__________________
Reality moves at the speed of light.
If the text of this post is blue, it's a "Moderator comment".
[ The RULES of the Forum ] [ Forum FAQs ] [ Conspiracy Theory advice ] [ Alternate Theory Advice ]
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team - use the /!\ icon at the top-right of the post.

I am sorry, RussT, but I have not got the foggiest what you are trying to say here.

What exactly do you mean with those last sentences?
First your claim [Einstein] "assumed" full Lorentz transform of A and B's "nows"". Why would Einstein claim that when A and B are motionless with respect to eachother, and thus both are in the same rest frame and have the same 4-vector coordinates. I think you are just making this up, I have never noticed that in SR a Lorentz transform was assumed between two observers in the same rest frame.

Then your second change of the claim: Illegitimately 'contracts the distance to 0' OR Illegitimately uses a Lorentz transform to contract the distance to 0! What distance is contracted? There is no contraction, there is a light source that emits a signal that reaches A and B and both set their clocks to 0 when they receive the signal, big deal. In the whole process there is no distance contracted or Lorentz transformed to 0(zero). The claim is ludicrous.

And please use the correct spelling, which would be synching (in case you don't want to write synchronizing) because sink(ing) is a whole different thing and confuses the discussion even more.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

RussT wrote:

Hate to burst your bubble, Russ, but the concept of "nows" has not been overlooked by physicists. Brian Greene discusses this topic quite nicely in his book "The Fabric of the Cosmos". I would suggest that you read it.

__________________
I don't ask stupid questions. I just make stupid statements!!!
DETAILS: Where the Devil waits to ensnare the unprepared!
Remember. Just because I'm sure doesn't mean I'm right.
Experience is a wonderful thing. It enables you to recognise a mistake when you make it again.

The distance between A and B in your example (not Einstein's...) has not been contracted to zero. Since they are motionless in respect to each other, i.e. in the same inertial reference time frame, SR is not applicable.
If the light beam source is exactly between them, then the photons will reach both A and B at the same time. Both clocks of the observers are clicking at the same rate. Their "nows", in the sense of observing different events around them occuring, will be slightly different nonetheless, since they are at separate locations and the photons reaching them from the different events around them will be traveling slightly different distances.

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

This is incorrect. If you have the setup you described above with a light source the clocks will never read the same to either observer.

Say the separation is 1 light second between the light and the clocks, and 2 ls between the two clocks. A flash is released at t=0. For the observer at B the flash will pass at t=1. At that instant he looks at clock A. It reads t=-1. At t=3, B sees the flash hit clock A, and clock A reads t=1.

If you reverse things, A will see the flash at his location at t=1 and see the flash at B at t=3.

If you add a clock C at a right angle to the line from A-B, and 1 ls from the light, C will say that the flash reached C at t=1 and it reached A and B simultaneously at t=2.4 seconds.

If the three observers then get together and compare notes, they will all see things different. That is what SR does

_____________________________________B____________ _______________



------------------------------------------LS



_____________________________________A____________ _______________


Okay, let's keep this as simple as possible, mainly because it is so simple...

A and B is stationary with respect to each other, just as Einstein started them out, when he put the light source (LS) halfway between them, so that the beams from that halfway LS could synch both A and B's clocks, when that beam reached A and B simultaneously............so I agree that both A and B's clocks both read 0.

Now, let's say that A and B are both stationary, 10 light seconds apart, with a LS halfway between.

So, when that LS is turned on, it takes five light seconds to get to A and five seconds to get to B, which is when they both set their clocks to 0...

Now, right when the beam gets to B, his clock reading 0, and A's reading 0, it triggers a very bright light on B's helmet to emit a light beam.....that beam then takes 10 seconds to get back to A.

But you think that because both A and B's clocks said 0, simultaneously, that A and B's "Nows" must be simultaneous or together....that you can make two observer's 0's read 0, at the same time...with no distance considered

Look what Northern Boy did here...
He did NOT synch clocks correctly here, he justs says they are synched...if you followed my 10 light second seperation of two observer's A and B above, this is very easy to figure out! Fifth Grader stuff...


Now, according to Relativity, what is the "Proper Distance" from the emission of that very bright light on B's helmet, according to the stationary observer A?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

It's 10 light seconds you just told us.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

simple is always easy

nitpick: A and B are stationary

Distance is irrelevant

Yes, and???????????????????????????????????
so A will see the light beam from B at T=10 sec. Interestingly A has a mirror and shines the light back and B will see the reflection at T=20 sec. What is the frakking big deal here?

the both have the same T=0 when the first light arrives. What is so difficult to understand here, what is your problem. You seem to complain about something that is obscured to anyone else here on the board.

Just because it takes time to go from A to B does not mean that the clocks are not ticking at the same rate with the same T=0. Apparently, you might have to return to the fifth grade. Please spell us out what exactly your problem is here up to now you have only written stuff that is not in the least interesting.

Well, if A knows that both observers set their T=0 in the same way with a light source that is known to be halfway between A and B, then A knows that when he sees B's light at T=10 that the distance is 10 lightseconds, simple 5th grade math. But as usual with your "explanatory skills" you once more seem to imply something here, because suddenly it is "the stationary observer A" which could mean that you somehow think that B is not stationary or whatever.

If you want to make something clear, that obviously nobody here seems to understand, the first thing you need to do is put high value to correct writing skills to unambiguously describe what exactly you want to say.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

I'm still having great difficulty understanding what the problem is as well. I suspect that he is having problems with one observer looking at the other observer's clock, and without bothering to correct for the finite speed of light, is confused that it shows a different time to the time on his clock. He would have a more extreme problem if he used speaking clocks (with no visible readout on them) and now he would be dealing with a signal propagating at ~330 m/s. And yet this is not something that falsifies SR.

It's a bit like glimpsing something out of the corner of your eye that looks interesting, but when you look at it properly it becomes somewhat dull.

As an aside, if RussT really has falsified SR, then that would also break GR. In turn, that would also ruin any discussion of the ring singularities of the Kerr solution that RussT used to be fond of.

Because here is how this "Really" goes!!!

The light from the Halfway light source hits both M31 and the Milky Way observers simultameously, setting each observers clock to 0, and right when the beam hits the M31 observer, the SN explodes, so our clock and his clock are BOTH 0 when the SN explodes, and Then it takes 2.5 million light years for the light from the SN to reach us. No fifth grader remark needed...

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Where is the problem for SR in any of this?

Distances: then or now?

And...
Both observers agree that the supernova happened at T=0, on both of their clocks. How on earth does this invalidate any synchronisation?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Don't just link to a post, explain what you think is wrong! We can not read your mind, we can't know what you intend to show by linking to a post.

FWIW, it's a post by Ken G that starts: "There's no such thing as the distance the light travels. There isn't even such a thing as the time the light travels. What there is, is two events-- the emission, and the absorption. How much distance, and how much time, that relate those events are purely given by the coordinates chosen, which presumably are in turn connected to the observables made by a given observer or set of observers. [...]" (bold mine).

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Please can you explicitly tell us what the problem is? You may think it obvious, but it really is not at all obvious to the rest of us.

Exchanges like this are the reason Physics uses Maths to explain things rather than stories.

__________________
All Moderation in Purple
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Nows !
Using your terminology:
Assume your Mom distributed identical twins all over the universe, with some futuristic Quantum-Entangled-Sync-System.

Suppose everyone have a consciousness of "NOW", call it n1, n2, n3 ..... controlled by their mom, they are n1, n2, n3 ... to identified their ..... ah ..... "locations".

It seems possible to plot "NOW"(s), geometrically, separate by ...... Distances in term of time.

For sun-earth's nows : 7 minutes distant between n4 and n9 .... i.e. | n4 - n9 | =7 , sounds more reasonable than sun's NOW, is 7 minute "history / future" to earth , AND VS VERSA.

In essence, it's a quest of this nows geometry, which differ from Einstein's, correct ?

Uhhh, yeahhhhhhhhhhhh
And what exactly is this supposed to mean, change, falsify, grill, cook, drink, eat.

I think I need a beer.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Oh yeah that really helps JTsang, let's confuse RussT and the rest of BAUT some more with these kind of "explanations."

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Did you read my post #94? There is no such thing as identical "nows". Every point in the universe has its own particular "now". "Now" is defined as when you perceive things to happen.

Clocks run at the same rate for all observers in the same inertial time frame, but their "nows" are different.

Is this so hard to understand?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

Sorry I just couldn't resist Now Now

Seems to be fitting to this thread.

__________________
"The universe is driven by the complex interaction between three ingredients: matter, energy, and enlightened self-interest." - G'Kar

To de-confuse:

Nows ... n1,n2,n3 .... are further related as follow:
Reference to Mom's QESS , (NewerNow -Now) = delta(n0) ,
[delta(n1) , delta(n2) , (NewerNow3 - Now3 ) , delta(n4) , ...... , delta(n9) , .....] = K- matrix * delta(n0)

Example: delta(n9) could be 10 years using n9's clock , while delta(n3) is one year by n3 local time !
The distances in between ? n9 and n3 would not agree , unless they refer back to QESS. ....... Is this so hard to understand? .... I mean , if you are confused, ask mom .

Let me use the term curvature loosely here ... K- matrix is some Matrix(Curvature) !

It is very simple.......Relativity "Requires" 'simultaneous' emission/absorption of light!


So, when the halfway LS is used correctly, as above, it simply shows that putting a LS halfway between is "meaningless" as the distance is still the specified distance, that light travels in specified amounts of time, based on that distance.

When the SN explodes, it takes 2.5 million light years to reach us and there is NO simultaneity, which SR Requires

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Apparently, you don't understand a thing about synchronizing clocks, observers in 1 rest frame, and the fact that if observer B is closer to another event than observer A, that B is going to see is earlier than A.

For some reason you want to mix up synchronising clocks by the "Einstein method" with 2 observers seeing an event NOT at equal distance. this has absolutely NOTHING to do with SR simultaneity!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, whatever you want to achieve here, it beat me, and I am leaving this ridiculous, needless, annoying thread.

Have a good life, trying to figure it out.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Why in the world are you saying I am NOT using an equi-distant Light source?????????????

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Do you even read what I write and what you yourself have written?

This has to do with the light on B's helmet which flashes when the first light (of the equidistant light source) arrives at A and B and set their clocks T=0.

Then the helmet light arrives at T=10 at Ap.

Then you turn the helmet light into a supernova M31 next to B.

B sees it right away

A sees it later

And somehow you are complaining about non-simutaneity, WELL DUH!

It is clear you have muddled the waters so much, that you yourself do not even have any idea anymore what you mean.

__________________

Any comments in glorious red are to be considered in ModeratorMode.


善數, 不用籌策 (shàn shù, bù yòng chóu cè)
He who is good at counting, uses no counting tools
“A good scientist has freed himself of concepts and keeps his mind open to what is”
道德經, 二十七 (dào dé jīng, 27)

Needs it for what? To feel happy? Please type complete sentences. For once, try to type what YOU actually mean, without just pasting in a bunch of quotes where WE then have to GUESS what YOU think about those quotes...

__________________
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Charles Darwin
"Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
Meet the OOONG TOE.

Please can you show us where there is this requirement for simultaneous emission/absorption of light?

Are you, perhaps, getting confused by the fact that any two points in spacetime that are at either end of the path of a photon, have a spacetime interval with a "proper time" of zero? This can be confusing if you are using the technical definition of a metric. One of the properties of a metric, d(x,y), where x and y are the positions of two points in the metric space, is that the function is zero if, and only if, the two points are the same, i.e. in other words x=y. This is not the case with the Minkowski "metric" of SR, as I describe in the first sentence of this paragraph. The Minkowski "metric", that you hear a lot about, is actually a pseudo-Riemannian metric.

I really hope that this helps.

RussT, this is incorrect. A's clock is 10s behind B to B, and B's clock is 10s behind A to A.

In the scenario you describe:
If both A and B set their clocks to zero when the centered light pulse hits, then A will see B set his clock to zero when A's clock reads 10s. If A waits till he sees the flash from B to set his clock to zero, then B will see A set his clock to zero when B's clock reads 20s.

You could make this even more complex. Have a clock C at the centered flash. If both A and B and C set to zero when they see the flash, then C will set to zero when he sees the flash, then C will see A and B both set to zero when C's clock reads 10s. If A waits till he sees B's flash to set to zero, then C will see B's flash at 10s and A set his clock to zero at 20s.

At no time will any of these clocks read the same if they are set the way you describe. They will never agree as to the simultinaety of the light pulses. A will always say the light pulse reached him first, B will always say it reached him first, and C will always say it arrived at both at the same time. That is not simultaneous.

... ME TOO ! but I doubt it.

Russ T.: Your question is indeed about locality and simultaneity .

When Quantum Entanglement was mentioned to identify Universal Nows , it should be clear, this Thing called NOW cannot be ignored .... fifth grader remark needed...
Obvious, solution formulated using NOWs and RateChangeOfNows is not an attractive answer for you,

then, take a serious look at Fortis's statement, in essence, proper Geometry is needed to interpret this Locality & simultaneity problem ....

Light & it's time-space effect, Now(s) and Here(s) CANNOT simply be understood or explained by ... babfifthgraderaba ... in fact & in short,
But again, in such geometry, "light" is not a "light", "location" is not a "location" .... Is not something for a sixth grader either.
----------------------------------
Declaimer: instant communication is a sham .
However, it's OK to sell snake oil to snake worshipers.

Yes, for all intensive purposes. In actuality the answer is No but this doesn't help your reasoning.

The answer is "no" for the following reason, we are not in the exact same gravitational well. There for if we waited long enough and then traveled towards each other at the same acceleration we would see our clocks slightly off.

Now for the "Yes" part.

If at this point there was any event that was the same distance away from both of us we would record that event happening at the same time. Later it wouldn't matter who went to who and how fast they went. The time we wrote down in our note books would be the same.

Experiment setup
now for a simple experiment using this setup.

I'll split the comparison of results into 2 different scenarios to show that RussT's and WayneFrancis had a same "Now" from the end of the setup to the end of the observations of Z5 & Z6

Scenario 1 - RussT and WayneFrancis stay synchronized
Scenario 2 - RussT and WayneFrancis do not stay synchronized
So RussT, how do you say that you and I in that scenario didn't experience the same "now" for all intensive purposes?