0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

I know others can't speak for Einstein but everyone who has been posting here seems to support his theories

So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track, that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary? You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?

This falsifies the Newtonian view of absolute time and space that you seem to naively have been pushing.

Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the twoclocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system woulddeclare the clocks to be synchronous

Quote from: Centra on 26/01/2022 13:48:53So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track, that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary? You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?No, he's saying the opposite. The fact that the speed of light is frame-invariant means you'd always get the same time for a round trip regardless of whether the boxcar is moving or not (if you're in the same frame as the boxcar).

So your point is that if you were in a frame, say a very long rocket powered boxcar with no windows, on a track, with a 300 km rod with clocks attached to each end, and the boxcar was moving at 150,000 km/s relative to the track

that you could use beams of light between those two clocks to determine that you were in uniform motion rather than being stationary?

You do realize that violates the postulate of reciprocity between inertial frames, right?

Wouldn't that be what Einstein seemed to be naively pushing?

I didn't write that the beams would take two different times and therefore give the observers moving with the clocks reason to conclude they were not synchronous, Einstein did.

Observers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous

Okay so why did this happen?QuoteObservers moving with the moving rod would thus ﬁnd that the two clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would declare the clocks to be synchronous

Did the light take the same amount of time both ways or not?

What it looks like is that the moving observers saw them take different times and the stationary observers saw them take the same time.

No. Nobody saw any times in that description. Times can only be measured by one clock, not two in different locations. All one can do is subtract the reading of one clock from the reading of the other, and from that obtain a difference, the meaning of which is dependent on the convention by which it can be demonstrated that the clocks are or are not in sync relative to a given frame.

Hi,The illusion is caused by the velocity of the particle. In other words, the displacement of the particle through the velocity intrinsically generates space and time in its frame reference.We could refer to an oscillator to be able to interpret this. Indeed and in second quantification the contraction of the particle in its point of origin corresponds to the annihilation, until the expansion of the particle in space as a creation operator.

Reported for hijacking the thread. Please only one preposterous, outlandish claim per thread.

Swimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.

I'd like to address something which is related to this discussion, it's the Michelson conjecture about velocity addition/subtraction which was the basis of his experiment with the light beams being reflected off mirrors in E/W and N/S directions. The reason for the null result is that he was simply wrong about things going back and forth in a direction of motion and against it being different from the same thing without the motion.

In reality, it's simply the average of 8 plus 2.

Well what they did was record the time showing on clock A when the beam was fired to clock B, recorded the time showing on clock B when it arrived/reflected back to clock A and they recorded that time of arrival at clock A. They had recorded three times, two for clock A and one for clock B.

For them to conclude that the clocks were not synchronous, the time shown on clock B when the beam arrived/reflected minus the time shown on clock A when the beam was fired would have to be different from the time shown on clock A when the beam returned to it minus that same time that had been recorded at the arrival/reflection time on clock B.

There is no way that can be considered a logical thing to have happened

because supposedly you can't tell if you're in uniform motion or stationary by any test.

We know the clocks had been synchronized before they started moving

so how could they have produced different elapsed times for the two directions of the light beam?

Now if you say "Nobody saw any times in that description", which you did, then how did they have tA and tB for the equations "tB − tA = rAB/c − v and t′A − tB = rAB/c + v"? What did you think t stood for, tribbles?

Here's what Michelson thought.QuoteSwimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.

There's no difference in the round trip time compared to the water being completely still

If you read the paper, the clocks were not synchronized until after the rod was moving, and then they were synchronized to local clocks stationary in the first frame. In other words, they looked 'out the window' and set each clock to the value they saw going by just then. This sort of syncs them to the first frame, not to the frame of the rod. I say 'sort of' because while both clocks A and B will always read the same value relative to the original frame, they will not continue to read the same value as the clocks they pass by. They will fall behind them.

BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.

Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 06:31:24BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.Nobody said it was.The MM experiment is designed to look at whether the Earth is moving through the ether.And the analogy between swimmers on a moving river and light in a moving ether is quite good. The problem is that you were looking at the average speed measured WRT the water, when you should have been looking at the average speed measured WRT the ground.

If, for example, a light signal bounces between ends A and B of a rod, an observer at rest on the rod judges the traversal times to be equal. But that is not so for an observer who judges the rod to move in the direction of A to B. For that observer, the light signal traversing from A to B needs more time to catch the fleeing end B; and the light signal traversing from B to A requires less time to meet the approaching end A. This disagreement immediately leads to the two observer's differing judgments concerning the simultaneity of the events at A and B; that is, to the relativity of simultaneity.https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/magnet_and_conductor/index.html

When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph. It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West, I think you'll agree.

We know that light takes 14 nanoseconds less to go from NY to San Francisco than the reverse direction

Whenever they were synchronized to the stationary clocks, the hands still moved at the same rate on clocks A and B, so they still should have shown the same interval for the beams in each direction.

Einstein was saying, I presume, that the moving observers would see two different times showing on both moving clocks while the stationary observers would see the same times on both.

That would be the reverse of what I saw in a video about a rocket with beams going to each end from the middle. It said the stationary observer would see different times on both clocks at each end while the moving observers would see the same times.

I see, well, I guess they proved there's no aether then huh?

I think Einstein wrote the moving rod thing wrong by mistake...Einstein said observers WITH the rod, ie; "at rest" in regard to it, would NOT judge the traversal times to be equal.

I agree with none of the above. It all lacks frame references, and thus is no more than word salad.Despite my continued pointing out of this error, you continue to make it and post meaningless stuff such as this:

When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph. It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West.

So you really are traveling 100 miles in less that 7 seconds?