wespe

nope. there's no class/tutor. only 'net and you.

I agree.

ok, to clear this up: First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse. Although I can't work out the exact math, I still think relativity effects are indeed nullified. If we analyze from the moving astronaut's frame: 1-Length contraction: this scales the distances equally in both directions, average would be same. 2-Time dilation: this causes both clocks to run slower equally, same here. 3-Relativity of Simultaneity:This causes a shift in both clock values, same (remember my setup already had an offset). So I don't think any of these will change the average for the moving astronaut. Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument. Thank you.

Ok, I know the light speed is always measured the same. But, that would have to be explained with some other mechanism, if relativity is refuted by a real paradox. What is real here, is that the clock values are embedded in the light and astronauts will see it. You cannot have two people at the same place (one moving) see different values, even though somehow they would measure the speed of light same. So this is not common sense, but logic, in question. If nature is illogical, that's another thing. Ok, think of different scenarios, but don't make it look like I would say something I wouldn't. I would agree with whatever looks logical on the screen.

The speed of the moving astronaut doesn't matter at all, but if you want it below c, just imagine so. However, for the moving astronaut, the speed of light coming from back and front does look different, doesn't it? Based on relativity, you will say this is incorrect, you will say it should appear so and so. But you are forgetting that the light contains the clock value and you cannot change it, because the nearby stationary astronaut also sees it. Thus you cannot change the calculated value. So, that's a paradox, only if you assume relativity is correct. And please don't change the scenario by making one of the clocks move or whatever. I'm not saying the calculated value would be the same if the clocks were moving. That's why discussions became endless, please don't do that.

Just before that statement appears, did you notice that the moving astronaut calculated the same value with the stationary astronauts, simultaneously? Do you think that's compatible with "relativity of simultaneity"?

I don't have anything against evolution, plus I'm agnostic, but that's irrelevant here. If you don't want anyone to challenge relativity by pure logic.. whatever.. Please focus on my setup and think for yourself.

Ok, here's an extra explanation for you: All the astronauts - on the line between the stationary clocks - will calculate the same average value, simultaneously, whether they are stationary, moving with a constant speed, or even accelerating. Therefore, there can be no mutual time dilation. (Just imagine two rows of synchronized clocks passing by). And the relativity of simultaneity is likewise a paradox. With this setup I have shown that it is possible to define absolute time and simultaneity, and with a little thinking you can figure out absolute space too. Thank you for your time, wespe - anonymous

Please see: http://wespe4.tripod.com/ (15K - requires flash)