Relativity?
Re: Relativity?
We live in an age where every crackpot can post any nonsense and expect to be taken seriously, unfortunately there is always someone who will take them seriously, and not only that will run with it and claim that the nonsense is valid. I believe they are taking relativity on a very basic level, as in the truth is whatever you want to believe, it's all relative.
Last edited by thedoc on Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Relativity?
davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:43 pmThroughout this thread, as anyone who has read it can see, I have posted long and thoughtful responses. Then you come along, who never heard of a non-intertial frame, who doesn't know what a fictitious force is, who links to crackpots and ... what? I'm supposed to indulge you?
Maybe uwot has more patience than I.
Hint: The twin paradox is not a paradox, as the crackpot to whom you linked claims.
Can you direct me to those thoughtful responses? I can't search through a million pages for them. Crackpot is ad-hominem. I think one day I might jump on the Special Relativity bandwagon just so I can throw non-arguments and ad-hominems and forget science or philosophy and history of science whenever I want to disprove someone.
And you're darn right it's not a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction in terms of it being valid in any form of logic or commons sense.
Re: Relativity?
You just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pmI think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Re: Relativity?
In response to the bolded: Seriously? Whenever I move out of a room with a clock the clock stops working?uwot wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:52 pmWhat you have to remember is that special relativity describes what observers see when they pass each other with uniform relative velocity. If they continue with that uniform velocity, they will never know what the other's clock says, because they will simply be getting further and further away from each other.Viveka wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:39 pmIf anything, in Einstein's gedankenexperiment,I've been wondering if we have a train with a light-clock on it, and a man with a light-clock on the embankment what would happen? The light-clock would work by cycles of being reflected once up and once down for one full cycle. Now, when the train starts moving, does it, or does it not have the same time as the embankment clock?If the conditions of special relativity are broken, so that the clocks stop their uniform motion and can be brought back together, then in all likelihood they will tell different times. That's the woefully misnamed 'Twin's Paradox', which was confirmed by Hafele-Keating and every subsequent test.Are you assuming that there is some absolute time? Tell you what; read my blog: http://willijbouwman.blogspot.co.uk Better still, buy the book: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1521884722
Re: Relativity?
Either too lazy or has a very short memory.
Perhaps crackpot is an ad-hominem but if the person has no valid argument and posts nonsense they are a crackpot, so it's more descriptive of the person's character.
Relativity is not logical if you are referring to the typical uneducated version of logic.
Re: Relativity?
No, He stated that the speed of light is constant, if the light has to travel a longer distance it will take longer to travel that distance.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pmYou just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pmI think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
Re: Relativity?
The reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:thedoc wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:04 pmNo, He stated that the speed of light is constant, if the light has to travel a longer distance it will take longer to travel that distance.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:54 pmYou just contradicted yourself. You said that light-speed is invariant even in motion, and then you claim that the light-clocks would measure different times. My argument still stands.davidm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 11:17 pm
I think this is the source of your confusion.
The clocks are initially synchronized when they share the same inertial frame. But they are not set to be "at the same time regardless of motion." What IS the same in all inertial reframes regardless of motion is the speed of light. The fact that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames explains the light clock, and why the train clock and the ground clock will become unsynchronized once the train is in motion relative to the ground observer and his clock.
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.
Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.
So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
Re: Relativity?
In fact, I can quantify this light-clock by it being c/2pi.Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:11 pmThe reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.
Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.
So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
Re: Relativity?
No, it isn't. Another thing you don't know is what "ad hominem" means.
lolI think one day I might jump on the Special Relativity bandwagon just so I can throw non-arguments and ad-hominems and forget science or philosophy and history of science whenever I want to disprove someone.
No, it isn't.And you're darn right it's not a paradox, it's a flat out contradiction in terms of it being valid in any form of logic or commons sense.
Re: Relativity?
Light speed and light clocks are not the same thing.
Light clocks on different inertial frames get out of synch because of the invariance of the speed of light as measured in all inertial frames.
As I have explained in detail.
Re: Relativity?
You're contradicting yourself here. You say its invariant, then say that a light-clock can have different times. Where is your consistency?
Re: Relativity?
Viveka wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:11 pm The reason why the light-clocks will always be synchronized is because there is a constant motion of light up and down regardless of the motion of the train or the stillness of the clock on the embankment, and since the First Postulate of Special Relativity states:
2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.
Since it states such, then that means that the light-clocks will always record the same time regardless of their movement through space and time because, remember, the light-clock is built of two mirrors reflecting light up and down.
So reductio ad absurdum Einstein is wrong.
Unbelievable.
Re: Relativity?
The clocks in the different inertial frames become unsynchronized because of the constancy of the speed of light. That is, the light in the moving frame relative to the rest frame does not obey Galilean additivity -- if it did, the two clocks would remain in synch!