Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[A-wal]

You certainly are good at twisting sentences and in no way do I feel my original thread question has been answered. 

I haven't twisted anything. Either you think that the speed of light is constant or you don't. You said you thought it was but now you're saying it isn't. It's been proven that the speed of light is constant and that in turn proves that length contraction and time dilation have to occur. How do you think it's possible for there to be no length contraction or time dilation if the station measures light moving at 0.5c past the train but the train measures the same light moving at c past themselves? If you're going to reject proven facts because they don't fit with your ridiculous view of time and space then you're not worth anyones time.

 

According to science we see the train that arrived 8 minutes earlier, 8 minutes later, however my triangulation of points with a constant division of space and the speed of light shows this to be not true.  

 

Let us start over and try to keep this really simple.

 

 

We have 3 points in an equilateral triangle,  A,B and C. 

 

 

All clocks are set to synchronous 0t and the time will start when a photon travels from each point to one of the other points. 

 

 

Photon A leaves A to travel to B. 

 

 

Photon B leaves B to travel to C. 

 

 

Photon C leaves C to travel to A. 

 

A observes Photon A arriving at B in 8 minutes, 

 

B observes Photon B arriving at C in 8 minutes, 

 

C observes Photon A arriving at A in 8 minutes, 

 

 

The detectors on A , B and C receive and detect each  photon in 8 minutes. 

 

 

Do you disagree with any of that?

That's all the same frame of reference! That scenario doesn't even have anything to do with relativity!

 

You can't even understand what relativity describes yet you assume you know better. I've made it as simple as possible, a middle school kid could understand it but you can't. You're nothing but a deluded idiot who doesn't have the intelligence to grasp it. I'm done with you. You've shown time and again that you're neither willing or capable of understanding how it actually works so you should anyone bother trying to show you?

[xyz]

I haven't twisted anything. Either you think that the speed of light is constant or you don't. You said you thought it was but now you're saying it isn't. It's been proven that the speed of light is constant and that in turn proves that length contraction and time dilation have to occur. How do you think it's possible for there to be no length contraction or time dilation if the station measures light moving at 0.5c past the train but the train measures the same light moving at c past themselves? If you're going to reject proven facts because they don't fit with your ridiculous view of time and space then you're not worth anyones time.

 

That's all the same frame of reference! That scenario doesn't even have anything to do with relativity!

 

You can't even understand what relativity describes yet you assume you know better. I've made it as simple as possible, a middle school kid could understand it but you can't. You're nothing but a deluded idiot who doesn't have the intelligence to grasp it. I'm done with you. You've shown time and again that you're neither willing or capable of understanding how it actually works so you should anyone bother trying to show you?

I always find it interesting that the weaker mind turns to insults when the weaker mind is put under pressure. 

 

I have not insulted you, yet you reply with pathetic insults and assumptions yet again, quite clearly a troll. 

 

Now you think I do not understand simultaneity and a difference in tick rates of ''time'' on individual bodies, you are quite a strange one indeed. 

 

One day you realise that 1 cycle per second and 1000 cycles per second , the second does not alter and a second remains a second regardless of your bad interpretation of the evidence. 

 

 

 

 

 

@Craig - I await your teaching of the maths, I might not agree with the ideas of present but I still like to learn the maths just because....

Edited July 20, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

I always find it interesting that the weaker mind turns to insults when the weaker mind is put under pressure.

:rofl: I explained to you exactly why length contraction and time dilation have to occur. You completely ignored it and responded with a scenario that doesn't even have anything to do with relativity. You claim that you accept that the speed of light is constant and describe it as variable when it suits you. How do you think it's possible for there to be no length contraction or time dilation if the station measures light moving at 0.5c past the train but the train measures the same light moving at c past themselves?

 

Now you think I do not understand simultaneity and a difference in tick rates of ''time'' on individual bodies, you are quite a strange one indeed.

You've show time and again that you don't understand it. You don't understand why a constant speed of light proves length contraction and time dilation.

 

One day you realise that 1 cycle per second and 1000 cycles per second , the second does not alter and a second remains a second regardless of your bad interpretation of the evidence.

You can't even grasp what you're trying to argue against but you think you know better? Deluded idiot!

[CraigD]

You're nothing but a deluded idiot who doesn't have the intelligence to grasp it. I'm done with you.

A-wal, don’t call xyz a deluded idiot. Be polite. It’s a site rule.

 

I understand how frustrating it is when you try to explain simple, well-established physics to people who seeming can’t or refuse to get it, but It’s not necessary to call people names to point out that they are wrong. Insulting language give’s our site a bad image, can scares away people who might benefit from it, and attract people who like to be insulting on the internet.

[xyz]

 

 

You can't even grasp what you're trying to argue against but you think you know better? 

Where do you get the impression that I think I know better?   I know nothing and only look at the facts. 

 

 

You keep replying with this half the speed of light, I have not mentioned half the speed of light it is you whom keeps mentioning this. 

 

You also ignore my questions I ask, then keep replying trying to force a discipline ignoring the questions I am asking.

 

I will try too change my approach yet again because clearly you do not understand the questions I am asking you. 

 

 

We have 3 clocks in a triangle formation, 

 

 

Clock A's rate is 1 cycle per second

 

Clock B''s rate is 2 cycles per second

 

Clock C's rate is 3 cycles per second

 

Which of these clocks does time run slower?

[xyz]

Strange that people always avoid the actual question, in my opinion knowingly their answers implicate the falsities in thinking of the present information.

 

 

The answer to the last simple question I asked, none of the clocks does time run slower, only if we make things up and shorten the length of the second can we create the illusion of time dilation.

[xyz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ccrn953g21c&feature=youtu.be

 

part 2 added

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdkZC2oJK9Y

Edited July 31, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Strange that people always avoid the actual question, in my opinion knowingly their answers implicate the falsities in thinking of the present information.

:) The question has nothing at all to do with relativity. You don't even understand what you're trying to refute well enough to formulate a scenario that's relevant to it!

[xyz]

:) The question has nothing at all to do with relativity. You don't even understand what you're trying to refute well enough to formulate a scenario that's relevant to it!

Of course I understand, I have produced a scenario using the geometric ''points'' of an equilateral triangle to show premise for argument. I have discoursed the Keating experiment and the rudiment of time. It is not me who does not understand.  I understand that Einsteins work is based on the interpretation of time being that of the Caesium atom, however the caesium atom only represents time and is independent of time. Clearly you are unaware of what the evidence really means in interpretation. 

[A-wal]

You've produced a scenario that has zero relevance to relativity as written.

 

It is indeed you who does not understand. You've shown over and over again that you misunderstand even the basics of special relativity.

 

It's not based on time being that of an atom, it's based on time as measured by observers in motion relative to each other and there are many ways of measuring time. What it's based on and what you completely fail to grasp is that time dilation and length contraction are absolutely essential because of the consistency of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference.

 

You do not understand and you never will as long as you persist with this ridiculous (but quite entertaining) delusion that you know better.

[xyz]

Err, of course time dilation is observers in motion comparing rate of clocl, however the clocks are caesium clocks as in the Keating experiment , a digital clock does not dilate

Edited August 4, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

That makes no sense! How could some measurements of time dilate while others in the same frame don't? That's so silly.

[xyz]

Because the measurement is abstract and is the representation of time ,not time itself, it does not matter how you measure time the measurement is only a representation of time.

[exchemist]

Of course I understand, I have produced a scenario using the geometric ''points'' of an equilateral triangle to show premise for argument. I have discoursed the Keating experiment and the rudiment of time. It is not me who does not understand.  I understand that Einsteins work is based on the interpretation of time being that of the Caesium atom, however the caesium atom only represents time and is independent of time. Clearly you are unaware of what the evidence really means in interpretation. 

No I'm afraid A-wal is right. You clearly don't understand relativity at all. Einstein's work on relativity has nothing to to with caesium atoms. Indeed atomic clocks only became practical in the 1950s, half a century after his work.  

[xyz]

Einstein's relativity was theoretical , the Keating experiment was performed to prove relativity and is used as a proof of relativity , simultainety does not happen

[xyz]

There is neither zig zag beams of light

[A-wal]

Einstein's relativity was theoretical , the Keating experiment was performed to prove relativity and is used as a proof of relativity , simultainety does not happen

What? It doesn't happen?

 

There is neither zig zag beams of light

Er, what?