Silly Einstein

[Goldminer]

What could be more convenient that just realizing that light has the latency of one foot per nanosecond (in any direction)?

Indeed. This is the fundamental postulate of special relativity you have restated.

I have pointed out many times that it is the location of an observer, regardless of motion and "reference frame," in relation to the distances from various "events" that determine the order of events witnessed by said observer. The order of "events" radiated by any source, anywhere, are fixed by the order in which they are radiated. They will never change no matter who, when, or where they are observed.

Unfortunately your statement here is in contradiction to your earlier statement that light always has the same speed in any reference frame. Please forgive me while I entertain a simple gedanken experiment to explain.

An observer (Alice) is midway between two light sources (A and B) in a line (lets call it the X axis). She is at rest with respect to both light sources. She can verify her position and that each source is the same distance away by e.g. sending out some light in each direction and then watching these pulses return from each side at the same time.

Now the light sources are each activated at some time. Each emits some pulse of light. We would like to say which emission event took place first, or order them temporally. Alice observes the light from each source arriving at her location simultaneously. What does she conclude? She concludes that the emission events at A and B were simultaneous. With me so far?

Now along comes Bob, who happens to be in a hurtling in from stage left along the X axis. His arrival is timed so that as he passes the exact position of Alice she is just receiving the two signals from the emission events that we are concerned with.

Of course, as he is co-located with Alice his detectors also observe the flashes of light to arrive at his location simultaneously. Now what does Bob conclude?

Bob also is able to verify that at the moment of this detection the two sources are equidistant from him. However, this means that the two light sources were NOT equidistant from him at any earlier time (nor will they be equidistant at any time in the future, as he is moving with respect to them at speed V. Of course Bob also knows as you do that light takes some time to travel and so he knows that any moment of emission took place prior to when arrived at Alices position, prior to when the sources were equidistant from him, i.e. when the sources were not equidistant from him.

Lets review: Bob accepts your postulate to call the speed of light a constant, and thus knows that the light was travelling the same speed from each source. He also knows the light from each source arrived at his midpoint location simultaneously. The only conclusion that Bob can draw is that the times of emission of light were not simultaneous! As Bob approaches Alices center position the clock behind him is closer to him than the clock in front of him. Then when he arrives at the center the pulses arrive at his position simultaneously. In Bob's reference frame, the event which is the emission of light from the forward clock must have been AFTER the event which is the emission of light from the clock to his rear.

This discrepency of time occurs because Einstein has fooled most people. He has convinced them that it has nothing to do with the technical nature of the clocks or the time of propagation of any signal.

You have quoted Saul's view of relativity of simultaneity, which incorporates Einstein's viewpoint, too. What I am trying to get across is very simple, but everyone's agenda keeps the knowledge hidden. (The Einstein discussion of clocks is actually a rabbit trail anyway, since the order and spacing of observers in the reference frame opposite the source has nothing to do with the passage of time. Hopefully you understand that these observers only find the pulse of light where the source reference frame observers find it.)

It IS due to the technical nature of the clocks which GPS has proven beyond a doubt. Clocks (i.e. atoms) oscillate at different rates depending on their nearness to an EM source, the quantity of matter present or their acceleration. Clocks in orbit do not tick the same rate because the atoms are not oscillating at the same rate. If you are present it appears the clock has not changed because every atom in your body is also oscillating at a different rate than before (consistent with the clock near you, but different than a clock situated on earth). Does anyone actually believe that the atoms in our bodies do not oscillate differently depending on surrounding conditions? This affects your senses (sight, etc). Clocks A and B do not agree because they are oscillating at different rates. if you are near A the atoms in your body are oscillating at the same change as A and so it appears to be correct while B is incorrect. If near B the opposite.

Your rant above is quite fanciful. (There seem to be quite a few articles over the internet refuting your statement about how the GPS system "proves" discrepancies in the regulation of clocks. Some atomic clocks have proven to have anomalies which the GPS system "adjusts out," regardless of why the discrepancies developed in the first place.) The Hafele-Keating experiment was a joke. They had taken one clock that was stable on their trips, and it showed no change either way in regulation.

People need to stop trying to bend space and just accept the simple fact that atoms oscillate at different rates depending on how they are situated with respect to others. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS CONSTANT ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE!

I agree with you that "space" doesn't bend, it is the path that a given observed beam of light follows. This is known as refraction.

Your all caps shouting comment is out of order too. There are constants all around us. When one tries to measure to the finest accuracies, any discrepancy cannot be laid at the feet of the things being measured or as to whether it is the fault of the instrument and operator.

If we accept your rant, I suppose we should just stop trying to figure anything out!

Sorry my friend, many things are very easy to figure out, once the silliness is removed.

P.S. I used the built-in spell checker on your quote. Why can't you do this before posting your message?

[Goldminer]

This is for all those who believe clocks are constant. The only way for the clocks to be separated then brought back together reading the same time is if both are in motion at the same acceleration, deceleration, external effects, etc. If only one moves and comes back they will never show the same time. We know this from clocks sent in planes and also on rockets. Even geostationary satellites must be adjusted daily for orbital distance, velocity, etc, while if it was merely light propagation delays then the clocks would need adjusting just once to account for that delay time of light propagation. They must be constantly adjusted because they do NOT tick at the same rate because one is further from an EM source. Even clocks on the equator at sea level tick differently than clocks at the poles. You can never move just one clock, or change its distance from an EM source without it affecting the rate at which atoms oscillate. Yes, this means every atom, not just caesium-133 atoms.

There is no twin paradox because if only one is in motion with respect to the other then they will have aged differently because the atoms in their bodies will have oscillated at different rates. Likewise someone in space or on the moon would age differently than someone on Earth.

What do you mean by an EM source? The Sun? The local radio station transmitter site? Your "theory" doesn't make much sense to me.

There is no twin paradox because the twins do not age differently. All the talk about someone "on the Moon" or "in space" is just fantasy. The GPS system depends upon all clocks aging at the same rate.

[Goldminer]

SJW, you forgot to mention that in the frame of a clock B moving rapidly away from another "at rest" clock A, clock A is the one moving away. Goldminer I think has this part right, at least in the logic of the gedanken. In the gedanken , both observers think the other's clock is moving slower, so once again there cannot be a twin's paradox -- when the age mates reconvene, they are indeed both still the same age. However, I have suggested numerous times the hourglass egg timer experiment:
1. Tie a string to the full end of the timer.
2. Swing the timer rapidly around you for, say, a minute and a half or so...
3. The timer has emptied, the egg is undone, and so is Einstein's paradox.

Webo, your egg timer "hourglass" type of clock is just silly to use as an example. Sorry.
However, you come closest to "getting" the understanding of relative motion.

I disagree, they will not be the same age when the one returns. It does not matter who appears to be moving, it matters who IS moving in the real world, not the world of dreams.The only reason it appears A is moving to B and B is moving to A is there are no non-moving reference points. In reality the person B on the rocket ship IS moving away no matter that it may appear to B to be the opposite. B's clock has changed in respect to A's and when he returns his clock will NEVER read the same time as A.

Swj40364, I am sorry to have to point this out to you: Yes, there are no "non-moving reference points." This fact is the reason for "relativity." Your following statement "In reality the person B on the rocket ship IS moving away no matter that it may appear to B to be the opposite" does not follow from any logic so stated or implied. Your continuous efforts to prove conjectures by proclamation is just getting unbearable.

Doubt that, launch a clock into orbit (DO NOT ADJUST IT) and leave its twin at home, return it in 6 months, let me know what the two clocks read, but I guarantee they will not read the same time when brought back together.

Yes! Here is an experiment that everyone can do on their kitchen table! Sarcasm intended. One of my many services.

[sjw40364]

Swj40364, I am sorry to have to point this out to you: Yes, there are no "non-moving reference points." This fact is the reason for "relativity." Your following statement "In reality the person B on the rocket ship IS moving away no matter that it may appear to B to be the opposite" does not follow from any logic so stated or implied. Your continuous efforts to prove conjectures by proclamation is just getting unbearable.

For those that want to ignore reality it might be unbearable. Do you really want me to believe that if I accelerate on a rocket ship to half c (as we define it at this velocity) then cut thrust, my clock is going to tick at the same rate as it did before beginning acceleration???? Am I really expected to believe that?

Some people are just incapable of dealing with the fact that we have no notion of what any speed is as there is no possible way to know how fast you are already traveling through space before beginning acceleration. They say c is what, 299 792 458 m/s. Relative to what, our current velocity in space. Then you want me to believe that if I accelerate to half c and then cut thrust all will be as before. I say you are deluding yourself, that contrary to relativity it is the technical nature of the clock and no matter where you place it if it does not share the exact surroundings of another they will never read the same time or ever tick the same rate. My theory is proven, clocks situated differently do not tick the same, yet appear to anyone at that location that all other clocks are wrong.

Because all atoms vibrate differently in respect to energy input and all atoms that share a common reference vibrate in rhythm. You want me to believe that once accelerated to half c and thrust is cut, light will magically seem to still travel at c, and yet you want your clock to never change rates. That is unbearable!

[webolife]

Well, an eggtimer may be silly, but silly Einstein included the hourglass in his list of types of clocks subject to the paradox, thus it poses an appropriate question.

[sjw40364]

I want all to think about what a constant clock means. Relativity has only two things affecting clocks, acceleration and distance from gravity. For all test bodies in free fall all clocks tick the same.

Accelerate the test body to half c and stop acceleration. Light now magically resumes c. Accelerate the test body to half c again, stop acceleration. Light magically resumes c. How fast is the test body moving?

[saul]

I'm going to edit your post for clarity, assuming I know what you meant. You left some things ambiguous, but I would say based on your posts that you "get it" i.e. understand how time and space are relative.

I want all to think about what a constant clock means. Relativity has only two things affecting clocks, acceleration and distance from gravity. For all test bodies in free fall all clocks tick the same.

Accelerate the test body to half c [in some laboratory frame] and stop acceleration. [Now move into the reference frame of the test body] Light now magically resumes c. Accelerate the [or another] test body to half c again, stop acceleration. [move to the frame of reference of the body after 2nd acceleration]Light magically resumes c. How fast is the test body moving [in the first mentioned laboratory frame]?

Assuming I got it right about which reference frames you were describing speed/velocity in (remember these concepts are meaningless without a frame of reference) then the answer is: 4/5 c.

[Goldminer]

I'm going to edit your post for clarity, assuming I know what you meant. You left some things ambiguous, but I would say based on your posts that you "get it" i.e. understand how time and space are relative.

I want all to think about what a constant clock means. Relativity has only two things affecting clocks, acceleration and distance from gravity. For all test bodies in free fall all clocks tick the same.

Accelerate the test body to half c [in some laboratory frame] and stop acceleration. [Now move into the reference frame of the test body] Light now magically resumes c. Accelerate the [or another] test body to half c again, stop acceleration. [move to the frame of reference of the body after 2nd acceleration]Light magically resumes c. How fast is the test body moving [in the first mentioned laboratory frame]?

Assuming I got it right about which reference frames you were describing speed/velocity in (remember these concepts are meaningless without a frame of reference) then the answer is: 4/5 c.

I doubt that sjw40364 will agree with you. Yes, you are right, according to Einstein and his true believers.

Saul, I tried to explain to you the problems with the "Galilean Transform," and you glossed right over my comments with your comment that "the transform includes the speed of light." I would like you to explain exactly how it does include the finite speed of light.

[saul]

I doubt that sjw40364 will agree with you. Yes, you are right, according to Einstein and his true believers.

Saul, I tried to explain to you the problems with the "Galilean Transform," and you glossed right over my comments with your comment that "the transform includes the speed of light." I would like you to explain exactly how it does include the finite speed of light.

OK I'll try Goldminer, thanks

Consider in some inertial laboratory frame we measure the speed of some object, lets say we call our result C.

According to a Galilean transform, another laboratory moving at speed V with respect to ours antiparallel to the motion of the object will measure the speed of the same object to be C+V in that reference frame.

This applies also for a light pulse. Neither laboratory thinks the speed of light is infinite.

Of course this works fine for a baseball thrown at speed C from a moving vehicle (observer on the ground sees it move with speed C+V). It can also be made consistent with observation for a light pulse by defining units compatible with this, however the laboratories will then disagree about how long their standard meter sticks are, a rather tricky conundrum in that we then don't really know how long our meter sticks are. Measurements of distance and time will have to be tied to a specific reference frame.

By using the Lorentz transform directly we can avoid these problems and just say a meter stick is always 1 meter long in an inertial frame, and the speed of light is always c (still finite). May the Schwarz be with us.

Ah ha, I think you are referring to the fact that the Lorentz transform becomes equivalent to the Galilean transform if we take the limit as c --> infinity. This is true yes, and just shows us that for small velocities v << c we don't need to worry about the difference.

[sjw40364]

I agree with Saul and disagree with him from the laboratory frame it is traveling at 3/4 c, from the test objects frame 0, even though two half c accelerations means it is traveling at c. If you believe clocks reset to their original rate before acceleration (the same as the lab) once they begin free fall regardless of their velocity as per relativity, then you have to agree the test body is traveling through space at c and no other interpretation is possible.

But of course the lab will disagree, because it says 3/4 of c, the test body says it can't tell so all other frames can be converted to a stationary frame. Yet anyone that can add 1/2 + 1/2 knows it equals 1. You are left with no reasonable choice but that the clocks are ticking at different rates depending on their velocity. That or light is c and also 2xc.

It is this vibration rate that is proportional to vc so that whatever velocity you are traveling at, c still appears c to the observer which shares that vibrational rate, but only to that observer. All other observers observe light at their detector which shares their clocks vibration rate, so c is c but only to them, all other observers will disagree with the other clocks.

If you really believe that velocity does not matter, then you must agree the test body is traveling at c. It accelerated to half c, entered free fall, clock reset to lab rate since velocity does not matter, only acceleration. It then accelerated to half c again, so it must be traveling at c, not 3/4 c. Why did you not reset the clock for the test body if you believe velocity through space does not matter, but only acceleration? Should not the test bodies clock read the same as the lab if velocity does not affect clock rates? Should not both agree light is moving away from the test body at 3/4 c if the clocks read the same?

[Goldminer]

I doubt that sjw40364 will agree with you. Yes, you are right, according to Einstein and his true believers.

Saul, I tried to explain to you the problems with the "Galilean Transform," and you glossed right over my comments with your comment that "the transform includes the speed of light." I would like you to explain exactly how it does include the finite speed of light.

OK I'll try Goldminer, thanks

Consider in some inertial laboratory frame we measure the speed of some object, lets say we call our result C.

According to a Galilean transform, another laboratory moving at speed V with respect to ours antiparallel to the motion of the object will measure the speed of the same object to be C+V in that reference frame.

This applies also for a light pulse. Neither laboratory thinks the speed of light is infinite.

Of course this works fine for a baseball thrown at speed C from a moving vehicle (observer on the ground sees it move with speed C+V). It can also be made consistent with observation for a light pulse by defining units compatible with this, however the laboratories will then disagree about how long their standard meter sticks are, a rather tricky conundrum in that we then don't really know how long our meter sticks are. Measurements of distance and time will have to be tied to a specific reference frame.

By using the Lorentz transform directly we can avoid these problems and just say a meter stick is always 1 meter long in an inertial frame, and the speed of light is always c (still finite). May the Schwarz be with us.

Ah ha, I think you are referring to the fact that the Lorentz transform becomes equivalent to the Galilean transform if we take the limit as c --> infinity. This is true yes, and just shows us that for small velocities v << c we don't need to worry about the difference.

You have recited the standard Einsteinian litany of relativity but have not answered my request.


Rafael Castil's "Galilean Transform" diagram.

His diagram at least shows the ray of light going back to the two origins, (u and u') from the "event" (the vertical line to the right in the diagram.) Most renditions of the "Galilean Transform" show only the source of the event; or no event, since they cannot fit it in with their story.

Here are some more "Galilean Transform" diagrams

My request to you is how is the finite speed of light considered in the diagrams and subsequent manipulations? Your post quoted above does nothing but recite the standard litany.

At least Rafael makes a stab at diagramming the light wave's travel with his u and u' lines. (which you glossed in my former post. Here

On the issue of "time," which I have shown to be superfluous regarding the propagation of light observed by observers in motion relative the source, I rely upon the word of Lord Louis Essen before that of either you or swj. Sorry to hurt your feelings. A quote from Lord Louis Essen, a world wide expert on the subject of time.

[sjw40364]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

[Goldminer]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

My essay is understood by those taking the time to open mindedly follow the logic. You demonstrate a lack of ability to do abstract reasoning. Clocks and their rates of regulation needn't be referenced in any but the source frame. You arguments are baseless. Every reference frame needn't be converted to "my" reference frame. You are wrong. You haven't taken the time to even read my essay, and insist on criticizing it. Sorry to rain on your parade! You continue to try to rule by proclamation. It don't work for me!

[sjw40364]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

My essay is understood by those taking the time to open mindedly follow the logic. You demonstrate a lack of ability to do abstract reasoning. Clocks and their rates of regulation needn't be referenced in any but the source frame. You arguments are baseless. Every reference frame needn't be converted to "my" reference frame. You are wrong. You haven't taken the time to even read my essay, and insist on criticizing it. Sorry to rain on your parade! You continue to try to rule by proclamation. It don't work for me!

Excuse me? Who is the one ignoring reality? Are GPS satelites in free-fall just as a lab in Earth? You convert the clock rates, yet you just said every reference frame needn't be converted to your frame. Name just one frame situated at a different velocity than yours that does not need converted. Just one?????

[Goldminer]

Your questions remain unanswered because there is no answer for illogical questions. You can use all the charts and diagrams you like, fuzzy math etc, but it all remains irrelevant. Because you insist that two moving frames in free fall have clocks that tick the same, yet then insist on converting one frame to another. WHY? If the clocks tick the same why are you converting one frame to another? Your conversion makes no sense except for clocks that tick at different rates. If all values in the two frames are identicle, then no conversion is necessary except the subtraction of light propagation delays, which I have yet to see anyone that believes in relativity do or anyone that doesn't believe in it for that matter. Every frame not sharing your reference must be converted to yours, yet you insist the clocks tick the same, which means all values are the same. yet you then convert one for velocity to a stationary frame, regardless that you have just told me the clocks tick the same rate. Why did you not just subtract light propagation delay since the values are the same and only distance matters? You converted because in reality you KNOW the clocks are not even vaguely similar.

My essay is understood by those taking the time to open mindedly follow the logic. You demonstrate a lack of ability to do abstract reasoning. Clocks and their rates of regulation needn't be referenced in any but the source frame. You arguments are baseless. Every reference frame needn't be converted to "my" reference frame. You are wrong. You haven't taken the time to even read my essay, and insist on criticizing it. Sorry to rain on your parade! You continue to try to rule by proclamation. It don't work for me!

Excuse me? Who is the one ignoring reality? Are GPS satelites in free-fall just as a lab in Earth? You convert the clock rates, yet you just said every reference frame needn't be converted to your frame. Name just one frame situated at a different velocity than yours that does not need converted. Just one?????

You are excused to think what ever you wish! I have no idea what you are thinking. Frankly, I do not worry about "reference frames" at all when considering the speed of something relative something else, or what time it is any where. I just go by my time, and if that isn't good enough for you then sue me!

Please show me where in my essay that I was concerned with clock rates. I think you enjoy chasing rabbits. What will you do if you catch one? Bovine are slower, and they taste better (when properly aged!)

You my have hyperventilated. Put a bag over your head and breathe in slowly! I doubt that a lab stuck to the Earth is in free-fall. What part of reality do you insist that I don't understand?

Oh, never mind.