Hi there,
my question concerns a situation in which the law of free fall and the relativity of simultaneity come into play simultaneously.
The general assumptions are as follows:
1. if we let two objects fall at the same time, they will reach the surface at the same time, regardless of their mass (although gravity has a stronger effect on larger masses, inertia is also greater to the same extent).
2. the relativity of simultaneity shows impressively that different observers moving relatively to each other do not have to agree on whether two events really happen at the same time, depending on their reference system.
My question now is, what happens, if we combine both things. A person is standing in a space ship and lets two objects with different masses fall simultaneously through a technical apparatus (atomic clock). In his frame of reference this person has no problem - he sees that both objects arrive at the floor at the same time. But what does an external observer see when the space ship passes? Does he now have the impression that the objects no longer fall onto the surface at the same time, even though the law of free fall implies uniform acceleration? Or must all external observers agree that both objects reach the floor at the same time, because the law of free fall cannot be circumvented? Or is it the case that the external observer could observe that the person in the space ship does not drop the objects at the same time, although the person in the space ship observes that the objects are dropped at the same time?
Hi Aleksandar,
assuming the velocity of the spaceship (as seen by the external observer) and the direction of gravity are perpendicular to each other, and aligning the coordinates (as usual) so that the velocity points in +x direction, there can be two cases:
1. The starting positions (and all later positions, in the simultaneous case) of the objects have identical x values (and consequently identical x' values). Then both objects start simultaneously and reach the floor simultaneousy, for both oberservers.
2. The objects start at positions with different x values (and different x' values). If the observer on the spaceship sees both objects start and hit the floor simultaneously, then the external observer sees the object at the position with smaller x value start earlier and arrive at the floor earlier than the object at the position with larger x value. The temporal distances between the start events and between the hit events are the same.
If the angle between velocity and gravity is different from 90 degrees but the gravitational field can still be treated as being homogeneous, the basics remain the same because the distance of the falling objects remains constant.
Quite simple: two objects released simultaneously hit the ground simultaneously. So if they are not released simultaneously, but if, rather, the left object is released after the right one, say, then the left object will hit the ground first. So if you release both objects simultaneously in your rest frame, a moving observer will observe you releasing one of the 2 objects after the other. You will thus see both objects hitting the ground simuiltaneously, whereas the moving observwer will, quite logically, observe that the object you released later (from his viewpoint) will hit the ground later as well.
Dear Aleksander,
the relativity of simultaneity is due to exchanging signals at the speed of light ( info of time-stamps of clocks for examples). There is nothing to be impressed about, in this sense, you will have different info from different frames going at different speeds. It is basically due to the application of the Lorentz Transformations which contains the term vx/c2 which, at the end of the day, represents at the first order the reduction or increase of the time taken by light to reach a moving target. The relativity of simultaneity also called "failure of simultaneity at a distance" is due to these characteristics ingrained on the transformations used.
Tangherlini Transformations where time is relative but simultaneity is absolute, are even better than Lorentz Transformations.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Tangherlini_Transformations_have_less_limitations_than_Lorentz_Transformations_why_arent_they_used_instead
Observers see the phenomenon through light not occurring at the same time, but the phenomenon as a matter of fact occurs at the same time, it is the problem of the observer which in LT is compelled to use signals at a finite speed...
Dear Aleksandar Janjic,
You asked
“Relativity of simultaneity and free fall: Do all observers see that two objects reach the surface at the same time when they are dropped?”
- to answer on this question is necessary before to understand – and further correctly to unite in a consideration – what are “relativity of simultaneity”, “free fall”, and “observers”?
What is “relativity of simultaneity” becomes be clear only in that SS&VT informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494;
see more the SS posts, from at least 6 days ago now, two mouse clicks on “Show previous answers” now, in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_relative_simultaneity_a_misinterpretation_of_Special_Relativity#view=5e3844f736d23524fd5ef3a3 and links in the posts.
If briefly [comments see the 2-th link above] this physical effect can be observed only if there are two [and more, of course] relatively moving non-pointlike rigid bodies, or rigid systems of rigid bodies, if on these bodies there are observers and they arranged, in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, on these bodies/systems sets of scaled rules and synchronized distant clocks, which is called in physics “reference frame”.
In this case the observed “relativity of simultaneity” adequately to the reality describes real physical effect – the rotation of non-pointlike bodies/systems in the (X,cτ) plane, if, say, a body has a length L and moves with a speed V along the X-axis in the 3D space of the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) and on the body’s ends some clocks are placed,
- on the angle so, that the front clock really becomes be “younger” in the cτ-time on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement –VL/c2, and, simultaneously, the body’s projection on the X-axis is lesser than the body’s “own” length in the Lorentz factor.
For simplicity so we can consider your question when “a person is standing in a space ship and lets two objects with different masses fall simultaneously through a technical apparatus (atomic clock), when “the gravity mass”, on the surface of which the objects fall, is at absolute rest in the 3D space.
Then:
- if your “objects” fall simultaneously from one point in the ship, they will fall onto the surface at the same time moments on the clocks on the surface,
- if “objects” fall simultaneously by the ships clocks from two distant points in the ship, they will fall onto the surface at the different time moments on the clocks on the surface.
A similar, and a bit more interesting case is the case of “Andrew Wutke rod”, which is considered in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10250.47043.
Cheers
Simple and straightforward:
If the space separation between the two freely falling objects is very small, then you can regard them as a single extended small object (a string), therefore all observers see the same fall. BUT, if the space separation is finite (noticeable), then what is the simultaneous drop for the spaceship observer, it is not simultaneous for other observers, and so is the free fall! Space separation is the key!
It seems that here is necessary to add to the SS post above a few points.
As that is pointed in this post
- if your “objects” fall simultaneously from one point in the ship, they will fall onto the surface at the same time moments on the clocks on the corresponding “surface” point,
- if “objects” fall simultaneously by the ships clocks showings from two distant [on L] points in the moving with a speed V ship, say from back and front ends of the ship, they will fall onto the surface at the different time moments on the clocks on the surface – on the Voigt-Lorentz decrement VL/c2 - because of the “relativity of simultaneity”.
However that, again [see the quoted SS post above] happens if
(i) – the non-pointlike ship, from where the “objects” fall, is a rigid body,
(ii) the distant clocks on the ship are synchronized in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, say by using very short light pulses [“Einstein synchronization”], and
(iii) the distant clocks on Earth, where the “objects” fall are synchronized in accordance with the Lorentz transformations also; and the clocks on Earth compose a rigid system as well. [Though on Earth that is practically always happens because of the Earth gravity makes any system of bodies “rigid”, including, say the satellites compose rigid systems also, so the GPS systems work essentially in accordance with the SR.]
However if, say, the system from where the “objects” fall isn’t rigid, say if there are two free spaceships with synchronized “on Earth” clocks, that were launched in on time moment by the “Earth clocks” from two distant [on L] points “on Earth” and further identically were accelerated up to a speed V, and at this system inertial motion the “objects” fall from the same points in different ships, say, from both ships’ back ends,
- then the “objects”, which felt from these points simultaneously by the ships ends’ clocks, will fall on the “surface” simultaneously according to the “surface” clocks also.
The free ships scheme is known as the “Bell ships” in the “Bell paradox”, which was discovered by J. Bell in seems 1960, though in this paradox another “fundamental relativistic effect” than the “relativity of the simultaneity” is considered
– “the space contraction”, which is postulated in the SR as “in moving inertial reference frame the space is contracted” – when in the Bell paradox, if the ships launched from points on “surface” that are distant on L, after they are accelerated up to inertial speed V the distance between the ships remains be equal to L – the space doesn’t want to contract.
However, the both physical effects - the length contraction of, and the “relativity of simultaneity” of distant clocks on, a rigid body are the two results of one physical effect – rotation of the body in the (X,cτ) plane [see the SS post above], and, if J. Bell would know this fact, he would discover two paradoxes – besides that the space doesn’t contract as that the SR postulates, in this case the notorious “relativity of simultaneity” disappears.
More see the SS post above and links in the post.
Cheers
We only have one valid theoretical time-space system to judge simultaneity; it is the Galileo-Newton "classic" system. So, based on any other system, such as relativity or other theory, such as Minkowski space, the argument of simultaneity can only be endlessly unsettled with endless paradoxes.
“…We only have one valid theoretical time-space system to judge simultaneity; it is the Galileo-Newton "classic" system…..”
- yeah, that is so; though in this case there is nothing surprising – in those times there weren’t some experimental data from which could follow some hints that some “relativity of simultaneity” exists.
Such hints appeared only after it was discovered that the speed of light isn’t infinite, moreover, it is constant [Maxwell equations, experiments], and it was understood that that the “relativity of simultaneity”, provided the finite speed of light and that the relativity principle works not only in mechanics [Poincaré development of the Galileo relativity principle; though besides Poincaré seems were a lot of other physicists that thought that also and before]
- that is rather evident, see the attached PDF the first half.
Moreover, Voigt yet in 1887 quite correctly estimated this physical effect in his transformations.
Again, the “relativity of simultaneity” is quite real physical effect that appears quite objectively between relatively moving, say, with a speed V, reference frames. It isn’t something weird and arbitrary – it completely is described by the Voigt-Lorentz decrement Vx/c2, quite independently what frames are, and with what V they move.
So that
“…. So, based on any other system, such as relativity or other theory, such as Minkowski space, the argument of simultaneity can only be endlessly unsettled with endless paradoxes....”
- isn’t correct. Some “paradoxes” at describing of objectively real physical effects can appear only in some theories, which are non-adequate to the objective reality; and, indeed, when there can be only one true theory, there can be infinite number of erroneous “theories”, the SR is simply an example of such theories; because of it is based on a number of postulates that are
- either non-completely adequate to the objective reality, i.e. that the relativity principle is valid completely in every physical situation/system, and so all every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate; at that both authors of the SR didn’t understand – what is “inertial reference frame”
[though Einstein’s in the 1905 paper the frame was defined correctly
“…The theory to be developed is based|like all electrodynamics|on the kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. …..”
- however after Minkowski “discovered” in1908 the “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime”, where the conditions “rigid” wasn’t used, moreover, the “discovered” fundamental relativistic effects that just the really transformed [contracted, dilated, etc.] Matter’s spacetime in moving frame really contracts, dilates, etc. any/every real material body inside, Einstein completely believed in these “discoveries”, and never after 1908 remind about “rigid bodies”; moreover, he developed the Minkowski’s “discoveries” in the GR];
- and what are the indeed really objectively existent fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”.
Just so the fantastic “discoveries” above are also postulated in the 1908 SR version, which is now the standard theory in physics; and the GR is the standard theory, though.
What are “Space” and “Time” is quite adequately to the objective reality clarified in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, more comments see the SS last , May 28, August 13, November 6, and November 7 posts in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time ; the thread isn’t too spammed.
How these absolutely fundamental phenomena exist and act in the concrete informational system “Matter” – see the links above and in the SS post here 7days ago now.
Again the quite objectively existent physical effect “relativity of simultaneity” always appears at absolute motion of any rigid body/rigid system of the bodies in the absolute Matter’s [5]3D Euclidian [by no means Minkowski] spacetime, because of rotation of the body/system in the (X,cτ) plane [if motion is along X-axis];
- and such rotation is caused by that every particle is some close-loop algorithm, what is realized in the spacetime so that every particle is some 4D “gyroscope”, which [“gyroscope”] is always oriented relatively to its 4D direction of motions. If particles constitute a rigid body, they rotate the body as a whole to be oriented relatively the body’s motion.
More see the links above.
Cheers
Two observers being at the point of impact will see the same impact time if both are looking at the same clock, even if they have different velocities with respect to the impact position. They, however, will see different impact times if they have different velocities with respect to the impact position, and each of the two is looking at his own wrist watch (which clocks are calibrated in different ways).
“…Two observers being at the point of impact will see the same impact time if both are looking at the same clock, even if they have different velocities with respect to the impact position. …..”
- that has relation to the “relativity of simultaneity” problem only as unnecessary complication of this problem – instead of when in standard formulation of the problem usually only two reference frames are considered, in this case a 3-rd frame appears – where the “same clock” is placed.
That
“…They, however, will see different impact times if they have different velocities with respect to the impact position, and each of the two is looking at his own wrist watch (which clocks are calibrated in different ways).….”
- has no relation to the problem at all. The problem is as: if there are two distant events, then, if there are two relatively moving frames, if in one frame the events happened simultaneously according to this frame’s clocks’ showings, then in other frame, according to this frame’s clocks’ showings, the events happened non-simultaneously, i.e., in different time instants.
That doesn’t relate to that at that the clocks’ tick rates are different in the Lorentz factor, and, again in this thread, the “relativity of simultaneity” problem appeared as the logical inference from the relativity principle, after the principle was applied to EM effects; far before the Lorentz transformations appearance – see the SS post above and the first half of the PDF attached above:
- if, say, a short light flash happens in the middle of moving with a speed V spaceship that has a length 2L, then light arrives to the ship’s ends simultaneously. However in the frame, where this ship moves with the speed V the time instants will be different, because of light will arrive to the back end in the time interval Δtb=L/(c+V), when to the front end Δtf=L/(c-V).
However, again, the “relativity of simultaneity” exists only in rigid systems of rigid bodies, and, if, instead of the rigid ship in example above, there would be two free synchronized before separation on the distance 2L in one point clocks, which, after the synchronization are separated on the distance 2L and move in a frame with the speed V, then
- if a short light flash happens in the middle between the clocks, the time instants when the light will arrive to the clocks’ ends will be non-simultaneous – as that will be in the “stationary” frame above; and, besides, the events that are simultaneous according to the moving clocks showings will be simultaneous according to the “stationary” clocks showings;
- independently on that the moving clocks will tick slower again in the Lorentz factor.
It is evident, that the “relativity of simultaneity” is completely mutual in the frames – and the “time dilation” in the SR [really not, of course, some senseless “time dilation”, but real slowing down of moving in the absolute 3D space clocks’ tick rates] is mutual, according, again to the relativity principle in the frames also.
However here is the next fundamental difference between these physical effects. When form the relativity of simultaneity no logical. physical, etc. contradictions follow, from the SR postulates that there is no absolute Matter’s spacetime and that all/every inertial reference frames are absolutely completely equivalent and legitimate any number of absurd consequences directly and unambiguously follow, say, - the “Dingle objection” to the SR, more see the SS posts in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_counter-argument_against_Dingles_old_objection_to_Relativity_Theory#view=5d52ef8a2ba3a156031c80fd , and from this fact rigorously follows that the relativity principle isn’t absolutely completely valid – as that the SR postulates, and so, by rigorous proof by contradiction, Matter’s spacetime is absolute and the frames aren’t completely equivalent.
This fact allows so to observe the absolute motion, and to measure the absolute speed in the 3D space, of, say, a pair of free clocks in the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime – see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Sergey Shevchenko
Dear Sergey,
My view as expressed in my previous contribution on which you are reacting is based on the first section of Einstein's 1905 paper on STR, in which he starts from what is called a kinematic approach, in which clocks play an essential role. I think this was a revolutionary idea which still is the basis of RT (even of GTR, although their it seems to need some mending).
As you can read in e.g. F. Suppe, The structure of scientific theories, 1977, physics needs to involve measuring instruments in its descriptions, a need Einstein evidently felt 70 years earlier. This is particularly evident with quantum mechanics and RT, where we are unable to see the objects we are dealing with because they are either too small or too far away to be studied with the naked eye.
As I understand, you evidently do not agree with the necessity to take up the `measuring instruments we use' within the mathematical description. That's OK with me. Maybe you stumble into a theory describing unobserved reality (probably you think you did so). I, however, hope that you will allow me to follow Einstein in his idea of what he later formulated as `point coincidences (of physical events and pointer positions of measuring instruments)', establishing a connection between `what there is' and `what we see'.
Dear Sergey Shevchenko:
There is no physical reason to guarantee that the speed of light, whether finite or infinite, can determine how the simultaneity is resulted. So far, that such simultaneity is determined because of speed of light being finite, as claimed by relativity, is only a result of mathematical derivation. (How come the finite speed of sound in air cannot determine simultaneity?) What if such mathematical derivation is mistaken? That relativity thought it could so derived is because it relies on its own second postulate. What if relativity actually rejects this second postulate with its own mathematical work, which is boldly recorded in its original paper of 1905?
Dear Willem,
You write next time some unusual for physicists propositions, as, say, prescribed to Einstein such strange thing that
“…physics needs to involve measuring instruments in its descriptions, a need Einstein evidently felt 70 years earlier.…..”
- was exclusively important for Einstein. That everything at studying of Matter needs to involve measuring instruments in its descriptions was, of course, known for Einstein, however he practically for sure didn’t think that in this case he discoveries something new and fundamental; he, practically for sure knew, that that was known thousands of years before him. As well as that
“…As I understand, you evidently do not agree with the necessity to take up the `measuring instruments we use' within the mathematical description …..”
- sorry, seems as too strange; believe me, as any other physicist I know what are measurements, etc.
At that you refer on some mainstream philosophical publication as on some “ground” for your propositions; when any indeed physicists never address to mainstream philosophy aimed at to obtain some help in his researches. All, what was/is necessary for physics from philosophy, was/is the answers on the indeed philosophical questions “What is “Matter?” and “what is consciousness? – and further so the answer on the question “why sometimes people seems as quite adequately to the reality study Matter and at that mathematics is extremely effective?” as well.
No of these questions were/are answered in the mainstream, in this philosophy both “Matter” and “Consciousness” were/are till now fundamentally transcendent/uncertain/irrational; and so when physics was developed on a next fundamental level, and quite naturally the questions above became interesting for physicists, the physicist themselves attempted to answer on the fundamental questions above. The attempts really failed as well, though.
In spite the above, in the mainstream philosophy indeed there exist a huge number of philosophers and publications in “Epistemology”, “Philosophy of Science”, etc., including, say, your reference in the last post, where the philosophers, i.e. some people who never did any researches learn real scientists – how they must to do researches; what, for any normal scientist is simply ridiculous.
What are Matter and Consciousness, and what are most of other fundamental – and so Meta-scientific phenomena/notions as well, is answered and clarified in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s “The Information as Absolute” conception https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260930711_the_Information_as_Absolute DOI 10.5281/zenodo.268904, and now for physicists, and for other scientists, that is enough to study Matter and consciousness having no principal problems that would impede to do that.
So from what you write seems you aren’t a physicist, but a philosopher, when this thread is intended for physicists; and possibly it would be better if you take part in some other thread on the RG, say, in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible#view=5e468b9d36d235248b691c0b
- where philosophical problems often are discussed.
-?
Cheers
Dear Cameron Rebigsol,
“…There is no physical reason to guarantee that the speed of light, whether finite or infinite, can determine how the simultaneity is resulted. So far, that such simultaneity is determined because of speed of light being finite, as claimed by relativity, is only a result of mathematical derivation. …..”
- it seems you read [if read] the SS posts above not attentively enough. So again: that the speed of light is constant was experimentally measured yet in XIX century, “mathematically” that was used in Maxwell equations, etc. More about mathematics in this case see, e.g., the yesterday SS post in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_proof_of_non_existence_of_the_absolute_reference_frame_or_no_one_has_found_the_proof_yet#view=599d6998ed99e17fc40629d5
And in XIX century from this experimental fact and from other experimental fact “relativity principle” it was known that in different reference frames, when, say, if in the middle between two distant points in some moving frame a short light flash happens, then the events, when the light arrives to the points, are simultaneous in this frame and non-simultaneous in other frame - where the first frame moves. Again, see the SS posts above and the first half in the attached PDF.
“…(How come the finite speed of sound in air cannot determine simultaneity?) ….”
- acoustic experiments have no relation to the experiments with light, besides that if the experiment above is made with sound between distant points in some closed room [which drags the air] the simultaneity is indeed observed. So, say, in XIX century there was the hypothesis that “explained” experiments with the light by that Earth drags ether. The hypothesis is wrong, and the “relativity of simultaneity” was – not explained, but correctly described, in Voigt transformations, 1887, and further in Lorentz transformations 1904 and.
“…That relativity thought it could so derived is because it relies on its own second postulate….”
- again, the SR is based on two – principally derived only from experiments - postulates above – and the Voigt and Lorentz theories are, in fact, based on these postulates as well, – again, that Maxwell equations [what was used by Voigt and Lorentz] aren’t invariant at Galileo transformations was known yet in XIX century also. It is impossible to derive correct transformations, and so kinematics, basing only on one postulate.
“…. What if relativity actually rejects this second postulate with its own mathematical work, which is boldly recorded in its original paper of 1905? ...”
- again, “relativity” doesn’t “derive” or “reject” the fact that the measured speed of light is constant in inertial reference frames.
That is another thing, that in the theories above the speed of light is postulated as constant speed, what is really wrong; and so in the 1905 year paper seems first time in physics some magic was introduced – that there exist some magic Essence “light”, and moving bodies must contracted and moving clocks must slow down their ticks to provide this Essence’s constant speed.
Further in Minkowski’s SR version, which is standard in physics now, as such magic Essence the relativity principle is postulated , when to provide the principle’s validness in all frames by some magic ways in moving frames must be the “space contraction”, “time dilation”, etc. – when for anybody, who understands what are the fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” such claims/ the SR postulates are nothing more than some fantastic wordings.
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts.
Cheers
Dear Sergey Shevchenko
“ it seems you read [if read] the SS posts above not attentively enough. So again: that the speed of light is constant was experimentally measured yet in XIX century,” “
You missed my point. Point number 1, I did not say light has no finite speed; point number 2, Why the constancy of finite speed of light must make the simultaneity lose absoluteness. Any physical reason other than mathematical work, which, however, may be mistaken? Too many things can be seen as moving at finite speed with respect to an observer, why light is the only thing that can cause such loss? You said because mathematics says so. I know that. The reason mathematics can say so is because it relies on the second postulate for its derivation. The postulate is a postulate, meaning not an absolute rigid physical fact that cannot be altered. Indeed, as I pointed out in the previous answer to you, relativity rejects the second postulate with relativity’s own mathematics. While light has finite speed, it does not mean that physics has established that nothing can travel faster than light. Jet stream from blazars can travel faster than light in observation. But to protect the falsified relativity, relativists need to explain it as an illusion with relativity. Now, could you explain why experiments in XIX must be accepted as evidence showing light possessing finite speed and thus―without any logical reason―taken the maximum speed for anything in the universe? Yes, you would say, again, relativity says so, but I must ask why speed of jet stream (consisting of material particles but not light) of blazars cannot be taken as material evidence against relativity's claim? Now the mainstream falls into such endless circular arguments: When evidence shows up to have the speed limit removed, use a wrong theory to have the evidence destroyed then prove nothing can travel at speed higher than light. Yes, relativity is dead wrong, because it rejects its own second postulate with its own mathematics.
“So, say, in XIX century there was the hypothesis that “explained” experiments with the light by that Earth drags ether. The hypothesis is wrong,”
The hypothesis is NOT wrong, but it is just wrongfully rejected. The Doppler effect equation for light, which is confirmed by Ives-Stilweld experiment, can be perfectly derived relying on the existence of Aether (your ether) with method as “classically” as deriving Doppler effect equation for sound traveling in air. The equation confirmed by Ives-Stilweld experiment is thought to have been established by relativity. As relativity rejects its own second postulate, the same equation brought up by this theory can be considered invalid. Under such circumstance, the same equation but precisely derived with the classic method can be good evidence proving the existence of Aether.
“- again, “relativity” doesn’t “derive” or “reject” the fact that the measured speed of light is constant in inertial reference frames.”
Again, relativity’s mathematical work does reject the second postulate but, unfortunately, not knowing it. To make it more unfortunate, so many scientists do not see it. Or possibly, they see it, but do not want to admit it. Relativity’s ultimate derivation is to show speed of light c=0. How valid can relativity be? The evidence is ironclad.
“That is another thing, that in the theories above the speed of light is postulated as constant speed, what is really wrong; and so in the 1905 year paper seems first time in physics some magic was introduced – that there exist some magic Essence “light”, and moving bodies must contracted and moving clocks must slow down their ticks to provide this Essence’s constant speed.”
Yes, a falsified theory is taken as magic, but new evidence removing the speed limit, such as jet stream from blazars, is taken as illusion.
Hi Aleksandar, I attach a brief answer for you recounting my understanding that the notion of Free-Fall, is completely misused by Einstein.
Dear Cameron Rebigsol,
- you seems again don’t read the SS posts above attentively enough, and so again write something that isn’t relevant to the posts – and so to the objective reality.
“…You missed my point. Point number 1, I did not say light has no finite speed; …”
- that is inessential, and such proposition is absent in the SS post above, however that
“…..point number 2, Why the constancy of finite speed of light must make the simultaneity lose absoluteness. Any physical reason other than mathematical work, which, however, may be mistaken? Too many things can be seen as moving at finite speed with respect to an observer, why light is the only thing that can cause such loss?...”
- is essential and was commented. So again – mathematics isn’t physics, physics is fundamentally experimental science. That is another case that the same experiments can be differently – and so erroneously, there can be only one correct interpretation - interpreted, including in physical theories;
[And so in the SS posts above principally cannot, and aren’t such allegations about which you claim as that are SS’s ones, as that “…You said because mathematics says so…..”]
- when in the SS posts above quite clearly it is explained that the fact of the “relativity of simultaneity” follows from experimental data that the measured one-way speed of light doesn’t depend on – moves something or not, if this something and who measures are a moving rigid body/system of bodies; again see first half of the attached PDF in the SS post 3 days ago now.
A next exampole - the measured along, say, West-East direction one-way speed of light is equal to the same standard value always, in spite of Earth changes its speed around Sun on 60 km/s.
- Etc., all the rest in your last post is something like the above, and so can be non-commented, the SS posts – as every other RG member’s posts – are mostly intended for readers, and not only for concrete members. Besides that
“…Yes, a falsified theory is taken as magic…”
- that doesn’t relate to every theory that is erroneous; only a few are based on some postulated irrational effects, including the SR/GR, where, say, reference frames by some magic ways/forces transform the spacetime, and the transformed spacetime transforms real material objects. And that
“… but new evidence removing the speed limit, such as jet stream from blazars, is taken as illusion. ….”
- indeed, in some official physical publications and pop-scientific media such assertion exists, however to claim that as some indeed convincingly observed physical fact till now there is no sufficient data. When, besides seems one-two blazars, all other blazars have quite usual [in this case/sense] parameters of the jets.
Cheers
@Sergey Shevchenko
Dear Sergey,
In my opinion my answer to the question of the present thread is purely physical: what is philosophical about looking at a wrist watch or at a clock at a train station's platform?
You are perfectly right pointing out that the present thread is not meant to discuss philosophical questions (which, in my opinion, I did not). You suggested a different thread. You would do me a favour if you would be so kind to tell me on that latter thread what, in your opinion, is philosophical about `reading time on clocks'.
Regards, Willem
Dear Sergey
Concerning the points that I said you missed, you said “that is inessential”.
They are very essential, because you use the concept of “spacetime” in “all/every material objects always move in the spacetime with identical 4-speeds that are equal to a standard speed” found in the article you refer me to with the link https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics
Spacetime is a concept from Minkowski space, which is based on special relativity. If relativity fails, the concept of spacetime, so the 4-D space, is necessarily invalid, then no “maximum speed”, or speed limit can be theoretically claimed in the universe by any theory, although, speed of light is found finite and constant.
That “speed of light is constant” is correct only on the sense of being “with respect to” the bulk of medium relying on which light propagates, just like speed of sound being constant with respect to the Bulk of air. That speed of light is constant with respect to any inertial frame is wrong. This second postulate is even refuted by relativity’s own mathematical work.
The question of this thread is “relativity of simultaneity”, not to promote 4-D space concept, and therefore we must first clear whether simultaneity is relative or absolute. That simultaneity is relative and depends on the speed of observer is a conclusion from relativity. If we all accept that simultaneity is independent of the observers’ speed and therefore absolute, the argument brought up by “relativity of simultaneity” would not be needed at all.
- in the SS post above it was written seems clearly enough a few points
- there is no too interesting for physics about looking at a wrist watch or at a clock at a train station's platform, and
- though for mainstream philosophers such things are indeed often fundamentally important and they write about quite banal for scientists things as about some revelations that they discovered. As, say the outstanding philosophical finding “Scientific Method” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
1. Define a question
2. Gather information and resources (observe)
3. Form an explanatory hypothesis
4. Test the hypothesis by performing an experiment and collecting data in a reproducible manner
5. Analyze the data
6. Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
7. Publish results
8. Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
- when practically all the points/steps above even bacteria do, besides the point 7, because of they haven’t paper or PC with monitors. Mammals carry out the point 7 , and teach each other rather effectively. However philosophical publications about the scientific method are numerous.
When you - as some ground for your writing - pointed a next publication of a next mainstream philosopher, from what seems as rather probable that you are some philosopher also. In the thread that is pointed in the SS post above indeed rather often some mainstream philosophical problems that relate to the SR are discussed, when in other threads such posts only make threads lesser convenient for reading; and, when are commented that doubles the inconvenience.
Cheers
Dear Cameron,
Again it seems that you didn’t read the SS posts in this thread – and links in the posts - attentively enough, when in the posts all what you write is commented already. Though yeah, because of the last seems as unnecessarily vivid posting to read the posts is necessary to click mouse at least a few times.
So, again that
“…Spacetime is a concept from Minkowski space, which is based on special relativity.…”
- that isn’t so [again - more comments see the SS last , May 28, August 13, November 6, and November 7 posts in the thread
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_most_precise_definition_of_time_And_what_is_the_easiest_way_to_describe_time ; the thread isn’t too spammed.
Including the 1908 “Minkowski space” is the space that was found by Poincaré in 1905 [published in 1906] “Sur la dynamique de l’ electron”; Jourmal Rendiconti del circole Matematico di Palermo;
- where Poincaré showed that the Lorentz transformations can be derived by condition of invariance of the quadratic form s2=x2+y2+z2 –t2 (speed of light c=1) in 4D space, where time coordinate is imaginary [mathematically] “it”. But for Poincaré that was only interesting mathematical fact, he understood that, of course, time cannot be imaginary and Matter’s spacetime is Euclidian.
When Minkowski postulated this imaginary space as real Matter’s spacetime, and nothing more; physics from Newton works in the 4D Matter’s spacetime, including – see the link above, in the SR just Newton’s definition of time
“…time, of itself, and from its own nature flows equably …”
is used, with the fantastic “correction” - this flow depends on – moves or not some reference frame, in moving frame this flow is “dilated”. When time doesn’t flow to anywhere fundamentally.
Again – see the SS posts above: the scientific definitions of the indeed fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time” are given only in the indeed philosophical SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception, the link see the SS posts above. At that both these phenomena are essentially similar, “Time is Space for changing states of everything that changes”. Including material objects that, because of the energy conservation law, constantly always change their intrinsic states and positions in 3D space – and so move in time [though in Matter two “times” act – see that metrics below, but that is inessential in this case];
- and, since every material object is some disturbance in the dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements [FLE]”, which have equal 4 “sizes”, that so the objects constantly always move with 4D speeds of light in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) [“cτ” is the “coordinate time”]; of the Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) [and, in parallel the objects move in the “true time”, ct, with the speed of light] with “equal footing” .
“…no “maximum speed”, or speed limit can be theoretically claimed in the universe by any theory, although, speed of light is found finite and constant...”
- nothing that is basic in some theory can be “claimed by the theory”, including the SR postulate about constancy of the speed of light in the 3D space, and the postulate in the SS&VT informational physical model that everything moves with 4D velocities having absolute be equal to the speed of light [including the speed of light is 4D - (0, vX,vY,vZ) ] in the 4D sub-spacetime are derived only as fitting of the theories with existent experimental data.
Again – postulates in any theory can follow only for experiments, if the theory is true. If a theory is based on wrong postulates, that some mathematical approaches can be effective, though; the Dirac’s antiparticles and “Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation” cases are examples of such facts.
But the first was rather accidental, the second was – and is in official physics till now - some mathematical trick; and what these fundamental findings are becomes be clear only in the SS&VT physical model above, see, e.g., SS post November 23, 2019 in https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_there_a_solid_proof_of_non_existence_of_the_absolute_reference_frame_or_no_one_has_found_the_proof_yet#view=5e49d280aa1f095b4345c363
“…the question of this thread is “relativity of simultaneity”, not to promote 4-D space concept, and therefore we must first clear whether simultaneity is relative or absolute. …..”
- how many times is necessary to explain here that the “relativity of simultaneity” follows at least from the known in XIX century experimental fact that measured one-way speed of light doesn’t depend on at least Earth’s motion and from the basic physical relativity principle?
- and that it is “absolute” – if there are any number of relatively moving frames, then same distant events that are simultaneous in some frame will be non-simultaneous in other frames?
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, including attached PDF in the post 5 days ago now, where in the first half it is shown on for populace level – how the “relativity of simultaneity” appears, in the second half the main postulates of the SS&VT informational physical model are given.
Cheers
Dear Sergey,
You keep complaining I did not read your posts attentively enough. Sorry, people come here to debate and comment on what they think correct or incorrect, but not to “attentively” study and absorb a new theory. The posts you recommend are all your own and too overwhelming.
Although you deny you are here promoting your belief on 4D space, you have put up a major portion of you comment “attentively” defending and promoting the 4D space and use it to support your argument. If your 4D space concept is gone, your other arguments would have serious problem.
With your effort defending and promoting the 4D space, you have avoided challenging even one time about my claim relativity being invalid. Since you avoid this, I have to think that you do not want to place your 4D concept in the test.
Mathematically, I do not object using 4D space as a specific way to handle some calculating problem. I fully realize that, for calculation purpose, one can device a n-dimension space. But, no one should use mathematics to replace physical existence ― I have emphasized this multiple times.
“- how many times is necessary to explain here that the “relativity of simultaneity” follows at least from the known in XIX century experimental fact that measured one-way speed of light doesn’t depend on at least Earth’s motion and from the basic physical relativity principle?”
I did try to avoid answering the same question before, because it will take a lot of explanation on how mistakenly all those experiments have been interpreted into concluding that “speed of light doesn’t depend on at least Earth’s motion”. Frankly, the Michelson-Morrey experiment and the Fizeau experiment are enough to contradict such conclusion. The M-M experiment thought its apparatus is devised for passing through an Aether medium, but actually not. Instead, the medium is air. The Fizeau experiment fully witnesses this. You mentioned before speed of light being constant is a calculation result done by Maxewell. His calculation is great, but this result cannot give you a conclusion that “speed of light doesn’t depend on at least Earth’s motion”
“if there are any number of relatively moving frames, then same distant events that are simultaneous in some frame will be non-simultaneous in other frames?”
In case the above statement is not a question but ended with a period, I cannot accept such a statement. My point of view is if there are any number of relatively moving frames, then same distant events that are simultaneous in some frame will be simultaneous in all other frames, although, OBSERVATION instrument may record them as having happened at different instants. In this circumstance, the events, or phenomenon, may not be recorded as genuinely identical among those frames. Possibly, the most famous argument in this concern presented by relativity is the lightening sparks seen on a railroad track observed by a moving passenger. Well, the sparks observed by a stationary observer should have the same color, but the sparks must be seen, or observed, having different colors by a moving passenger.
Dear Cameron,
“…Sorry, people come here to debate and comment on what they think correct or incorrect, but not to “attentively” study and absorb a new theory.….”
- the RG net isn’t , say, Facebook net, it is intended for scientists to exchange by scientific information. So the posters’ comments should contain such information, including must be grounded substantively, for what in most cases some references on papers, where discussed thread’s question problems are given in more details, than that is possibly in a thread’s comment, are necessary.
That is another case, that sometimes some members doesn’t understand the comments even when the comments are grounded. Mostly because of when they have problems with understanding of official sciences, including of physics. But, again, the SS posts are addressed first of all to all readers, and when some member doesn’t understand what is written, that is inessential. As to some other points in your last post:
“…Mathematically, I do not object using 4D space as a specific way to handle some calculating problem. I fully realize that, for calculation purpose, one can device a n-dimension space. But, no one should use mathematics to replace physical existence ― I have emphasized this multiple times. …..”
- that mathematics isn’t physics is written in SS posts a number of times here, however it is written also that mathematics is extremely effective tool at description, modeling, analyzing, etc., physical objects/events/processes.
Including 5D [mathematical] Euclidian space is completely adequate to the real absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which is as it is since
- the logical system “Matter” is organized/constructed in accordance with concrete set of concrete logical rules/links/constants, and
– it with a very non-zero probability – as a whole and every material object - exists and constantly changes in fundamental depth as some system of disturbances in dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], which have equal 4 “sizes”, very probably be equal to the Planck length, and which sequentially flip in concrete disturbances, say, in particles, with the same time interval, very probably be equal to the Planck time.
At that, again, Space and Time [“Time is Space for changing states”] are rather similar absolutely fundamental Rules/possibilities, including when something changes, it makes that in fundamentally non-zero time interval, and so any changing object always move in time - just as when moves in space.
Because of the above, motion of all material objects in Matter’s spacetime proceeds with “equal footing” – what is postulated in official physics, and that is written in physical textbooks; the SS&VT informational physical model only explains – why/how that is so.
Matter’s spacetime is specific in that in it two “times” exist and act – the “true time” and “coordinate” time; and in the SR, because is based on postulated very mighty relativity principle, two times are used also – “simply time”, i.e. “corrected” “Newton’s time”, and “proper” time, which are some mixes of the real “times” above, and so in the SR Matter’s spacetime is 4D Minkowski space; which itself is indeed well defined mathematical construction, but, since is imaginary mathematically, is at that unphysical.
“…Frankly, the Michelson-Morrey experiment and the Fizeau experiment are enough to contradict such conclusion. The M-M experiment thought its apparatus is devised for passing through an Aether medium, but actually not. Instead, the medium is air. The Fizeau experiment fully witnesses this. …”
- frankly, both experiments – and numerous more precise experiments after, now the Lorentz invariance is confirmed with precision better 10-15, are in full accordance with the SS&VT informational physical model, when, of course, that “Instead, the medium is air” is simply unphysical proposition, including in the official – correct in this case - physics.
When some real material objects, which move in the absolute space with different speeds, and so, because of all/every material objects move in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) with 4D velocities, which have identical absolute values be equal to the speed of light, having always momentums P=mc [bold is 4D vector] and energies E=Pc=mc2,
- move with different speeds along the cτ-axis, and so occur in different cτ points.
Since clocks are material objects that show how they move in the cτ-dimension – just as, say, odometer in a car show passed way in space summing of number of a car’s wheel rotations – the differently moving clocks show different “times”, and make that quite adequately to the objective reality.
However besides the above in Matter once more “cτ-time” effect exists. Because of that every disturbance a “particle” in the 4D FLE lattice is, a next time in this thread, some close-loop cyclic algorithm, every particle is also some “4D gyroscope” [though not a vector, that is impossible in the 4D space, so in the quotes],
which is always somehow oriented relating to its 4D motion directions, and so T- particles, i.e. that were created by some moments, which were directed long the cτ-axis, when move in the 3D space, say, along X-axis with a speed V, rotate in the (X, cτ) plane.
If particles compose a rigid non-pointlike body, they rotate whole body; so, say, if the body is a rod having length L, than the rod’s front end quite really is “younger” in the coordinate time on the Voigt- Lorentz decrement VL/c2 , if clocks on the rod’s ends show correctly where they are, their showings will differ on the decrement above;
– what is observed as “if there are any number of relatively moving frames [where clocks are synchronized completely adequately to the reality], then same distant events that are simultaneous in some frame will be non-simultaneous in other frames”.
Rather interesting case [a sheriff and two bad boys] how the relativity principle and the Voigt-Lorentz decrement act see the Sec. 4 Comparison of Lorentz and Tangherlini transformations in https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317067896_The_notion_speed_and_the_Lorentz_transformations DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10250.47043
More see the SS posts above and links in the posts, the last SS post in the thread https://www.researchgate.net/post/Number_of_universe_dimensions#view=5e4c2778979fdca17d0f2de9 is useful as well.
Cheers
Dear Sergey
“the RG net isn’t , say, Facebook net, it is intended for scientists to exchange by scientific information.”
Thank you for supporting my view. It is a place for exchange information, not a place “’attentively’ study and absorb a new theory”. Your recommendation on your own writings has been more than overwhelming, I do not need to read more to get your point. In particular, I decline to accept a 4D space as a physical reality.
“- that mathematics isn’t physics is written in SS posts a number of times here,”
This is your veil that you never hesitate to tear down through your comments.
‘Including 5D [mathematical] Euclidian space ... organized/constructed in accordance with concrete set of concrete logical rules/links/constants, and”
What a typical mathematical statement! Is this also a physical reality?
– it with a very non-zero probability – as a whole and every material object - exists and constantly changes in fundamental depth … in dense lattice of 4D fundamental logical elements [FLE], … very probably … Planck length, … sequentially flip … with the same time interval, very probably be equal to the Planck time.”
Full of guessing statements but with absolute absence of physical evidence.
“At that, again, Space and Time [“Time is Space for changing states”] are rather similar absolutely fundamental Rules/possibilities, including when something changes, it makes that in fundamentally non-zero time interval, and so any changing object always move in time - just as when moves in space.”
Women and men share many things in common, but women are not men. Human beings and monkeys share many things in common, but human beings and monkeys are not the same. You and me share many things in common, but you are you, I am I.
“Because of the above, motion of all material objects in Matter’s spacetime proceeds with “equal footing” – what is postulated in official physics, and that is written in physical textbooks; the SS&VT informational physical model only explains – why/how that is so.”
None of this means that spacetime must be a valid physical concept. Light cone is a concept matching your 4D space well. I can find far more publications supporting light cones than the “equal footing”, but they can all be invalid after relativity is proven self-refuted.
“Matter’s spacetime is specific in that in it two “times” exist and act – the “true time” and “coordinate” time... “simply time”, i.e. “corrected” “Newton’s time”, and “proper” time, which are some mixes of the real “times” … 4D Minkowski space; which itself is indeed well defined mathematical construction, but, since is imaginary mathematically, is at that unphysical.”
Being so mixed, all time concepts in above statement are created and mixed with human imagination, but none of them, the term and the corresponding "mixture", is produced by nature. Now, you admit that whoever’s spacetime is non-physical existence but “is imaginary mathematically” and “is at that unphysical”.
“- frankly, both experiments – and numerous more precise experiments after, now the Lorentz invariance is confirmed with precision better 10-15, are in full accordance with the SS&VT informational physical model, when, of course, that “Instead, the medium is air” is simply unphysical proposition, including in the official – correct in this case - physics.”
Unless, independent of relativity, you can show me a theory that can lead to Lorentz factor with valid derivation, this mathematical expression is so far invalid to me. This is because relativity can lead to c=0, but Lorentz factor must have c in its denominator, violating the most fundamental rule in mathematics.
When you claim “…’Instead, the medium is air’ is simply unphysical proposition”, possibly you do not get my point. My point is this: Has anyone performed the M-M experiment with moving air flow like the water flow in the Fizeau experiment?
Thanks
Cameron
Dear Cameron,
“…[SS quote] the RG net isn’t , say, Facebook net, it is intended for scientists to exchange by scientific information.” [and quote]
Thank you for supporting my view. It is a place for exchange information, not a place “’attentively’ study and absorb a new theory”….”
- the SS’s passage above evidently doesn’t supports your view, it by no means relates to exchanging by only information that is spelled out in textbooks and is interpreted in some “official” publications. Utmost scientific information is just in new theories – if they correct, of course. The well known example is this thread – an exchange by information “how the “relativity of the simultaneity” problem is solved in the SR” is senseless on the RG, for that there exist innumerous other places – from textbooks to “Discovery” TV channel;
- when the SR by no means solves this problem, it only postulates the existence of this effect. This problem’s solution, i.e. the physical reasons, effects, and conditions when and why the “relativity of the simultaneity” happens, exists only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s indeed new – and correct - informational physical model. Besides:
- you next time read next SS post not attentively enough, and, moreover, rather strangely truncate the passages in the post, as
“…[SS quote]‘Including 5D [mathematical] Euclidian space ... organized/constructed in accordance with concrete set of concrete logical rules/links/constants, and” [end quote]
What a typical mathematical statement! Is this also a physical reality?...”
- when the real SS quote is as
“…Including 5D [mathematical] Euclidian space is completely adequate to the real absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct), which is as it is since
- the logical system “Matter” is organized/constructed in accordance with concrete set of concrete logical rules/links/constants, and …..”,
- etc. – where it is explained why Matter’s spacetime is as it is.
Such truncation seems as “too strange” to continue discussions with you; however, since some other readers can think that what you write is correct, it is necessary to comments more.
“…[SS quote] “Because of the above, motion of all material objects in Matter’s spacetime proceeds with “equal footing” – what is postulated in official physics, and that is written in physical textbooks; the SS&VT informational physical model only explains – why/how that is so.”[end quote]
None of this means that spacetime must be a valid physical concept. Light cone is a concept matching your 4D space well. I can find far more publications supporting light cones than the “equal footing”, but they can all be invalid after relativity is proven self-refuted. …..”
- again, in the SR quite correctly the in the “equal footing” is postulated, including, when the “light cones” are considered/used. The equation for a cone in Minkowski space is a(ct)2-bx2-cy2-dz2=0, the equation for the light cone is when a=b=c=d=1, what means just the equal footing.
“…“[SS quote] Matter’s spacetime is specific in that in it two “times” exist and act – the “true time” and “coordinate” time... “simply time”, i.e. “corrected” “Newton’s time”, and “proper” time, which are some mixes of the real “times” … 4D Minkowski space; which itself is indeed well defined mathematical construction, but, since is imaginary mathematically, is at that unphysical.” [end quote]….”
- you again make “too strange” truncation, the correct quote is
… Matter’s spacetime is specific in that in it two “times” exist and act – the “true time” and “coordinate” time; and in the SR, because is based on postulated very mighty relativity principle, two times are used also – “simply time”, i.e. “corrected” “Newton’s time”, and “proper” time, which are some mixes of the real “times” above, and so in the SR Matter’s spacetime is 4D Minkowski space; which itself is indeed well defined mathematical construction, but, since is imaginary mathematically, is at that unphysical….
- and the your comment to truncated SS post passage above
“…Now, you admit that whoever’s spacetime is non-physical existence but “is imaginary mathematically” and “is at that unphysical”...”
- is again “too strange”, you again claim your wrong allegation as SS’s be “admitted”, when in the passage quite clearly is written that not “whoever’s spacetime”, but in this case only Minkowski space “is imaginary mathematically” and “is at that unphysical”;
- when Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) is absolutely real, any dynamic informational patterns/systems, including the informational system “Matter”, can exist and change only in some real concrete spacetime, as that is rigorously shown in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception.
“…Unless, independent of relativity, you can show me a theory that can lead to Lorentz factor with valid derivation, this mathematical expression is so far invalid to me…”
- rather strange claim, in this thread a number of times it is written in the SS posts that the base of the correct mechanics, which follows from a few quite consistent with existent experimental data postulates, including where the Lorentz transformations are derived, and it is clarified – what they signify, when they are applicable completely and when non-completely, etc., and from which – in contrast to the SR – no any absurd logical, physical, etc. consequence follow,
- is developed in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model https://www.researchgate.net/publication/273777630_The_Informational_Conception_and_Basic_Physics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16494. Though in the model a number of other fundamental physical problems are clarified and the paper so is rather long, in this case it is enough to read 6 first pages in
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259463954_Measurement_of_the_absolute_speed_is_possible DOI 10.5281/zenodo.48709; in the last pages two experiments, where the absolute motion can be observed, with estimation of possible errors, are presented; and
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317620440_About_some_conventions_in_mechanics DOI 10.5281/zenodo.1142628.
Besides it is useful to read the second half in the attached PDF, which contains useful comments to the mechanics.
Matter is rather simple logical system, and to derive/ to understand what are the basic mechanical equations, including the Lorentz transformations, it is enough to know the Pythagoras theorem. And to understand – what are the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, and how they are actualized in concrete informational system “Matter” is necessary also, though.
Cheers
Dear Sergey
>>- when the SR by no means solves this problem, it only postulates the existence of this effect. This problem’s solution, i.e. the physical reasons, effects, and conditions when and why the “relativity of the simultaneity” happens, exists only in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s indeed new – and correct - informational physical model.
OK, then, please accept special relativity being invalid for the following reasons: (1) According to you, SP can only postulate the existence of this effect, but then, (2) again, according to you, Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s confirms this postulate being correct with various means. However, when SR is found rejecting the 2nd postulate with ironclad mathematical evidence in its original paper, the confirmation and all the correctness you mentioned will be crushed―simply, second postulate cannot physically work out, said so SR.
>>- you next time read next SS post not attentively enough, and, moreover, rather strangely truncate the passages in the post, as
I did not do “strange” truncation, but putting up the entire quote from your answer just makes my replying letter unnecessarily too long. If you feel the need, you can regard my quote from you as as having been the complete message from you.
>>- is again “too strange”, you again claim your wrong allegation as SS’s be “admitted”, when in the passage quite clearly is written that not “whoever’s spacetime”, but in this case only Minkowski space “is imaginary mathematically” and “is at that unphysical”;
No problem! If “only Minkowski space ‘is imaginary mathematically‘ and ‘is at that unphysical”, you must mean anyone else’s spacetime is physically confirmed and correct. Then, you have to argue with SP why it has mathematical evidence leading to reject the second postulate.
>>- when Matter’s absolute [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct) is absolutely real, any dynamic informational patterns/systems, including the informational system “Matter”, can exist and change only in some real concrete spacetime, as that is rigorously shown in the SS&VT “The Information as Absolute” conception.
Now, I am at a point to ask: besides you have avoided discussing the validity of SR, will you claim GR being valid or invalid? Spacetime is not found as a concept appearing in SR but in GR. It seems to me that you have rejected 4D as the mathematical frame based on which GR is derived but claimed GR being more correctly realized with a 5D model.
>>- rather strange claim, in this thread a number of times it is written in the SS posts that the base of the correct mechanics, which follows from a few quite consistent with existent experimental data postulates, including where the Lorentz transformations are derived, and it is clarified – what they signify, when they are applicable completely and when non-completely, etc., and from which – in contrast to the SR – no any absurd logical, physical, etc. consequence follow,
“…From which – in contrast to the SR – no any absurd logical, physical, etc. consequence follow”? So you are here to declare SR being incorrect, but instead, your finding being correct. So, is its second postulate correct or incorrect? Compared with the quoted message found at the beginning of this reply, you are saying that you confirm the second postulate being correct with your unique exploration, only that SR is unable to prove or explain it with physical evidence.
>>Besides it is useful to read the second half in the attached PDF, which contains useful comments to the mechanics.
Sorry, before we can clarify the understanding of the second postulate, it does not help me to further reading any more writing that you recommend.
>>Matter is rather simple logical system, and to derive/ to understand what are the basic mechanical equations, including the Lorentz transformations, it is enough to know the Pythagoras theorem. And to understand – what are the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, and how they are actualized in concrete informational system “Matter” is necessary also, though.
So strange, Lorentz transformation works well in 5D space according to you but must be invalid in a 3D world according to special relativity. By the way, why do you avoid answering my following question: Do you know anyone having performed a M-M experiment with moving air flow like what is shown in Fizeau experiment using moving water flow?
Dear Cameron,
- you next time wrote a number of rater strange allegations, when about what are the SR, Lorentz transformations, including the “relativity of simultaneity”, etc., it is a number of times explained/clarified in the SS posts above. Since the SS posts are intended, first of all for the thread’s readers, that seems as quiet enough already.
So a few notes to your last post:
“…OK, then, please accept special relativity being invalid for the following reasons: (1) According to you, SP can only postulate the existence of this effect,…..”
- from that the SR – and, say, the Lorentz-Poincaré theory [L-PT] as well - only postulates the existence of “relativity of simultaneity” by no means follows that the SR - and the L-PT are in this case invalid.
“…again, according to you, Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s confirms this postulate being correct with various means.…”
- In the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model that this postulate being correct isn’t simply confirmed, the existence of the effect – in contrast to the SR and the L-PT – is derived from indeed reasonable, completely consistent with all existent experimental data, and from which – again in contrast to the SR – no any absurd consequences follow – postulates; and, besides, all other postulated correctly in the SR and the L-PT things, i.e. the Lorentz transformations, “relativity of simultaneity”, and other basic relations and equations in the mechanics are derived as well.
“…Now, I am at a point to ask: besides you have avoided discussing the validity of SR, will you claim GR being valid or invalid? Spacetime is not found as a concept appearing in SR but in GR. …”, etc.
- seems as too strange claim, in every SR post the validity of the SR is considered evidently. And it is shown in every case – when and why the SR is valid and when and why isn’t.
Besides, the conception of the spacetime existed in physics implicitly all time of physics’ existence, though utmost clearly appeared only in the Minkowski SR [in L-PT Lorentz introduces “local space” and “local time” that exist locally and implicitly in the Newton- Galileo spacetime] version. That is another thing, that Minkowski at that postulated existence of a strange spacetime and a number of rather fantastic “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime”; Einstein in the GR the spacetime only develops Minkowski’s postulates, postulating next fantastic “fundamental properties”
“…So, is its second postulate correct or incorrect? …”
- if in this case that is the SR 1905 postulate that the speed of light in all/every inertial reference frame is constant, then that isn’t correct, the speed of light isn’t constant in this case, it is invariant;
“…So strange, Lorentz transformation works well in 5D space according to you but must be invalid in a 3D world according to special relativity…”
- a next strange claim, the Lorentz transformations are completely valid in all/every inertial reference frames – if frames are arranged in accordance with the Lorentz transformations; and they work in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of the absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).
“… By the way, why do you avoid answering my following question: Do you know anyone having performed a M-M experiment with moving air flow like what is shown in Fizeau experiment using moving water flow? …”
- that was answered a long time ago: experiments with light propagation in – independently on moving or static – mediums have no physical sense in this case; Fizeau could make his experiment, say, at a day, and next time at night, and obtain the same results, in spite of that in the cases Earth speed relating to the “flow” changes on 60 km/s.
Sorry, but, again: all what is necessary to understand – what is the SR and what is correct mechanics – is given in the SS posts above and links in the posts; when a next writhing/commenting of some strange posts shifts the information back in the thread, what is inconvenient for readers, which want to understand these points.
Cheers
If you are in a spaceship, the objects are "weightless" and would not fall. Let us assume that there is some microgravity that causes the objects to fall and strike a surface. The law of free fall that you mention is related to inertial mass being the same a gravitational mass - so all masses have the same accelerate. This law is unrelated to special relativity and does not invalidate relativity theory. Therefore, different observers may observe the the objects impacting at different times. Think of each object's impact emitting light that is received by observers located in different regions of space and having different velocities. The observers do not necessarily observe the impacts simultaneously when the impact locations are separated by a finite distance.
Dear Sergey
>> (from Cameron, Feb 25) “…Now, I am at a point to ask: besides you have avoided discussing the validity of SR, will you claim GR being valid or invalid? Spacetime is not found as a concept appearing in SR but in GR. …” (reply from Sergey)- seems as too strange claim, in every SR post the validity of the SR is considered evidently. And it is shown in every case – when and why the SR is valid and when and why isn’t. Besides, the conception of the spacetime existed in physics implicitly all time of physics’ existence, though utmost clearly appeared only in the Minkowski SR [in L-PT Lorentz introduces “local space” and “local time” that exist locally and implicitly in the Newton- Galileo spacetime] version. That is another thing, that Minkowski at that postulated existence of a strange spacetime and a number of rather fantastic “fundamental properties of the space/time/spacetime”; Einstein in the GR the spacetime only develops Minkowski’s postulates, postulating next fantastic “fundamental properties”
Nothing is strange from my question. The spacetime is a concept not appearing in the original paper of SR. SR just provides a wrong idea for “spacetime” to have been proposed by Minkowski, and GR is then born after someone forcing time to have geometrical property. If SR is incorrect, the concept of spacetime must be gone, GR then has no ground.
>>(from Cameron, Feb 25) “…So, is its second postulate correct or incorrect? …” (reply from Sergey)-- if in this case that is the SR 1905 postulate that the speed of light in all/every inertial reference frame is constant, then that isn’t correct,
Thank you very much, the second postulate is invalid. But then, I do not understand your next statement quoted in the following:
>>the speed of light isn’t constant in this case, it is invariant;
My understanding about light is like this: It has a constant speed with respect to the bulk of medium (ether, Aether, Aether…), just like sound with respect to air. As such, its speed must be measured with different value with respect to inertial frames that move at different speed with respect to such bulk.
>>“…So strange, Lorentz transformation works well in 5D space according to you but must be invalid in a 3D world according to special relativity…”
- a next strange claim, the Lorentz transformations are completely valid in all/every inertial reference frames – if frames are arranged in accordance with the Lorentz transformations; and they work in the 4D sub-spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z) of the absolute Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime with metrics (cτ,X,Y,Z,ct).
Lorentz transformation can also be derived with SR, so its validity is put in serious doubt. To make it valid, someone has to prove that time has geometrical property so that spacetime is a valid concept.
>>- that was answered a long time ago: experiments with light propagation in – independently on moving or static – mediums have no physical sense in this case; Fizeau could make his experiment, say, at a day, and next time at night, and obtain the same results, in spite of that in the cases Earth speed relating to the “flow” changes on 60 km/s.
If water is the medium in Fizeau experiment, why air is not a medium in M-M experiment? If M-M experiment is said to test Aether wind, why Fizeau experiment cannot be seen as moving through the same medium and able to test the same?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physical Sciences
- Theoretical Physics