nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 2 2015, 9:30 PM
 On the moon's surface, a passenger car is moving. The roof is flat plate glass. From just above, light waves (plane waves) of a star are entering this roof horizontally. These plane waves reach floor horizontally too (it must be so geometrically. to every observer's eye). Simultaneity will be absolute.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 3 2015, 9:06 PM
 Allow me to add the following to my previous post (Jan 31 7:39PM). Relativity of simultaneity doesn’t stand up on A, B in the above picture of triangle. The reason is that the number of waves in two oblique sides of triangle is an invariant. So, frequency of A, B is the same (to every observer’s eye).
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 5 2015, 1:45 AM
 The following is an additional to my previous posts on triangle. In the above picture of triangle, let's focus a wave in the lights that head A, B. These two chosen waves leave C at the same time reach A, B at the same time (to a moving observer also). The reason is that number of waves (in the light path) is variant.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 5 2015, 2:37 AM
 Sorry, in today's post, I made a mistake. Wrong : variant. Right : an invariant.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 6 2015, 7:09 PM
 Many books show a picture of a moving passenger car. A light source is placed in the center of the car, and two light rays are sent to the front and the rear. Can relativity explain the number of waves (it’s an invariant) of two rays ?
jaquecusto

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 8 2015, 8:34 AM
 For some time, I presented a physics forum a "thought experiment" to demonstrate that time is absolute anywhere. Unfortunately, before the discussion moving forward, the topic has been closed. Who can with relativists? https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/belt-paradox.524220/
anon1

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 8 2015, 8:37 AM
 relativists act like idiots going round in circles. If two clocks go at different rates then either one or both of them are faulty, but relativists decide that means time is different for the clocks. So how can you get from thinking it is an "effect on clocks" to "effect on time"; the transition is nonsense.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 9 2015, 1:08 AM
 A fact shown by Michelson – Morley experiment is that light follows light source’s motion, I believe. A picture of a moving passenger car ignores this. How about when the equipment is loaded in the passenger car ? To an observer stands on the ground, light speed will have the motion component of the passenger car : v. In the equilateral triangle (shown previously), frequency at A, B is the same. The reason is that if it’s not the same, the difference accumulates endlessly (in the light paths). It’s impossible. Even if light speed is not the same (it will be so to a moving observer), frequency at A, B is the same. Simultaneity is not relative. To jaquecusto and anon1, I am thankful to you for your precious supports.
jaquecusto

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 9 2015, 12:48 PM
 "To jaquecusto and anon1, I am thankful to you for your precious supports." Nakayama, Your wellcome!
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 10 2015, 3:12 AM
 Allow me to try to disprove, please. In front of an observer stands on the ground, coupled two passenger cars are passing. At the center of the first car, a pillar stands. This pillar, the inner front wall and the inner rear wall are moving in the same motion. From the pillar stands at the center of the second passenger car, particles are sent to both walls regularly. Now, let’s regard particles as waves (frequency is constant). An observer in the car sees that the first wave reach both walls at the same time. But, it’s said that the observer stands on the ground doesn’t see like this (when the first wave reach the rear wall, it doesn’t reach the front wall yet). Only possible interpretation will be that speed of waves (following waves also) head both walls differs. Then, number of waves stays in both paths differs. But, it’s impossible because number of waves is an invariant.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 11 2015, 2:49 AM
 Allow me to rewrite my post (posted on March 5), please. In the equilateral triangle (shown above), number of waves that stays in both oblique sides is the same (to every observer), because it's an invariant. So, every two waves that leave C at the same time reach A, B at the same time (to moving observers also).
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 12 2015, 1:17 AM
 A passenger car is standing. At the center of the car, a light source is flashing on and off (let's regard light as spherical waves). Marathon runners are passing through in front of the car (to the right and to the left). How physicists explain this ?
jaquecusto

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 14 2015, 7:46 AM
 This mental experience about interferometry was discussed for a long time in extinct IFUFF Physics Porum, Physics Institute of the Federal Fluminense University The initial objective of this exercise was to find "holes" on experience with the Michelson interferometer & Morley. The interferometer M & M is constantly quoted in the construction of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Our "hole interferometer" is a mechanical approach a single standing wave system with some similarity to the M & M interferometer. Two engines drive one circular belt perforated through pulleys. The motors are fixed on the floor and the belt should have the more possible length. The relativity theory is only valid when the motion of a body is straight and no change of direction or speed. In fact, the belt undergoes a 180° change of movement when passing through the axes of the motors. This experiment does not feature a single Uniform Circular Movement, but the combination of Uniform Circular Motion and Rectilinear Uniform Motion. But if we do that little detail required by the theory of relativity, we can make some serious conclusions. 1 - Since all the holes matching at the same time, we can say that it is possible to produce an instantaneous phenomenon throughout the belt, something not provided by the TR. This experiment "confirms" with the Newtonian idea that the time permeates all the space and does not suffer any kind of interference. 2 - As explanations of prof. Penna, the speed of the belt does not interfere in its length. Einstein's prediction is saved by the quadratic speed formula. 3 - Any fixed observers along the movable belt and the observers, parallel to the belt movement, see the holes coincide at the same time. Again, something not provided by TR. I'm beginning to suspect that the TR is a "soap theory" " !
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 24 2015, 1:10 AM
 Without light, does relativity of simultaneity stand up ? But how does it explained ?
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

May 2 2015, 10:40 PM
 Imagine that A, B, C each (of the equilateral triangle : mentioned above) is a light source (frequency is the same). Simultaneity of A, B, C will not be relative.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

May 21 2015, 2:15 AM
 P.S. to my post (March 11 2015) : Difference of the distance between the observer and A, B is other problem.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 12 2016, 11:04 PM
 A light ray (wavelength is constant) is passing thorough a tube. Number of waves exists inside of the tubes is invariant. So, to a moving observer, it is the same number also. Namely, number of waves going in and out (per unit time) is the same. The front end and rear end of the tube will be simultaneous.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 14 2016, 2:33 AM
 Two tubes are standing side bay side. Light rays (source is the same) are passing thorough two tubes. One tube is accompanied by an observer. Along the other tube, an observer is moving from the rear to the front. Pictures on relativity of simultaneity (a moving passenger car is shown) will be nonsense.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 15 2016, 1:38 AM
 A passenger car is standing. At the center of the car, a tiny sensor is set. From the front inner wall and the rear inner wall each, a photon is sent somewhat downward. When two photons arrive at the same time, the sensor responds and light flashes. Now, the other passenger car is passing by. From this passenger car, flashlight will be visible also. Pictures on relativity of simultaneity (on a moving passenger car) will not stand up.
nakayama

# Re: Relativity of Simultaneity (Not Quite)

March 16 2016, 1:30 AM
 To yesterday (March 15)’s picture, allow me to add two preconditions. It will make the picture more simple. * Height where two photons leave walls is the same. * Angle of photons is 5 degrees downward. Supplement: Sinking speed of two photons is the same. So, to a moving observer, hitting of two photons is impossible (if the time when photons leave walls is not the same). The sensor does not respond.

 < Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next > Respond to this message