===2 Men & a Beam===
Martin Miller
The given scenario:
Two men are walking toward each other along a
straight path. A light ray is approaching them
from the right. As the men meet in passing at
essentially a single point, the light ray is
also at a single point. The ray is therefore
equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
man sees the ray before the other does.
The scientific question:
Why do the men see the ray differently?
Hints for the unwary:
(1) The light source's motion or position or even its
existence during the given experiment is irrelevant.
(2) As far as the given experiment is concerned, there
is absolutely no difference between the use of the light
ray and the use of a baseball or a bullet.
(3) There are no clocks or rulers in the experiment, and
none are needed, so do not add any.
(4) The answer must contain the specific, unique physical
cause of the observed unique physical effect.
(5) Don't wasted our time with replies of the following sort:
>(snip) The above is merely a putrid pile of crap!
>(snip) Get a book on SR, and read it now!
>(snip) Your so-called experiment is as dumb as you!
>(snip) For a crossed E and B field, a charged particle
> will have no force on it if it's velocity is v = E/B,
> independent of its charge or mass.
>(snip) Yo mamma wears combat boots, Stooopid!
(6) The cause must be due to one or more of the three
entities given, namely, the light ray and the two men.
(Nothing else can be even a part of the cause because
nothing else is involved in the given experiment.)
"signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
>
> The given scenario:
> Two men are walking toward each other along a
> straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> from the right.
Normally light rays do not approach.
Light rays are.
Photons can approach.
What do you mean in this case?
A really approaching one-dimensional light ray?
An approaching photon?
Are you supposing that we are going to define it for you?
You have not defined right and left.
What is "from the right"?
Is it on the line connecting the men?
Is it perpendicular to the line?
Does it make an angle with the line?
Are you supposing that we are going to define it for you?
> As the men meet in passing at
> essentially a single point, the light ray is
> also at a single point.
Again, light rays cannot be at a single point.
Light rays are one-dimensional.
Photons can be "at a signle point"
What do you mean in this case?
> The ray is therefore
> equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
> man sees the ray before the other does.
What do you mean with "seeing a light ray"?
Catching a photon?
How can both men catch one photon?
> The scientific question:
> Why do the men see the ray differently?
Is "differently" the same as "before the other"?
>
> Hints for the unwary:
When you ask a question, make sure your audience does
not need to ask 15 questions to find out what you mean.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
> -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
>
> The given scenario:
> Two men are walking toward each other ...
>
Do either of the two men reveal their true identities?
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bilge
===2 Men & a Beam=== to usenet:
>-------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
>
>The given scenario:
>Two men are walking toward each other along a
>straight path. A light ray is approaching them
>from the right. As the men meet in passing at
>essentially a single point, the light ray is
>also at a single point.
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
> The ray is therefore
>equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
>man sees the ray before the other does.
>
>The scientific question:
>Why do the men see the ray differently?
Try an explanation that is physically correct and
your difficulties will go away.
>Hints for the unwary:
>(1) The light source's motion or position or even its
>existence during the given experiment is irrelevant.
Without a light source, what do you plan to use for light?
>(2) As far as the given experiment is concerned, there
>is absolutely no difference between the use of the light
>ray and the use of a baseball or a bullet.
Sure it does. Quite a bit, actually. Baseballs and bullets have
longitudinal polarizations. Light does not. That's why your
description above is totally bogus.
>(3) There are no clocks or rulers in the experiment, and
>none are needed, so do not add any.
OK.
>(4) The answer must contain the specific, unique physical
>cause of the observed unique physical effect.
The answer is the answer. If you don't like it, that's your problem,
not mine. You have a hint. Go figure it out.
>(5) Don't wasted our time with replies of the following sort:
It's not wasted. I used it to point out you are mistaken. Don't
post erroneous comments and the time will be saved all around.
>>(snip) The above is merely a putrid pile of crap!
>>(snip) Get a book on SR, and read it now!
>>(snip) Your so-called experiment is as dumb as you!
I disagree with that one. The experiment can't possibly be that dumb.
>>(snip) For a crossed E and B field, a charged particle
> > will have no force on it if it's velocity is v = E/B,
> > independent of its charge or mass.
Life's a bitch, huh?
>>(snip) Yo mamma wears combat boots, Stooopid!
>(6) The cause must be due to one or more of the three
>entities given, namely, the light ray and the two men.
>(Nothing else can be even a part of the cause because
>nothing else is involved in the given experiment.)
>
>"signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
aka "Mighty Moron"
Martin Hogbin
>
> The given scenario:
> Two men are walking toward each other along a
> straight path.
My big brother will answer your question when he comes along.
Martin Hogbin
Martin Miller
> "Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
> >
> > The given scenario:
> > Two men are walking toward each other along a
> > straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> > from the right.
> You have not defined right and left.
[etc., etc., etc.]
> Dirk Vdm
You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by
just saying that you don't know the answer.
MM
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<qJlo9.151133$8o4....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > > -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
> > >
> > > The given scenario:
> > > Two men are walking toward each other along a
> > > straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> > > from the right.
>
> > You have not defined right and left.
>
> [etc., etc., etc.]
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> You could have saved yourself a lot of typing by
> just saying that you don't know the answer.
To which question?
Dirk Vdm
Miss L.Toe
>
> The given scenario:
> Two men are walking toward each other along a
> straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> from the right. As the men meet in passing at
> essentially a single point, the light ray is
> also at a single point. The ray is therefore
> equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
> man sees the ray before the other does.
>
> The scientific question:
> Why do the men see the ray differently?
>
A. One of them blinks.
beda pietanza
> -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
>
> The given scenario:
> Two men are walking toward each other along a
> straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> from the right. As the men meet in passing at
> essentially a single point, the light ray is
> also at a single point. The ray is therefore
> equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
> man sees the ray before the other does.
>
> The scientific question:
> Why do the men see the ray differently?
>
beda:
Your simple experiment show that the light must have different
speed for differently moving observer.
Nevertheless if you follow the SR prescriptions on constructing
inertial frames where the clocks are synchronized through
the E synchro procedure, he two differently moving observer
belong to two different inertial frames and each of them can
claim that doing the measurements with his frame clocks the
speed of light is C for both of them.
So we can accept this as a conventional way to define the speed
of light in the inertial frames, no problems as long as we know it.
The strange part of this is that SR claims that the laws of physics
is the same in all inertial frames.
Also here we can say: the laws of physics is not the same for
differently moving observers, but if we put them in the inertial
frames with (E synchro) then the laws of physics appear the same.
At this point we must think that all the Srists are stupids???
of course not, there are implications as the conservation of
energy and momentum and alleged symmetries that are the real
core of SR, and is this part that need to be investigated
in order to comprehend whether the SR fail or not.
In any case I agree with you that the equivocal in the basis
put SR, needlessly, out of the (common sense) logic.
all the best
beda pietanza
PS, I liked the simplicity of it.
beda pietanza
beda
never mind, few words for good willings.
regards
beda pietanza
>
>
>
Martin Miller
> Martin Miller <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> a0ac0bee.02100...@posting.google.com...
> > -------------2 Men & a Beam----------------
> >
> > The given scenario:
> > Two men are walking toward each other along a
> > straight path. A light ray is approaching them
> > from the right. As the men meet in passing at
> > essentially a single point, the light ray is
> > also at a single point. The ray is therefore
> > equidistant from the men. A moment later, one
> > man sees the ray before the other does.
> >
> > The scientific question:
> > Why do the men see the ray differently?
> >
>
> beda:
>
> Your simple experiment show that the light must have different
> speed for differently moving observer.
>
> Nevertheless if you follow the SR prescriptions on constructing
> inertial frames where the clocks are synchronized through
> the E synchro procedure, he two differently moving observer
> belong to two different inertial frames and each of them can
> claim that doing the measurements with his frame clocks the
> speed of light is C for both of them.
>
> So we can accept this as a conventional way to define the speed
> of light in the inertial frames, no problems as long as we know it.
>
But there _are_ problems!
In fact, there are two major problems!
Here they are:
[1] Einstein's clocks are incorrectly set.
[2] No one has yet published a way to set clocks correctly.
> The strange part of this is that SR claims that the laws of physics
> is the same in all inertial frames.
>
> Also here we can say: the laws of physics is not the same for
> differently moving observers, but if we put them in the inertial
> frames with (E synchro) then the laws of physics appear the same.
>
I am sure that the laws of physics are the same in all frames;
how could they differ? (All frames are constructed identically,
and all frames are in the same universe.)
However, light's one-way, two-clock speed is _not_ a law of
physics.
And even if it were, the one-way "law" could still be either
variance or invariance, as long as all frames have the _same_
law.
But, as I just said, light's one-way, two-clock speed is not
a law, and this is because it _cannot_ be a law of physics.
To explain:
A physical law is the result of some experiment.
No part of the experiment can be adjusted or manipulated
by man. All of the experimental result must be only from
(or given only by) nature. For example, in the round-trip
light speed experiment, nature controlled both the clock
rhythm and the rod length, and was thereby able to give
us the natural value of light's round-trip, one-clock speed.
But in the one-way, two-clock case, the clocks must be
synchronized, but nature cannot synchronize clocks, so she
cannot give us her value (or the natural value) of light's
one-way, two-clock speed.
This is why no one has ever measured light's one-way
speed using two same-frame clocks.
(And if there is no experiment, then there is no theory,
so SR is not a scientific theory. SR attempted to answer
the unscientific question What is the natural value of
light's one-way, two-clock speed?)
> At this point we must think that all the Srists are stupids???
> of course not, there are implications as the conservation of
> energy and momentum and alleged symmetries that are the real
> core of SR, and is this part that need to be investigated
> in order to comprehend whether the SR fail or not.
>
> In any case I agree with you that the equivocal in the basis
> put SR, needlessly, out of the (common sense) logic.
>
> all the best
>
> beda pietanza
>
> PS, I liked the simplicity of it.
Thanks! (It took only 35 years to get it that simple!)
MM
beda pietanza
beda:
I don't want to defend SR but you must copy with the fact that
all inertial frames are not the same.
In frames at low speed you assume all the frame clocks are
synchronized by light signal and they all march almost synchronized.
In high speed frames you cannot consider the frame clocks
synchronized unless you do synchro them trough a given (arbitrary or
conventional) procedure.
Once you have chosen the conventional
procedure (SR uses the Esynchro 1/2 B/F travel time) then you have
a reproducible class of frames whose clocks are synchronized in such
a way that the one way speed of light is measured as C in all frames.
In these frames the SR predictions "work" and I suppose that also
the laws of physics appear the same for all the possible phenomenon
we reproduce in those frames, of course the frames are timely stretched
differently, we can say that in order to have the laws of physics appear
the same we must distort the frames, and we never know how much
did we timely distort them.
The apparent solution given to the clocks synchro problem allow SR
to claim the incongruent theory of the relativism.
Said that I am completely in agreement with you.
best regards
beda pietanza
Bilge
R: R: ===2 Men & a Beam=== to usenet:[...]
>>
>> This is why no one has ever measured light's one-way
>> speed using two same-frame clocks.
>>
>> (And if there is no experiment, then there is no theory,
>> so SR is not a scientific theory. SR attempted to answer
>> the unscientific question What is the natural value of
>> light's one-way, two-clock speed?)
>
>beda:
>I don't want to defend SR but you must copy with the fact that
>all inertial frames are not the same.
Don't worry, you aren't defending relativity, since the _ENTIRE_
point is that all inertial frames _ARE_ the same. You're defending
your own misunderstanding of relativity, which is also what you
normally argue is wrong.
>
>In frames at low speed you assume all the frame clocks are
>synchronized by light signal and they all march almost synchronized.
Obviously, your problem with relativity is as I've said before,
your own misunderstanding of relativity, not relativity. Your
statement is meaningless.