Thought Experiments

[pzkpfw]

... If this is your argument, it is correct on its face. However, this is not the argument Einstein is making.

Yes, it is.

 

Einstein is not saying that either the man on the embankment or the man on the train may see the two flashes of light simultaneously. And its just that we stipulate that the man on the embankment sees the two flashes of light at the same time.

Yes, he is. (That strikes happen to be simultaneous in his frame (that's what is stipulated), and not in the frame of the train).

 

And then, based on the logical argument that both men can’t see the two flashes at the same time and given our stipulation, we then therefore arrive at the conclusion that the man on the train sees one flash of light before the other.

Yes, he is. It's very simple.

 

Einstein clearly believes that his thought experiment, as it is, leads to the conclusion that the man on the embankment will see the two flashes of light simultaneously while the man on the train will see one before the other ...

Yes.

 

...and this thought experiment does this without saying something to the effect of “and the only reason why we know the man on the train sees the one flash of light before the other is because logic dictates that both men cannot see the two flashes of light simultaneously and we stipulated that the man on the embankment sees the two flashes of light simultaneously.”

No, in effect he does say that. The reason being that from the point of view of the embankment observer, the train observer is moving. That's what leads to the result in your text above. I've brought that to you to try to help you understand.

 

He believes based on his set up alone, he demonstrates that the two flashes of light will be perceived by the man on the embankment simultaneously and the man on the train will see the one flash of light before the other, and not based on us stipulating one or the other man [the man on the train or the man on the embankment] as the one who sees the two flashes of light simultaneously.

No! If that were true, then your claims of "absolute rest" might have had some merit.

 

Why do you think it's called "relativity of simultaneity" and not "absoluteness of simultaneity that some observers disagree with" ?

 

What do you think he meant by "and vice versa" in the end of that section?

Edited September 13, 2014 by pzkpfw

[Le Repteux]

Of course you agree. The fact that you two agree doesn't make either of yoy right, it makes both of you equally wrong.

Relativity is a non-contradictory theory. Only cranks who misinterpret relativity claim that they have found "contradictions".

If relativity was so straightforward, it would not be discussed that much. There are contradictions, and we must find why.

 

Promoting your own fringe theories does not constitute a valid argument.

No, but proposing solutions does.

 

-the observer on the train is co-moving with the light source , therefore, no Doppler

Since the train moves, there is doppler effect at both ends, but it cancels out.

 

-the observer on the platform is a little more complicated, there is a cancellation of the Doppler effects due to the waves being reflected, so the receding effect is cancelled by the opposite effect :

There is no mirror in Christopher's first mind experience, and this is the one that I am talking about.

 

Err, mainstream physics relies on experiment for validation. Neither of you seem to grasp the fact that "mind experiments" are worth naught in physics. Besides, as I have just shown, your "contradictions" in mind experiments are just your basic misunderstandings.

Theories pass, data stay. Theories will stay when the world has been completely explored, which shall never happen if it is infinite.

Edited September 13, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

If relativity was so straightforward, it would not be discussed that much. There are contradictions, and we must find why.

The "contradictions" are your basic misunderstandings.

So, in order to "find out why", you need to look at yourself.

 

 

 

No, but proposing solutions does.

 

You aren't "proposing solutions", you are just exposing your level of misunderstanding.

 

 

Since the train moves, there is doppler effect at both ends, but it cancels out.

 

Not in the frame of the train, the source and the receiver are moving as one. So, contrary to your misconceptions, no Doppler.

 

 

 

There is no mirror in Christopher's first mind experience, and this is the one that I am talking about.

There is still no Doppler effect because there is no relative motion between the source and the receiver in ANY frame.

There is also no absolute simultaneity, as explained by the simple application of SR.

 

 

 

Theories pass, data stay. Theories will stay when the world has been completely explored, which shall never happen if it is infinite.

 

Sure but you two aren't going to be the ones exploring the theories. You need to learn the theories first, before you launch your exploration. Both of you have demonstrated that you haven't learned.

Edited September 13, 2014 by xyzt

[Le Repteux]

The "contradictions" are your basic misunderstandings. So, in order to "find out why", you need to look at yourself.

As far as physics is concerned, I prefer to observe phenomenon than to observe humans.

 

You aren't "proposing solutions", you are just exposing your level of misunderstanding.

You are assuming too much about what I know, and not enough about what I propose.

 

Not in the frame of the train, the source and the receiver are moving as one. So, contrary to your misconceptions, no Doppler.

Once we assume that a body is motion, we must assume that doppler effect is present, otherwise it creates contradictions. If a reference frame is in motion, it produces doppler effect, because it is then de facto constituted of bodies in motion.

 

There is still no Doppler effect, there is no relative motion between the source and the receiver in ANY frame.

There is also no absolute simultaneity, as explained by the simple application of SR.

Relativity is about inertial motion, it does not permit us to determine which body is in motion with regard to another one, and this produces contradictions in the mind experience of the train and the embankment. It simply does not work to assume that it is impossible to determine which one is in motion. We have to find another way around, and to do that, the small steps that I propose is interesting, because it explains inertial motion in an unexpected way. Have a look at them and try to determine if they contradict the data.

 

Sure but you two aren't going to be the ones exploring the theories. You need to learn the theories first, before you launch your exploration. Both of you have demonstrated that you haven't learned.

Discussing theories does not mean that we did not study them, it means that we noticed their limit and that we think they can be improved. Do you think that relativity will last forever?

[xyzt]

 

Once we assume that a body is motion, we must assume that doppler effect is present, otherwise it creates contradictions. If a reference frame is in motion, it produces doppler effect, because it is then de facto constituted of bodies in motion.

You fail basics physics : there is no Doppler effect if the source and the receiver are co-moving. Since there is no relative motion, there is no Doppler effect.

[imatfaal]

Le Repteux

 

Even though this is speculations you do need to be more scientific - you cannot just say that Special Relativity is full of contradictions. SR is entirely mathematically self-consistent - thought experiments which do not agree with SR are malformed.

 

There are long and explanatory articles regarding the Doppler Effect on the net - you are misapplying it by asserting it in a situation in which it does not function. You will have surely noticed on a fast train that there is no change to your fellow passenger's voices

The Doppler effect (or Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave (or other periodic event) for an observer moving relative to its source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

[christopherkirkreves]

xytz said:

 

“You aren't right, you are badly and profoundly wrong. Doesn't seem to stop you from posting the same errors over and over.”

 

Okay.

 

Let us say that the Lorentz transformations are not based on the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment. Let us say that in his book for the popular masses such as myself, “Relativity: The Special and the General Theory,” Einstein is not building a theoretical structure brick by brick (proof by proof) but is rather taking the reader on a survey journey through several of the topics related to the Theory of Relativity. And let us say that he just happens to choose to talk about the “Relativity of Simultaneity” first just because he thinks that a reader of general knowledge and interest would find that interesting. And then after randomly talking about the “Relativity of Simultaneity” which concludes with “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time” he then just randomly moves onto another topic related to the Theory of Relativity which just so happens to be the “Lorentz Transformations” which just so happen to have as one of their assumptions the counterintuitive idea that “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time.” And let us say that it is all just a coincidence that he spends 33 pages setting up the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment and concludes “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time” and then immediate moves onto another random topic for the general population of readers which just so happens to have this conclusions as one of its assumptions and this counterintuitive assumption just so happens to now be justified by the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment. Okay. Let us say this.

 

That still doesn’t matter.

 

If I come up with some mathematical formulas based, in part, on the assumption that “you can tell a person’s personality based on the lumps on their head,” and then some other guy, totally independent of me, comes up with a thought experiment that proves “you can tell a person’s personality based on the lumps on their head,” and then I use my math to examine that guy’s thought experiment, then, even though he and I originally worked independently, I am engaged in circular logic. I am using math that assumes the conclusion of the thought experiment that I am now examining.

 

Even if I am wrong and Einstein did not construct his theory with the Lorentz transformations “based on” or “justified by” the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment, that still does not change the facts that, one, the math of the Lorentz Transformations assumes “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time,” and, two, the conclusion of the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment is “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time,” and so, three, to use this math to examine this thought experiment is to examine something already assumed and so is to engage in circular logic.

 

No?

 

Please do advise.

 

Thank you.

 

----

 

studiod said:

 

“Note I have not said any are wrong or right, just offered to discuss whether they are necessary or the best group of assumptions.

 

Do you wish to listen as well as preach?”

 

Cool.

 

I hope you are getting the impression of me that I am not just hear to preach my “controversial” or “suspect” ideas about the Theory of Relativity. I have already admitted where I think my language, and ideas, have fallen short; based on what you have pointed out. And I have publically made the appropriate changes.

 

If you believe that I need to make more changes to the first section of my first post in the thread, then please let me know. If I agree with you I will make the changes. If I disagree I will tell you why and we can discuss.

 

I did not intend to come here to preach, but I seem to be doing a lot of that. I came here to lay out what I thought was a very clear piece of logic that showed that Einstein’s thought experiment needs to be replaced with Comstock’s. And, as you can see, at first I thought this idea was so obvious I didn’t think I needed to even respond to anyone. (And then when all the hate came pouring down I was ready to run, until challenged by the person I’m not allowed to directly address suggested that I go back and look at the previous responses, to which I did, and then I found myself unwittingly responding and “preaching.”)

 

I hope you can see that I am willing to listen. I have made several corrections based on your and other people’s comments.

 

Thank you.

 

------

 

To Le Repteux:

 

There is something to what you said that I agree with, but for the most part I think we do not agree. And I’d love to debate you about what is the exact nature of “light.” But, right now, I have enough work to do in debating over whether Einstein’s “Two Lighting Bolt Strikes” thought experiment works and specifically right now over whether it is circular logic to use the Lorentz transformations to examine this thought experiment.

 

Thank you.

 

----------

 

xyzt said:

 

“Relativity is a non-contradictory theory. Only cranks who misinterpret relativity claim that they have found "contradictions".”

 

As I’m sure you might suspect of someone such as myself, I spent years trying to turn the logic of the Special and General Theories of Relativity back on themselves and into a paradox. That is how I learned this theory. And, now, I understand that once you accept the premises it is an internally consistent theory.

 

And so, if you assume “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time” and then examine the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment, then, yes, this thought experiment leads to the conclusion “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time.”

 

But I don’t believe that Einstein made this assumption (certainly not explicitly and I don’t believe even implicitly) when he laid out this thought experiment and analyzed it in the first 10 chapters of his book.

 

I do not believe that Einstein concluded that “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time” based on the assumption that “every inertial frame of reference has its own particular time.”

 

Thank you.

 

----------

 

To pzkpfw:

 

 

In the “twin paradox” the problem arises in that from both perspectives the other twin should not age while the observing twin does age. And this cannot be. But this “paradox” is resolved in that the experiences of the two twins are not the same. The twin in the space ship experiences acceleration and deceleration which are pseudo gravitational fields and so time goes more slowly. And the twin in the space ship shifts from one world line to another and so (as shown by the space time diagrams) skips over a big chunk of time that the twin remaining on Earth experiences. And so, the “paradox” is resolved and it is the twin on the space ship who does not age.

 

If you are saying (and if you are saying that Einstein is saying) that in the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment it could either be the man on the embankment who sees the two flashes of light simultaneously or the man on the man on the train who sees the two flashes of light simultaneously, then (I believe) you are then in the same position as those who initially proposed the “twin paradox.”

 

I don’t think that it is enough to just say (to just stipulate) that the man on the train will see the two flashes of light simultaneously or to just say (to just stipulate) that the man on the embankment will see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

 

This seems to be the major disagree between you and I.

 

I think that if both the man on the train and the man on the embankment are in positions to see the two flashes of light simultaneously then (in this thought experiment) they will both see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

 

I think to make your argument that one will see the two flashes of light simultaneously while the other will see one flash of light before the other, you need to make an argument (similar to that made in the “twin paradox”) as to why either the man on the embankment or the man on the train is preferred to see the two flashes of light simultaneously over the other.

 

The fact that the two lightning bolt strikes occurred in the inertial frame of reference of the embankment does not give “preference” of simultaneity to the man in the inertial frame of reference of the embankment. Einstein stipulates that the air above the embankment has been removed. And so, after the strikes occurred, the flashes of light are moving through the vacuum of space and so as they travel to the two men they are no more connected to the inertial frame of reference of the embankment as they are connected to the inertial frame of reference of the train. And so, if it is stipulated (as it is) that they occurred simultaneously (as it is) and if they travel at equal velocities over equal distances (which they do) and if the man on the train is justified in considering himself to be at rest (which he is) then the two flashes of light will reach him at the same time.

 

There is no reason, I can see, to prefer one man over the other (as is found in the “twin paradox”) when it comes to who will see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

 

The fact that the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) are in one guys inertial frame of reference and not in the other guys inertial frame of reference, I believe, is irrelevant. I believe that the motion or lack of motion (from the perspective of each other observer) of the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) is irrelevant when examining this thought experiment.

 

And again, any reference to “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another and so given that the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous in the embankment frame of reference means that they are not simultaneous in the train frame of reference” is to engage in circular logic as it is the conclusion of this thought experiment that “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another” and so the conclusion should not also be used as a premise.

 

Please advise.

 

Thank you.

 

- Christopher

 

 

[Le Repteux]

To xyzt,

 

Considering that the source and the receiver are co-moving means that an observer at rest can measure their co-motion, and if this observer is motionless in the middle of the two light flashes, as the one on the embankment, he will measure their frequency to be different. On the other hand, considering that the doppler effect at the source is canceled by the doppler effect at the observer means that we cannot measure our own speed if we observe the light emitted by sources in the same reference frame as ours, which is exactly what we observe.

Le Repteux

 

Even though this is speculations you do need to be more scientific - you cannot just say that Special Relativity is full of contradictions. SR is entirely mathematically self-consistent - thought experiments which do not agree with SR are malformed.

 

There are long and explanatory articles regarding the Doppler Effect on the net - you are misapplying it by asserting it in a situation in which it does not function. You will have surely noticed on a fast train that there is no change to your fellow passenger's voices

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

Molecules that carry the sound waves on a train are in inertial motion, but not the space that carries the light waves. Got a better example? Also, maths does not prove that a theory is right, it only proves that it fits the data obtained from our observations. By the way, do you also believe that Relativity theory will last forever?

Edited September 13, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

 

 

xyzt said:

 

“Relativity is a non-contradictory theory. Only cranks who misinterpret relativity claim that they have found "contradictions".”

 

As I’m sure you might suspect of someone such as myself, I spent years trying to turn the logic of the Special and General Theories of Relativity back on themselves and into a paradox.

 

 

Good,

 

Continue to waste your time. I am through trying to educate you.

To xyzt,

 

Considering that the source and the receiver are co-moving means that an observer at rest can measure their co-motion, and if this observer is motionless in the middle of the two light flashes, as the one on the embankment, he will measure their frequency to be different.

Nope, mainstream science shows that you are wrong, you too can continue wasting your time. I am through trying to educate you as well.

[Le Repteux]

Unless you are so certain to be right that you cannot realize that this person knows what you are talking about, you cannot educate somebody about something that this person knows, you can only try to convince him that you are right.

There is something to what you said that I agree with, but for the most part I think we do not agree. And I’d love to debate you about what is the exact nature of “light.” But, right now, I have enough work to do in debating over whether Einstein’s “Two Lighting Bolt Strikes” thought experiment works and specifically right now over whether it is circular logic to use the Lorentz transformations to examine this thought experiment.

I bet you do not agree with the canceled doppler effect for two observers in the same moving reference frame, is that so? If xyzt leaves, we will have more time to talk about that, but I bet he won't.

 

Oups, sorry xyzt, I made a mistake as usual. What you noted in red should be written: "he will measure their frequency to be the different if the source and the receiver in co-motion emit the same frequency"

Edited September 13, 2014 by Le Repteux

[swansont]

The fact that the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) are in one guys inertial frame of reference and not in the other guys inertial frame of reference, I believe, is irrelevant. I believe that the motion or lack of motion (from the perspective of each other observer) of the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) is irrelevant when examining this thought experiment.

 

But it is relevant.

 

On must ask where an observer is when each bolt strikes, and where that observer is when the light reaches him/her, and that depends on the presence of relative motion. If the bolts do not travel the same distance, then the strikes can't be observed to be simultaneous.

 

And again, any reference to “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another and so given that the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous in the embankment frame of reference means that they are not simultaneous in the train frame of reference” is to engage in circular logic as it is the conclusion of this thought experiment that “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another” and so the conclusion should not also be used as a premise.

 

It's not. The premise is that SR is correct. The investigation is whether events are simultaneous, but the status is not assumed.

[studiot]

Christopher, I am sorry I though you wanted to discuss the wider issue of the basis of Special Relativity, because you introduced them in your mammoth first post.

 

However I see that perhaps I misunderstood and that all you want to do is discuss the logic of Einstein's train example.

 

If this is so can you please state (in not more than 5 lines please) what is your objection?

 

Never mind repeating the practical details of the experiment we can take those as read.

 

I have come to the conclusion that your difficulty is one of English, not logic or maths and can be quickly resolved as such.

 

Robin, I also have a question for you to consider about your experiment.

 

You would have to grant some extra special powers to implement your experiment since it seems to require instantaneous communication over some distance.

How else could the flasher be arranged to operate at precisely the right time?

 

Talking of lights on the track.

 

Government Notice

 

To Save Energy

the Light at the End of the Tunnel

Will be switched off until further Notice.

 

Edited September 13, 2014 by studiot

[pzkpfw]

... If you are saying (and if you are saying that Einstein is saying) that in the “Two Lightning Bolt Strikes” thought experiment it could either be the man on the embankment who sees the two flashes of light simultaneously or the man on the man on the train who sees the two flashes of light simultaneously, ...

Yes. In the paper he writes (my underlines):

 

... Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative.

...

Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).

...

... so I'm confident of my result, and attempt to explain it to you.

 

... then (I believe) you are then in the same position as those who initially proposed the “twin paradox.”

You are over complicating it. You seem to be trying hard to have your own unique interpretation so that you can then claim some oodd result.

 

I don’t think that it is enough to just say (to just stipulate) that the man on the train will see the two flashes of light simultaneously or to just say (to just stipulate) that the man on the embankment will see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

 

This seems to be the major disagree between you and I.

The whole point of R.O.S. is that there is no absolute simultaenity. The thought experiment shows this by describing a scenario, with two frames, where the events are assumed to be simultaneous to be simultaneous in one frame, and showing they can't be simultaneous in the other. (If the result were that it was shown the events were also simultaneous in the other frame, the title of section nine would be different!)

 

What you seem to want to do is stipulate that the strikes are simultaneous in both frames. That's such a wild (and circular) interpretation of the thought experiment I can't follow your reasoning.

 

Note that the thought experiment doesn't stipulate that the strikes are not simultaneous in both frames. It shows how if they are in one, they won't be in the other.

 

I think that if both the man on the train and the man on the embankment are in positions to see the two flashes of light simultaneously then (in this thought experiment) they will both see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

Yeah - so you are stipulating that they'll both consider the same two strikes as simultaneous. You are assuming the thing you want to be true. You are assuming absoluteness of simultaenity.

 

Can you explain why and how your thought here could be correct?

 

I think to make your argument that one will see the two flashes of light simultaneously while the other will see one flash of light before the other, you need to make an argument (similar to that made in the “twin paradox”) as to why either the man on the embankment or the man on the train is preferred to see the two flashes of light simultaneously over the other.

There is no preference! The strikes just happen to be simultaenious in one of the two frames. The experiment then shows (not assumes) they can't be in the other. (You could have a scenario where the strikes are not simultaneous in either frame. Even if you believe in "absolute simultaenity" that'd be a pretty pointless exercise!)

 

Two other strikes might have been simultaenious in the train frame. Or neither frame! There is no absoluteness to simultaenity, there is no preference; no more than there is any preference to a rock landing on my head and not yours. I was just in the wrong place.

 

The fact that the two lightning bolt strikes occurred in the inertial frame of reference of the embankment does not give “preference” of simultaneity to the man in the inertial frame of reference of the embankment. Einstein stipulates that the air above the embankment has been removed. And so, after the strikes occurred, the flashes of light are moving through the vacuum of space and so as they travel to the two men they are no more connected to the inertial frame of reference of the embankment as they are connected to the inertial frame of reference of the train. And so, if it is stipulated (as it is) that they occurred simultaneously (as it is *) and if they travel at equal velocities over equal distances (which they do) and if the man on the train is justified in considering himself to be at rest (which he is) then the two flashes of light will reach him at the same time.

 

There is no reason, I can see, to prefer one man over the other (as is found in the “twin paradox”) when it comes to who will see the two flashes of light simultaneously.

It's not preference. In the end there are some things that are "absolute". One of these will be things that occur in one location, which here is the flahes reaching one observer. All observers will agree if the flashes strike one observer at the same time. That is something for which there will only be one truth.

 

Einstein shows that if the flashes reach one observer (whichever) at the same time, they can't reach the other observer at the same time. That other observer can't disagree with that. He's in the same universe. The flashes won't reach him at the same time so they were not simultaneous in his frame.

 

* note that he writes "Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train?". He's not saying, as you imply, that the events were simultaneous ... not in that absolute way. He's clear that he's talking about the embankment frame.

 

The fact that the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) are in one guys inertial frame of reference and not in the other guys inertial frame of reference, I believe, is irrelevant. I believe that the motion or lack of motion (from the perspective of each other observer) of the sources of the flashes of light (the points of impact) is irrelevant when examining this thought experiment.

The sources were not in one frame. They are in both frames. See:

 

... Then every event which takes place along the line also takes place at a particular point of the train. ...

And the motion is entirely relevant. Each observer considers themselves as at rest - due to the relative motion they know the other observer is not at rest. That's how each observer knows the other observer is moving towards one light source and away from the other. Which is why if the strikes reach one observer at the same time, they can't reach the other observer at the same time.

 

And again, any reference to “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another and so given that the strikes are stipulated to be simultaneous in the embankment frame of reference means that they are not simultaneous in the train frame of reference” is to engage in circular logic as it is the conclusion of this thought experiment that “events which are simultaneous in one inertial frame of reference are not simultaneous in another” and so the conclusion should not also be used as a premise.

No, it's your logic that is circular. You are demanding absolute simultaenity, and trying to squeeze that into an experiment that shows it isn't.

 

Again, the experiment needs to stipulate that the events are simultaneous in one frame, in order to carry that thought through and see the result. It doesn't stipulate that the events were not simultaneous in the other frame ... it shows that!

[Le Repteux]

Mind experiments with light will always induce contradictions, because in the reality, we cannot perform them. To experiment with sound, we can use light, and it works because the information we get goes faster than the information that produces the phenomenon we observe, but nothing goes faster than light, so we cannot experiment with it, we can only observe the phenomenon. To me, this means that, apart from participating to life process, or from helping us to produce energy, light has another purpose than the one we use to take for granted, which is to give us, humans, information about what is going to happen to us.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

Mind experiments with light will always induce contradictions,

False

 

 

because in the reality, we cannot perform them.

Patently false.

[Le Repteux]

False

Discussions here about the mind experiences of Realivity probably count hundreds of pages, with no satisfaction on either camp. If it was so evident, somebody would have found the link between the camps. It is not evident, and some scientists even say that you need to understand the maths to understand the theory. This is not true, if a theory cannot be explained with words, maths won't help. We have to look somewhere else than where we already have. Why not take a look at what atoms see when light strikes them?

 

Patently false.

We cannot measure an experiment about the speed of light with an information that does not travel faster than light, it is physically impossible. We have data that proves GR works because atoms can keep their frequency all by themselves, but if it was not the case, we could not use them to measure time and the GPS could not help us with our light experiments. In fact, it is not a light experiment that we make, but a timing experiment, and this is also what I think the atoms do with light.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Le Repteux

[studiot]

@ Le Repteux

 

Can you explain or state what you consider the principles of Physics is supposed to be founded on?

 

I am not asking if you agree or disagree with it, just what principles do you think are more fundamental than relativity, and from which whatever statement or model is generated should flow.

[Royston]

Discussions here about the mind experiences of Realivity probably count hundreds of pages, with no satisfaction on either camp.

 

Some people understand relativity, some don't...that is probably the cause of any disagreement. But, you really need to back this up with an example.

 

If it was so evident, somebody would have found the link between the camps. It is not evident, and some scientists even say that you need to understand the maths to understand the theory. This is not true, if a theory cannot be explained with words, maths won't help. We have to look somewhere else than where we already have.

 

 

Words will only take you so far in understanding a theory. If somebody is too stupid or lazy (or some other reason) to wrap their head around the mathematics of a theory, that is clearly not the fault of the theory.

 

We cannot measure an experiment about the speed of light with an information that does not travel faster than light, it is physically impossible.

 

 

Perhaps your comment is lost in translation, because (no offence) that makes little sense. Can you provide an example of what you mean ?

Edited September 14, 2014 by Royston

[Phi for All]

Discussions here about the mind experiences of Realivity probably count hundreds of pages, with no satisfaction on either camp. If it was so evident, somebody would have found the link between the camps. It is not evident, and some scientists even say that you need to understand the maths to understand the theory. This is not true, if a theory cannot be explained with words, maths won't help.

 

!

Moderator Note

The "link between the camps", as you put it, would seem to be the math, but one "camp" seems unwilling to speak the native language. The lingual approach is almost always the culprit in these relativity discussions, and this one seems fated to follow the same historical path.

 

Thus far, the same approach has been used but different results seem to be expected. If a theory cannot be explained with words to someone who doesn't know the maths, maths won't help. Is there a resolution or do we need to close the thread?

 

Don't respond directly, but please think about an approach that isn't just more insanity.

[xyzt]

Discussions here about the mind experiences of Realivity probably count hundreds of pages, with no satisfaction on either camp. If it was so evident, somebody would have found the link between the camps. It is not evident, and some scientists even say that you need to understand the maths to understand the theory. This is not true, if a theory cannot be explained with words, maths won't help. We have to look somewhere else than where we already have. Why not take a look at what atoms see when light strikes them?

This is because the cranks always insist that there are "contradictions". They misconstrue their basic misunderstandings as "contradictions".

 

 

We cannot measure an experiment about the speed of light with an information that does not travel faster than light, it is physically impossible.

 

By "we" you must mean "yourself". Mainstream scientists do not ascribe to your views, I listed hundreds of experiments that disprove your claims.

 

 

 

 

We have data that proves GR works because atoms can keep their frequency all by themselves, but if it was not the case, we could not use them to measure time and the GPS could not help us with our light experiments. In fact, it is not a light experiment that we make, but a timing experiment, and this is also what I think the atoms do with light.

 

What you "think" is irrelevant, what mainstream science demonstrates, is relevant. Even if it contradicts what you "think".

[Le Repteux]

@ Le Repteux

 

Can you explain or state what you consider the principles of Physics is supposed to be founded on?

 

I am not asking if you agree or disagree with it, just what principles do you think are more fundamental than relativity, and from which whatever statement or model is generated should flow.

As you may have noticed, I am not discussing the data from relativity, I am only discussing the mind experiments. What is fundamental is that the information we get from our experiments, where light is emitted from a real source and strikes a real instrument of measure, is restricted to the speed of light. Even if we can imagine the trajectory of light in a drawing, we can only measure it with a signal that cannot exceed the speed of light. Looking at a drawing, we can imagine simultaneity, but it is physically impossible to measure it with an experiment. This is why I suggest that discussions about those experiments will always lead to contradictions. Since I understand the maths, I know that it is not because people do not understand them that they do not agree with the outcome of the experiments, so to me, the only answer to those long discussions is because mind experiments with light naturally induce contradictions. But those contradictions do not evacuate the fact that light exchanged between bodies in motion necessarily induces relativistic effects in their motion. What I suggest is to look more closely at what atoms face when trying to stay synchronized with other atoms, because they have the same problem that we have with our mind experiments about light, and they seem to have solved it a few billion years ago.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Le Repteux

[studiot]

Le Repteux

 

I am at a complete loss to understand how your post#71 was a reply to my post#67, as the quote would suggest.

 

By fundamental I was thinking principles like:-

 

The assumption that Space is isotropic (or not)

The assumption that Space is homogeneous (or not)

 

I can't see how measuring things with light or not measuring them this way is relevent or more fundamental.

 

Personally I always measure space in glogs where 1 glog = 1.732/pi metres.

 

 

So come on, what principles of Physics are you desireous of keeping and what are you willing to give up?

Edited September 15, 2014 by studiot

[Le Repteux]

I cannot see what you are getting at, this is probably why my answer was not satisfying to you, but I still don't, so I guess you will not like this answer either. For the purpose of my thesis on mass, apart from resistance to acceleration, the only principles that I retain are doppler effect and atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one. Principles about space are irrelevant to atoms: what they see is what they get.

 

If you want more information about what I take for granted or not in physics, ask more precise questions, enumerate the principles and I will tell you which one I retain.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Le Repteux

[xyzt]

the only principles that I retain are doppler effect and atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one. Principles about space are irrelevant to atoms: what they see is what they get.

 

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with the word salad: "atoms of the same kind emitting the same frequencies, which is what an atom needs to stay synchronized with another one" .

Actinides emit on multiple frequencies.

The Doppler effect has nothing to do with actinides.

There is no meaning to "atoms needing to stay synchronized"

[Le Repteux]

How do you think that atoms have been able to keep their frequencies all those billions of years. If you let go two atomic clocks without connecting them, they will get out of sync quite quickly, but if they stay connected, they will stay sync forever. An important principle of physics is that phenomenon are interconnected, I suggest that this interconnection helps the atoms to stay sync with all the other atoms of the universe, and that their mass appears when they get out of sync, which happens during an acceleration.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Le Repteux