joke about the Scotsman McGregor. He meets his old friend Campbell, and looks sad. Campbell asks him what's the matter. McGregor shakes his head and says he was thinking about the murder of Gregor McGregor's death at the hand of the Campbell clan.
"But man" replied his friend Campbell, "that happened over 400 hundred years ago...".
"yes" says McGregor, "but I only heard about it yesterday..."

NorthernBoy · #**303** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:25 PM

This debate about an undefined quantity "nowness" is like asking in quantum mechanics "ok, I know that it's state is indeterminate, but which one is it really in".

This is not physics, it is philosophy.

grant hutchison · #**304** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Reminds me of the old joke about the Scotsman McGregor.

MacDonald.
It was the MacDonalds of Glencoe whom the Campbells killed, four hundred years ago. A serious matter.

Grant Hutchison (sept of Clan Donald)

gzhpcu · #**305** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

MacDonald.
It was the MacDonalds of Glencoe whom the Campbells killed, four hundred years ago. A serious matter.

Grant Hutchison (sept of Clan Donald)

Quote:

In 1519 Iain of Glenstrae died without direct heirs and the Campbells supported the succession of Eian MacGregor (who was married to the daughter of Colin Campbell of Glenorchy). Eian's son, Alistair, fought at the Battle of Pinkie in 1547 but, following his death, Colin Campbell refused to acknowledge the claim to the land by Gregor Roy MacGregor. Gregor was forced to wage a guerilla war for ten years but was captured and killed by the Campbells in 1570.

http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans...nmacgregor.htm

Fortis · #**306** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

This debate about an undefined quantity "nowness" is like asking in quantum mechanics "ok, I know that it's state is indeterminate, but which one is it really in".

This is not physics, it is philosophy.

I tried to raise this issue with RussT, and like so many others, failed to get a response. A distant explosion I see at one time, and hear at a later time. Did the explosion happen twice? Oh well...

Fortis · #**307** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans...nmacgregor.htm

As long as it doesn't involve anyone of the clan Macleod. There can only be one...

grant hutchison · #**308** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

http://www.rampantscotland.com/clans...nmacgregor.htm

And now you compare the death of a single MacGregor to that of 38 MacDonalds? Your "joke" gets no better, laddie.

Grant Hutchison

gzhpcu · #**309** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grant hutchison

And now you compare the death of a single MacGregor to that of 38 MacDonalds? Your "joke" gets no better, laddie.

Grant Hutchison

Depends on whether or not you are a MacGregor or MacDonald....

grant hutchison · #**310** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Depends on whether or not you are a MacGregor or MacDonald....

It does indeed.
There's a complex and sometimes spurious history, here, which results in a sort of meta-rivalry between the MacGregors and the MacDonalds, as to which of us is entitled to bear the greater grudge against the Campbells.
And, as PG Wodehouse remarked: "It is never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine."

Apologies for straying so far OT, but I couldn't resist it.

Grant Hutchison

captain swoop · #**311** (**permalink**) 17-July-2009, 11:20 PM

who cares it was 4 hundered years ago. I suppose I should have a grudge against the Saxons for killing my Viking Ancestors at the battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066

It is also very off topic and disrupting the thread so stop please.

worzel · #**312** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 02:55 AM

How do you know the Vikings aren't your ancestors?

korjik · #**313** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

Why would he do that?

Let's say that I am that astronomer. Are you claiming that I'd simply forget to account for the different distances, or are you saying that I've sneaked into the job without any appropriate qualifications, and therefore don't understand that different stars are at different distances from earth?

Or are you saying that I know full well that they occur at the same time, but that I'm telling a bit of a lie, maybe to win a bet?

To put this another way, why on earth are you claiming that an astronomer would confuse the time he sees the supernova with the time that it happened?

Have you ever seen a professional astronomer make this schoolboy error?

Odd, SN1987A happened in 1987, not in 166013 BC.

So, yes, I have seen professional astronomers make this non-error. As a matter of fact, pretty much all of them have made this non-error.

Also, this is relativity, as it has to do with the relative positions and times. That is what relativity is.

When one event is not in an observer's light cone, for all purposes, it has not happened. If it will eventually be in the observer's light cone, it has not happened yet.

Proper time is not a preffered time frame, you cannot say it is the correct accounting of time.

gzhpcu · #**314** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

When one event is not in an observer's light cone, for all purposes, it has not happened. If it will eventually be in the observer's light cone, it has not happened yet.

It seems to me that it has happened, I am just not aware of it having happened because the photons have not yet reached me.

If I equate seeing an event happening with the event actually happening, then yes.

Fortis · #**315** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

It seems to me that it has happened, I am just not aware of it having happened because the photons have not yet reached me.

If I equate seeing an event happening with the event actually happening, then yes.

But as I have previously asked RussT to comment on,

If an explosion occurs some distance from me, I would first see the explosion, and then later I would hear the explosion. I don't think that that indicates that the explosion happened at two different times.

gzhpcu · #**316** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

But as I have previously asked RussT to comment on,

If an explosion occurs some distance from me, I would first see the explosion, and then later I would hear the explosion. I don't think that that indicates that the explosion happened at two different times.

Yes, that is why IMHO, the event happens when it actually happens, not when we see it or hear it...

Fortis · #**317** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

Yes, that is why IMHO, the event happens when it actually happens, not when we see it or hear it...

And RussT really doesn't seem to understand this.

NorthernBoy · #**318** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Also, this is relativity, as it has to do with the relative positions and times. That is what relativity is.

No, it is not. We are discussing, on this thread, the special theory of relativity, that is not just "to do with relative positions and times", but is rather a very specific theory about how these are transformed.

There are other transformations (notably Gallilean), which are also "to do with relative positions and times", but are most definitely not relativity.

And I'm challenging you to give me a reference to a scientific paper which, as you claim, makes the error of confusing when a supernova was seen with when it occurred.

NorthernBoy · #**319** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Proper time is not a preffered time frame, you cannot say it is the correct accounting of time.

And that simply makes no sense at all. Of course proper time is not a frame of reference. It is a measurement, a quantity, not a frame.

I think that you are not realy clear on what the mainstream view is here, as you are making "arguments" against it that literally make no sense.

korjik · #**320** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

It seems to me that it has happened, I am just not aware of it having happened because the photons have not yet reached me.

If I equate seeing an event happening with the event actually happening, then yes.

Technically, it is not just the photons. No information at all about the occurence could have reached you yet. 'Seeing' in this case is any method of determining if the event occured, not just light.

korjik · #**321** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NorthernBoy

No, it is not. We are discussing, on this thread, the special theory of relativity, that is not just "to do with relative positions and times", but is rather a very specific theory about how these are transformed.

There are other transformations (notably Gallilean), which are also "to do with relative positions and times", but are most definitely not relativity.

And I'm challenging you to give me a reference to a scientific paper which, as you claim, makes the error of confusing when a supernova was seen with when it occurred.

If v=0 SR does not apply? The situation in the OP can be set of as SR with the relative velocities of the frames equal to zero. It still applies. It is the motions that makes special relativity special, not the relativity.

I have made no ATM assertion and make no defence. If anything you should explain why SN1987A happened in 1987 instead of 166013 BC.

Fortis · #**322** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Technically, it is not just the photons. No information at all about the occurence could have reached you yet. 'Seeing' in this case is any method of determining if the event occured, not just light.

That is true. If we follow the path of the observer through spacetime, the event starts off in the conical region of spacetime identified as "future". Eventually it enters the region of spacetime known as "elsewhen", where the time ordering can be switched around depending on the relative velocity of an external observer. (The spacetime interval is now spacelike.) finally the event is in the region of spacetime that is unambiguously "past", and the spacetime interval is now timelike.

What we are trying to do, I believe, is to consider the scenario where both the event and observer are at rest relative to each other, and we are also using a standard set of coordinates appropriate to the rest frame of the observer and the event being observed. Within this coordinate system we can happily say that a distant event occurred prior to the time that it appeared in our "past" light cone.

RussT seems to have great problems with this, and I am looking forward to finding out ic he agrees with the two postulates of SR.

Fortis · #**323** (**permalink**) 18-July-2009, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

If v=0 SR does not apply? The situation in the OP can be set of as SR with the relative velocities of the frames equal to zero. It still applies. It is the motions that makes special relativity special, not the relativity.

I have made no ATM assertion and make no defence. If anything you should explain why SN1987A happened in 1987 instead of 166013 BC.

I don't think that any astronomer believes that the precursor star for SN1987A went bang in 1987. That designation just means that it was the first supernova to be observed in 1987. You could try to take into account the finite travel time of light and use this to label it with the year, in our coordinate system, that the thing went bang, but then any innacuracy in the distance would lead to an error in it's new designation. We don't want designation to be continually changing. That could get confusing.

WayneFrancis · #**324** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

...
I have made no ATM assertion and make no defence. If anything you should explain why SN1987A happened in 1987 instead of 166013 BC.

Do you honestly not understand that astronomers label SN1987A based on when it was observed and don't actually mean that it happened that year and we instantly found out about it?

As Fortis points out labelling SN1987A as SN166013BC1 is problematic.
Like he says as our measurements get better that 166013BC would change leading to the supernova either getting renamed constantly or a label that is no longer accurate.

1987 won't change. We won't suddenly say "Crap, you know we forgot a year before 1987 and it should have been 1988". Any scientist in the future can take that date, the position of SN1987A at that time and using the best numbers for distance calculations, at the that time, work out when the supernova actually happened.

I am more inclined to believe that you fully understand this but just setting up a straw man argument

RussT · #**325** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

And RussT really doesn't seem to understand this.

Yes, RussT understands this better than anyone!

The event ALWAYS happens "over there", otherwise it would be happening right in front/in/on of my eyes..

or 'at the detector'.

My whole point is exactly that...

There is NO such thing as 0 "Proper Time" or 0 (or nearly 0) "Proper distance"

I have explained Northern Boy's first statement over and over, where I thought he was trying to say, just like KenG, that "Emission/Absorption Must equal 0 "Proper Distance"".

Do you guys really think that it is just a coincidence, that this is the way you guys say and think of this (Cause Korjic did it too)....

Quote:

Given that he knows that the clocks are synchronised, he can go further, and say that, for obserer 2, the supernova happened at T=0 also

The Bold here is totally ambiguous, which has been my arguement all along.

It makes it appear that the SN is happening for observer 2, where he is and when his clock is reading 0.

Or said another way, you wind up saying that A and B both have 0 on their clocks when the SN goes boom............

So, repeating for clarity...Do you guys really think that it is just a coincidence, that because it said and thought of this way, that then Relativity wants 'proper time' to be 0 and proper distance to be 0........

It is NOT.............it goes all the way back to my original claim........

that without even realizing it, Einstein, and everyone, orginally thought (Remember, that there was NO distance used for A and B's seperation!!! Which I have also said is a reason for SR to be 'fatally flawed') that if those two clocks, both said 0, simultaneously...they were seeing the same thing at the same time, they must be in the same "Now".......obviously they are Not.

RussT · #**326** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

But as I have previously asked RussT to comment on,

If an explosion occurs some distance from me, I would first see the explosion, and then later I would hear the explosion. I don't think that that indicates that the explosion happened at two different times.

Fortis, I even covered this in my OP...

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Before electricity, if you were separated by large distances and lived in say New York, and your relative lived in London, San Francisco Etc, your “Nows” were separated by the ‘fastest’ travel of information (mail by boat/Pony Express), or transportation to bring you together, so your “Nows” could be in the same place. There are innumerable other examples of this kind of large separation of “Nows” because of distance.

Once you get to light, obviously, that is the fastest way to be able to tell when something occurs!

Fortis · #**327** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Yes, RussT understands this better than anyone!

The event ALWAYS happens "over there", otherwise it would be happening right in front/in/on of my eyes..

or 'at the detector'.

My whole point is exactly that...

There is NO such thing as 0 "Proper Time" or 0 (or nearly 0) "Proper distance"

I have explained Northern Boy's first statement over and over, where I thought he was trying to say, just like KenG, that "Emission/Absorption Must equal 0 "Proper Distance"".

Do you guys really think that it is just a coincidence, that this is the way you guys say and think of this (Cause Korjic did it too)....

Or said another way, you wind up saying that A and B both have 0 on their clocks when the SN goes boom............

So, repeating for clarity...Do you guys really think that it is just a coincidence, that because it said and thought of this way, that then Relativity wants 'proper time' to be 0 and proper distance to be 0........

It is NOT.............it goes all the way back to my original claim........

that without even realizing it, Einstein, and everyone, orginally thought (Remember, that there was NO distance used for A and B's seperation!!! Which I have also said is a reason for SR to be 'fatally flawed') that if those two clocks, both said 0, simultaneously...they were seeing the same thing at the same time, they must be in the same "Now".......obviously they are Not.

Please can you write down the equation for the "proper time" between two spacetime events? Now can you tell me what that is for two spacetime events where a photon has travelled from one to the other?

RussT · #**328** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT
jSo, there is NO WAY to "Scientifically" link M31's "Now" to our "Now"......that is NOT a philisophical question!!! It cannot be done scientifically period!

Do you agree with that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

If you define "now" as what is perceived by our senses, then yes. Every point in the universe has its own unique "now" due to the time it takes for light or sound, for example, for any particular event to reach the observer's eyes or ears.

Excellent...then you have made a giant leap forward in understanding how our Universe works

Then you just extend eyes to our scientific detectors/telescopes and understanding that 'light travel time' is Constant @ 186,282.4 mps across specified distances, that Relativity did NOT and Cannot determine, and you understand why Tim Thompson correctly agreed to this...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
OK, is this what I am supposed to be answering? Haven't I already done that several times? How many different ways do you want to see the same answer? We detect photons in our "now", and that tells us what M31 looks like in our "now". Realizing that it took photons 2.5 million years to make the trip, and that our "now" is 2.5 million years after the "now" of M31 we see, we can then derive from physics how M31 would have changed over the intervening 2.5 million years. That way we can synthesize a picture of what M31 would look like if photons made the trip instantaneously, and that the two "now"s were simultaneous. RussT's Bold/Red

Quote:

Further...

Originally Posted by RussT
In other words, when we send a light beam to the moon, as in the lunar ranging project, it travels to the moon at "c" and Back at "c", for a ~2.5 second round trip, right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim Thompson
Always.

slang · #**329** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

There is NO such thing as 0 "Proper Time" or 0 (or nearly 0) "Proper distance"

Because you make up your own interpretation of what "proper" means in this context. It's embarrassing but mildly entertaining to see how you try to match up your meaning of words to the scientific definitions of them, and how you have to make up the weirdest stories and scenarios to even try to explain what you mean with those words.

Quote:

I have explained Northern Boy's first statement over and over, where I thought he was trying to say, just like KenG, that "Emission/Absorption Must equal 0 "Proper Distance"".

This is bleeding obvious, from the very definition of Proper Length. Read, re-read, and read again the last 10 words of the first sentence. You fail to grasp the implications of looking at things from different frames of reference. I wonder if you even understand what a frame of reference is (since you keep insisting on Earth or M31 based observers), if you did you probably would have understood Ken G's words the first time.

Will you please stop quotemining Tim Thompson, abusing his words in relativity discussions on different frames of reference, when he is obviously speaking from one, commonly used, rest frame?

RussT · #**330** (**permalink**) 19-July-2009, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Because you make up your own interpretation of what "proper" means in this context. It's embarrassing but mildly entertaining to see how you try to match up your meaning of words to the scientific definitions of them, and how you have to make up the weirdest stories and scenarios to even try to explain what you mean with those words.

This is bleeding obvious, from the very definition of Proper Length. Read, re-read, and read again the last 10 words of the first sentence. You fail to grasp the implications of looking at things from different frames of reference. I wonder if you even understand what a frame of reference is (since you keep insisting on Earth or M31 based observers), if you did you probably would have understood Ken G's words the first time.

Will you please stop quotemining Tim Thompson, abusing his words in relativity discussions on different frames of reference, when he is obviously speaking from one, commonly used, rest frame?

Slang, I am assuming, that Q&A is mainstream, and that KenG, the resident 'maintainer of "Reality"', and quoted by many as an authority of SR and Relativity, is just that..........extremely knowledgable on the subject...

So, if you have a problem with this, take it up with him.......I am assuming it to be correct "According to Relativity"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenG
There's no such thing as the distance the light travels. There isn't even such a thing as the time the light travels.

Originally Posted by KenG
I will say it one final time: the only "proper time" or "proper distance" that connect the emission and absorption of light are zero.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A Relative Talk	Occams Ghost	Science and Technology	15	15-February-2008 09:07 AM
Special Relativity	jtowich	Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers	14	02-December-2007 05:47 PM
In what way is it possible to have QM without (special) relativity?	Nereid	Science and Technology	5	02-October-2007 03:12 AM
Travelling forever at the speed of light	Flying Deuces	Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers	174	13-August-2006 06:09 PM
Initiation to special relativity and its diagrams	Mr. X	Astronomy	0	03-May-2002 03:33 AM