So, to be clear, you produce a supposed paradox, don’t have the balls to actually assign any coordinates or velocities to anything in your scenario (except on another forum where you got spanked for your incompetence) and you are attacking me for not having any formulas and not taking your fantasy physics on faith?
Typical ego defense presumption.
I gave you plenty of opportunity to show us your claims of grand understanding. You refuse an attempt ad hom tactics.
And as far as “getting spanked”, despite your fantasies, I did no more than mention, by the request of another poster, that I had a different theory and stated how I arrived at it, ONCE. I was immediately banned for life for “arguing alternative theories” and the post was deleted.
That is your church. Heretics not allowed, and immediately killed off if they at all seem authoritative. Note they haven’t “the balls” to come over here where they don’t get banned for defending an idea and taking me on. The only of your church that come here are ranters, gadflies, and harpies.
Since you obviously cannot support your position, PB, despite the opportunity given, why not just shut up and let people think you are more intelligent than you are.
I see many posts here: physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=580632
Do you stand by the number used there?
James, I really can not read through all this gall and venom in these threads you get yourself entwined into.
I wish you would just begin proposing the theory you got banned for at that other forum. This is never going to lead up to anything because Relativity simply does not make the claims you are attacking. It only a way of calculating. It does not make any claims as to what “really is”. It simply doesn’t.
It’s clear that relativity does not speak of “objects” (trains, stations) but of sets of coordinates changing in reference to each other. It does not even claim a coherent ontology, there is nothing ontological about it, it does not say “what things are”, it doesn’t even say “that things are”, it is only epistemology, allowing us to find out how whatever does exist is seen to behave from a certain perspective.
In fact it is the wholesale abandoning of ontology in favor of epistemology. And thus it paves the way for a fresh ontology not based on the consistency of substance, but on the fundamentality of reference frames.
However if we want to have a meta-perspective, as RM does, then we have to disband the notion of reference frames as fundamental altogether. Or, in other words, we have to recombine “substance” with “perspective” in terms where ontology and epistemology meet. I understand that this is where your efforts have gone - to arrive at a notion of infinitesimal PtA as the fundamental building stone of both substance and reference.
Please abandon the quest to discredit Relativity, as no matter what you think it does, it makes of your efforts a means to promote Relativity --there is no such thing as bad publicity, and indeed all this has amounted to so far for me is an increased understanding and appreciation of Relativity. So for your own sake, please propose the alternate theory to interpret the stopped clock situation.
Well that seems a rather serious “venomous” false accusation. Care to back it up?
1) Does the theory of relativity say that the speed of light will be observed to be the same regardless of the observer’s possible motion? Or does it not?
2) Does it say that the train will be measured as shorter by the station observer? Or does it not?
3) Does it say that the clocks on the train will run slower than the station’s train? Or does it not?
Since you have suddenly become the expert, please regale.
Let me try to cut through the fog.
It seems that your argument for rejecting Relativity can be summarized as follows:
“Existence is not relatively but objective there. Therefore, Relativity does not sufficiently apply.”
There are two things I have to say to this:
- Relativity only makes claims to reality as it can be measured.
- Your very own definition of existence, something that exists, is “something that affects”. In other words: “something to which something else is relative”.
RM would make a claim to reality as it can be argued.
Needless to say, that which can be argued must preferably correspond to that which can be measured.
Even if I hold it possible that I am wrong, what I said is not venomous at all. The words “false accusation” however are very venomous. I did not accuse anyone of anything.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Excuse me?
False deduction on your part.
And is false in doing so.
Irrelevant to the discussion.
Can you answer these questions, or can’t you?
Care to “regale”?
So you’ve been claiming.
Ah.
Then I suppose I am irrelevant to the discussion. And so are you.
Solved.
Sorry, you slipped this one in on me…
It is certainly an accusation of me to say that I am claiming that someone else is claiming what they aren’t claiming.
“This is never going to lead up to anything because Relativity simply does not make the claims you are attacking.”
That is exactly what I have claimed that relativity claims.
That is exactly what I have claimed that relativity claims.
That is exactly what I have claimed that relativity claims.
And those are all I have referred to.
So what is it that I have claimed that it claims, that it in fact doesn’t claim?
The claim I mean is implicit to your defined arrangement of the situation. Things will never make sense in terms of Relativity when you describe them in terms of non-relativity.
The claim I’ve seen you make is that it is possible to synchronize (a point in) two reference frames.
But this already means that you’re uniting the frames into one. Relativity does not claim that if you do this, Relativity laws still apply.
As I’ve said often before now, IF you manage to create a reference frame including both moving frames, THEN the speed of light can not be observed to be constant.
I am waiting to see how RM defines the situation.
At the risk of saying something you’ll consider irrelevant: I perceive RM as an ultimately relativistic approach. It builds on a definition of existence that is entirely conditional to something left undescribed: the affected.
RM says: existence is Potential to Affect.
But logic says: PtA requires that something else has the potential to be affected.
RM has given me no answers to what this potential is made of.
Is PtA the same as PtbA? If so the term PtA is incomplete.
As pretty much everyone on every forum you have been on has said. Now either everyone in the world has a default position of animosity to you or you simply do not understand special relativity.
That it claims that identical scenarios result in different effects. That SR is based on what observers perceive (rather than what coordinates are assigned to events in different reference frames). That in SR, events that are simultaneous in one reference frame are guaranteed to be simultaneous in all other reference frames. That special relativity has not been experimentally supported.
I described them in terms of relativity.
Where do you think that I didn’t?
Where did I say that?
I said in only one reference frame that later becomes two.
We had that discussion on the other thread and you stated that finally you see it.
…I suspected that you really hadn’t. I guess you didn’t. But that is not this thread.
Every time you have ever tried. When people ask you to take the time to actually read something about relativity theory, you respond that you won’t read their “bible”. You have it so fixed in your head that there is something wrong with relativity theory that you won’t even read it to find out what it really is.
This is simply nonsense, even from before Einstein was born. Frames of reference do not split. The frames of reference that are used in Special Relativity do not do anything, they are merely things that we have to use to describe a physical scenario properly.
A train that moves relative to the station can be described in a number of reference frames.
So things do not begin to move with respect to each other?
…yeah, right. 
One frame is attached to the station.
One frame is attached to the train.
Initially neither frame is moving.
When the train starts to move, that frame of reference moves with it.
There is no frame splitting. There is no one frame becoming two.
One frame becomes two when the one has anything that begins to move. Whatever is moving becomes the second.
But I realized that this whole thing can be simplified even more. I don’t really need the whole rubber car bit. I can simply use 3 engines.
Is there anything in relativity that forbids;
- 3 train engines from being spaced upon a set of tracks at Xs distance from each other?
- Synchronizing a clock on each of those engines with a clock on one of the others using a light-sphere? (actually required by SR).
- Having each engine apply the same thrust at the same time according to it’s own clock?
- Each engine achieving the same speed within the same time interval?
- Each engine still being at distance Xs apart once at full speed?
- All three engines arriving at the station, center engine centered on the station, with all three engine clocks still in sync with each other and still at Xs distance apart?
Which of those does relativity not allow?
Which just shows (again) that you don’t understand frames of reference. The frames are always separate because you choose to set it up and to analyze it that way.
And this shows that you think that you can prevent length contraction by controlling the force of the engines. You can’t. The train will appear shorter no matter what you do. If you apply more force in one engine, the entire train will just accelerate faster (and contract).
Well, I chose and I analyzed it that way.
Relativity has nothing against such a choice… and would be pretty silly without it.
You are not getting it.
Three separate engines, each with a clock.
Each synchronized with the other two.
They all arrive after equal acceleration.
The distance between them must remain the same.
There are no length contraction concerns.