I dont understand time dilation
>>14471988photon be hella slowwhen u see it its been agesshit looks slow yorelativity
>>14471988Time is a tranny
>>14471988Read this (picture) bookhttps://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=2A3D71522350DA0A1B61E0CABF9B53DD
I don't understand time coping and time seething either.
>>14471988There's nothing to understand, it's a thought experiment that disproves relativity.
>>14471988>F I L T E R E Dmidwits gtfo
>>14472612You will never be a dimension
>>14471988it is fake and gay who cares
>>14472973Look out guys, he got his own blog post.
>>14471988you shouldn't understand it. It contains a non sequitur. Midwits smooth brains gloss over the logical inconsistencies, but they remain.
>>14472973>tfw nobody will every care about your shitty misunderstanding of doppler shift
>>14472977>>14473036Let's not beat around the bush here. you two apes dont even possess the brain power between you to even understand that
>>14473040>bodhiI'm already confident I'm much, much smarter than you so I'm not too worried
>>14473043dumb people always over estimate their abilities. You werent smart enough to figure relativity is nonsense so we already know for a given I am much, much smarter than you
Here you go.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jWrsTACVn4
>>14473042>pathetically failing to even address the argument
>>14471988The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. This little oddity means that if you are going 0.5c, time will slow down around you so that any light you shine will still go at 1c.
>>14473082the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant c, yes or no?
>>14473129>The speed of light is constant in all reference framesno, widwit. this statement can't even possible be true. the postulate of special relativity is that light is observed by all observers in all inertial reference frames to be going the same velocity.
>>14473143>the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant c, yes or no?I never saw a vacuum. I even spent time doing research on UHV chambers, but we never achieved a vacuum.
>>14473156what value does the measured speed approach? does this ever different for an arbitrary inertial observer?
>>14473175>what value does the measured speed approach? does this ever different for an arbitrary inertial observer?can't tell you. I haven't measured it. When is the last time you did?
>>14471988Didn't think it was possible, but this board was gotten even worse.
>>14473191so what did your research tell you about its speed?>When is the last time you did?junior year of college
>>14473231>>14473234no, really. I'm interested in your measurement data regarding the speed of light in different inertial frames, please humor me. I have none.
>>14471988Way I understand it is by thinking of C as a speed limit and approaching C as approaching a perfect stasis where nothing can longer move. Since everything inside me slows down by the same fraction I've approached C I don't experience time as going slower as every physical process inside my head also moves slower.But if I somehow watched a live feed from someone not traveling close to the speed of light I'd see them act out their whole lives in a blur.
>>14473247>dude dig up your labdata from years ago scan and upload pleasethe experimental setup involved a pulsing laser of fixed frequency, a mirror on a rotor of some other frequency, a photoreceptor circuit and oscilloscope, and a rail such that you can slide the laser closer and farther from the mirror. the entire setup fits on a normal lab bench and any dumbass undgrad can measure it to within 3% or something.are you a moron? do you not understand we figured out how to do this over a hundred years ago?
>>14473254your brain on popsci
>>14473339>are you a moron?you are the one who failed to provide any data when prompted.
it's like what troons do to their fake snatch but over the temporal domain rather than a spacial one
>>14473152>no, widwit. this statement can't even possible be true. the postulate of special relativity is that light is observed by all observers in all inertial reference frames to be going the same velocity.Which is dumb shit because than no dDoppler shift can be observed, but it is.
>>14473967>Which is dumb shit because than no dDoppler shift can be observedHow so? Doppler shift changes the wavelength, not speed.
>>14471988time bends with mass
>>14473977>Doppler shift changes the wavelength,which is a speed phenomena
>>14473981No... it's literally a distance between repeated parts of the wave. It has nothing to do with how fast light travels. You're just making things up that sound vaguely physical.
>>14473411c was determined to be about 3E+8 m/s. Hows that, fag?
>>14474148>c was determined to be about 3E+8 m/s. Hows that, fag?uninteresting. Why even bring it up?
>>14473345Is it incorrect? Seems to explain why satellites in orbit would drift out of sync with clocks down here on earth as well as why the speed of light would be 'the same in all directions' but I assume your perception is red-shifted and blue-shifted along the vector of travel.
>>14473143For a fixed frequency it is. Else it might vary.
>>14471988I understand how it happens, I'll never understand why it happens
>>14474551I always thought of it as a conspiracy by the universe to ensure that, no matter the frame or measurement, we will always measure the speed of light to be c.
>>14471988You will never be a REAL dimension
>>14473411Why not make yourself the experiment and post the results, retard?
>>14474559Never said I was. This only means you're not ready yet to understand complex dimensions ;)
>>14474632I understand that you're not a REAL dimension, timey
>>14474531Frequency has nothing to do with the speed of light. Nice LARP.
>>14474340I was asked, retard
>>14474531sounds like an easily testable statement! are you seriously willing to investigate this emperically?
>>14474555measure the distance from my fist to your face nerd
>>14473247Near a black hole the speed of light is near zero.
>>14472018I don't belive him.gravity make the clock change his tik-tok
>>14474783Sure, as soon as we have the tools to construct such an experimental setup.
>>14474624>Why not make yourself the experiment and post the results, retard?I'm not sure how it proves time goes slower for people who move faster.
>>14474776>ur welcome.Which one is the experiment where the light is measured in the lab frame and by guy flying past in a rocket sip going c/2 simultaneously? I see alot of experiment regarding isotropy, but that isn't relevant here.
>>14474781>I was asked, retardyou kept opining how you proved something relevant in a lab. What did you think was relevant? the number 3?
>>14475668>What did you think was relevant?it was relevant to a direct question. literally autistic?
>>14475678>it was relevant to a direct question. literally autistic?why did you bring it up tho? No one was interested in what number is between 2 and 4. can you use the 3e8 to prove that time is slower when you drive in your car respective to those walking along side you?
>>14475685>can you use the 3e8 to prove that time is slower when you drive in your car respective to those walking along side you?No, you need a couple more physical facts to prove that.The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, yes or no?
>>14475221we do. the exact same setup described here >>14473339 can test it, with the addition of a laser that may change color. it should cost more than a few hundred dollars nor should it take up much more space than a couple square yards.
>>14475687>The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, yes or no?I don't know. I'm unable to measure the one way speed of light.
>>14475692shouldnt* cost more
>>14475695>I'm unable to measure the one way speed of light.a problem specific to you lmao
>>14475692can you explain where someone flying by in a spaceship going 0.5c simultaneously measures the speed of the light in their inertial frame?
>>14475698>a problem specific to you lmaoan Einstein, of course. But you knew Einstein started out his papers on relativity remarking how measuring the one way speed of light is impossible. but of course you knew that all along brainiac, didn't you?
>>14475699syntactical nonsense>>14475708as I said, even idiot undergrads in south america can measure the speed of light.
>>14475727>as I said, even idiot undergrads in south America can measure the speed of light.yea, if you just disregard that it's the round trip average yea. Like I said. It's a physical impossibility to measure the one way speed of light. and no one has succeeded to create a vacuum. You can imagine you measured the one way speed of light in your imaginary vacuum and come to any conclusion you favor. I don't care.
>>14475757>if you just disregard that it's the round trip average yeayea, and this doesnt matter at all unless you think light is magically infinitely fast in one direction and a finite speed in the other, yea.
>>14475784>yea, and this doesnt matter at all unless you think light is magically infinitely fast in one direction and a finite speed in the other, yea.it doesn't have to be infinity in one direction, this is hyperbole. Why don't you read Einsteins papers and return and we can have a real discussion.
>>14475802>Why don't you read Einsteins papers and return and we can have a real discussion.I already have. Now what?
>>14475814>I already have. Now what?admit it's impossible to measure the one way speed of light and the only alternative isn't infinity in one direction.
>>14475843>admit it's impossible to measure the one way speed of lightdon't admit this, also it doesn't matter>the only alternative isn't infinity in one direction.sure, there are other ludicrous alternatives like "the light speeds up when it hits the mirror."so what do you believe?
>>14475875>don't admit this,so you don't believe Einstein?
>>14471988Newton disproved absolute position. Velocity only makes sense when talking about two things.Einstein disproved absolute clockspeed. Each independent object has it's own internal clockspeed exhibited in the photoelectric effect. Gravity is the manifestation of these different clockspeeds. What's happening is internal configuration is a medium of interaction.
>>14475879>so you don't believe Einstein?did Einstein say it was impossible?1) I don't believe he said this2) he's absolutely wrong if he did (and this isn't controversial)
>>14475915so you don't believe Einstein ...
>>14471988how does one expand 10cm to 4 dimensions?and what are you expecting?
>sciencelets ITT don't understand light one-way vs. round-trip speedEinstein was *correct* in saying we can't measure the one-way speed of light, but this means that setting it to c also cannot be wrong.You can construct theories where light has different speeds in different directions, but they all make exactly the same predictions. (otherwise we could indirectly measure the one-way speed!)Choosing the one-way speed of light is physically meaningless, so we always choose the most convenient one which is to have the same speed in all directions.Pic rel: the relevant passage from Einstein's SpecRel paper
>>14476770>Einstein was *correct* in saying we can't measure the one-way speed of ligh1) He never claimed this2) The claim is utterly wrong. The ""one way"" speed of light may be easily measured.
>>14475663It's experiment's in the c^2 formalism. It's testing the difference between SR and and a potential absolute rest frame.
>>14476821>The ""one way"" speed of light may be easily measured.Lmao. No.
>>14476770The most convenient one-way speed of light is the one that makes light behave like a normal wave in a medium, rather than the one that distorts the whole of space AND time by postulate to fit some preconceived notion of a cranky 20th century cult hit scientist.
>>14471988Gravity slows down light, light takes more time to reach to you, you see things happening slower
>>14476770>>14476836Oh no, it's you againCan you tell me this time why light coming from the sun isn't one way, or are you just going to keep posting meaningless buzzwords again.
>>14476883Better question, why don't you describe the "easy" experiment that lets you measure the one way speed. Convince me it's possible.
>>14476886>point light at detector>get resultSimple as, this works in any direction with any source of light in vacuum, through water, glass, etc.. and is replicable infinitelyThat theory is retarded, which is why it was buried as fast as it was postulated, because it makes zero sense and doesn't work in a single real life observation, which is why it is relegated to nothing more but letters on a piece of paper without a single measurement or empirical data behind it, sad.
>>14476905You'll need to synchronize two clocks, one at the emitter and one at the detector. That synchronization isn't going to be possible without some assumption on the one way speed of light.
>>14476915You don't need any clocks because time is completely irrelevant in this scenario, sorry to burst your bubble veritasiumbabby
>>14476938>Measuring speed>time is completely irrelevant in this scenarioYou have some really interesting views my man. Could you elaborate on them?
>>14476944You don't need two clocks because it doesn't matter, light travels just like everything else, if you place your emitter and detector one metre apart, you will always get the speed of light to be 1/299792458 m/s and this is replicable infinitely, it's something you can do in your own house if you have the tools, all that this retarded theory has is that "theoretically" it could be true, but there are no measurements, no proofs, nothing, just a throwaway idea that veritasium decided to capitalize on because he's either running out of ideas or becoming a scientology schizo
>>14476770>but this means that setting it to c also cannot be wrong.conjecture may be correct, but I don't consider it science.
>>14476958>You don't need two clocks because it doesn't matter, light travels just like everything elsewhen did this become /conjecture/ ?
>>14476958>You don't need two clocks because it doesn't matterRight. Okay. Lets go through this:>The emitter sends out a light pulseNow we need to start a clock at this point, since we need to know how much time has elapsed between emission and absorption.>Light pulse get absorbed by the receiver.Now that the light pulse has traveled a distance, we need to stop the clock we started at emission, how do we do this? Well presumably the absorber sends out a second pulse that tells the emitter that the light pulse has been revived. But now we're measuring the 2 way speed of light.At the end, we just divide the time by 2, since the Einstein synchronization convention is just the most natural convention. But clearly we've emphatically not measured the 1 way speed of light. So, how would you alter this experiment to measure the 1 way speed?
>>14476970It is a model that correctly predicts phenomena, which is exactly what science is. If there are multiple different models that make the same predictions, then all are equally correct.Consider that Newtonian and Lagrangian mechanics look different, but make the same predictions. Scientifically, both are correct, the difference is philosophical.The same is true of constant speed of light vs. differing speeds of light -- there is no scientific difference, and both are correct, but one is much more complicated than the other.
>>14476979>talk about measuring the one way speed of light for your entire argument>suddenly becomes two-way for no reason whatsoeverYou can set your emitter and detector apart so that it takes exactly one second for the pulse of light to travel and you will still get the same results every single time, you have no argument, you are just spewing out meaningless bullshit without a single logical reasoning to back it up, you don't explain why you need two clocks, you don't explain why light travelling from A to B isn't one way, you're just pulling shit out of your ass, mediocre
>>14477002>suddenly becomes two-way for no reason whatsoeverI thought I was being very clear, but let me try again:>Emit light pulse>Start a clock>Pulse travels a distance D>When light pulse reaches receiver, we need to stop the clock we started in step 2>Receiver needs to tell emitter clock that the pulse has been received>Receiver emits a second pulse to tell emitter clock to stop>But now we have two signals>We're now measuring two way speed of lightDoes that make more sense? If not point out which bits you're struggling with.>one second for the pulse of light to travelBut you already need to know the speed for that to work, since you'll need to have [math] d = vt [/math]
>>14471988Go faster, time speeds up for everyone else who isn't going fast.
>>14477018>>Receiver needs to tell emitter clock that the pulse has been receivedYou only need one clock connected to both the emitter and the receiver>But you already need to know the speed for that to work, since you'll need to have d=vtNo you don't, because you can just trial and error it until your clock reads one second numbnutsLike I said, the two-way light theory doesn't have a single real life experiment to back it up without adding unnecessary and completely irrelevant steps to perfectly working experiments. I bet you think 0.999999... = 1 too
>>14477033>You only need one clock connected to both the emitter and the receiverStill requires a second signal though.>because you can just trial and error it until your clock reads one second numbnutsNow you're trying to move two clocks apart, which requires assuming things about the Lorentz transformation.
>>14477033>because you can just trial and error it until your clock reads one second numbnutsActually, no. There's a more subtle problem here, you still need to know when to stop and start a clock.
>>14477035>Still requires a second signal though.Yes and the difference between them will give you the speed of light>Lorentz transformationcompletely irrelevant
>>14477044>difference between themDifference between what? The only things that are directly measurable here are the distance and time between the light pulse being emitted and the acknowledgement signal being received.
>>14477050Yes, and v = dt, you even pointed this out in your own post, get your shit straight buster
>>14477050>>14477070I mean v = d/t, but the point still stands, there is nothing preventing you from measuring the speed of light locally
>>14477070>Yes, and v = dtv isn't measurable, we're measuring d and t and then calculating v.I feel like I'm going around in circles here, so which part of this do you disagree with:>Emit light pulse>Start a clock>Pulse travels a distance D>When light pulse reaches receiver, we need to stop the clock we started in step 2>Receiver needs to tell emitter clock that the pulse has been received>Receiver emits a second pulse to tell emitter clock to stop>But now we have two signals>We're now measuring two way speed of light
>>14477079By your logic every measurement of speed is two way and absolutely every single assumption you've made about how fast anything travels is wrong, making this theory redundant and still nit applicable to anything outside of feeding your retarded delusions
>>14477091Please point out which part you disagree with, and why.
>>14476990>It is a model that correctly predicts phenomena, which is exactly what science isno. It's not science. Einstein himself called it a convention, but it really doesn't even qualify as that. It is conjecture. And his derivations for time dilation and length contraction contain non sequiturs. You can believe it, but it's just your personal faith in a man, not the scientific method or adherence to reason and logic.
>>14477098>And his derivations for time dilation and length contraction contain non sequiturs.Such as?
>>14477096During the entire time light is travelling only one way, there is nothing travelling two-way, the idea that V has to be calculated and can't me directly "measured" is completely irrelevant, since time itself is something that can't be measured, only calculated. You are applying completely redundant shit to something extremely simple
>>14477106>During the entire time light is travelling only one way, there is nothing travelling two-wayOkay. Light travels one way, correct. But we still have a clock ticking, right? So now we need to know to stop that. How do we know to stop it?
>>14477101>Such as?read this >>14473031
>>14477110When the light pulse hits the receiver, simple as that
>>14477124I don't see any "non sequiturs". Just a brainlet having a hard time with a thought experiment.
>>14477128You understand that we need to send out a signal to tell that clock to stop, right?
>>14477131And that is completely irrelevant to the entire experiment
>>14477179>You don't need to stop a clock when something crosses the finish lineSo how do you know when the light pulse has hit the detector?
>>14477180When the clock stops, inb4 >hjurr it takes tiem 4 the signal to reach theYes we can just remove that from the result because we can literally calculate the time it takes for the signal to reach the clock, thus making it completely irrelevant, again, you're just adding completely pointless redundant shit to the equation that does not afflict the end result whatsoever.
>>14477184>Yes we can just remove that from the result because we can literally calculate the time it takes for the signal to reach the clockHow? You'd need to know the speed of light, which is what you're measuring.
>>14477190>you need to know how fast a ball falls on mars to measure how fast the ball falls on earth
>>14477196What? Are you trying to say that you'd have an experiment where one the light pulse hit the receiver a ball would roll down a ramp and turn off the clock on the emitter? But then we need two clocks, since we'll need to measure the speed of the ball and we've still got the same problem. I've never seen someone have such a hard time understanding that when you're measuring the velocity of something you need to know when it starts (t=0) and when it stops (t=T).
>>14477206>when you're measuring the velocity of something you need to know when it starts (t=0) and when it stops (t=T).And we can do exactly that to calculate the speed of light without effort, I'm sorry you have such a hard time understanding this simple concept that you yourself keep explaining, but then you insert completely irrelevant stuff to try and keep up with your schizo theory
>>14472973>using “real” time i.e a clock not affected by the speed of lightdoesn’t exist >this is because he measures the time elapsed using a clock that is based on the length of time it takes for light to pass between his mirrorsretard. there is no other way of measuring time. it’s not about light, it’s about causality. time passing happens as a direct result of there being a limited speed of how fast information can be communicated, which is C. there is no such thing as a clock not affected by this. no measurements can be taken that are not limited by this constraint.
>>14477223>And we can do exactly that to calculate the speed of light without effortSo far you've not explained how to signal that light has crossed the finish line in a way that only uses one clock and that also doesn't suppose the speed of light. I'm sorry you're having such a hard time with this, I don't really understand why you're having a hard time with this, my 12 year old niece was able to understand this. Maybe its the lack of visual aids, I don't know.
>>14477124That's not Einstein's derivation, and isn't even one of his thought experiments. Why are you lying?
>>14477288>So far you've not explained how to signal that light has crossed the finish line in a way that only uses one clock and that also doesn't suppose the speed of light.Because you don't need the speed of light to measure how fast an electric signal travels through a wire, but I guess Einstein forgot to take his EE classes.
>>14477310>measure how fast an electric signal travels through a wire>measureYou will need to synchronize some clocks to measure it. Which brings us back to the current problem. I clearly can't help you anon, I think you might have your umbilical cord wrapped around your neck during birth. I'm sorry anon, I tried to help.
>>14477322>You will need to synchronize some clocks to measure itWrong, you only need one clock at most to measure it, technically you don't even need clocks and can calculate the entire thing without assembling anything, but for the sake of making it simpler for a brainlet like you we can stick to purely physical experiments.It's time to close 4chan and go back to school, anon
>>14477330>Wrong, you only need one clock at most to measure itWrong, you are just to retarded and stubborn to understand that a clock is a more abstract concept and that any tool you use to measure will have to deal with the speed of light in two ways. >receiver receives light>reciever communicates with the clock to stop>this is not instantaneous process>fastest this can occur is at C, the speed of causality So in order to remove the extra time it takes for information to transfer from the receiver to the clock from the calculation of C, we’d need to know know how fast that signal can go. >durr we know how fast electricity goesWe have a very rough estimation. Electromagnetism is a force and that force is communicated through photons, which just so happen move at C. Do you see the issue? To know how fast electricity actually moves at we need to know C.
>>14477382>To know how fast electricity actually moves at we need to know C.No we don't, come back again when you figure this out, until then you really have no say in this argument.
>>14475195Do it at a similar altitude, with one person stationary and the other on a bullet train. The effect will work.
>>14477409I’m not the other guy you wasted 2 hours of your life arguing with. But it’s fine, you’re just baiting anyways.
>>14471988>I dont understand time dilationYou do not need to for everyday life.All you need to know is all time moves forward but at different rates for different locations, that is it.The only practical application an ordinary person will run into this is that the Clocks on GPS satellites are slowed down from 10.23 MHz to 10.22999999543 MHz in order to negate the effects of relativistic time effects.
>>14477129>I don't see any "non sequiturs"How do the observers literally measure the speed of light then, brainiac?
>>14477298>That's not Einstein's derivation, and isn't even one of his thought experiments. Why are you lying?I've asked you a million times before. just post the real one and you won the argument. But I know 100% you won't, because we've been doing this for years. You claim i'm misrepresenting Einstein's work. I ask for an accurate representation and you dodge.
>>14478465Imagine there's a clock on the detector, it starts when a light ray is emitted and stops when its received. Really trivial.
>>14473152That's literally just a more complicated way of saying what the first guy said
>>14471988That's ok, time was the first tranny, you're fine
>>14478485>Imagine there's a clock on the detectoryou failed to answer the question. the only valid answer is there are no means to measure the lights velocity given. Even though you failed to answer my question in an honest manner, to be a good sport I'll entertain your half assed answer. assuming d is 1m and the train is going 0.5c, and the clock has an LCD that mavis and stanley can read, what does stanley read on the LCD. What does Mavis read on it?
>>14478500>That's literally just a more complicated way of saying what the first guy saidno. what is and what is observed is a subtle nuance only midwits fail to comprehend.
>>14477572>The only practical application an ordinary person will run into this is that the Clocks on GPS satellites are slowed down from 10.23 MHz to 10.22999999543 MHzHow is that possible when speed between observer and satellite differs ?
>>14478532>what does stanley read on the LCD. What does Mavis read on it?They both read the same value, since everyone agrees on Mavis' proper time. A comparison between a clock that Stanley has and a clock that Mavis has will differ. In this case Mavis will read 1/c seconds, Stanley (on his clock) will read that it actually took 2l/c seconds.Literally babies first SR.
>>14478549>They both read the same value, since everyone agrees on Mavis' proper time. A comparison between a clock that Stanley has and a clock that Mavis has will differ. In this case Mavis will read 1/c seconds, Stanley (on his clock) will read that it actually took 2l/c seconds.you failed to answer the question yet again. I want you to tell me what Stanley reads on the LCD and what Mavis read on the LCD. I want you to give me a number. Not symbols and not weasel bullshit.
>>14478571>I want you to tell me what Stanley reads on the LCD and what Mavis read on the LCD.1/c seconds, what part of "they both agree on Mavis' proper time" didn't you understand?
>>14478574>1/c seconds, what part of "they both agree on Mavis' proper time" didn't you understand?dude. how many times do I have to ask you the same fucking question? you said this is trivial?
>>14478577>1/c seconds>3.336×10^-9 seconds>3.336 nanoseconds>5.56×10^-11 minutesHow many different ways do you want me to fucking say it?
>>14478583>How many different ways do you want me to fucking say it?I'll ask for a billionth time. what does Mavis read on the LCD and what does Stanley read on the LCD?
>>14478590You are legitimately retarded.>Mavis reads 3.336×10^-9 seconds>Stanly reads 3.336×10^-9 secondsBecause everyone agrees on Mavis' proper time. A clock that Stanley runs on the station would differ to the clock that Mavis' runs, but both would agree on the times they read.
>>14478599>>Mavis reads 3.336×10^-9 seconds>>Stanly reads 3.336×10^-9 secondsgeez, fucking finally, dude. you are denying time dilation has occurred? how did the clock measure the same time interval when Mavis is traveling half the speed of light? seems like you don't believe in time dilation.
>>14478602>geez, fucking finally, dudeBro: >>14478549>They both read the same valueWhat was so hard about that?>you are denying time dilation has occurred?The value on Mavis' clock reads her proper time, proper time isn't time dilated. Time dilation refers to the difference between the clock that Mavis has and the clock that Stanley has.
>>14478608>Time dilation refers to the difference between the clock that Mavis has and the clock that Stanley has.that difference is zero according to you.
>>14478609>that difference is zero according to you.No, it isn't again see >>14478549>In this case Mavis will read 1/c seconds, Stanley (on his clock) will read that it actually took 2l/c seconds.So Stanley's clock would read that the light ray took longer to be emitted between, reflect, and be absorbed. However he will still agree on Mavis' proper time (and Mavis will agree on Stanley's proper time), but they will disagree on the experiment.
>>14478614>So Stanley's clock would read that the light ray took longernot according to you. I asked explicitly and repeatedly and you told me the LCD read the same thing for Mavis and Stanley. no time dilation. thank for playing and confirming you are a midwit.
>>14478625>The LCD moving on the train with Mavis will read 1/c seconds. This clock is measuring Mavis' proper time>The LCD on the platform with Stanley will read 2l/c seconds. This clock is measuring Stanley's proper time.If Stanley looks at Mavis' LCD he will read 1/c seconds (since everyone will agree on a proper time).If Mavis looks as Stanley's LCD she will read 2l/c (since every one will agree on a proper time).However Mavis will have measured that the light ray took 1/c seconds and not 2l/c seconds. Likewise Stanley will measured that the light ray took 2l/c seconds and not 1/c seconds.Time dilation is the difference between the two clocks.
>>14478634what do you mean Stanleys LCD and Mavis' LCDyou said a clock retard. read it yourself here >>14478485so why is there two clocks now? fuck off with your midwit tier retardation. you dug a hole and I'm not letting you get out . you failed miserably.
>>14478700>so why is there two clocks now?There's always been two clocks... do you not know that? Holy fuck you literal nigger. lmao, look at this faggot thinking he's hot shit but can't even into baby's first SR. Did you even read the book you got that image from?
>>14478705>There's always been two clocks...read your own post you disingenuous fagot>>14478485>Imagine there's a clock on the detectorsince when is "a" and "the" plural?
>>14478700>>14478705I mean, how the fuck you think you have two times here? You fucking retard.
>>14478710Because there is A clock on THE detector. I was assuming that I wasn't talking to a literal retard, and that you knew that there's a clock on the train and a clock on the platform.
>>14478711>I mean, how the fuck you think you have two times here? You fucking retard.I asked you, and you said from one clock. do I need to remind you of what is absolutely obvious?>>14478485>imagine there's a clock on the detector
>>14478718>and that you knew that there's a clock on the train and a clock on the platform.what the fuck is a clock on the platform measuring? light never hits it. the light is inside the train. jesus fuck you guys are stupid.
>>14478719Clearly my problem was assuming you understood the basics of what you were talking about. That was wrong of me.>>14478723>what the fuck is a clock on the platform measuring?It's measuring the time it takes for light to leave the emitter and hit the reciever in the frame of a dude on the platform. I can't believe I have to tell you that SR is about transforming between different frames. Holy fuck, you are legitimately retarded.
>>14478727>It's measuring the time it takes for light to leave the emitter and hit the reciever in the frame of a dude on the platform.Do I have to repeat myself. The light is inside the train and not on the platform. Are you literally retarded?
>>14478729>The light is inside the train and not on the platform.Do I have to repeat myself? The thought experiment is about the transformation of an experiment between different inertial frames. I'm astounded that you don't know this. At this point its not even SR, this is like Galilean shit. Your death will be a net benefit to humanity.
>>14478731>Do I have to repeat myself? The thought experiment is about the transformation of an experiment between different inertial frames. I'm astounded that you don't know this. At this point its not even SR, this is like Galilean shit. Your death will be a net benefit to humanity.you failed to answer the question honestly just like every other time. how does the clock on the platform measure light inside the train? we just came full circle. you invented a magic detector just like Einstein assumed clairvoyant humans.
>>14478737>you failed to answer the question honestly just like every other timeAlright then you fucking retarded gorilla nigger, I'll answer it like you're fucking 6 or some shit.>Mavis is in a Frame A with a detector that has an LCD screen and a (Green) LED>When a light ray is emitted from the clock a timer starts ticking and the LED turns on.>This LED turning on lets Stanley know he needs to start his stopwatch>Once the light ray has hit the roof of the train and reflected back into the clock the timer stops and the LED turns off>This LED turning off signals to Stanley that he should stop his stopwatchIs that enough autistic detail for you faggot? Now go back and read my post you nigger. Holy fuck, I can not believe how fucking arrogant you are, you don't know shit but are happy to run you mouth. I can't believe that niggers like you get to fucking vote.
>>14478472>just post the real oneI did, I gave you the original paper. You're literally mentally ill.
>>14478545>How is that possible when speed between observer and satellite differs ?Relativistic time effects.Satellites are moving fast AND Satellites are further from Earths gravity... both of these affect time differently.The net effect is time is slightly faster for GPS satellites so their clock needs to be slowed down... as compared to time on the Earth's surface.See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
It's when the finishing line tries to escape from a racer. He would need more time to reach it.
>>14478747for something trivial it sure did take you alot of trials and hours to come up with a way for Stanley and Mavis to measure something, but we've just begun. Calculate the signed difference in time intervals when Mavis is departing and Mavis is arriving.
>>14479833>Get btfo>shift goalposts Many such cases. Also what the fuck do you mean?
>>14479968>>shift goalpostsNo. I'm not moving the goal posts. I never said it was impossible to both to gather info about the light. The point is Einstein never gave a means. You still have to go through the motions of deriving time dilation. The problem is you'll find is that as Mavis arrives in her train Stanley sees events on the train going faster. Do the math yourself. You reinvented Doppler shift
>>14480323>The point is Einstein never gave a means.He did, you fucking liar. His thought experiment used lightning bolts. And the thought experiment is not even a derivation. Take your meds.
>>14471988Dude just visualize two and three dimensional space. See how between one point and another one there are infinitely many paths. Think space time as the coordinates (x,y,z,t). Time dilation is when you go from a point A to a point B using a different path that other observer uses so one of you walks a longer path on the t coordinate than the other does, just as you could walk a longer path on any physical coordinate X Y or Z
>>14481036>His thought experiment used lightning bolts.you are confusing his thought experiment regarding simultaneity and his thought experiment regarding time dilation. if you wish you can present a derivation using lightning bolt. I'm being very flexible with you guys. I only ask you present your derivation logically.
>>14477418Wow so momentum affects how fast something ticks, amazing!
>>14473071This was actually my first explanation of relativity.
>>14481084>you are confusing his thought experiment regarding simultaneity and his thought experiment regarding time dilation.Any thought experiment showing the relativity of simultaneity also shows time dilation. >I only ask you present your derivation logically.You were already given the original derivation and you've never refuted it. Take your meds, schizo.
>>14473031I am a 15 year lurker MBA type and verbally destroy literally every person I have ever met in my entire life and you autistic niggas are so much smarter than me I just marvel
>>14482269>Any thought experiment showing the relativity of simultaneity also shows time dilation.show me. write down a derivation for time dilation with a train and lightning. I'll wait.
>>14471988Here, this explains it.
>>14482753The non for ants version
>>14471988It's simple. Time must dial8 frequently or it's festering spacetime tears will close.
>>14482430>write down a derivation for time dilation with a train and lightning??? Derivations don't use thought experiments. You've already been given Einstein's original derivation and haven't refuted a single thing. Yet you act like it was never given to you. You're pathetically mentally ill.
>>14482766Only physishits get cheaps out of algebra. Mathematicians view it as a chore.
>>14482753>>14482766there is no way to logically derive this expression. It is an article of faith.
>>14482958I've already addressed this here >>14473031 The "observers" are given no means to make any measurements regarding time intervals or distances of the light of interest.
>>14482974Bro, just use like a stopwatch or something.
>>14482978>Bro, just use like a stopwatch or something.when does felix/mavis press the start/stop? what prompts them? they cant see the light.
>>14483076According to >>14482958 an "audible beep"
>>14483103>According to >>14482958 an "audible beep"If that were true you'd just hear the beep being more frequent and higher pitched as the train approaches and less frequent and lower pitch as the train departed. It's called a doppler shift.
>>14483115What? But we care about the time difference between the initial flash of light and the beep at the end.
>>14483128>What? But we care about the time difference between the initial flash of light and the beep at the end.you're going to have to be more explicit. You mentioned beeps, now there are flashes. What is flashing? what is beeping?
>>14483236Did you not read the post? It's pretty explicit (more explicit than I'd say is needed in a thought experiment) about what's happening:>Consider two frames S and S' (which is moving relative to S)>An observer in S' sets off a flashbulb>The light travels to the roof, where it is reflected back and returns to its starting point>Where it strikes a photocell and causes and audible beep>We wish to compare the times [math] \Delta t [/math] and [math] \Delta t' [/math] as measured in the two frames>Between the flash as the light leaves the floor and the beep as it returns.All in that post I showed you.
>>14483258>>Between the flash as the light leaves the floor and the beep as it returns.this won't work. the speed of sound and light are too different. you'd get wildly different times depending on how far away the train is.
>>14483386Nope, its only the difference between the frames that's important. But if it bothers you that much you can assume whatever device you want, maybe a second flash that's a different color. You're being far too literal, the idea of a thought experiment is to set up a situation so that you can analyze the physics at work. Not to actually perform it. If you were going to perform it then there are other things that are much more important than that.
>>14483517>Nope, its only the difference between the frames that's importantjesus fuck let me spell it out for you.Stanley needs to know how long it took for the light to go a certain distance.How else can he calculate the speed of light?He needs to know the time interval between when the light is emitted and when it reaches some distance away.You claim when the light is emitted there is a flash, but when it reaches a distance of interest it makes a noiseimagine the train is still a mile away.stanley sees the flash of light on the train. he starts his stopwatchhe waits for a beephe waits about a secondwhen he hears the beep he presses stopthe light has gone 1meter in one secondlight goes one meter per second according to stanleyNO
>>14483704>But if it bothers you that much you can assume whatever device you want
>>14483704>How else can he calculate the speed of light?He isn't trying to calculate the speed of light. Where the hell did you get that from? He's measuring the difference between a flash of light seen in his frame, and the sound of beep in his frame.At no point does he try and measure the speed of light, he's measuring a time interval. I'm at a loss to explain how you thought he was trying to measure the speed of light. I don't think this discussion can continue, you're either>Not arguing in good faith>Literally can not read>Or are very dumbHave a nice day anon.
>>14483797>Where the hell did you get that from?because we are applying the postulates of relativity, which regard observations of the speed of light. >>14483797>He's measuring the difference between a flash of light seen in his frame, and the sound of beep in his frame.he can do that but like I said it's just a function of how far away the train is. It doesn't prove anything>>14483797>At no point does he try and measure the speed of light, he's measuring a time interval. I'm at a loss to explain how you thought he was trying to measure the speed of light. I don't think this discussion can continue, you're eitherdo you know what the postulates of relativity are? tell me the one that involves these time intervals between light and sound you keep obsessing about.
>>14483874>because we are applying the postulates of relativityThe only postulate we need is the constant speed of light, but we aren't measuring it, we're assuming it. You understand that, right?>he can do that but like I said it's just a function of how far away the train is. It doesn't prove anythingIf you want to be this literal then just have a buzzer when it starts and then a buzzer when it ends, the difference will come out in the wash.> you keep obsessing about.I think these details are totally unimportant, you're the one that can't stop obsessing over the methods of detection involved.
>>14483879>The only postulate we need is the constant speed of light, but we aren't measuring it, we're assuming it. You understand that, right?your statement is entirely without the simplest logic. You claim to be deriving a corollary from a postulate. the postulate is about the measured speed of light, but you are never going to consider a scenario where someone measures the speed of light? you really just don't understand logic.>>14483879>If you want to be this literal then just have a buzzer when it starts and then a buzzer when it ends, the difference will come out in the wash.I already covered this. in that case here>>14483115 you'd just be measuring a doppler shift. Stanley would see the time interval shrink as the train approaches and expand as the train leaves.>>14483879>you're the one that can't stop obsessing over the methods of detection involved.yes. I absolutely can't stop obsessing about the non sequitur in the derivation of time dilation, because it is there.
>>14483904>You claim to be deriving a corollary from a postulateYes, it's literally the point of a postulate. We using the postulate to derive things.To you fly into an autistic rage when someone in math uses an axiom? It's kinda the same thing.>I already covered this.Then use a flash of light, make it different colors. Or have the buzz happen in a short time frame so the doppler effect is small.> because it is there.No, it is. What is there is your delusions of grandure. The simple logic here is, if your claims were worth anything someone else, someone much smarter than either of us, would have already published it. Experiments testing SR (and GR) happen all the time, if there was a logical flaw in SR someone would have pointed it out by now, it's been over a century with numerous people (Lorentz, Poincare for instance) trying to find flaws with. They filled. And you, you're just a guy in 4chan arguing with other guys on 4chan. You're noting contributing anything, you're just wasting your time.Anyway, like I said, I don't think this discussion can continue since you're either:>Not arguing in good faith>Are very dumb
>>14483920>We using the postulate to derive thingsthe postulate regards the observed, measured, calculated speed of light, so why do you insist measuring it is not important?>>14483920>Then use a flash of light, make it different colorsYou still end up with a doppler shift. Do the calculation yourself.>>14483920>No, it is.Yes. There is a non sequitur in the derivation for time dilation. Smooth brains just like to gloss over details like the fact the observer don't observe anything,
>>14471988Just think of how an anus dilates when it pushes out a loaf. Same concept.
>>14483976>You still end up with a doppler shift.Wow, you're dumb. It doesn't matter if you end up with a Doppler shift, you'll still get time dilation as well.
>>14485302>Wow, you're dumb. It doesn't matter if you end up with a Doppler shift, you'll still get time dilation as well.prove it. My calculations say as the train approaches Stanleys stop watch shows the LED or beep or whatever speed up in exact proportion to how much they slow down as the train departs and exactly what Doppler predicted. Do the calculation yourself. Stop being such a smooth brain and just assuming everything will just work out in the end, because Einstein makes your dick hard you faggot.
>>14485616>My calculations say>Doesn't provide any mathSure thing buddy.
>>14485721>>Doesn't provide any mathwhere did you do anything expect stroke your dick thinking about Einstein?
>>14477274> it’s not about lightEinstein would disagree with you on this.> time passing happens as a direct result of there being a limited speed of how fast information can be communicated, which is COh look, you just disagreed with yourself. Also this argument is circular. But at least you had a better shot at it than these fags >>14472977 >>14473036 >>14485616you're still a retard tho.
>>14489607Holy shit you are both dumb. To date, there has been no one-way measurement of light. Proposed tests are not currently possible. Every physicist knows this and doesn't need to say it, but it is absolutely why Einstein didn't try to measure the one way speed.
>>14471988Atomic clocks resonate slower as they are farther away from larger masses.