wespe

I have the suspicion that this is something you came up with during a physics class one day. Why don't you bring it to the attention of one of your tutors, I'm sure they will be happy to discuss your extra curricular activities with you. Perhaps they could suggest an appropriate reading list.

nope. there's no class/tutor. only 'net and you.

wespe, when dealing with something that is inherently mathematical, such as Relativity, you should really try to get your head round the maths first. That was you can phrase your argument in a mathematical form that can demonstrate whether you are right or wrong, in a neat logical manner that is much less open to confusion. It also makes it alot easier for people to deal with it, criticise it, and if it comes to it, agree or disagree with you.

I agree.

sooooo' date=' may i ask what'll your next venture be? what other theory will now replace ralativity?

 

just curious [/quote']

 

don't worry. my brain will think of something, I can't help it

']Wespe' date=' I fail to see how anything you've said even has to do with relativity. I have no idea what you are trying to prove here.

 

Time synconization for stationary clocks? What does this have to do with anything? Why would you need time syncronization for stationary clocks, when time dilation comes into effect with a moving object? That the astronaut is moving in that joke of a flash animation would certainly not make a difference. Why does it matter if he can get the same average time?

 

Damn it, and why does every second person feel they are so intelligent that they can disprove one of the most basic theories of physics, while having no education in the subject whatsoever? I stopped thinking I could do that before I was in middle school.[/quote']

 

ok.. my claim was that my synchronization method would work not only for stationary clocks, but also for moving clocks, as shown with the moving astronaut in the last part of the animation.

 

Assume my method worked: Apply the synchronization to Einstein's two lightening strikes thought experiment, just as the lightenings stike, and you conclude that the two events are simultaneous in both frames. This would invalidate relativity of simultaneity, which says the opposite. But now, I no longer claim that my method works for moving clocks, since I have withdrawn. I hope it's clear.

ok, to clear this up:

First, I believe that my method to synchronize stationary clocks is at least some achievement (I don't think anyone thought of it before, so I called it "wespe method"). However, I had also assumed that my method could be used to synchronize moving clocks, because I thought all relativity effects would be nullified by the setup. If I was correct, relativity of simultaneity would have to be wrong, and relativity would collapse.

Although I can't work out the exact math, I still think relativity effects are indeed nullified. If we analyze from the moving astronaut's frame: 1-Length contraction: this scales the distances equally in both directions, average would be same. 2-Time dilation: this causes both clocks to run slower equally, same here. 3-Relativity of Simultaneity:This causes a shift in both clock values, same (remember my setup already had an offset). So I don't think any of these will change the average for the moving astronaut.

Only problem I found is the doppler effect (non relativistic doppler, since I considered time dilation separately). So, what I failed to provide, is a formula, instead of (a+b)/2, that would not depend on distance to each clock, while the doppler is in effect. Failing that, I withdraw my argument.

Thank you.

In your scenario' date=' relativity "fails" because you haven't applied it properly.

 

In J'Dona's scenario, your clocks explanation obeys relativity.

 

Mmmmm hmmm hmmmm.[/quote']

 

I haven't applied relativity at all, because there's no need to. For example, I'm not saying anything about time dilation, because I'm not saying how the astronauts' own clocks would compare to other clocks or anything. Same with length contraction, I don't mention any length measurements, or measurements of speed of light. OK so far?

 

But you must agree that the calculated values act like a clock for all astronauts, no matter what their speed is. And they act like synchronized clocks. Do you agree? However, relativity will not allow absolute clocks! or else mutual time dilation would be a paradox. But with my setup, the average values act like absolute clocks. So there's the paradox, OK??

It seems like a paradox' date=' but unfortunately it's correct, even though it seems to defy common sense. You've got to understand that common sense is wrong, because people aren't used to this sort of thing in real life. Did you know that as the sun rotates, light coming from the approaching side and light coming from the receding side are [i']exactly[/i] the same speed?

 

Also, please don't change the subject by avoiding any possible flaw in your scenario. I agree with what your flash shows because that's what relativity says would happen anyway. However, because of this, your flash in no way demonstrates that relativity is "wrong", so we need more examples.

Ok, I know the light speed is always measured the same. But, that would have to be explained with some other mechanism, if relativity is refuted by a real paradox. What is real here, is that the clock values are embedded in the light and astronauts will see it. You cannot have two people at the same place (one moving) see different values, even though somehow they would measure the speed of light same. So this is not common sense, but logic, in question. If nature is illogical, that's another thing.

Ok, think of different scenarios, but don't make it look like I would say something I wouldn't. I would agree with whatever looks logical on the screen.

Ah' date=' it's working for me now. There's one problem with your flash... everyone sees incoming light coming in at the same speed - the speed of light - [i']regardless of their relative motion[/i]. Aside from the fact that the astronaut cannot be moving at the same speed as the light particles (as he would then have infinite mass), the incoming light from the clock behind him will appear to be coming in at the speed of light, not a tiny fraction of it. I'm not exactly certain how this would affect it, but I'm sure someone else here can explain.

 

How about this: you have the same moving astronaut and the stationary clocks, and also another clock moving toward the astronaut at the speed of light, who is also moving toward it at the speed of light. The astronaut then takes the changing values he sees on all three and divides them by three to get the average. The result? A time value which increases at about three times the rate of your experiment.

 

In fact, you get a different result if you have even one of the clocks in your flash moving.

The speed of the moving astronaut doesn't matter at all, but if you want it below c, just imagine so. However, for the moving astronaut, the speed of light coming from back and front does look different, doesn't it? Based on relativity, you will say this is incorrect, you will say it should appear so and so. But you are forgetting that the light contains the clock value and you cannot change it, because the nearby stationary astronaut also sees it. Thus you cannot change the calculated value. So, that's a paradox, only if you assume relativity is correct.

And please don't change the scenario by making one of the clocks move or whatever. I'm not saying the calculated value would be the same if the clocks were moving. That's why discussions became endless, please don't do that.

I did focus on it.

 

"So relativity is wrong and they just confuse or ignore you"

 

A ridiculous statement .....

Just before that statement appears, did you notice that the moving astronaut calculated the same value with the stationary astronauts, simultaneously? Do you think that's compatible with "relativity of simultaneity"?

"I'm tired of all these discussions.. "

 

Were tired of people trying to disporve things like relativity and evolution with internet rubbish but you dont see us complaining.

I don't have anything against evolution, plus I'm agnostic, but that's irrelevant here. If you don't want anyone to challenge relativity by pure logic.. whatever.. Please focus on my setup and think for yourself.

I couldn't get the page to load' date=' but: No, you haven't.

 

It sounds like you've shown that the astronaut will get a consistent answer if he reads a clock in an inertial frame. That silence you hear is the lack of anybody being bowled over by that revelation.

 

What does the astronaut's clock read?[/quote']

 

Please enable flash on your computer or try to find a way to see the animation. Someone above describes it too. I'm tired of all these discussions.. Just imagine this setup and try to think for yourself, think if those events (the moment calculated values changes, for all astronauts, moving or stationary) are simultaneous or not. Then check what relativity of simultaneity is says. You decide.

Ok, here's an extra explanation for you:

All the astronauts - on the line between the stationary clocks - will calculate the same average value, simultaneously, whether they are stationary, moving with a constant speed, or even accelerating. Therefore, there can be no mutual time dilation. (Just imagine two rows of synchronized clocks passing by). And the relativity of simultaneity is likewise a paradox. With this setup I have shown that it is possible to define absolute time and simultaneity, and with a little thinking you can figure out absolute space too.

Thank you for your time,

wespe - anonymous

Please see:

http://wespe4.tripod.com/

(15K - requires flash)