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

[xyz]

What? It doesn't happen?

 

Er, what?

. All observers in any reference frame all experience the same rate of time, any examples of time dilation or SR that use a displaced light beam are null and void

[A-wal]

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.

But you claimed that it does matter how time is measured because you think some types of clocks will show time dilation and some won't. Any accurate measurements of time within a single frame will always agree, obviously.

 

. All observers in any reference frame all experience the same rate of time, any examples of time dilation or SR that use a displaced light beam are null and void

:rofl:

[xyz]

The reason everything you think fails is because the very fact that any measurement of time after 0 becomes instantaneous history , no matter how small the increment or the speed of measurement

All observers in any reference frame have the same problem

Edited August 4, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

The reason everything you think fails is because the very fact that any measurement of time after 0 becomes instantaneous history , no matter how small the increment or the speed of measurement

All observers in any reference frame have the same problem

Nonsensical BS!

 

Time dilation and length contraction are a natural and unavoidable result of a constant speed of light. There's no other way to resolve observers measuring the same thing moving at the same speed if the observers are in motion relative to each other, it's that simple.

[xyz]

Nonsensical BS!

 

Time dilation and length contraction are a natural and unavoidable result of a constant speed of light. There's no other way to resolve observers measuring the same thing moving at the same speed if the observers are in motion relative to each other, it's that simple.

you have no idea of what I am saying do you? I tell you what let's begin with something simple with an easy answer , what is one second ?

[A-wal]

A duration of time, something that all accurate clocks within a single frame of reference will agree on but clocks in other observed frames of reference won't because they they all measure the same speed of light and there's no way that could possibly happen if they measured the same distances in time and space.

[xyz]

A duration of time, something that all accurate clocks within a single frame of reference will agree on but clocks in other observed frames of reference won't because they they all measure the same speed of light and there's no way that could possibly happen if they measured the same distances in time and space.

light is not anything to do with time and neither is speed , forget that for a moment please , one second is an abstract point that marks a present position and time elapsed between two points , do you agree?

[A-wal]

I do but I also understand that clocks in different frames of reference can't possibly measure the same duration of time passing because they measure the speed of light to be the same and there's no possible way for observers in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to themselves unless they measure different lengths in time and space.

 

Speed is very much to do with time. It's a measurement of distance over time and the speed of light has the same distance over the same time in all inertial frame of reference.

[xyz]

I do but I also understand that clocks in different frames of reference can't possibly measure the same duration of time passing because they measure the speed of light to be the same and there's no possible way for observers in motion relative to each other to measure the same thing moving at the same speed relative to themselves unless they measure different lengths in time and space.

 

Speed is very much to do with time. It's a measurement of distance over time and the speed of light has the same distance over the same time in all inertial frame of reference.

ok you agreed what one second is , ignoring the rest for now of your post sorry , do you agree that all observers would have to agree the length between o and one second is an equal length and constant ? Baring in mind that the elapsed increment is history

[A-wal]

No. The speed of light is known to be constant so we know that measurements of time and space HAVE to differ between inertial frames of reference because there's no other possible way to resolve a constant speed of light in all frames, no matter how much you try to ignore this inconvenient (for you) truth.

[xyz]

No. The speed of light is known to be constant so we know that measurements of time and space HAVE to differ between inertial frames of reference because there's no other possible way to resolve a constant speed of light in all frames, no matter how much you try to ignore this inconvenient (for you) truth.

what? Just answer the question I asked you are not getting it , the speed of light has nothing to do with the measurement of time , pffff

[A-wal]

The speed of light has everything to do with the measurement of time, pffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff. It moves at the same speed (distance over time) in all inertial frames of reference, proving that different frames HAVE to disagree on measurements of length in time and space.

 

I did answer the question.

No.

And then gave my reasoning.

The speed of light is known to be constant so we know that measurements of time and space HAVE to differ between inertial frames of reference because there's no other possible way to resolve a constant speed of light in all frames, no matter how much you try to ignore this inconvenient (for you) truth.

There's simply no possible way for observers in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light unless they're measuring it moving through length contacted space over time dilated time from the perspective other inertial frames of reference.

[xyz]

 

There's simply no possible way for observers in motion relative to each other to measure the same speed of light unless they're measuring it moving through length contacted space over time dilated time from the perspective other inertial frames of reference.

Is this what you are bugging at?  measuring the speed of light is not measuring time, why do you keep bringing the speed of light into this? the measurement of time precedes the measurement of the speed of light. The speed of light is constant only in a vacuum, I think you are in some way confused.

 

Let me explain something , 

 

If you was on the moon and measuring the speed of light from the sun, you would measure it to be faster than if you was on the earth, the reason because the moon has no medium to slow the light down in the last section of travel.

 

added- I don't know if you know this, Maxwell's equations for the speed of light are wrong, Maxwell has the speed of light faster than the rate of time we use. 

 

Our present  rate of time presently moves at 0.288 mile a ''second''. 

Edited August 5, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Is this what you are bugging at?  measuring the speed of light is not measuring time, why do you keep bringing the speed of light into this? the measurement of time precedes the measurement of the speed of light.

Because if observers that are in motion relative to each other measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed relative to themselves then they HAVE to be measuring that thing moving at through length contracted space over time dilated time when they compare to another frame of reference. There's simply no way around this.

 

The speed of light is constant only in a vacuum, I think you are in some way confused.

I'm not the one who's confused.

 

If you was on the moon and measuring the speed of light from the sun, you would measure it to be faster than if you was on the earth, the reason because the moon has no medium to slow the light down in the last section of travel.

Utterly irrelevant! This has nothing to do with light's speed through different mediums. You're very confused!

 

added- I don't know if you know this, Maxwell's equations for the speed of light are wrong, Maxwell has the speed of light faster than the rate of time we use. 

 

Our present  rate of time presently moves at 0.288 mile a ''second''. 

Huh?

[xyz]

Because if observers that are in motion relative to each other measure the same thing (light) moving at the same speed relative to themselves then they HAVE to be measuring that thing moving at through length contracted space over time dilated time when they compare to another frame of reference. There's simply no way around this.

 

I'm not the one who's confused.

 

Utterly irrelevant! This has nothing to do with light's speed through different mediums. You're very confused!

 

Huh?

I do not how many times I have told you now and you clearly are not listening and keep replying with the same thing about the speed of light and measuring the speed of light which is completely unrelated to the measurement of time. Also space does not contract you clearly interpret Lorentz wrongly. 

[A-wal]

I do not how many times I have told you now and you clearly are not listening and keep replying with the same thing about the speed of light and measuring the speed of light which is completely unrelated to the measurement of time.

As I keep telling you, the speed of light is very much related to the measurement of time because observers that are at rest relative to each other measure light moving at the same velocity relative to themselves. The only only way the speed of light can possibly be constant like that is if the observers are measuring different lengths in time and space when comparing themselves to other inertial frames, proving that time dilation and length contraction HAVE to happen, it's unavoidable.

 

Also space does not contract you clearly interpret Lorentz wrongly. 

Space does contract according to the Lorentz transformations, that's why they call it length contraction. :)

[xyz]

As I keep telling you, the speed of light is very much related to the measurement of time because observers that are at rest relative to each other measure light moving at the same velocity relative to themselves. The only only way the speed of light can possibly be constant like that is if the observers are measuring different lengths in time and space when comparing themselves to other inertial frames, proving that time dilation and length contraction HAVE to happen, it's unavoidable.

 

Space does contract according to the Lorentz transformations, that's why they call it length contraction. :)

What of space do you suggest contracts?  space is not made of elastic although things with elastic properties occupy space.  i.e the light contracts not the space.