Now you're saying that light isn't synchornized because of the constancy of the speed of light. If I have two clocks, one right beside one another with no movement whatsoever, and the each clock consists of a beam of light reflecting up and down perpendicular to two mirrors above and below each other, would it not have the same time due to the invariancy postulate? Now, put one of those clocks on a train, and leave the other at an embankment totally still. Would they not show the same time due to the invariancy posutlate? Remember that the light clocks are "c/2pi" and depend upon the speed of light reflecting itself. Thus, because of the invariancy of the speed of light, the clocks will always be synchronized regardless of relative motion and so on.davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 29, 2017 10:23 pm The clocks in the different inertial frames become unsynchronizedbecause of the constancy of the speed of light.That is, the light in the moving frame relative to the rest framedoes not obey Galilean additivity-- if it did, the two clocks would remain in synch!

## Relativity?

### Re: Relativity?

### Re: Relativity?

The difference between ignorance and Genius is that Genius has it's limits - Einstein.

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former. - Einstein.

Only 2 things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, but I'm not sure about the former. - Einstein.

### Re: Relativity?

Thanks.

Is this kindergarten?

In a moving frame, light

*does not add the motion of the moving frame.*Light speed is

*constant.*Therefore, as thedoc correctly notes, a photon in a light clock will have to travel a

*longer distance*in a moving frame relative to a photon in a rest frame!

Which means it

*ticks slower*relative to the identical clock in the rest frame! Which is TIME DILATION.

### Re: Relativity?

Nice link, thedoc

Predicted difference it will make: NADA.

As, of course, this has already been discussed. But that's a nice page.

### Re: Relativity?

Predicted fucks to be given by either Ken or Viveka after they read your link (if they do): ZERO.

### Re: Relativity?

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying the CLOCKS are no longer synchronized, BECAUSE OF the invariance of light speed in all inertial frames. The CLOCKS, and LIGHT, are, erm, DIFFERENT!

Yes.If I have two clocks, one right beside one another with no movement whatsoever, and the each clock consists of a beam of light reflecting up and down perpendicular to two mirrors above and below each other, would it not have the same time due to the invariancy postulate?

No. They would show DIFFERENT times BECAUSE OF the invariance postulate! The invariance postulate isNow, put one of those clocks on a train, and leave the other at an embankment totally still. Would they not show the same time due to the invariancy posutlate?

*the speed of light,*and NOT the tick rate of clocks! They are DIFFERENT.

NO! SEE THE DOC'S LINK ABOVE AND MY OWN EXPLANATION OF THE LIGHT CLOCK UPTHREAD, PLS! SEE ALSO UWOT'S EXPLANATIONS UPTHREAD!Remember that the light clocks are "c/2pi" and depend upon the speed of light reflecting itself. Thus, because of the invariancy of the speed of light, the clocks will always be synchronized regardless of relative motion and so on.

### Re: Relativity?

Good god. I just realized that you (Viveka) started this thread, and I explained away your confusion in the thread's third post.

### Re: Relativity?

And here I am trying to explain it away again!

### Re: Relativity?

Thanks, Doc. This website explains it well. However, it doesn't mean the light is travelling a further distance even though it 'seems' that way through the mathematical machinations of the perpendicular motion of the moving clock. It's simply a mathematical trick to say so, as it always covers the same distance up and down.

Let us change the universe up a little. If light speed were 3 km per hour, and we had a light-clock, then if we moved the light-clock perpendicular to the path of the clocks' motion at 20 km per hour, (or whatever speed necessary) it would actually lag behind the mover and not even hit the mirrors that constitute the light-clock. Now, when we measure light moving at a speed, it actually is 'anchored' to whatever is giving off the light, or even use Galilean Transformations. The slow light would then, no matter what, move in synchronization with the up-down motion of the clock. Otherwise even if Light was invariant under this slow speed, we would observe huge length-contraction or huge time-dilation. And if we didn't, what would be better? A Galilean Transformation or Light-Anchoring, or SR?

One way of testing if this is true with real light is simply speeding up the train more and more and then observe if the light lags behind. However, we would have to move at faster-than-light-speed. Therefore, it is impossible to say if it is a Galilean Transformation or Lorentz Transformation.

Thus, the translational motion of perpendicular motion to the light-clock's velocity is simply an illusion and has no true meaning to an absolute frame of reference as deduced by many of my other posts, such as the Sagnac Effect, Absolute Rotation, the LIGO experiment echoing the Michelson-Morley Experiment, and so on.

For instance, say I am in a car throwing a basketball up into the air while driving. Did that basketball move more than the car itself and therefore there needs to be length-contraction or time-dilation with respect to the observers inside and outside of the car? Of course not!

Just because Light-speed is invariate supposedly means that there has to be length-contraction and time-dilation because you are taking the invariate speed of light, and then making time and space variate in order to keep the invariancy of the speed of light. That about sums up Special Relativity.

In other words, it's a failure of application of synonimity of mathematics as known and physics as observed when one claims that something within a car when moving perpendicular to the motion of the car moves extra distance. The fact that matter(s) [as in an atom or whatever] 'communicates' with each other proves this, as, for instance, Newton's Law for gravity requires the center of the Earth and the entirety of the earth 'communicates' with the rest so that this center of gravity occurs in its radius. Purely mathematical ideas require physical backing otherwise they are wrong. In other words, communication of matter is the reason why when we are on a ship and drop a bag it requires Galilean transformations in order to land in the right spot and not lag behind the ship. It's not really that there is such a thing as a Galilean transformation in real life, it's that the motion of the ship relative to its parts requires that there is a bag moving at a certain velocity if it is to be part of the ship's motion, which makes for a good candidate for Galilean Invariance. Enter Mach's Principle. It's that all of matter is connected requires our concepts of motion, force, velocity, etc.

Let us change the universe up a little. If light speed were 3 km per hour, and we had a light-clock, then if we moved the light-clock perpendicular to the path of the clocks' motion at 20 km per hour, (or whatever speed necessary) it would actually lag behind the mover and not even hit the mirrors that constitute the light-clock. Now, when we measure light moving at a speed, it actually is 'anchored' to whatever is giving off the light, or even use Galilean Transformations. The slow light would then, no matter what, move in synchronization with the up-down motion of the clock. Otherwise even if Light was invariant under this slow speed, we would observe huge length-contraction or huge time-dilation. And if we didn't, what would be better? A Galilean Transformation or Light-Anchoring, or SR?

One way of testing if this is true with real light is simply speeding up the train more and more and then observe if the light lags behind. However, we would have to move at faster-than-light-speed. Therefore, it is impossible to say if it is a Galilean Transformation or Lorentz Transformation.

Thus, the translational motion of perpendicular motion to the light-clock's velocity is simply an illusion and has no true meaning to an absolute frame of reference as deduced by many of my other posts, such as the Sagnac Effect, Absolute Rotation, the LIGO experiment echoing the Michelson-Morley Experiment, and so on.

For instance, say I am in a car throwing a basketball up into the air while driving. Did that basketball move more than the car itself and therefore there needs to be length-contraction or time-dilation with respect to the observers inside and outside of the car? Of course not!

Just because Light-speed is invariate supposedly means that there has to be length-contraction and time-dilation because you are taking the invariate speed of light, and then making time and space variate in order to keep the invariancy of the speed of light. That about sums up Special Relativity.

In other words, it's a failure of application of synonimity of mathematics as known and physics as observed when one claims that something within a car when moving perpendicular to the motion of the car moves extra distance. The fact that matter(s) [as in an atom or whatever] 'communicates' with each other proves this, as, for instance, Newton's Law for gravity requires the center of the Earth and the entirety of the earth 'communicates' with the rest so that this center of gravity occurs in its radius. Purely mathematical ideas require physical backing otherwise they are wrong. In other words, communication of matter is the reason why when we are on a ship and drop a bag it requires Galilean transformations in order to land in the right spot and not lag behind the ship. It's not really that there is such a thing as a Galilean transformation in real life, it's that the motion of the ship relative to its parts requires that there is a bag moving at a certain velocity if it is to be part of the ship's motion, which makes for a good candidate for Galilean Invariance. Enter Mach's Principle. It's that all of matter is connected requires our concepts of motion, force, velocity, etc.

Last edited by Viveka on Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:36 am, edited 2 times in total.

### Re: Relativity?

Told ya! Zero understanding, and no fucks given!

### Re: Relativity?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byUUnn4bI8k

Cynthia Whitney - Maxwell Theory and Galilean Relativity - Part 1

Who here can understand this math?

Cynthia Whitney - Maxwell Theory and Galilean Relativity - Part 1

Who here can understand this math?

### Re: Relativity?

I'm making a serious attempt to understand SRT as you understand it. I have posted a long post, but please, do not ignore it. I'm interested in what you have to say; I haven't fully claimed anything except for what I believe SRT is, and somehow trying to disprove it using its own ideas. I will accept I am wrong if I can get some idea of how it works and how I am wrong instead of laughter or ignoring my posts.

### Re: Relativity?

Let us change the universe up a little. If Bob is on a train going nowhere, and he throws a clock out the window, how will he measure the time between repeating his posts?