SR with Apparent Simultaneity

[md65536]

I think that the assumption of standard simultaneity in SR is unnecessary, and that apparent simultaneity works just as well, and improves SR. It is explained here:

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0023

 

Abstract:

 

We consider a model of special relativity in which standard simultaneity is replaced by an alternative defined per observer by the direct appearance of simultaneity. The postulates of special relativity are interpreted to permit it, using a corresponding measure of distance chosen so that the measurement of lights speed remains invariant with a value of c. The relativistic Doppler effect and Lorentz transformation of time are derived from direct observations without consideration of a delay of light. Correspondence of the model with SR is further shown by finding a displaced observer whose measure of apparent simultaneity is identical to a given observers measure of standard simultaneity. The advantages of apparent simultaneity include unifying apparent delay of light with relative simultaneity, and unifying changes to relative simultaneity with change in observer position. With speculative interpretation the model implies an equivalence of time and distance.

 

 

 

Any comments or advice on the paper would be appreciated.

[xyzt]

I think that the assumption of standard simultaneity in SR is unnecessary, and that apparent simultaneity works just as well, and improves SR. It is explained here:

 

http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0023

 

Abstract:

 

We consider a model of special relativity in which standard simultaneity is replaced by an alternative defined per observer by the direct appearance of simultaneity. The postulates of special relativity are interpreted to permit it, using a corresponding measure of distance chosen so that the measurement of lights speed remains invariant with a value of c. The relativistic Doppler effect and Lorentz transformation of time are derived from direct observations without consideration of a delay of light. Correspondence of the model with SR is further shown by finding a displaced observer whose measure of apparent simultaneity is identical to a given observers measure of standard simultaneity. The advantages of apparent simultaneity include unifying apparent delay of light with relative simultaneity, and unifying changes to relative simultaneity with change in observer position. With speculative interpretation the model implies an equivalence of time and distance.

 

 

 

Any comments or advice on the paper would be appreciated.

...brought to you from vixra, the crackpot repository....

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Can we ensure the comments on this thread are constructive and polite - imputations of crackpottery, wordsalad, crankishness etc. are pretty unhelpful at this stage of a thread, and attacking an idea / concept through the nature of the document repository used is the worse form of ad hominem fallacy by proxy .

 

...brought to you from vixra, the crackpot repository....

[StringJunky]

xyzt, on 15 Dec 2013 - 7:13 PM, said:

...brought to you from vixra, the crackpot repository....

It would have been much better for you to follow this with an objective critique of the paper, if it really is crap, to justify that comment.

[xyzt]

It would have been much better for you to follow this with an objective critique of the paper, if it really is crap, to justify that comment.

What comes from vixra is crap. By definition. Vixra was created specifically for this reason: a repository of crank papers that have been rejected by mainstream, the "answer" to arxiv.

 

You can see the errors right from the opening stance:

 

"In the definitive work [1] on special relativity (SR), Albert Einstein acknowledges that an assumption is required in order to define a common time between two separated clocks. The assumption used which defines standard simultaneity is that the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O. While it is generally acknowledged that this remains an assumption, it is consistent with observation and is used in the physical representation of time throughout modern physics. Einstein justifies the assumption by its practical benefit of independence of observer standpoint with the clock, but it is tempting to presume that the assumption has a fundamental physical basis, since it is consistent with observations of an invariant speed of light"

 

One paragraph, two gross errors:

 

1. Light transit time has nothing to do with relativity of simultaneity, conversely, relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with light transit time, this is a classical error, oft repeated by people ignorant on the subject.

 

2. Light speed isotropy (what the author calls "the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O.") has been confirmed by countless experiments.

 

I did not see any point in reading past this point.

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[StringJunky]

xyzt, on 16 Dec 2013 - 4:45 PM, said:

What comes from vixra is crap. By definition. Vixra was created specifically for this reason: a repository of crank papers that have been rejected by mainstream, the "answer" to arxiv.

 

You can see the errors right from the opening stance:

 

"In the denitive work [1] on special relativity (SR), Albert Einstein acknowledges that an assumption is required in order to dene a common time between two separated clocks. The assumption used| which denes standard simultaneity| is that the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O. While it is generally acknowledged that this remains an assumption, it is consistent with observation and is used in the physical representation of time throughout modern physics. Einstein justies the assumption by its practical benet of independence of observer standpoint with the clock, but it is tempting to presume that the assumption has a fundamental physical basis, since it is consistent with observations of an invariant speed of light"

 

One paragraph, two gross errors:

 

1. Light delay has nothing to do with relativity of simultaneity, conversely, relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with light delay, this is a classical error, oft repeated by people ignorant on the subject.

 

2. Light speed isotropy (what the author calls "the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O.") has been confirmed by countless experiments.

 

I did not see any point in reading past this point.

That's better. I was thinking MD, at the very least, deserves a more refined response than your original offering.

[xyzt]

That's better. I was thinking MD, at the very least, deserves a more refined response than your original offering.

Well, it is not the first time he's been pushing fringe ideas, only to retaliate with negatives when this is pointed out to him.

[StringJunky]

I think MD is basically mainstream but he likes to test out thought experiments. Some people learn by arguing.

[md65536]

One paragraph, two gross errors:

 

1. Light delay has nothing to do with relativity of simultaneity, conversely, relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with light delay, this is a classical error, oft repeated by people ignorant on the subject.

 

2. Light speed isotropy (what the author calls "the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O.") has been confirmed by countless experiments.

Thanks for the reply to the content.

 

1) I don't think I implied any connection between the two??? I simply introduced the topic as it is described in the reference I cite (Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity). I don't think that I improperly conflate the two, and I acknowledge in the paper that SR with standard simultaneity keeps the two separate.

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, later I claim that the two are measured only together, not separately. I say "the relativistic effect (of time dilation) is measured only in conjunction with the delay of light, and there is no visible distinction between the two." Is this false?

 

 

2) Nothing in the paper contradicts this. I present an alternative model, which also works. In the end I conclude that the new model doesn't invalidate the old one. I'm building on SR, not trying to refute it.

 

Edit: Light speed isotropy is confirmed using a measurement of speed that assumes standard simultaneity. Einstein knew what he was doing and expressed it without implicit assumptions, even though others since (notably those dealing with conventionality of simultaneity, I've found) include such assumptions without acknowledging them. I've gone straight to the source of the assumption where he laid it out perfectly clearly. To speak of one-way measures of the speed of light involves an assumption of simultaneity.

Edited December 16, 2013 by md65536

[xyzt]

I think MD is basically mainstream but he likes to test out thought experiments. Some people learn by arguing.

I beg to disagree. Look at his "paper"and at his answer to the criticism leveled against his "paper". The whole thread belongs in pseudoscience, just as the "paper" found a home in vixra. Where it will rest . Forever.

Edit: Light speed isotropy is confirmed using a measurement of speed that assumes standard simultaneity.

This is the third falsity. May I suggest that you get educated in the foundations of the experiments involved in constraining light speed anisotropy?

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[StringJunky]

xyzt, on 16 Dec 2013 - 6:05 PM, said:

I beg to disagree. Look at his "paper"and at his answer to the criticism leveled against his "paper". The whole thread belongs in pseudoscience, just as the "paper" found a home in vixra. Where it will rest . Forever.

 

I didn't realise it was his paper. I thought he'd found it and wanted it scrutinising. If this is the case then that's up to the mods.

[xyzt]

 

I didn't realise it was his paper. I thought he'd found it and wanted it scrutinising. If this is the case then that's up to the mods.

Neither did I , until he started defending it. He's very quick to neg me when I point out the errors in his posts.

Thanks for the reply to the content.

 

1) I don't think I implied any connection between the two??? I simply introduced the topic as it is described in the reference I cite (Einstein's 1905 paper on special relativity). I don't think that I improperly conflate the two, and I acknowledge in the paper that SR with standard simultaneity keeps the two separate.

 

Edit: Now that I think about it, later I claim that the two are measured only together, not separately. I say "the relativistic effect (of time dilation) is measured only in conjunction with the delay of light, and there is no visible distinction between the two." Is this false?.

This is a non-sequitur, I told you that mainstream physics sees no connection between light delay (transit time) and relativity of simultaneity, you come back with a discussion between light delay and time dilation. Time dilation is not the same thing as relativity of simultaneity. You keep piling up errors.

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

Neither did I , until he started defending it. He's very quick to neg me when I point out the errors in his posts.

Please stop making false accusations. I downvoted your "definition" of my paper as crap, before you even posted the criticisms of the content.

 

Anyway you're the only one who has commented on the content, and I'm thankful for that. I would like to stick to discussing the content.

[phyti]

I'll read the paper later. The comments in the abstract about the simultaneity convention are true.After developing the theory using relative light speed (c-v & c+v), from the perspective of an absolute rest frame(the only one where those terms apply), Einstein knows there is no way to measure the time of a remote event since it requires a local clock, thus he defines the out and back paths as equal. It works because the complementary phenomena of length contraction and time dilation results in equal round trip times. The dynamic duo also scales the xt relations, thus preserving light speed measurements.

[xyzt]

Please stop making false accusations. I downvoted your "definition" of my paper as crap, before you even posted the criticisms of the content.

 

 

I didn't call your paper crap, I called vixra crap. Besides, at the time, I had no idea it is your paper.

 

 

 

Anyway you're the only one who has commented on the content, and I'm thankful for that. I would like to stick to discussing the content.

 

Good, because you have a lot of errors to think about. If you were as quick with the upvotes as you are with the downvotes, you would be grateful for the showstopper errors that I pointed out to you.

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

This is the third falsity. May I suggest that you get educated in the foundations of the experiments involved in constraining light speed anisotropy?

Are there any that don't assume standard synchronization?

 

Or is there anything that proves that Einstein's assumption is no longer just an assumption?

Good, because you have a lot of errors to think about. If you were as quick with the upvotes as you are with the downvotes, you would be grateful for the showstopper errors that I pointed out to you.

There are no errors in the first intro paragraph. The statement you highlighted in red is true and it comes from reference [1]. The statement you highlighted in blue is true, and as you say has been confirmed by experiment.

[xyzt]

Are there any that don't assume standard synchronization?

 

Like I said, you need to educate yourself, here is a good start. You can continue by buying the Zhang book. I highly recommend it.

 

 

Or is there anything that proves that Einstein's assumption is no longer just an assumption?

 

What "assumption" are you talking about?

[md65536]

I'll read the paper later. The comments in the abstract about the simultaneity convention are true.After developing the theory using relative light speed (c-v & c+v), from the perspective of an absolute rest frame(the only one where those terms apply), Einstein knows there is no way to measure the time of a remote event since it requires a local clock, thus he defines the out and back paths as equal. It works because the complementary phenomena of length contraction and time dilation results in equal round trip times. The dynamic duo also scales the xt relations, thus preserving light speed measurements.

Yes, it works. What I attempt to prove is that an alternative also works. I also try to explain why Einstein's model works in terms of the new model, in Section 3.

 

I look forward to hearing what you think of the whole paper! Thanks.

[phyti]

xyzt:

One paragraph, two gross errors:

 

1. Light transit time has nothing to do with relativity of simultaneity, conversely, relativity of simultaneity has nothing to do with light transit time, this is a classical error, oft repeated by people ignorant on the subject.

 

2. Light speed isotropy (what the author calls "the time required for a light signal to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required for a signal to travel from P to O.") has been confirmed by countless experiments.

 

 

 

1. Since the axis of simultaneity is skew symmetric for inertial motion, the observer has to synchronize his fore and aft clocks (using light signals), to maintain the appearance of a rest frame.

 

2. Because its's defined to be so, and there still is no known way to verify it. The observer cannot measure his speed relative to light (v/c), only his speed relative to another object.

[uncool]

md65536, it seems that you have confused simultaneity with synchronization. Einstein's paper says that two clocks are synchronized if the delay is equal.

[md65536]

Like I said, you need to educate yourself, here is a good start. You can continue by buying the Zhang book. I highly recommend it.

Thanks. The speed of light is isotropic. Experiments confirm it.

 

The point is moot because it is implied by the postulates of relativity, which I've assumed are true in my paper. I never speak of a speed of light other than c.

 

Einstein defined "time" such that the "time" of the light signal from A to B is the same as that from B to A. He doesn't define in in terms of speed. Einstein was very careful and he avoided making any implicit assumptions that I'm aware of, such as your assumption that equal timing and equal speed are the same thing without any underlying assumptions or whatever.

 

In the paper, I'm using an alternative definition of time, but maintaining the standard definition of speed, for which all measurements of velocity agree with Einstein's model. Perhaps it's a bit tricky, but all of the assumptions and definitions are explained, and all of the conclusions are reasoned out, and it is all done in agreement with SR.

 

The isotropy of speed of light does not confirm Einstein's definition of time, it is simply mutually consistent with it.

 

What "assumption" are you talking about?

In the translation of Einstein's paper as cited, he says:

If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an “A time” and a “B time.” We have not defined a common “time” for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it requires to travel from B to A.

The assumption I'm referring to is the "further assumption" that Einstein refers to.

 

He is cleverer than I am, he calls it a "definition", but it is an answer to the need for an assumption that he identified. I could probably write the intro paragraph better, but I think it's fair to say that the definition of simultaneity given by Einstein is used as an assumption.

md65536, it seems that you have confused simultaneity with synchronization. Einstein's paper says that two clocks are synchronized if the delay is equal.

I don't think I have. Einstein defined "time" according to the equal timing of a signal between A and B and vice versa (see his quote above), and that definition has come to be known as "Einstein simultaneity" or "standard simultaneity". It applies whether clocks are synchronized or not.

 

Einstein then uses his definition of "time" to define synchronization of clocks, but my paper doesn't require synchronized clocks.

Edited December 16, 2013 by md65536

[xyzt]

Thanks. The speed of light is isotropic. Experiments confirm it.The point is moot because it is implied by the postulates of relativity, which I've assumed are true in my paper. I never speak of a speed of light other than c

But you make a gross mistake in your opening stance. A mistake that you stubbornly refuse to admit to. I even colored it for you in order for you to understand it. Do you understand your mistake?

 

 

 

I don't think I have. Einstein defined "time" according to the equal timing of a signal between A and B and vice versa (see his quote above), and that definition has come to be known as "Einstein simultaneity"

 

Err, no. It is called "Einstein synchronization METHOD", not "Einstein simultaneity". uncool is correct, you are wrong (yet on another issue). If you want to make your own stuff, you need to start by getting the foundations right. As it stands, you don't.

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

But you make a gross mistake in your opening stance. A mistake that you stubbornly refuse to admit to. I even colored it for you in order for you to understand it. Do you understand your mistake?

The colored parts explain what I quoted from the reference I cited. I explained this in post #21. Are you saying Einstein was wrong?

 

Your objections were also replied to in post #19.

 

----

 

Since Einstein only points out the need for an assumption, and then defines "time", he never explicitly assumes that his definition of time is true. He only provides the definition, at most assuming that it's consistent.

 

Edit2: He also makes it clearer that he's speaking of the time of events at A and B, not the clocks themselves.

 

So I'll change the intro's first 2 sentences:

 

"In the definitive work [1] on special relativity (SR), Albert Einstein acknowledges

that an assumption is required in order to define a common time between

two events at separate locations. To answer this, Einstein defines what is now

called standard simultaneity, establishing that the time required for a light signal

to travel from an observer O to an observer P is the same as the time required

for a signal to travel from P to O."

 

 

I see now how "common time between two separated clocks" may imply clock synchronization (especially if "time" refers to elapsed time rather than an event's time coordinate) when what I meant to speak of was only simultaneity.

Edited December 16, 2013 by md65536

[xyzt]

The colored parts explain what I quoted from the reference I cited. I explained this in post #21.

 

 

...in 21 you did not address your errors. You compensated by introducing fresh ones.

 

 

 

 

Are you saying Einstein was wrong?

 

 

No, I am saying you are wrong. Very wrong.

 

 

 

Your objections were also replied to in post #19

 

Like you, phyti confuses relativity of simultaneity with clock synchronization. You need to learn your basics.

Edited December 16, 2013 by xyzt

[md65536]

In this paper I'm talking about simultaneity, not synchronization.

 

Following the comments by xyzt and uncool, I've rewritten the intro paragraph to make it clearer and remove errors and ambiguity:

 

"In the definitive work [1] on special relativity (SR), Albert Einstein acknowledges

that an assumption is required in order to define a common time between

two events at separate respective locations A and B. To answer this, Einstein

defines what is now called standard simultaneity, establishing that the time

required for a light signal to travel from A to B is the same as the time required

for a signal to travel from B to A. While it is generally acknowledged that

this remains an assumption, it is consistent with observation and is used in the

physical representation of time throughout modern physics. Einstein justifies

the definition by its practical benefit of independence of observer standpoint

with the clock, but it is tempting to presume that the definition has a

fundamental physical basis, since it is consistent with observations of an

invariant speed of light and with a classical interpretation thereof."