And if you do two experiments in exactly the same way today at exactly the same time, you get exactly the same results at the same time.
Who’s scenario are you reading??
In MY scenario both flashers get accelerated at the exact same time.
Well the time is the same, so the only difference in “spacetime” would be the spatial location. So you are saying that if two experiments are done side by side at the exact same time, you will get different results because one is located slight to the right of the other. That is NOT Science. You are precisely shooting yourself in the foot with such a proposition. It would make all of Science entirely pointless.
Well fortunately you are a very small portion of my audience. You represent those who worship words and doctrines that they do not understand and also cannot see the simplest of logic that might contradict what they falsely believe their church has espoused.
I am the one using reasoning. You, on the other hand, are merely espousing, “You are wrong! You don’t know anything. You are wrong!”
That is my response to those who have placed blind and misplaced faith in what they know too little about and continue to squirm like a little worm that has been caught by its own “tale”.
Just like your last thread this is nothing more than sophistry, what you are saying is that relativity works in a way that it doesn’t in real experiment and in theoretical mathematics and then claiming to have found a paradox if your faulty premises are true. I don’t think claiming some abstract maths and it is by definition is x in the face of it not being is going to do anything but tell us you are keen on rewriting reality to agree with maths that it doesn’t agree with. Seems a waste of time to me. As physbang said you are going to have an impossible time proving this when every shred of evidence agrees with relativity and not some selective Galilean scenario you made up.
This experiment when set up to measure such effects has a similar sort of set up to yours, it confirms that what is important isn’t some mystical ether or dragging effect or a Galilean absolute time, but a co dependant relative scenario.
The laws of physics are the same for all references they just lack simultaneity in all frames according to relative motion concerns. What you are saying happens only happens if two reference frames are relatively subject to the same motion and gravitation issues. For example if they are relatively not moving in relation to each other or moving at the same speed relative to each other then simultaneity would be observed.
Seems to me that you assume far too much and understand far to little to start throwing out accusations at people. Reading the Physics Forum thread I can see that no matter how people try and reason with you with evidence from experiment or equations of the real world, you are right and everyone else is wrong. This is not a healthy way of exploring scientific issues, nor is accusing people of being blind or misguided going to garner any respect, when what you are clearly saying is out of whack with everything experiment says about the nature of motion and its effect on time in space. Science relies on experiment, special relativity agrees with all experiment, the onus is on you to overturn the evidence, we understand what we do because all the evidence we see suggests it, not because we are so enamoured that we disregard evidence, but that all the evidence leads us to make such a conclusion.
If Einstein is wrong then global positioning systems which are programmed to account for special and general relativity should gradually go out of synch, they do not, thus we have good empirical grounds to believe that SR is correct. it is not faith that leads us to a conclusion but all available evidence. Atomic clocks placed on planes show disparities to those that remain on Earth that precisely agree with the equations of special relativity. Even clocks that are on top of very tall buildings show discrepancies due to differences in gravitational concerns. Michelson Morley experiments in moving apparatus concord with Einstein’s relative framework to the nth degree. What else are we supposed to do, take your word for it that they are wrong in the face of all available evidence? Why should we? If we agreed with you that would indeed be blind faith, you have shown us no evidence that leads us to conclude that relativity is paradoxical. The circumstances you claim do not reflect reality and rely on abstract equivalences that don’t exist.
This is not true if A is subject to differences in acceleration or movement then it will not exhibit equivalence in this manner and simultaneity will not be observed.
Something like if A’ = B and B’ = C then A =C’ might be though. Depends are they both subject to identical gravitational and motional concerns?
All your experiment does is concur with relativity, that simultaneity is dependant on the relationship between two references or relative concerns. The answer is the flashes will only occur at identical times if their intrinsic concerns are identical, if not then from a frame of reference it is possible that one flash may be observed before another and this is indeed what happens in real world experiment.
Haha… so IF both reference frames are moving together, then we are ok? …haha…
PhyBang was doing better. He just misunderstands the issue of simultaneity.
“…and really, down in the basement of the Vatican, they have the real photos of Jesus walking on the water… really. You shouldn’t argue. What do you know?”
For the relativity of simultaneity to come into play, something outside the flashers has to happen to them. In the examples given in Wiki and others, something outside the clocks or the happening (such as a photon striking a wall) is what proposes the disconnect between the frames. A photon reaching a wall in one frame might not be reaching the wall in the other.
In my scenario, there is nothing happening TO the flashers. They are already set to be identical and in sync. and stay that way throughout. Nothing comes from either frame to set them off, thus the relativity of simultaneity doesn’t get involved and doesn’t apply.
So with respect to BOTH frames, the flashers are still in sync when they fire. The issue is what happens when the photons travel and strike a clock. You could argue an issue of simultaneity regarding the clocks, not the flashers. But if you do that, you run into the issue that a clock either stops to both parties or it doesn’t to both parties.
Yours, only I know how SR actually works, whereas you clearly do not. If you make the claim that two events separated by space happen at the same time in every frame, then you are simply violating SR.
Only in the reference frame of the station. In the reference frame of either flasher, the other one is accelerated at a different time. (This is something that anyone taking an intro class on SR is usually shown in class or given as an assignment.)
The two results should be different! The results of one should be at one location and the results of the other should be somewhere else! If you think that science experiments should magically overlap, then your problems run slightly deeper than they appear.
However, the remainder of your audience can see that you make no attempt to actually engage in the scientific issues. While you whinge about scientists acting like some sort of religion, you want your audience to accept your pronouncements on science despite the fact that you don’t provide any details and despite the fact that you get basic terms wrong and despite the fact that you apparently do not actually know much about the theory you are criticizing.
I didn’t just say that you are wrong, I pointed out where you are wrong and I provided you and others a link to where you could read the actual information that you are mangling. This behaviour of yours is very consistent: you make mistakes and then whenever anyone points out the mistakes you simply put your fingers in your ears and shout. I’m sorry that I’m damaging your ego here.
That is my response to those who have placed blind and misplaced faith in what they know too little about and continue to squirm like a little worm that has been caught by its own “tale”.
[/quote]
Yes, I know too little about SR. I only got to study it in classes at graduate school. But my knowledge is irrelevant when anyone can follow the link I provided and see for themselves how out to lunch your claims are. To say that SR uses Galilean Relativity (and to get Galilean Relativity wrong) really takes the cake. I mean, that’s really, really ignorant.
The acceleration applied to each flasher is identical from both frames. In one frame, they both equally accelerate. In the other frame, they both do not accelerate.
Where did the scenario agree to that?? The scenario stipulates that both are treated equally and regardless of which frame.
Point out a single incidence throughout the entire history of Science where 2 simultaneous and identical experiments are expected to bring different results.
Your misunderstanding of even basic Science is getting absurd.
Don’t presume that scientists and you have anything at all in common. I was not referring to scientists.
I suspect that you are sorry that you are so damaging to your own. Your efforts to damage mine is getting ridiculous.
No no. Graduating from elementary school doesn’t qualify as “graduate school”.
Yes, but you keep saying it.
This is like trying to explain the Bible to a Christian who knows that he knows that his interpretation is the only truth of the story when in fact, he has entirely missed the point.
You fail to understand relativity of simultaneity. It is that simple. To prove your case, simply display which flasher would go off before the other or which “starting moving” before the other and why.
Except that, as any SR textbook will tell you, there are no acceleration frames in SR. One has to use a series of momentarily co-moving reference frames and the two flashers will not share the same set of momentarily co-moving reference frames. You are welcome to show us your work in establishing otherwise.
Then your scenario stipulates a violation of SR. Again, if you are just going to declare SR wrong by fiat, then why dress your rant up with a “paradox”?
When I did a chemistry lab in university, the results I got were different from the same results that every other student did in the same lab. Each student got a result at a different location and a slightly different time.
OK, so you whinge about people on the internet not accepting your ideas, meanwhile you don’t give any evidence to back up your own theory. You want people to simply trust your results without showing any details.
So you have abandoned any attempt to actually make your “paradox” clearer and you are instead throwing insults.
And you keep on attacking the side issues instead of trying to defend your gross mistake. Obviously you realize it was a gross mistake to claim that SR used Galilean Relativity, but you aren’t apologizing for making so gross an error, nor are you attempting to fix your error in your “paradox”. Meanwhile, if I ever see you on the internet somewhere else, I can merely point to this thread and sway, “Here is the kind of buffoonery you can expect from James S Saint.”
[/quote]
Which one starts moving first depends on the frame of reference used to describe the events.
So it seems that someone taught you that SR stipulates that no two events can EVER occur at the same time (“treated equally”). You must have had an interesting teacher.
Can you point out the rule of SR that makes such a claim? You should be able to find it on the Internet.
The OP goes step by step. At what step do you think something is not be said accurately? And more importantly, can you support your objection with anything other than, “well the smart people said your wrong”. Your, or PhysBang’s, interpretation of their doctrine is a bit pointless.
Reality and conformity with established theory shouldn’t surprise anyone. The fact that you dispute reality is rather suprising, humerous but surprising.
Go back to school and learn basic relativity until you do you’re just going to embarass yourself with stupid pointless questions because you can’t it seems even understand the most obvious parts of relativistic mechanics. This is a waste of time, I think they were right on that physics thread, you’re just a troll.
I already have, the argument is that in all real world experiment your suppositions are false. Now can you think for yourself and tell me then why we should take anything you say as anything more than a joke, and a bad one at that?
What you are arguing does not gel with the real world, it is a fiction. Simultaneity is only observed in identical relative situations or where motional concerns can be ignored. At least in real world experiments, rather than silly mathematical sophistry that has no bearing on reality.
As I said the onus is on you to show us how your reality equates with experiment, if you can’t then you should just remain silent and admit you are wrong. Just shutting up with the nonsense would do though. Go back to school, try and fathom the concepts then come back when you have that at least.
they are spacialy separated for a start. But since you state they are both moving at the same speed relative to each other, all it proves is that relativity is correct. I’ve already said this but you seem to have ignored everything I say as usual. This is like talking to a brick wall. Ultimately pointless.
Now explain what that actually has to do with anything. You are obviously already aware that “they” (presumably the flashers) are attached physically, so they move identically. So how could they ever be “out of sync” from any reference frame?
If, like PhysBang, you think that because they are in different positions regardless of being attached, one of them somehow ignores the laws of physics, then please provide your evidence for that, again without merely saying that you think “they say so”, because in reality, they have never said that.
Not hardly. But relativity DOES require the truth of that at its very foundation. The theory is based on that notion.
I somewhat ignore you until you actually present a cohesive argument.
Of the 3 of you trying to debate this (in the typical political fashion), only PhysBang has actually presented any argumentation which merely consisted of “But that isn’t how SR works. You don’t understand physics.” It isn’t much of an argument and certainly nothing to respect, but at least he makes an argument as simple minded as it might be.
Frankly it is literally pathetic, as in “pathos” and “pathological”.
Given the quality of your replies, I guess that you tried to learn SR from self-study and then gave up after a couple of pages. SR stipulates that no two events that happen that are spacelike separated can be definitively said to have a set timelike relationship. But you would know this if you actually studied SR. Since you haven’t ever studied SR, why do you have such hatred towards it?
If you are trying to produce a paradox out of what “the say”, then getting what “they say” wrong is a serious problem. That you fail to realize this is yet another sign that you aren’t likely to get far in any sort of reasoning. Perhaps this can be a wake up call to you, or perhaps you’ll go on making the same simple mistakes over and over again.
Perhaps your mind has difficulty in comprehending things that you read; you have misunderstood my argument. I not only said that you misunderstood the relevant physics, I pointed out that you have failed to provide the details of the physics that would prove your case. You merely claimed that equal acceleration on each flasher would keep them in sync, but you never established this. Given your past performance, you don’t actually seem able to work out a problem like this (despite your supposed mathematical ability), so it seems likely that you will go on whinging and never actually fill in the important details that would actually establish your case.
You seem a tragic figure, James: doomed to wander from thread to thread, making the same basic mistakes, because there is something in your nature that prevents you from learning anything more. Whenever someone points out a mistake, you merely assume that this person is pointing out the mistake because they have some vested interest in the outcome and so you never actually take the time to consider whether or not you actually made a mistake.
If one was on the moon the other 10,000km behind they’d observe flashes at different times? If one is 4 feet ahead and they are moving at the same speed, likewise unless distance concerns are exactly the same, honestly dude what is wrong with you, obviously distance matters as much as time does, hence space-time? Ok fair enough only a very sensitive machine would be able to tell which light pulse arrived first but simultaneity is not a conserved effect in different frames of reference particularly when different speeds are involved, in your set up nothing is established except that relativity is correct. if you can fathom why and that then your question is pointless. In fact this whole thread is meaningless but meh.
Your points are just straw men, no one is saying they observe different laws of physics, in fact they observe only one and that is relativity and that assumes that for a measurement to be meaningful then there are no discreet frames of reference and no absolute time. Setting up experiments where all conditions are identical in order to prove that relativity is illogical is meaningless, relativity says that all things being identical then there should be simultaneity. Apply a rotational transform to a concern 0,0 for relative differentials or relatively identical and the final differential concern will be 0,0.
If the photons are travelling the same distance and assuming therefore the two vehicles are travelling at the same speed then they will see the flashes simultaneously, in any other circumstance where distance or speed differ they will not although the distinction will not really be apparent except at speeds approaching c and or differing distances therefore. Time dilation and length contraction issues will then increasingly come into play.
I really couldn’t care less what you think about pathos or my state of mind, I do care though when people are so woefully unable to grasp something that they try and force their skewed interpretations on reality.
Oh and by the way if the clocks are placed above each other even a few metres then the exact gravitation will differ by an inverse relation with distance, this will have a very insignificant effect on the clocks and may not even be measurable. It may be a moot point but Einstein’s general relativity would have to be taken into account even if it may well be ignored as significant.
You said this originally, if this is true then why do the Michelson-Morley experiments not confirm aether theories by a margin of error in the billionths, why is all available evidence supporting relativity? If you don’t want to answer why all experiment contradicts your views fine but you can’t change reality by force of will, just because you fail to understand the implications of a theory. Neither maths nor logic are broken by relativity only simultaneity is. Galilean time is redundant. Clocks on global positioning systems go out of synch because of differences in gravitation and momentum, if they didn’t you may have a point, adjustments made to the frequencies of clocks on the satellites allow for these differences. Relativity works in real situations, Galilean time does not.
Nope. Pointing to your bible and saying “its all right in here. Read it!” doesn’t cut it. You need to keep that kind of thing over on the religion forum.
Quote your bible exactly and then give your explanation of exactly what you think it said as it pertains to separated objects accelerating together and the magic of them not being in sync.
