Special Relativity "Falsified" before the first equation - Page 5

WayneFrancis · #**121** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

You know as well as I do that Light does NOT have a rest frame.

What kind of "Game" is this??????????????????????

RussT,
given the statement

Quote:

If I read this correctly, then yes, in the rest frame of the light the two clocks read 0 at the same time.

do you not understand the difference between "the light" and "light"?

"the light" is the object that generates the light while "light" is what it is admitting. True "light" has no rest frame but the source of that light does. IE "the light" = "a lamp" or "a laser pointer" or "a star"

WayneFrancis · #**122** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

"Light in it's own frame" IS a singularity....it is going from 0 to infinity, because there is division by zero, it is actually undefined...unless of course you make the 0 'mean something' and use the infinity to go from point A to point B anywhere, even 1000 billion ^1000 billion Light years, in the Universe."Instantanseously"...

ETA: OR, Contract this...1000 billion ^1000 billion Light years, down to 0 "Instantaeously"

I'm trying to put this in words that won't confuse you even more.
You can't say something is instantaneous for light. For light time is not defined. Calling it a singularity is true if you consider a singularity as "undefined" then yes it is undefined.

There is no real divide by zero here because t/d or d/t does not apply. To the photon t and d are not 0...they are undefined. They don't have a zero value. They have no meaning to the photon.

WayneFrancis · #**123** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

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?

Yes but that doesn't mean they both see it happen at T=0

They both see it happen at some time after T=0 depending on how far from the SN they are. They then calculate that it happened at T=0 as long as the SN is in the same rest frame they are. Given all the relevant information either observer can say when the other observer would have seen the SN. Oh wait...if the light source you use is 1/2 way between A & B and the SN distance to A < 1/2 AB then A will see the SN before A sets their clock.

JTsang · #**124** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Cute...

SO, once again, the 'second truth' Must be a "Problem"...because...

Just asking KenG to respond to my posts rather......................we were just getting to a point where some things could have been remedied.

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.

............................................
There are definitely some other things KenG did in that thread that I will be addressing in one form or another...

...BUT KenG used every trick ...............

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenG
But we can make your example relevant very easily, so let me ask you: in your example, how far would you say you have walked if you could walk at 99% the speed of light? How about 99.99999%? Now what if you actually were light,

I said to myself.......Are you KIDD'IN ME....he didn't just do this..

Which just shows how Utterly undefined it is, trying to do anything 'in light's own frame', because it is ALL definitions in the division by 0 realm.

He just made a "New" definition, that a person, without a spaceship, could travel Relavistically...and turn into more and more pure energy going from 0 to Infinity!
And he also said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by KenG
So it's not that light is some kind of "weird observer", it is that light actually finds a shortcut

What shortcut is the light/photons taking when I am looking right at the moon, which I just did about an hour ago.................NONE...No shortcut from the Sun, Alpha Centauri, or Andromeda!

So KenG did tell you, close to the truth ... and you don't see it !!

Fabric in physics is crying to alert human that time-space is hyper-spherical .

LIGHT goes through Hyperspace shortcut.
You are not the one going through that hyperspace, however, you can still see your own hyperspace as time-space . (note 0: simplified version, matter, energy etc left out .)
That shortcut Length is zero, and time is also zero . (note 1 : using your time-space frame , whatever that mean, see declaimer)

In a / the sense of hyperspace: light is the observable , zero length, wormhole . If you go through it, you will arrive other end with NO TIME loss ! (note 2: read the declaimer again.)

Remember this ?

Quote:

about locality and simultaneity .

that's what shortcuts defiance !

Of course you don't use observers to toy with hyperspace, either use geometry or use the Theory of Nows .....
-------------------------------------
Declaimer: words above are not entirely correct, audience are supposed to only have average IQ .

RussT · #**125** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

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

Of course I do, and I have excellent comprehension!

Sorry, but you are the one the incorrectly accused me of using a light source that was NOT equi-distant...and then went on a rant. You need to re-read the post I posted right before that one of yours, and see that it is exactly correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tusenfem

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

supernova M31 next to B.

Yes, when his clock reads 0 (and we don't need to get cute with the SN wasn't right next to him!)

That's the Whole Point..............what good did it do to have the light halfway between, to set A and B's clocks to 0.............both their clocks reading 0 is meaningless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________________B____________ _______________

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

_____________________________________A____________ _______________

Einsteins set up to synch clocks for observer A and B

Distance from A to B....both are stationary.......2.4 million light years

This is the first thing that Einstein did, before he had B moving anywhere, before he used any Lorentz Transform, before, before, before, all the stuff you guys are trying to show as valid after the fact....and way before Minkowski.

Tusenfem, said earlier that distance was irrelevent. Well, obviously, it IS relevent, because I have shown that a SN exploding in M31, cannot be simultaneous with our Now, here in the Milky Way..............so the Halfway LS is useless...........just because the clocks are set to 0, Does Not mean that oberver A and Observer B have the same nows........whether it is 5000 feet........as Wayne agreed the Nows are the same, or 2.4 million light years where Northern Boy said the SN in M31 and our Now here in the Milky Way, were Synchronized!

Assuming that both those observers have the same "Now", with no motion, is 'contracting that distance to 0'........Illegally

RussT · #**126** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTsang

In a / the sense of hyperspace: light is the observable , zero length, wormhole . If you go through it, you will arrive other end with NO TIME loss ! (note 2: read the declaimer again.)

And this is now the "Fifth Way" I have seen to make the space between any two points A and B =0....and look......there isn't even an "Alien In a Spaceship" traveling at "c", as an observer, used here...

JTsang · #**127** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

And this is now the "Fifth Way" I have seen to make the space between any two points A and B =0....and look......there isn't even an "Alien In a Spaceship" traveling at "c", as an observer, used here...

Alien with a form ? Alien using spaceship to travel ?? NO NO NO NO, purely increase it's "Energy" would shorten the "DISTANCE & TIME" , the direction of that "ENERGY" connect it to where ever it want !

Quote:

... Lorentz Transforms and two observer’s “Nows” separated by any distance.

You mentioned Nows are separated by DISTANCE, how much do you UNDERSTAND this "LENGTH" ?
Want to get rid of Lorentz Transformation ... along with SR ? let's start .... I say all length are purely "TIME like" , there's simply NO "Metric" in physics / reality.

You know what that means ? everything are separate by a time like distance, yesterday(n21) and today(n67) is separated by a day, here(n12) and there(n9) is separated by 3 days etc .... anybody using each clock to measure each perceived length , speed of LIGHT automatically take on it's normalized value of 1 ....

Of course, I mean the universe is a time grid .... think like an alien.

WayneFrancis · #**128** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 06:00 PM

RussT, I notice you didn't comment on my scenario at the end of the previous page.

Please comment on it. Either say you agree and end this or state why that scenario doesn't show you and I has having a same "now" during the important part of the scenario.

korjik · #**129** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Of course I do, and I have excellent comprehension!

Sorry, but you are the one the incorrectly accused me of using a light source that was NOT equi-distant...and then went on a rant. You need to re-read the post I posted right before that one of yours, and see that it is exactly correct.

supernova M31 next to B.

Yes, when his clock reads 0 (and we don't need to get cute with the SN wasn't right next to him!)

That's the Whole Point..............what good did it do to have the light halfway between, to set A and B's clocks to 0.............both their clocks reading 0 is meaningless!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_____________________________________B____________ _______________

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

_____________________________________A____________ _______________

Einsteins set up to synch clocks for observer A and B

Distance from A to B....both are stationary.......2.4 million light years

This is the first thing that Einstein did, before he had B moving anywhere, before he used any Lorentz Transform, before, before, before, all the stuff you guys are trying to show as valid after the fact....and way before Minkowski.

Tusenfem, said earlier that distance was irrelevent. Well, obviously, it IS relevent, because I have shown that a SN exploding in M31, cannot be simultaneous with our Now, here in the Milky Way..............so the Halfway LS is useless...........just because the clocks are set to 0, Does Not mean that oberver A and Observer B have the same nows........whether it is 5000 feet........as Wayne agreed the Nows are the same, or 2.4 million light years where Northern Boy said the SN in M31 and our Now here in the Milky Way, were Synchronized!

Assuming that both those observers have the same "Now", with no motion, is 'contracting that distance to 0'........Illegally

Einstein flat out said that they DONT HAVE THE SAME NOW.

Did you even read either of the posts I did?

'Now' is a purely local concept. Relativity allows you to transform between the 'now' of two different frames, to allow you to explain why two different observers can observe the same set of events and not agree on the order of the events.

If I see a supernova in Andromeda, I say it happened today. For all of physics, for me it happened today. If a person in Andromeda sees that same supernova, he will say it happened today. His today and my today are not the same. Relativity allows us to figure out that his today and my today are in fact two million years different.

Your understanding of relativity is exactly wrong.

gzhpcu · #**130** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 06:35 PM

This is basically also what I stated in post nr 109, and never got a response...

Fortis · #**131** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 07:28 PM

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

gzhpcu · #**132** (**permalink**) 06-July-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

T
_____________________________________B____________ _______________

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

_____________________________________A____________ _______________

Einsteins set up to synch clocks for observer A and B

Distance from A to B....both are stationary.......2.4 million light years

This is the first thing that Einstein did, before he had B moving anywhere, before he used any Lorentz Transform, before, before, before, all the stuff you guys are trying to show as valid after the fact....and way before Minkowski.

If both observers are stationary in respect to each other, then they are in the same inertial time frame. The clocks run at the same rate (are synchronized in this respect). The observers at the two points, however, experience different "nows". Einstein came up with SR to cover the situations where one of the observers is in motion in respect to the other. What is your point?

RussT · #**133** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fortis

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

Sure...

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.

Quote:

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.

KenG said this over and over again in this thread...

Distances: then or now?

Start at Post 13 and count the # of times he 'tried' to hammer this home...that this is what Relativity "Requires"!

And now, JTsang is doing the same...

That shortcut Length is zero, and time is also zero

And NorthernBoy tried to show, incorrectly that there was NOT a simultaneity problem.

RussT · #**134** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korjik Post # 118

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

I meant that Einstein never plugged in any distances...he had the "d's" in the equations, but they were always 0....and he just used the halfway light source to synch clocks, and never said what observer A would see of observer B's light travel time over that distance...or vice versa.

So this is completely irrelevent!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Korjic

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.

Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' over specified distances......right?

RussT · #**135** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gzhpcu

This is basically also what I stated in post nr 109, and never got a response...

There is a reason for that, and actually you were the Most correct, when you said that Relativity doesn't even apply, and it is not because of inertia.

It is because of this...
Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' over specified distances

gzhpcu · #**136** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Sure...

KenG said this over and over again in this thread...

Distances: then or now?

Start at Post 13 and count the # of times he 'tried' to hammer this home...that this is what Relativity "Requires"!

And now, JTsang is doing the same...

That shortcut Length is zero, and time is also zero

And NorthernBoy tried to show, incorrectly that there was NOT a simultaneity problem.

Time does not exist for a photon. However, for any observer, a photon is emitted at a given time (the observer's), travels for an amount of time (the observer's) and arrives at a given destination at a given time (the observer's).

gzhpcu · #**137** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:45 AM

Travelling at speed c means that length/distance = 0, and time stops. This applies to the photon.

pzkpfw · #**138** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 11:54 AM

I would make one comment: reading some of the original papers, I found it quite hard to really sink into my head that when he wrote something like "A sees B" he was generally meaning "after correction for finite speed of travel of light delay". That is, "A sees <event> occur at T" often meant A would calculate <event> occured at T, once <event> was seen, at T', via the light having travelled from <event> to A.

It's hard to get used to, because light is so fast that in our normal lives we do seem to see things the "instant" they occur.

However, over vast distances, the delay becomes important.

If we say that A saw the <event> occur at time T, we need to know if we mean that T is the time in A's frame when A received the photons that told A of the <event>, or whether we mean the time that the <event> actually occured in the time frame of A, as A might calculate after having received the information of the event, later.

(and that's without even considering relativity of simulatenity, when different observers are not at rest with respect to each other.)

Either way, I still have no idea what your claim is, RussT.

RussT · #**139** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by korjik

Einstein flat out said that they DONT HAVE THE SAME NOW.

Did you even read either of the posts I did?

'Now' is a purely local concept. Relativity allows you to transform between the 'now' of two different frames, to allow you to explain why two different observers can observe the same set of events and not agree on the order of the events.

If I see a supernova in Andromeda, I say it happened today. For all of physics, for me it happened today. If a person in Andromeda sees that same supernova, he will say it happened today. His today and my today are not the same. Relativity allows us to figure out that his today and my today are in fact two million years different.

Your understanding of relativity is exactly wrong.

Relativity allows us to figure out that his today and my today are in fact two million years different.

See, here is part of the problem,,, Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' connecting 'specified distances'.

So all these years, when you guys/relavists/mainstream has been agreeing that all these Local entities are X light time away : ie the Moon 1.25 light sec, the Sun 8.32 light Min, Alpha Centauri ~4.2 Light Yrs, and Andromeda/M31 ~ 2.5 million light Yrs, from "Earths Rest Frame", that isn't really Relativity.........Relativity did NOT and Cannot determine those distances! Now, because "c" is Constant in Relativity, and we use a "rest Frame"...Earths as the stationary observer, it has just been assumed that this was part of it.........

BUT, the SR 'stationary observer' is NOT equal to the "Earth Rest Frame" OR the scientist on his planet as the observer in his "Rest Frame"!!!

Why, because you do NOT use a space-time diagram for the "Earth Rest Frame" observer, BUT you do use one for a 'stationary observer' in SR.......the "Stationary observer" in SR is still an "Alien in a spaceship" even if he is the one on the platform.

So, we really only have two frames...1 Earth's Rest Frame+ all scientists in their Planet's Rest Frame. 2, all the "Aliens in spaceships" frame

slang · #**140** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Start at Post 13 and count the # of times he 'tried' to hammer this home...that this is what Relativity "Requires"!

Requires for what exactly, RussT? Ken was quite careful in his wording, and you're leaving things out with your blanket "relativity requires" statement. Do look up "proper distance".

RussT · #**141** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slang

Requires for what exactly, RussT? Ken was quite careful in his wording, and you're leaving things out with your blanket "relativity requires" statement. Do look up "proper distance".

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki

Proper length is analogous to proper time. The difference is that proper length is the invariant interval of a spacelike path while proper time is the invariant interval of a timelike path.

Yes, as I said...Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' connecting 'specified distances'.

I was quite aware of how KenG was being careful with his words. He was also trying to make the whole thing about "Distance Now" VS "Distance Then", Which evidently has been being "Safely Ignored" since 1905 >>1915 >>>>>>

BUT, it became quite obvious to me and most likely some others, although they can't defend it yet, that "Distance Now" VS "Distance Then", wasn't what was 'really' being ignored!!!

BTW....for your zero length, wormhole ...

Where is the Black Hole, connecting to your wormhole, for the photons coming to us from the Moon?

gzhpcu · #**142** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

So all these years, when you guys/relavists/mainstream has been agreeing that all these Local entities are X light time away : ie the Moon 1.25 light sec, the Sun 8.32 light Min, Alpha Centauri ~4.2 Light Yrs, and Andromeda/M31 ~ 2.5 million light Yrs, from "Earths Rest Frame", that isn't really Relativity.........Relativity did NOT and Cannot determine those distances! Now, because "c" is Constant in Relativity, and we use a "rest Frame"...Earths as the stationary observer, it has just been assumed that this was part of it.........

Astronomers use a number of methods to determine distances: geometric parallaxes, measurements of brightness, etc. The distances you mention are units which have been set as a consequence of Einstein's SR and the speed of light being c.

There is no such thing as an absolute rest frame. SR defines inertial time frames of which there are an infinity, none of which is priveleged.

slang · #**143** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Yes, as I said...

I didn't ask what you said, I asked a specific question, which you chose not to answer.

Quote:

BTW....for your zero length, wormhole ...

Where is the Black Hole, connecting to your wormhole, for the photons coming to us from the Moon?

This nonsense has nothing to do with the question I asked.

Fortis · #**144** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Sure...

KenG said this over and over again in this thread...

Distances: then or now?

Start at Post 13 and count the # of times he 'tried' to hammer this home...that this is what Relativity "Requires"!

And now, JTsang is doing the same...

That shortcut Length is zero, and time is also zero

And NorthernBoy tried to show, incorrectly that there was NOT a simultaneity problem.

As I suggested in my earlier post, you are confused about the concepts of "proper time" and "proper distance". Let's start from the beginning.

When looking at a set of transformations, such as rotations or Lorentz boosts, it is helpful to identify quantities that are unchanged after the transformation. This allows insights into the transformation, and also provide quantities that are independent of the coordinate system. In the case of rotations, distance is one such quantity.

D² = (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)²

If, after rotation, the intervals in each of the new spatial directions are given by dx', dy', and dz', then

D² = (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)² = (dx')² + (dy')² + (dz')²

It turns out that after a Lorentz boost, the invariant quantity is

(ds)² = -(dt)² + (dx)² + (dy)² + (dz)²

If dt=0 then this just looks like a spatial distance (squared), so we can refer to this as the proper distance. There is a very closely related quantity, the proper time which is written as

(dtau)² = (dt)² - (dx)² - (dy)² - (dz)²

which now looks like a time, if dx=dy=dz=0. This quantity is the "proper time". I really don't understand why this should be confusing you.

korjik · #**145** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

I meant that Einstein never plugged in any distances...he had the "d's" in the equations, but they were always 0....and he just used the halfway light source to synch clocks, and never said what observer A would see of observer B's light travel time over that distance...or vice versa.

So this is completely irrelevent!

You are the one who brought it up, not me.

Quote:

Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' over specified distances......right?

Yes, it does.

I dont understand why you keep saying this. I know most of the people here who have been telling you that this is not correct are people who were formally taught relativity. That includes me. All of us take light travel time into account at a matter of course. All of us were taught that way.

I you think that Einstein didnt, it is because you are the one not understanding what he said. If you are looking at transforms in proper time in stationary frames then it will look like he is ignoring the distances. That wouldbebecause they have been transformed out of the equations when he transformed from time to proper time. Transforming back to time in one frame or the other will give you back the distances.

korjik · #**146** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Relativity allows us to figure out that his today and my today are in fact two million years different.

See, here is part of the problem,,, Relativity does NOT do 'light travel time' connecting 'specified distances'.

So all these years, when you guys/relavists/mainstream has been agreeing that all these Local entities are X light time away : ie the Moon 1.25 light sec, the Sun 8.32 light Min, Alpha Centauri ~4.2 Light Yrs, and Andromeda/M31 ~ 2.5 million light Yrs, from "Earths Rest Frame", that isn't really Relativity.........Relativity did NOT and Cannot determine those distances! Now, because "c" is Constant in Relativity, and we use a "rest Frame"...Earths as the stationary observer, it has just been assumed that this was part of it.........

Why would you think that relativity measures distances? A light-year is c multiplied by the length of a year, it gives you a distance, about equal to 10 trillion kilometers, IIRC. None of those lengths you give have anything to do with relativity. The distance to the moon is measured by bouncing EM waves off of it, The Sun by parallax, I think. Alpha Centauri's distance is by parallax. Andromeda's distance is measured by parallax to a benchmark Cephid variable star, then using the period luminosity relation to find the distance to a known Cephid in Andromeda. None of these even touch on relativity, and all actually predate relativity as a concept. A light year is a measure of distance and distance only. It has nothing to do with relativity. It just is alot easier to write 1 LY instead of 9,460,730,472,580.8 km.

Quote:

BUT, the SR 'stationary observer' is NOT equal to the "Earth Rest Frame" OR the scientist on his planet as the observer in his "Rest Frame"!!!

No one thinks that it truly is. It is just that the actual transforms for the Earth rest frame to a stationary rest frame are a very very small error. About .0001% IIRC. At that point, it isnt all that useful to bother with the minor error.

Quote:

Why, because you do NOT use a space-time diagram for the "Earth Rest Frame" observer, BUT you do use one for a 'stationary observer' in SR.......the "Stationary observer" in SR is still an "Alien in a spaceship" even if he is the one on the platform.

So, we really only have two frames...1 Earth's Rest Frame+ all scientists in their Planet's Rest Frame. 2, all the "Aliens in spaceships" frame

This bit just dosent make any sense. In the first place, the SR transforms for the Earth's movement are pretty easy to do. Like I said above the Earth frame is a very small error from a true rest frame, so it is used out of convenience. This also applys to almost nearly anything within at least a few tens of millions of light years of Earth. For nearly any object you care to name, the SR transforms to convert from local movement to stationary makes a tiny difference. This makes nearly any point with in that rather large distance a stationary observer. Any point can be taken as its own unique frame.

hhEb09'1 · #**147** (**permalink**) 07-July-2009, 10:51 PM

I've been traveling, and distracted a bit

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

Just asking KenG to respond to my posts rather than play Jeff and I against one another should not have closed that thread (But oh well, so be it), as we were just getting to a point where some things could have been remedied.

I could have quoted much more of that thread in explanation of the closing, but I thought that the participants would be familiar enough with the thread to know what I was talking about. After all, it was only a couple posts earlier that you said

Quote:

Originally Posted by RussT

And yes, this has been a wild ride, and if I were not very careful, this could have been closed...

::snip::

He is pulling every trick in the book and even making up new Relativity!!!

In other words, you actually point out how tenuous was the existence of the thread, and then go on to rattle off ad homs in the same post. I could go on, but my main concern now is your OP here. I thought I addressed it early in this thread with this post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

It seems to me that those concerns are addressed in the first part of Einstein's original paper (translated copy).

But I don't see where you have responded.

WayneFrancis · #**148** (**permalink**) 08-July-2009, 12:23 AM

RussT, you still have not addressed how my scenarios found in

Quote:

Originally Posted by WayneFrancis

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.

...

is invalid in your eyes.

Please describe in full how during that test we would not have a same "now".

I, unlike you, fully layed out the scenario. Please point to where you have a problem and why.

AstroRockHunter · #**149** (**permalink**) 08-July-2009, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I've been traveling, and distracted a bit
I could have quoted much more of that thread in explanation of the closing, but I thought that the participants would be familiar enough with the thread to know what I was talking about. After all, it was only a couple posts earlier that you said
In other words, you actually point out how tenuous was the existence of the thread, and then go on to rattle off ad homs in the same post. I could go on, but my main concern now is your OP here. I thought I addressed it early in this thread with this post:
But I don't see where you have responded.

I also mentioned quite a few posts ago the Russ should read Brian Green's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos" which, I think, does a good job of explaining where he (Russ) is mistaken in his thinking.

He never responded to that post either.

worzel · #**150** (**permalink**) 08-July-2009, 02:14 AM

RussT, it seems to me that you think that for two observers in the same inertial frame to have their clocks synchronized according to SR that they need to see every event at the same time, not just the light signal from half way between them. Is that true?

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