| Repeatable verifiable train experiment. |
Repeatable verifiable train experiment
Don Edward Sprague
25 January, 2010
People might think the theory of relativity is complex. Actually if you can drive a car, you can understand the theory
of relativity. There is one easy to read very short section that says all that matters for relativity.
Don’t go to the link yet.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity
Please read the short primer to get focused on the issue.
Think that you are riding on a very long train traveling along the rails with a constant velocity. You are in the club car
enjoying a drink of water or what ever you prefer. You are listening to a singer in the background. You are talking
with a person you most admire. It could be a physical attraction or any kind of attraction. Your mind is clear of all
other thoughts. You are NOT thinking about all the great stuff you studied or learned over the years. You are NOT
thinking about c or any formula or any experiment or any stuff on your computer. You aren’t thinking about all your
cell phone texts messages.
Through some way, you are able to see some distance in front of the train and some distance to the back of the
train. You observe a lightning strike in front of the train. Then you observe a lightning strike behind the train. Are
they simultaneous? You saw one before the other. Before you answer the question, your cell phone rings. It is your
friend who is on the embankment. Your friend says that you are headed toward a storm like the one you just left. He
says that two lightning strikes just happened at the same time. You argue you saw the one in front of the train
before you saw the one behind the train so they didn’t seem to be simultaneous. Your friend says that you are
traveling toward the one in front of you. You argue that you don’t think you are moving but the ground looks like it is
moving.
Your friend suggests that you use your cell phone GPS to determine that you are moving. You do and find that you
are moving. Your friend suggests that you access the Doppler that is on the front of the train and the back of the
train and several places along the track. You do and they confirm that you are moving. They confirm that your friend
is standing still at the mid point between the points where the two lightning strikes hit the ground. Your friend tells
you about a link that will take you to an orbiting satellite that shows the train. It has an instant replay that allows
you to review past events. You link to the satellite and find the train. You wave and see yourself on the satellite
view. You do a replay request. You rewind the recording to before the lightning strikes. You see the replay that
shows that the train is moving and the lightning strikes are simultaneous as viewed from the satellite and by the
embankment observer who is shown to be standing at the midpoint between the lightning strikes. Your friend asks
you to text all the millions of people on the ground and on the train. They all text back with full agreement based on
millions of observations and experiments and calculations. The train is moving and the lightning strikes are
simultaneous.
Then you tell all the people that you are talking about Albert’s theory. Immediately most of the people say that you
were confused when you asked them about the events. They say you didn’t explain what you were asking properly.
They now say: although you are moving, you should NOT consider that information when thinking about the timing of
the cross frame events. They say you are confused and don’t understand. Thus, you simply don’t realize that the
lightning strikes are simultaneous because they seem to be simultaneous. They say they now consider the
simultaneous events to be both simultaneous and not simultaneous.
Now go to the link and read Albert’s work.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Albert Einstein (1879–1955). Relativity: The Special and General Theory. 1920.
IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity
Pause while you read.
Pause while you read.
Yup, the simultaneous events are simultaneous but they don’t seem to be to the uninformed. However; being
uninformed doesn’t change the timing of then events. It just means the person is wrong or has a false perception.
Even the experts will tell you that the events would appear to occur at different times while in fact occurring
simultaneously. Then the experts will tell you that the don’t seem to be simultaneous to the train observer. Then the
experts will say that you don’t understand the meaning of words.
Even after all that, the “experts” still told me that I don’t understand. In the midst of the discussion I was referred
to site with experimental data.
http://www.edu-observatory.org.../SR/experiments.html
- It shows that there haven’t been any valid cross frame experiments.
- It shows that SR is wrong “outside” it’s Domain of Applicability. “The domain of applicability of a physical theory is
the set of physical situations in which the theory is valid.” Before anyone gets twisted, that is from the linked site.
Most of the experiments were simply doomed to deliver the standard results. The best example might be the
Michelson-Morley experiment. It repeatedly confirmed that C does not change with respect to earth's movement.
Since a round trip measures a round trip it doesn’t address cross frame additive movement. Some of the
experiments somewhat considered cross frame additive movement but were effectively after the conversion fact
measurements. Sometimes, the conclusions of the theory were used to dismiss the challenge to the theory.
I am humbled by great people like Paul Marmet. Ph. D. (Physics). That doesn’t mean that I think Paul or others are
always correct. Paul argued against the theory of relativity. I suspect he and others might have proven it wrong.
He just wasn’t able to convince the scientific community. Being humbled by a person doesn’t mean that I can’t
challenge something they said or did. It doesn’t mean that I can’t help them with a problem. That is something I was
known for doing before I retired. I simply look at things different than most. Some see the forest while some see
the trees. I see the marks on the bark and I see the earth in the universe and all sorts of things in between. It is
really obvious that the theory is based on an illusion. My task basically is to help remove the fog and mysticism.
I have repeatedly said that false perception doesn’t replace reality. The experts still told me that I didn’t
understand. They tell me that perception do become facts. They tell me I obviously don't understand precise
language.
With this, we should concentrate on the words.
What do words mean? Some people will engage in a supposed philosophical discussion about the noise a tree does
or doesn’t make based on the relative position of people. In matters of the real world, it is a discussion of fools or an
exercise of study rather than technical or practical application.
They say that I don’t understand precise language. In computers, precise language is imperative. There isn’t any
tolerance for error. It is binary. It is or it isn’t. In a contract between computers when they enter a discussion, there
are specific conditions.
I was region designated specialists on computer hardware in the early 1970s. I worked in software support. I taught
Systems Network Problem Determination for specialists. In the 1970s, I initiated and managed the project to
restructure the training to include entry level, mid level, and specialists. I established and managed the project to
expand the education center problem determination lab from 6 networks to 9 end to end networks with telephone
facility simulators. We taught thousands of people how to PD throughout networks while IP was being invented. I
wrote technical manuals. I wrote planning and installation guides. I wrote sales manuals. I taught and consulted
with all levels of people in enterprise including government. In the late 1970s, I wrote the first Systems Network
Control Center development and implementation workshop and guide that was used by tens of thousands of
enterprises world wide. In 1980, I originated and wrote the e-business and electronic customer support architecture
and strategy. I continued to refine them until they were fully engaged in 1985. I do know about precise words. I do
know about specific language. I know that ambiguity doesn’t work when facts are critical. Perhaps my background it
what takes to address the ambiguity of relativity.
We are NOT engaged in a discussion about the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text. We are engaged in a
discussion about ALL the facts about two cross frames and two events in one of those cross frames. You can’t
specifically ignore some of the facts some of the time.
We have a scenario and we agree on certain things. Here is a flow chart. The path through the flow chart is binary.
Information box 1: It appear to the train passenger that the events didn’t occurred simultaneously. It appears to the
embankment observer that the events did occur simultaneously.
Continue:
Information box 2: The events did in fact occur simultaneously in the embankment frame as specified in the scenario.
Information box 3) Based on perspective of the observers and frame where observers resides, the timing of the
events look different. This is a repeatable and verifiable experiment. It can be done time and time again. All the
observers have the advantage of being able to change their position and perspective and frame of reference, then
redo the experiment hundreds or thousands of times. They can collect and examine all the data they collect. All
observers can communicate with all other observers and they share information among all observers. All observers
know all that we know as specified in the setup scenario.
Step 1) Were the events in fact simultaneous?
If no, go to path A. If yes, go to step 2.
Step 2) Does it appear to observers, when they are in the train frame, that the events were not simultaneous.
If no, go to path A. If yes, go to step 3.
Step 3) Were the observers able to repeatedly collect data from different perspectives and from different frames;
then based on all the data, were the observers able to determine that the events are in fact simultaneous based on
all observers collection and sharing of data from various perspectives as they moved from position to position and
crossed back and forth between frames and also based on what they read in the scenario with the description of the
cross frame events?
If no, go to path A. If yes, go to path B
Path A) Go back to the information box 1 and 2 and 3.
Path B) The theory of relativity is wrong. End discussion about the theory.
Path C) The theory is correct. Continue with discussion about the theory.
As you see, there isn’t a way to get to path C.
I have repeatedly asked, one way or another, for someone to provide a way to get to path C. It can only be done
through specifically excluding information. That doesn’t work in matters of the real world of technical or practical
application.
Now think about Isaac Newton. (1642-1727). His work lasted almost 300 years before Albert’s came along. Albert’s
work is only about 100 years old. That is about the same length of time that the wrong head was on the body of a
dinosaur. Don’t think about MM or any other experiments that don’t address cross frame movement. Don’t think
about the speed of light. Think only about the words in IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity section of Albert’s work. We
know the train passenger is moving. We know he is closer to one lightning strike. How can anybody leap to
changing the meaning of simultaneous? It doesn’t work.
Now think about Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543). His work was banned by the church. He faced major challenges. I
have an advantage. My challenge of Albert’s work is already available to the world through the global network. I
have an advantage over people who have a big investment in Albert’s work. They have their life’s work and
credibility on the line. They have an interest in their continued future in the physics world’s. I want them to continuing
doing their work. I don’t have a past or future physics world life’s work interest. My credibility isn’t on the line. My
fortitude isn’t near that of Nicolaus Copernicus. My interest in this issue is primarily to advance science. I work to
prevent another wrong dinosaur head form lasting more than 100 years. Albert’s dinosaur head is the illusion that
simultaneous events aren’t simultaneous to a cross frame observer. There isn’t a question about the illusion. Yes,
there is an illusion. The only arguments I have heard simply confirm the illusion or false perception. Nothing elevates
it above false perception. The illusion doesn’t become fact. Section IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity is not valid. It’s
invalid conclusion can’t be considered in any other part of Albert’s work or in any other work. The only choice is to go
to path B sooner or later.
I set out to prove it wrong in part because of a challenge. Since I am happily retired and have been for years, I have
the time to address the problem. The challenge stimulated my already existing believe that it is preventing
advancements in science. For as long as I can remember, I thought that Albert needed a faster film speed to freeze
cross frame movement thus eliminating the blur. Billions of science dollars have ties to the relativity throttle. We can’t
travel to other life planets because of an unrelenting belief in the speed of light throttle. Since the speed of light is c
regardless of the speed of earth or any other platform where c is measured, then the platform speed isn’t limited by
c on any other platform. It has it’s internal c that is constant. I set out to prove it wrong because it is obviously
wrong from the starting line and my grandchildren and children can have advantages from improved science.
The biggest problem for physicists is to determine the remaining duration of the myth. Will they outlive the myth. Do
they want to be leaders or followers who acknowledge the myth. Most but not all physicists accept the myth. How
soon will enough people acknowledge the absurdity of requiring train movement knowledge to set up the scenario
but then ignore the information. It is a simple question of when the illusion will be dismissed by enough people so
the relativity religion goes away.
Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The Blind 42 detectors repeat of Einstein’s train thought experiment. |
The Blind 42 detectors repeat of Einstein’s train thought experiment. Don Edward Sprague 17 November, 2010 Blind 42 detectors train experiment. Here is a blind experiment or test with 2 observer and an examiner with helpers he loans to the 2 observers when they build their test equipment. The observers are told there will be 2 tests with each test having 2 lights flash at some time at some location. In one test the observers will hold hands when the lights flash. In the other test, one or both observer will be in motion in some direction. They are told the lights will flash some place some time on a line. They will be told the maximum distance the line extends from point A to point B. Both observers simultaneously build their identical test frames. Both use very precise equipment so they know very precise locations and distances. They have detectors they place at known locations. The detectors have clocks and recording devices. They are able to record and display the exact time the lights arrive at the points they setup as known points in their frames. One is frame D and the other is frame E. They place a detector at their midpoints. They share 2 helpers who move toward end A and end B. They move a specified and known distance in both directions to place number 1 detectors in both directions. You have detectors DA1, DB1, EA1 and EB1 placed known equal distance from both frames midpoints. The helpers move further in each direction the same known distance as before. They both place the number 2 detectors. Then move on until they have placed all the series of numbered detectors and the A and B position detectors in both frames. This is similar to the Very Large Array argument experiment I defined long ago. Frame D and frame E positions during test 1 when the observes hold hands. A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B The moderator triggers the lights at some time. The frame D and frame E detectors detect the lights simultaneously and instantly hit both observers A and B detectors. Then the lights simultaneously arrive at all 4 number 9 detectors. The lights continue to arrive simultaneously at the numbered detectors until the lights simultaneously arrive at both mid point observers. For a completion of test 1: Observer D says the lights occurred simultaneously at locations A and B. Observer E says the lights occurred simultaneously at locations A and B. Both observers use their known data to say the distance and time the light traveled from points A and B to each numbered detector and to the mid points. Test 2 is conducted. One or both observers are in motion in some direction. When both observers are aligned, the examiner triggers the lights. A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B At that instant, both A and B detectors instantly and simultaneously record the simultaneous arrival time of the lights. They record the exact time with specific values that match in both frames at both ends. The lights and the frames continue to move. After a specific and known time, one light arrives at detector EB9. The exact time is recorded. The observer knows the exact distance and amount of time the light traveled from when it was at EB. A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B -A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B The series of numbered D frame detectors progressively record the same arrival times as the light progresses the same distance to the D detectors. The detector data results are the same as in the stationary control experiment. The series of detectors in frame E show a progressively greater difference in arrival times for the lights form both ends. The observer knows the exact distance and amount of time the light traveled to each detector from when it was at EA and EB. The light from B arrives at the E frame observer. The observer knows the exact distance and amount of time the light traveled from when it was at EB. A known time later, both lights simultaneously arrive at the D midpoint observer. The observer knows the exact distance and amount of time the lights traveled from when it was at DA and DB. A known time later, light from A arrives at the E frame observer. The observer knows the exact distance and amount of time the light traveled from when it was at EA. With the test data from the stationary test and moving test, it should be obvious to the casual observer that the lights flashed simultaneously at points A and B in both tests and observer E moved in test 2. The exact distance and time for the experiment is known by each observer and the examiner. Don in the D frame says his frame is stationary. He states the exact time the light traveled from A and B to each numbered detector and to his mid point location. Does Einstein in frame E say he is stationary or does he say he is moving? If he says he is stationary, he says the light traveled different speeds as they progressed through the numbered detectors. If he says he is moving, he says that his section 9 train observer was mistaken when he concluded that the events weren’t simultaneous. This blind test shows the train observer can determine that the lights actually occurred simultaneously and he is on a moving train. He can calculate his speed. He doesn’t mistakenly come to the conclusion that the lights flashed at different times. The definition of simultaneous remains simultaneous. Time is constant. Thus, we return to the issue of every experiment shows that the speed of light is constant where and when it is measured. The interpretation has always been that light speed is constant regardless. The correct interpretation is that the speed of light is relative. Just as the speed of sound is relative and the motion of a coin flipped in a uniform moving car is relative; likewise, the speed of light is relative. This restores Classical Mechanics as correct but with need of explanation or expansion. Classical hierarchy Relativity provides the explanation or expansion. First, the speed of light is interpreted as relative with time and space constant while all stuff moves in time and space. Second, the Galilean transformation is correct with light relative and additive to the velocity of the frame. Third, frames have a hierarchy of motion. The laws of physics are the same everyplace at all times with space constant and time progressing one direction at a constant rate. All complete observations from all frames must correlate to all complete observations in all other frames showing the same time and conditions match as viewed from anyplace and everyplace when all information is known and considered. Added 11, dec, 2010 Enhanced 42 blind detector train experiment In Einstein’s section 9, he claims 2 people can’t agree about whether 2 events were simultaneous or not. As a result, he claims they must use results of an imaginary experiment to conclude that simultaneous isn’t simultaneous. The challenge is to prove they can gather data to prove to the most skeptical that the observers don’t have to remain ignorant but are in fact able to prove Einstein’s conclusion is mistaken. The observers can use the Einstein results with the aid of tools and processed to arrive at a conclusion that the light events were simultaneous regardless of observer frames. These concepts and process match what I have defined since beginning my relativity work. I understand and will address concerns of people who are fixated on limited perspective. I won’t use the Einstein and other person’s variation of the telegraph synchronization process because it doesn’t have a mechanism to use the light to synchronize the clocks therefore it is incomplete and not functional. The way to do something is important to get the task completed. You can’t simply say use a cold fusion process to make energy then claim that you invented cold fusion. I use a light pulse variation of the telegraph process that includes a mechanism. I add my use of more mechanism and process that I haven’t seen in any other examples. I add a process to cause or enable a repeatable synchronization in a non-IRF or an imaginary IRF. The synchronization process is limited to line of sight for simplification. This process conveys a concept that can be done in real life. Consider the earth as an imaginary IRF that is larger than real life. Size simply allows bigger values that aren’t real. The size can be scaled down for reality. We have 2 very large trains that are several times longer than light travels in a second. Both trains have 21 clocks that are one light second apart from one to the next. They are numbered as in my earlier 42 blind detector version of Einstein’s imaginary train experiment. A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B Step 1 Build both identical train frames with M in the middle of both trains. The trains are bounded in that they are trains with ends and sides. They are also boundless frames in that they have vision to things outside the boundary of the train. Each train exists in the other train’s frame but does or could have motion independent from the other train. Both trains have visibility to earth and stellar objects. Lights on earth or stars are part of both frames and are valid parts of both frames boundless external portion outside the trains ends and sides boundaries. Both can use information about stuff outside the boundary of the train ends and sides. The number and letter detectors are progressively placed the distance light travels in a second. The number 1 detectors are 1 light second from the M detectors. The numbered and letter detectors wait for a synch light pulse from the M detector and emitter. Two independent trains with ends and sides. <<<<<<<<<A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B When the light arrives at the number/letter detectors, their mechanism logically pulls the clocks time display to the number value for the clock/detector. For example, a light pulse from M in either frame arrives at number detectors 7 so the mechanisms logically pull the 7 clocks to time 7 after the light was pulsed 7 seconds earlier. The 4 A and B clock/detectors logically pull the time value to 10. Every 55 seconds, the clocks are shielded to prevent outside light from triggering a false synchronization. Every 60 seconds, the M clock sends it’s synch pulse. Thus, every 60 seconds, the synch is initiated and is completed at 10 seconds after the minute. ----------------------S1-------------------------------S2------------------S3-------S4 -------------LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB <<<<<<<<<A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B Objects L are lights on earth. Objects S1, S2, S3, and S4 are stellar objects. All of the stellar objects and the light are external to the bounds of the trains but are portions of both independent frames. In fact, all the objects are separate frames or equally valid points for observation. Observation of synchronization. ------------------------------------------<<<<<M>>>>> <<<<<<<<<A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B ----------------------------------------------------<<<<<M>>>>> The synch lights in both trains are within each imaginary IRF train frame. The lights move from the midpoints M independent of the other frame. The E synchronization light moves in both directions with the E train and independent from the D train or all other frames. The D synchronization light moves in both directions with the D train independent from all other frames. The ground synchronization moves in both directions with the ground and independent from all other frames. The flashing light from A and B move with the ground and independent from other frames. The lights from stellar object move the speed of light through space and independent from the trains. Step 2. Fix the trains to points on the earth which is a close to IRF. Turn on the synchronization process. Gather data for a few thousands years. ----------------------S1-------------------------------S2------------------S3-------S4 -------------LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B We find that both trains collected stellar data and have compared it to their synchronization processes. They both find there is a correlation to the stellar data and they find that the earth is moving as compared to the stellar data. They are able to determine the motion of the stellar objects and find the planets in the solar system and various galaxies. Both trains can use the stellar data to set their master clocks at point M. Or they can both simply arbitrarily use any time. Since they both know off stellar time and they know of GPS use of stellar time, both trains M emitter/detectors use the same stellar time GPS uses. Step 3 ----------------------S1-------------------------------S2------------------S3-------S4 LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B With the trains aligned to each other and to A and B lights, turn on the flashing lights A and B. The A and B lights are synchronized every 1 minute using the same synchronization process to make sure the lights flash simultaneously. That is, they flash as close to simultaneously as our best efforts allow within a very small margin of error. They are set to pulse at regular intervals of one every 1.5 minutes. This allows each individual train frame to cycle through it’s synchronization process and be able to record lights A and B timing. The train detectors are repeatedly and independently synchronized. Both trains number and letter detectors record the elapse time for the A and B lights arrival at each point. These results match Einstein’s stationary run through of his train experiment. Step 4. We use our math skills to determine the timing we need to have train E move 100 mph along a path so that it aligns with train D and the A and B lights when they ground based lights flash at the known predefined schedule based on several days of stationary testing. We move train E several miles back along it’s planned path and begin the run. Adjust the velocity so the train is on schedule several miles and several minutes before alignment time. This allows the train detectors to continue to re- synchronize and also use the 1.5 minute A and B light pulses to verify it’s velocity. Since we have precise tools and good math skills, the train will arrive at the alignment point when the lights again simultaneously flash. When both train frames are aligned, the A and B lights flash simultaneously on schedule.. ----------------------S1-------------------------------S2------------------S3-------S4 LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB Train E on top Train D on bottom. --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B - The A and B lights arrive at the A and B detectors in each train almost instantaneously since the lights and the detectors are less than inch apart. The elapse time for the lights to arrive at the A and B detectors is the same in both train frames. Thus, the simultaneous light flashes arrive at the A and B detectors simultaneously. The E train continues to move at 100 mph. ----------------------S1-------------------------------S2------------------S3-------S4 LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB Train E on top Train D on bottom. >>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B Remember that every measurement of the speed of light in any seemingly inertial frame always gives c. Those consistent measurements match Einstein’s 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. As such, light speed measured in a boxcar on the earth regardless of proximity to the equator gives C as a result. Likewise; the speed of the boxcar doesn’t alter the consistent measurement of the speed of light inside the boxcar. A light in the middle of a box car on the equator or any other location north or south will go to ends of the boxcar and bounce back to arrive at the middle at the same time. Likewise, the boxcar can be in motion without the observers knowledge and they will measure the speed of light inside the boxcar as C regardless of it’s motion. It is logical for you to see the problem Einstein addressed about c regardless by claiming simultaneous is not simultaneous. I also addressed the problem with the interpretation that light is relatively c instead c regardless. Remember: - the earth frame lights are synchronized in the earth frame and are independent from train D and E. - the E train frame detectors are synchronized using the M time on train E - the E train frame moves 100 mph as compared to the earth where the A and B light are fixed. - the D train frame detectors are synchronized using the M time on train D - the D train frame remains stationary in the earth frame where the A and B lights are fixed. The results100 % match the Einstein limited visual results but are now very precise using very accurate tools. - The elapse time from the B pulse is recorded when the light arrives at EB9. - The elapse time at EB detectors is progressively earlier because the detectors move toward B - The elapse time at EA detectors is progressively later because the detectors move from A. - The D train elapsed times remain equal since the D frame is fixed between the A and B lights. - The elapse time for the light arrival from B at E is recorded - The elapse time for the light arrival at A and B at D is the same. - The elapse time for the light arrival from A at E is recorded The results 100% exactly match Einstein results. These results have more information and the information is precise based on very accurate tools and defined process. The 2 different conclusion: – Einstein claims the observer somehow sees different arrival times of as small as .01 seconds after moving .01 inches. , then - Einstein claims the E observer can’t know why the lights arrive at different times so they must have occurred at different times. My repeat of exactly what Einstein setup with the addition of 42 detectors and GPS allows — the train passenger’s equipment detected the very small difference in arrival time that the person couldn’t possibly observe. — the train passenger use the detail data to know the reason the lights arrived at different times. The issue is about the definition of simultaneous. Einstein claimed simultaneous isn’t simultaneous because the train observer was ignorant and supposedly saw something he couldn’t possibly see. I proved that the person on the train can determine the lights flashed simultaneously. Thus the conclusion in section 9 of Einstein’s paper is wrong. Tesla had demonstrated remote control devices years before Einstein wrote his paper. Telegraph had been using a synchronization process that Einstein and the other person sort of copied. Einstein could have specified a mechanism and process to act on the light based on telegraph and Tesla work. He didn’t. We could consider that he didn’t because the complete process I define could have been defined back then to refute the use of imagination instead of detail. Either Einstein wasn’t smart enough to come up with the detail using defined process and tools. Or, he was smart enough to know that information with defined process and tools prove his imaginary scenario is based on illusion instead of fact based. The proof is there. You and others see the data and aren’t forced to come to an incorrect conclusion. The detail data shows why the lights arrived at different times for the train observer. Thus, Einstein section 9 is wrong. Simultaneous is simultaneous and time has meaning. Second Enhanced 42 blind detector train experiment 14, dec 2010 Second Enhanced 42 blind detector train experiment In Einstein’s section 9, he claims 2 people can’t agree about whether 2 events were simultaneous or not. As a result, he claims they must use results of an imaginary experiment to conclude that simultaneous isn’t simultaneous. The challenge is to prove they can gather data to prove to the most skeptical that the observers don’t have to remain ignorant but are in fact able to prove Einstein’s conclusion is mistaken. The observers can use the Einstein results with the aid of tools and processed to arrive at a conclusion that the light events were simultaneous regardless of observer frames. These concepts and process match what I have defined since beginning my relativity work. We begin with some accepted provisions: Provision 1- IRF: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame[/url] [quote=IRFwikilink] In Newtonian physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference (or Galilean reference frame) is a frame of reference in which Newton's first law of motion applies: an object moves at a constant velocity unless acted on by an external force. [B]All inertial frames are in a state of constant, rectilinear motion with respect to one another[/B]; they are not accelerating (in the sense of proper acceleration that would be detected by an accelerometer). [B] Measurements in one inertial frame can be converted to measurements in another by a simple transformation [/B](the Galilean transformation in Newtonian physics and the Lorentz transformation in special relativity). In general relativity, an inertial reference frame is only an approximation that applies in a region that is small enough for the curvature of space to be negligible. [/quote] Provision 2 - RF: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference[/url] [quote=RFwikilink]A coordinate system is a mathematical concept, amounting to a choice of language used to describe observations. Consequently, [B]an observer in an observational frame of reference can choose to employ any coordinate system (Cartesian, polar, curvilinear, generalized, …) to describe observations made from that frame of reference[/B]. A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as well. [B]Which is not to dispute that some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.[/B][/quote] Provision 3 - RF and IRF as used in thought experiments and discussion. 3.1 An observer in an RF might consider the identified IRF as stationary even though it is in uniform motion as described in Provision 1. An observer doesn’t have to reside in an RF or IRF to use it as a choice of RF. 3.2 In a thought experiment, an IRF is a frame such as earth or a train in some uniform motion without rotation with simultaneous light flashes traveling from two equidistant fixed points on the earth or train to a midpoint fixed to the earth or train and the lights arrive simultaneously as viewed from within the RF. The setup begins several thousand years ago. A person named Na daMayan lived on some planet and he used stellar data to determine that there will be a Galactic Alignment and it will be at the midpoint on a specific time. He calls that time Home Galactic Alignment (HGA). Na travels to what we call earth and arrives in Europe. He determines that the earth will have an Earth solar system Galactic Alignment that will be a specific time from his HGA. He calls that EGA. He determines, based on a point at the middle of the earth and with stellar data, at time EGA ZERO, the EGA will be at it’s mid point. Na’s EGA zero is a known time from his HGA. Another person named Hez AMayan, lived on another planet and did all the same stuff Na did except he moved to the South American portion of the earth. Thus, we have two separate people who established their home zero time based on their Before HGA and After HGA. Both transformed their HGA to the EGA. Na and Hez were asked to build frames to synchronize clocks on earth. Both happen to build what they both call TRAIN frames. Both are told there will be 2 tests with each test having 2 lights flash at some time at some location on earth. As in provision 1, A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. Both people are informed the lights will flash some place some time on a line at a specific location on earth. They are given the maximum distance the line extends from point A to point B. Na, In Europe builds a train frame with points as below: A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B He labels the train E. The A and B points are the maximum distance apart the lights will flash on earth. M is the mid point between A and B,. The numbered points are spaced equal from the M point. That is, M is equal distance from A1 and B1. Likewise it equal distance from the subsequent numbered points. The distance between the number points is the same in each direction. Each point is a Clock, Detector, and Emitter. Na triggers a light from M at Before Home Galactic Alignment at time he calls time zero. The light travels to A1 and B1. When it arrives, it triggers a mechanism to logically place the clocks at time BHGA time X1. The light continues to point 2. These clock detector emitters are set to BHGA time X2. This continues with all Clock, detector emitters synchronized to Na’s selected time which is some value Before Home Galactic Alignment. He uses his math skills and data to translate the BHGA time to the Earth GA time as a base time. Na cause his train to be fixed on earth and test his synchronization process. He causes the train to move as compared to earth as an IRF as in provision 1 and 2 and 3. After a few hundred thousands of tests, the clocks are repeatedly synchronized to the zero time of earth’s Galactic Alignment which correlates back to Na’s Home Galactic Alignment. Na performs additional tests. He finds that he can repeat a synchronization process then trigger the A and B lights resulting in simultaneous arrival of the lights at M. He confirms that he can trigger any of the numbered lights resulting in the lights simultaneous arrival at M. This same conditions happens regardless of the IRF’s velocity. That is as in provision 1, 2, and 3. Hez, in South America builds a train frame that is identical to the one Na built except he labels it Train D. Hez tests his train and finds that the synchronization works and the lights arrive simultaneously at M when triggered from any of the numbered or letter lights. He confirms that train D can move as any IRF as in provision 1, 2, and 3 resulting in proper synchronization and simultaneous arrival of the lights regardless of the velocity of train D. Na and Hez are told that the test line and flash points A and B are in the southern part of the USA in a place called area 42. It is long flat ocean bed also known of a Bride’s Ocean. The points A and B lights on earth are synchronized using the same process that Na and Hez used. The earth observer uses the same After Earth solar system Galactic Alignment time that Na daMayan and Hez Amayan happen to independently choose. Thus, purely by science logic, all three observers correlate their local home times to an Earth Centric Time based on when the Earth’s solar system was in a position to observer it’s Galactic Alignment at the exact middle back in the 1990s. The synchronization process each used is comparable to the one defined at this link: http://math.ucr.edu/~jdp/Relativity/Clock_Synch.html The synchronization process works for any IRF with any uniform motion as in provision 1, 2, and 3. All observers have GPS and use it to compare and confirm data. We now have train E on top and train D on bottom: LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B - the earth frame lights are synchronized in the earth frame and are independent from train D and E. - the E train frame detectors are synchronized on train E using the Na’s Before Home Galactic Alignment time that was translated to Earth’s Galactic Alignment time. - the D train frame detectors are synchronized on train D using Hez’s Before Home galactic Alignment time translated to Earth Galactic time. All of this is as in provisions 1, 2, and 3. I realize this causes consternation. It shows that light is constant relative to the frame instead of constant regardless of frames. Test 1 Two independent trains with ends and sides. Built and tested separately. Both identical except for the names. Both observers are able to operate their trains from remote locations. Both have a representative on their trains and at the earth fame M point as their point of presence while observing the test. This is as per provision 2. “A change in the choice of this coordinate system does not change an observer's state of motion, and so does not entail a change in the observer's observational frame of reference. This viewpoint can be found elsewhere as well. [B]Which is not to dispute that some coordinate systems may be a better choice for some observations than are others.” Light is triggered at earth A and B and arrives simultaneously at M on both trains and on earth. This matches Einstein test 1. http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf [quote=einstein] If an observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. [/quote] In test 1, the train was motionless as I do in test 1. Preparation for test 2 with one train in motion as compared to the earth. This is as specified in Einstein’s paper: [quote=einstein] Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. [/quote] By stipulating that the trains are (considered with reference to the railway embankment), Einstein defined the frame from which all observations must relate. Observation of synchronization from each IRF. Train E on top and train D on bottom: ------------------------------------------<<<<<M>>>>> <<<<<<<<<A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B ----------------------------------------------------<<<<<M>>>>> As viewed from within each train, the synch lights in both trains are within each imaginary IRF train frame. As viewed within each train, the lights move from the midpoints M independent of the other frame. This is as in provision 1 and 2 and 3. The E synchronization light moves in both directions with the E train and independent from the D train or all other frames. The D synchronization light moves in both directions with the D train independent from all other frames. The ground synchronization moves in both directions with the ground and independent from all other frames. The flashing light from A and B move with the ground and independent from other frames. The lights from stellar object move the speed of light through space and independent from the trains. This is as in provision 1, 2 and 3. The synchronization lights and process are isolated from the test 1 and test 2 lights. Test 2 We use our math skills to determine the timing we need to have train E move 100 mph along a path so that it aligns with train D and the A and B lights when the ground based lights flash at the known predefined schedule based on several days of stationary testing. By stipulating that the trains are (considered with reference to the railway embankment), Einstein defined the frame from which all observations must relate. We move train E several miles back along it’s planned path and begin the run. Adjust the velocity so the train is on schedule several miles and several minutes before alignment time. This allows the train detectors to continue to re- synchronize. Na’s Before Home Galactic Alignment time that was translated to Earth’s Galactic Alignment time. - the E train frame moves 100 mph as compared to the earth where the A and B light are fixed. - the D train frame detectors are synchronized on train D using Hez’s Before Home galactic Alignment time translated to Earth Galactic time. - the D train frame remains stationary in the earth frame where the A and B lights are fixed. Na daMayan and Hez Amayan used pure science logic to arrive at After Earth Galactic Alignment time. The earth observer devised or adopted the same After Earth Galactic Alignment time. For experiment purpose, we use time 999 at some this point in the experiment. - The Earth M, A and B Clock Detector emitter were perfectly synchronized to time 999. - The E train frame Clock, Detector Emitters were perfectly synchronized to time 999. - The D train frame Clock, Detector Emitters were perfectly synchronized to time 999. Since we have precise tools and good math skills, the train will arrive at the alignment point when the lights again simultaneously flash. When both train frames are aligned, the A and B lights flash simultaneously on schedule.. Train E on top and train D on bottom: LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B At time 1000 After Earth Galactic Alignment experiment time - The Earth A and B Clock Detector emitter emit the test light. At time 1000.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001 - The E train A and B Detectors receive the earth A and B light pulse, - The D train A and B Detectors receive the earth A and B light pulse, The elapse time for the lights to arrive at the A and B detectors is the same in both train frames. Thus, the simultaneous light flashes arrive at the A and B detectors simultaneously. The E train continues to move at 100 mph. Train E on top and train D on bottom: LA--------------------------------------------------------------------LB >>>A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B --A--9--8--7--6--5--4--3--2--1--M--1--2--3--4--5--6--7--8--9--B Remember: - the earth frame lights are synchronized in the earth frame and are independent from train D and E. - the E train frame detectors are synchronized on train E using the Na’s Before Home Galactic Alignment time that was translated to Earth’s Galactic Alignment time. - the E train frame moves 100 mph as compared to the earth where the A and B light are fixed. - the D train frame detectors are synchronized on train D using Hez’s Before Home galactic Alignment time translated to Earth Galactic time. - the D train frame remains stationary in the earth frame where the A and B lights are fixed. All of this is as in provisions 1, 2, and 3. The results 100 % match the Einstein limited visual results but are now very precise using very accurate tools. - The elapse time from the B pulse is recorded when the light arrives at EB9. ----- It’s elapse time is value 1001. - The elapse time at EB detectors is progressively earlier because the detectors move toward B - The elapse time at EA detectors is progressively later because the detectors move from A. - The D train elapsed times remain equal since the D frame is fixed between the A and B lights. - The elapse time for the light arrival from B at E is recorded ---- The Earth light B arrives at M in train E at time 1009 because the train is moving toward B. - The elapse time for the light arrival at A and B at D is the same. ---- The Earth lights A and B arrive at M in train D at time 1010 because the train fixed between the earth based lights. ---- --- The Earth light A arrives at M in train E at time 1011 because the train is moving from A. The results 100% exactly match Einstein results. These results have more information and the information is precise based on very accurate tools and defined process. The lights from Earth A and B arrive at train frame E midpoint M at different times because train E is moving toward B and away from A as Einstein specified but calmed can’t be determined or known. [quote=einstein] Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. [/quote] Einstein stipulated that the trains are (considered with reference to the railway embankment). He defined the frame from which all observations must relate. He defined the motion. He claimed that the observer can’t know of the motion. The repeat of Einstein’s test proves that the person can know he is moving. All of this as in provision 1, 2, and 3. Light from A and B arrive at the E train observer M at different times as Einstein specified and we have proof that train E is moving between the lights which matches what Einstein specified. We have proof that the observer can know the train E is moving between earth lights A and B. All of this is as in provisions 1, 2, and 3. The 2 different conclusion: – Einstein claims the observer somehow sees different arrival times of as small as .01 seconds after moving .01 inches. , then - Einstein claims the E observer can’t know why the lights arrive at different times so they must have occurred at different times. My repeat of exactly what Einstein setup with the addition of 42 detectors and GPS allows — the train passenger’s equipment detected the very small difference in arrival time that the person couldn’t possibly observe. — the train passenger use the detail data to know the reason the lights arrived at different times. The issue is about the definition of simultaneous. Einstein claimed simultaneous isn’t simultaneous because the train observer was ignorant and supposedly saw something he couldn’t possibly see. I proved that the person on the train can determine the lights flashed simultaneously. Thus the conclusion in section 9 of Einstein’s paper is wrong. Tesla had demonstrated remote control devices years before Einstein wrote his paper. Telegraph had been using a synchronization process that Einstein and the other person sort of copied. Einstein could have specified a mechanism and process to act on the light based on telegraph and Tesla work. He didn’t. We could consider that he didn’t because the complete process I define could have been defined back then to refute the use of imagination instead of detail. Either Einstein wasn’t smart enough to come up with the detail using defined process and tools. Or, he was smart enough to know that information with defined process and tools prove his imaginary scenario is based on illusion instead of fact based. The proof is there. You and others see the data and aren’t forced to come to an incorrect conclusion. The detail data shows why the lights arrived at different times for the train observer. Thus, Einstein section 9 is wrong. Simultaneous is simultaneous and time has meaning. Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. |
| There are three versions of this test. The second and third follow the first. Enhanced 42 blind detector train experiment 11, dec, 2010 Second Enhanced 42 blind detector train experiment 14, dec 2010 |
| A copy of Einstein section 9 with clocks. Don Edward Sprague 23 Dec, 2010 There are several steps that happen at different times. Each step is a unique set of conditions. Each step must be considered individually. Once all of the individual steps are clear, then we can consider their combined results. The combined results provide a conclusion that is different from Einstein. To keep it clean. We have ONE set of event time conditions. We have several different observations times. We have Einstein setup conditions. - We use Einstein description in section 9 and - We use Einstein approved synchronized clocks — Clocks at both A locations and — Clocks at both B locations and — Clocks at both M locations. - We plan the train velocity so it aligns with the ground when the lights simultaneously flash. - Train M is the mid point between train A and B. This condition doesn’t change. - Earth M is the mid point between earth A and B. This condition doesn’t change - The train is an IRF in uniform motion along the tracks. - The train M, A, and B points align with the earth points. This condition DOES change. - The train M point is an equal distance from earth A and B. This condition DOES change. Each step is unique. Consider each step individually. Once each step is understood, then consider them in entirety. 1 - At event time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added Location; - Train A aligns with earth A - Train B aligns with earth B - Train M aligns with earth M The lights simultaneously flash at earth A and B. End of conditions: 2 - At FIRST arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added Location; - Train A aligns with earth A - Train B aligns with earth B - Train M aligns with earth M - Train M is still the mid point between train A and B - Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B Travel distance of train = extremely small as to almost not exists. Travel distance of light = The light travels an extremely small distance to the 2 earth and train A clocks and to the 2 earth and train B clocks. The lights simultaneously arrive at Both A and B locations. The Einstein approved synchronized clocks record the same reading meaning: - The lights simultaneously arrive at all 4 points (2 in each frame) End of conditions: That is the end of it. Both observers in their own frame have the Einstein approved synchronized clock record of the lights that simultaneously flashed as planned. Thus, simultaneous is simultaneous in both frames. 3- At SECOND arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added Location; - Train A is some distance from earth A - Train B is some distance from earth B - Train M is some distance from earth M - Train M is still the mid point between train A and B - Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B Travel distance of train = very small but is real Travel distance of light = almost the entire distance from ground A and B to ground M. The light B arrives at the train M observer. The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the single arrival time of the B light at Train M observer. End of conditions: That is another end of it. The single light arrival time re-confirms the train has motion as planned between the light events. The motion matches Einstein specification that the train observer is moving toward light B with respect to the ground. This means his form of frame neutrality has a problem. 4- At THIRD arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added Location; - Train A is some further distance from earth A - Train B is some further distance from earth B - Train M is some further distance from earth M - Train M is still the mid point between train A and B - Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B Travel distance of train = very small but is slightly further than before. Travel distance of light = the entire distance from ground A and B to ground M. The light A and B arrives at the EARTH M observer. The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the simultaneous arrival time of the A and B At EARTH M observer. End of conditions: 4 - At FOURTH arrival time; only as in Einstein section 9 with 6 Einstein synchronized clocks added Location; - Train A is some further distance from earth A - Train B is some further distance from earth B - Train M is some further distance from earth M - Train M is still the mid point between train A and B - Earth M is still the mid point between earth A and B Travel distance of train = very small but further than before. Travel distance of light = greater than the entire distance from ground A to ground M. The light A arrives at the train M observer. The Einstein approved synchronized clocks records the single arrival time of the A light at Train M observer. End of conditions: That is another end of it. The single light arrival time re-confirms the train has motion as planned between the light events. The motion matches Einstein specification that the train observer is moving away from light A with respect to the ground. This reconfirms his form of frame neutrality has a problem. The different A and B light arrival times at the train clock re-confirm the planned train velocity. In conclusion: A stationary train argument is tied to a stationary earth argument. That is the nemesis for Einstein. He is burdened with the absurd position about a flat earth with the sun moving around. We aren't engaged in a discussion to determine if the earth or the train is moving. Those facts are well known. Every discussion about the train test shows the train is moving. The issues of the discussion address the validity of Einstein’s claimed conclusion about the arrival times of the lights at the train observer. When we isolate steps with event times and conditions considered individually, the results refute Einstein’s claim that the train observer must be ignorant and make a mistaken conclusion. Simultaneous is simultaneous. Time is constant. Light speed is relative. Einstein relativity is known to have a fundamental flaw that ends in singularity with time ending and gravity going to infinity. The fundamental time flaw has it’s beginning in section 9 with the visual observation of time instead of a scientific determination of time. The gravity flaw has it’s beginning in section 20 with another uninformed thought observer who doesn’t use science. Classical relativity 100% accurately predicts the motion of stellar objects including planet orbits like that of Mercury. It 100% accurately predicts the location to place cameras to take pictures of stellar events with light going through a gravitational lense. The Lorentz mistaken interpretation that light is constant regardless is wrong. The proof is that light is relative to the frame where it is measured just as sound and a ball is relative to the frame. I simply add explanation to Classical Mechanics resulting in Classical hierarchy Relativity. Using Einstein relativity, the observations from frame to frame don't match. Using Classical Mechanics with constant space time and relative light every observation from any frame accurately match the observations from any frame. The laws of physics really are the same everyplace all the time. The proof is there. You and others see the data and aren’t forced to come to an incorrect conclusion. The detail data shows why the lights arrived at different times for the train observer. Thus, Einstein section 9 is wrong. Simultaneous is simultaneous and time has meaning. Review We have 2 inertial frames. That is, we have two frames that are in uniform motion in a straight line. They might be tied together or they might not. The observers in each frame might know of each other and they might not. Each frame has things inside the boundary of the trains in that there are things inside the front and back and sided and bottom of the trains. Each frame is boundless in that the observers can see beyond the sides and ends and top and bottom of the train. Each IRF has a master clock and two other clocks that are fixed inside the boundaries of the respective train IRFs Each frame observer uses the telegraph type synchronization process Einstein copied. Each frame observer arbitrarily determined when they begin their synchronization. The clocks inside the bounds of the train frames click off a second that is equal in all parts of the respective train. Each observer periodically repeats their synchronization process. Prior to observation time both observers began their synchronization process. At observation time: On Don train, since Don began his synchronization process some time ago, the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time identified as 232001 time increments from initial synchronization. On Einstein train, Since Einstein began his synchronization process some time ago, the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time identified as 34001 time increments from initial synchronization. We don’t have a second observation time yet and might not have another observation time. We just have the one observation time and conditions at that observation time. We can calculate the conditions at later observations times if we were to ever have additional observations. - Don train has it’s A, B and M points aligned with the earth A, B and M points, - Einstein train has it’s A, B and M points aligned with the earth A, B and M points, - The lights won’t flash unless and until there is contact between both train and earth A and B points, - When contact was made AT OBSERVATION TIME at the trains and earth A and B points, the clock readings are recorded in the clocks in both trains. The trains may have the same or different velocities. As specified above, the lights won’t flash unless and until the trains and earth A and B points align. Since the points align, the earth lights are triggered and do flash. The flash of lights from earth A and B arrive at: - Don train A and B points at 232001 time increments from initial synchronization. - Einstein train A and B points at 34001 time increments from initial synchronization. That is the end of it. Both observers in both frames observe the simultaneous arrival of the lights in both frames. There were questions are about observation of simultaneous in both IRFs. 1 - What if the train wasn’t moving is a question Einstein asked and answered. The lights would arrive simultaneously in his train IRF. 2 - What if the train passenger knew the train is moving him between the lights. The answer is obvious. He would know why the lights arrived at different times. That leave us with the supposition that the train passenger supposedly doesn’t know he is moving. Using the clocks that are in the immediate vicinity of the events addresses the supposition of an ignorant train observer is invalidated. He can determine through observation that the lights flashed simultaneously. He can determine he is moving. Thus, we return to question 2 with it’s answer. It is obvious that he can and does know the train moved the passenger from the midpoint so he won’t see simultaneous. Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. |
Does the frame of reference change reality? Don Edward Sprague 23 January, 2011 Suppose we repeat Einstein’s train experiment as though it must use the earth as the frame of reference for both observers. The obvious answer is that frame neutrality is violated. Let’s us go through the process and see what really happens. We have 2 inertial frames. One is the earth spinning and moving around the sun going through the galaxy and universe. The other is a train riding on the earth that is spinning and so on. The observers in each frame do know of each other and they both know of the train motion on the earth. They both know of the earth motion. Each frame has things inside their boundary. That is, there are things inside the front and back and sided and bottom of the train. Likewise, the earth has things on and inside the earth and it’s atmosphere and gravitational field. Both observers know of test that show the speed of light travels a constant speed between fixed distances in an IRF. That is; light travels “c” between fixed based points A and B to arrive at a fixed midpoint M inside the boundaries of an IRF. Both observers accept this as true for train points and earth points. Both observer have a master clock and two other clocks that are fixed inside the boundaries of the respective frames. Each frame observer uses the telegraph type synchronization process Einstein copied. Each frame observer arbitrarily determined when they begin their synchronization. The clocks inside the bounds of the inertial frames click off a second that is equal in all parts of the respective frames. Each observer periodically repeats their synchronization process. Both observers know that earth based lights A and B will simultaneously flash. Both observers know the fixed points locations on earth. Both observers know the train is moving and the train observer will sit at the midpoint of the train. Prior to event and observation time both observers conduct their synchronization process. Both also plan the velocity of the train to have it’s A, B, and M points align with the earth A, B, and M points when the lights simultaneously flash at earth A and B points. The events are triggered and do happen simultaneously as planned. In the earth frame, the observer began his synchronization process some time ago, the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time identified as 232001 time increments from initial synchronization. On the train, the observer began his synchronization process some time ago and the number of clock clicks shows a duration of time identified as 34001 time increments from initial synchronization. The train observer races toward light event B and away from A. The train observer knows the velocity he is racing toward B and away from A. The lights arrive at the moving train observer at different times as planned. The lights arrive at the earth observer simultaneously as planned. In this controlled repeat of Einstein’s train experiment, the light arrival times match Einstein specified arrival times., In this scenario, both observers use the train as moving as compared to the earth. That is; both observers know how fast the train is moving between the earth based lights so the train observer knows he moved from the midpoint of the fixed earth based lights. The conclusion is obvious. When the observers are aware of the train motion between the lights that are fixed on earth, both observers know why the lights arrive at different times at the train observer. Now we add some other observers. The observers know all the information a typical physicists knows. We tell the people we are conducting an experiment. We tell them that either the train will be moving or the earth will be moving. The observers can ride on the earth or the train. We ask all the observers why the lights arrive at different times at the train observer. It seems there are 2 answers: 1 - If the train observer doesn’t know he is on a moving train, time is variable. 2 - If the train observer knows he is on a moving train, the experiment used just the earth as a preferential frame of reference so time is constant. Actually, there are 3 answers: 3 - If the train observer doesn’t know which is moving but does know the lights arrives simultaneous for the earth observer and not simultaneous for the train observer; a thinking person could say that he doesn’t know which is moving but he knows that one is moving because the midpoint observer aren’t aligned when the lights arrived. He would say ignorance of the motion doesn’t change the definition of simultaneous. Thus, in the first case, the train observer is ignorant of the fact of the train motion so he thinks time is variable. In the second case, the person on the train does know the train is moving so he doesn’t make a mistaken conclusion. In the third, the person says there isn’t enough information to come to a correct conclusion. Which are you? Are you like number 1 uninformed and don’t know it, 2 informed and know it, or 3 uninformed and know you are uninformed so you don’t come to the wrong conclusion? Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. |
To recognize the end points of the train object vs the boundlessness of the train frame is an important part of understanding the nature of fixed objects with respect to the train object. Don Edward Sprague 22 Feb, 2011 The three lines are parts of the train frame. <<<<------------------C-----------------P----------------E------------------------->>>> ........................................CN........WP................WP... <SX< ATL< --------A-----------------M---------------B-------------->SFO>SZ>>>> Top line is the train object with objects fixed to the train object: - C is the Caboose, P is the passenger, E is the engine. Second line is stuff in the train frame that are also inside the train object but not fixed to the train object: - CN is the conductor, WP are walking passengers. Third line is stuff in the train frame that aren’t inside the train object so they aren’t fixed to the train object: - SX is star X, ATL is Atlanta fixed to the earth, A is light A fixed to the earth, M is the midpoint observer fixed to the earth, B is light B that is fixed to the earth, SFO is San Francisco, SX is star X. All the listed things are in the train frame. Any point in the train frame is a valid point to consider the conditions in the train frame at any time. The only things that have fixed xyz values with respect to an axis point fixed to the train object are the things that are also fixed to the train object. All other objects in the train frame don’t have fixed xyz values in the train frame with respect to the axis point that it fixed to the train object. Using the sun object, that is part of the train frame, the sun xyz axis point in the bondless train frame is removed from the bounds of the train and none of the object fixed in the bounds of the train are fixed to the boundless train frame axis point on the sun. All frames including the train frame are boundless and in motion. Any point in any frame is equally valid for observing the conditions in any frame. There is a train object that is in motion as it is in all frames. Things fixed inside the train object have the same xyz coordinate values over time from the train object axis vantage point. Things inside or outside the train object that aren’t fixed to the train object have different xyz coordinate values over time. The earth observer and the earth light A and B points aren’t fixed to the train object. As such, they have different xyz values from the train object axis vantage point over time. Awareness or lack of awareness of the motion of the train object between the non-fixed objects doesn’t alter the reality of the motion. Einstein claims the uniform motion of the train object prevents the passenger from being aware of the motion so they must come to an incorrect conclusion. The statement is wrong. The train object passenger can determine the train object is in motion. The lack of awareness doesn’t eliminate the motions. The train object observer can collect data from other parts of the boundless train frame. The earth based observer, who resides in the boundless train frame can provide data to the train object passenger. The train object observer can move back and forth between the train object and the embankment object that are parts of the boundless train frame. The train object observer in the boundless train frame can determine the train object is in motion. They can confirm through experimentation that the lights flashed simultaneously and that the train object moves the midpoint of the train object toward light B and away from A that are in the train frame but aren’t fixed to the train object. When a person becomes aware of their motion they didn’t magically change from being stationary to in motion. Knowledge or lack of knowledge doesn’t validate or invalidate a frame or change reality. Copyright © Don Edward Sprague. All rights reserved. |