Rational Metaphysics

James S Saint wrote:

By definition, the photons on the train can only be in one location at any given moment.

By which definition? I mean is a photon actually sufficiently defined? It now seems to me that if the speed of light is absolute, photons are perhaps not really entities, but rather the points of contact of some kind of 'grid', where the 'lines' are drawn between different reference frames. I know this probably makes little sense to you, I have trouble formulating.

Quote :

But the first issue isn't really whether the train clock stops but whether the station observer has any reason to believe that it would based upon what he actually observes,

Yes, that is clearly the issue of the second animation.

Quote :

not some theory handed to him. He "sees" (even can calculate) that the train photons have no choice but to meet only near the end of the train.

And realize that the theory must be correct and valid for ALL speeds. The anime points out that it doesn't really matter what speed the train is moving at because the clock is always moving out from center.

If indeed these photons are measured as departing from the stations reference frame.

Quote :

Fixed Cross wrote:

Does what appears as the center from a different reference frame reflect the real, local center?

Good question to ask, but in fact, no it doesn't. By definition of the scenario, the clocks are "aligned". Or they could be actually physically touching, yielding no definitional choice but for them to be aligned.

But let me explain this thing in a "composite form";

Forget the train for a moment just to get your bearings. No matter where you are standing, assuming nothing to be moving, can you agree with the following;



Do you agree that in such a situation, both clocks would stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Agree.

Fixed Cross wrote:

James S Saint wrote:

By definition, the photons on the train can only be in one location at any given moment.

By which definition? I mean is a photon actually sufficiently defined? It now seems to me that if the speed of light is absolute, photons are perhaps not really entities, but rather the points of contact of some kind of 'grid', where the 'lines' are drawn between different reference frames. I know this probably makes little sense to you, I have trouble formulating.

The most common ontology in this case is the correct one. Once something is declared a physical entity, it inherits a location automatically. The universe is made of locations and entities occupying those locations. A location might be spread out and a variety of conventions are used to declare a specific "location"; "base, "center of mass", geometric center... That is not to say that a location must be a point. A location can be a volume such as the location of the atmosphere of Earth. And anything declared to have a speed inherently has a changing location, by the definition of "speed".

In addition, again by definition, all photons (or waves in this anime) are identical in everything other than their location and direction of travel. But still, being the same kind of entity, if one has location, all others must as well, merely different locations, else it wouldn't be a "photon" or "light wave".

Fixed Cross wrote:

If indeed these photons are measured as departing from the stations reference frame.

They can't be "light" if they are not moving relative to all frames of reference. Relativity states that not only are they always moving, but will always be measured to be moving by any observer at the same speed, regardless of the speed of the observer. That is the issue that we are addressing.

Right now we only have one frame, so the consistency of measurements between alternate frames isn't relevant yet.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Agree.

Okay, next part of the composite (a little at a time verifying each small portion);



Now let's say that rather than having two stop-clocks aligned, we only have one clock fixed and centered between the flashers, but someone happens to throw an identical stop-clock past the station such that at the very moment the photons were meeting in front of the centered clock, the tossed clock was also passing that point. It doesn't matter in which direction the clock was tossed. It could have been dropped downward, or tossed at an angle. The point is that the tossed clock, although moving, just happened to inadvertently cross the alignment point at the same moment the light waves (or photons) were meeting at the same point.



Given the declared scenario, would that tossed clock necessarily stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Agree.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Agree.

Great.

Now something to realize concerning this scenario (and why it relates to RM) is that so far, nothing has been a matter of observation, but rather of Definition.

The clocks are defined to be clocks that only stop if simultaneously encountering photons, "light pulses" from both sides. The distances are defined to be exactly equal with the clock centered. The flashers are defined as flashers that flash simultaneously. And light is defined to propagate at one constant speed (by the theory involved). So far, observation only plays a role in verifying that things really are as they have been defined to be in the situation Before the experiment begins. And thus far, you are definitionally locked into the conclusions. So far, there has been no alternative.

So let's continue.

Let's say that whoever tossed that clock thought that it was interesting that it happened to have stopped, so he tried it again. But his timing was mere accident and this time when he tosses the clock, he happens to toss it a little early. The clock passes by the alignment point before the light gets to it.



Now according to our definitions and the current scenario description, the tossed clock is NOT at the alignment point when the photons meet.

Do you agree that the tossed clock necessarily will not stop under such circumstances?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Agree.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Agree.

Now, the next component is actually merely a corollary to a prior premise, but I want to bring it into the light as well.

Due to the premise that light travels at a fixed speed, it must be independent of its source. No matter how fast a flashlight might be traveling, when the light emits from it, the light must be traveling at its own speed, independent of the speed of the flashlight. This notion is also a part of the relativity theory.

So if we had two flashers as before and also had two more flashers that were at that same 2Xs distance apart but were traveling past the first set and happened to flash at the exact same moment of the first two, the light emitted by both sets of flashers would behave identically and both meet along that same alignment point as before.



Can you agree that the motion of the flashers is irrelevant as long as they flash together at distance 2Xs centered around the alignment point?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

Not it gets complicated, as the reference frame begins to matter. From the perspective of the right moving flasher, for example, the diagram is incorrect. So we have to establish from where we are observing this situation before I can answer.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Not it gets complicated, as the reference frame begins to matter. From the perspective of the right moving flasher, for example, the diagram is incorrect. So we have to establish from where we are observing this situation before I can answer.

Your perspective is your perspective. And you are the one "standing still", the picture frame or "station". We are only talking about that one perspective. If someone else has a different perspective, do you change yours? Doesn't that seem a bit too submissive and slavish?

A photon cannot look around to see who is moving and then decide where to be based upon that. When the tossed clock was passing by, the photons didn't think, "Hey look, there is a moving clock. We better change our position! Slow down!!"

And if they didn't decide on their position and speed based upon the motion of the tossed clock, why would they change it based upon the flashers moving? By definition, they travel at one speed relative to ANYone watching. You are currently in one frame. With respect to that one frame, every photon must travel at one particular speed, "c", regardless of anything else going on.

The relativity rule is not, "The speed of light with respect to one frame depends upon what other frames might be doing or seeing." The rule is that the speed, and thus location at any one moment, is entirely and always constant.

The question is asking what the stationary frame, the "inertial frame", would experience. The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.

So it is Relativity that is saying that the light will behave identically whether the flashers are moving or not. All I am asking is whether you agree with the premise called "the constancy of the speed of light" and its corollary, "the speed of light is independent of its source's motion".

Hey, I only asked a question that's absolutely essential to know the answer to before I can answer the question you're asking. Since we're insisting on total clarity, that should be appreciated.

So yes, if the reference frame is the top down reference frame from which the picture is drawn then the answer is

A) Agree.

Quote :

The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.

Keep in mind that this means that the light seen from the moving flasher is seen to move at c as well.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Hey, I only asked a question that's absolutely essential to know the answer to before I can answer the question you're asking. Since we're insisting on total clarity, that should be appreciated.

So yes, if the reference frame is the top down reference frame from which the picture is drawn then the answer is

A) Agree.

In each of these, your frame is the picture frame. If something is shown as moving, then to you, it is moving regardless of what some other frame might perceive.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

The rule in question at the moment is whether the motion of the source of the light has any affect upon the speed of the light. Relativity states that it doesn't.

Keep in mind that this means that the light seen from the moving flasher is seen to move at c as well.

That will become very relevant a little later. But right now, we have to comprehensively examine everything going on in one frame perspective at a time and get agreement. And I am starting with the "station frame". Later we will get to the "train frame". I will get back to that later this evening, got "errands to run".

Ok, good.

Something to realize and keep in mind is that in these animes, the light (green) must always move at one particular speed, "c", throughout and regardless of anything else going on. The picture frame is your frame of reference. Anything that is not moving in the picture is apart of that same frame of reference.

What is critically important is that the light cannot maintain the same constant speed if it were dependent upon the speed of its source. Relativity requires that the light always propagate at exactly "c" regardless of any source motion or any other motion.

We have agreed on 4 concerns regarding when a stop clock will stop. Now I am going to combine our last agreement with the prior 3.

The 4th agreement was that in the following scenario, the light behaves the same regardless of the motion of the flashers just as is required by the theory.



So now combining that concept with the scenario of two fixed, non-moving clocks (I wish that I knew how to get them to all start together);



And if one of the clocks happens to cross the alignment point at the exact same moment the photons were meeting there;



And then if the clock wasn't centered when the photons met at the alignment point;




We have examined one perspective, the "stations". We have followed and accepted the theory of relativity and its corollaries. The obvious conclusion from the last anime is that if the moving clock is not exactly centered when the light reaches the center, the moving clock will not stop. And I am pretty certain that I don't have to draw in the train and station for you to see the inference.

I suspect at this point that you might be feeling the urge to argue against our 4th agreement. But that 4th agreement is a part of the theory itself.

A thought that might occur to you is that the light is not moving away from the flashers and clock at "c". And think about that for a minute. If there is anything that absolutely must always travel at one speed, everything else that is moving cannot be moving away from (or toward) that one thing at the same speed as everything else. If there were 10 items moving at different speeds, each would have to be moving relative to the light at different speeds from the others.


So can you now agree that according to the station perspective, the train clock cannot stop?
A) Agree
B) Disagree
C) Other?

This gets precarious. I can't agree yet, I need to know more of the relation of these recent animations to the original problem. We still have to deal with the calibration of the space-time relation between the flashers and the clocks.

If the timing of the flashes has been calibrated in terms of this stations perspective in order to reach the middle point (as measured from the stations perspective) between two flashers, again seen from the stations perspective, then I agree. But I can't see this correlate with the original train/station scenario, as that included other information.

As far as I understand, if the flashers have actually been calibrated to hit the trains clock simultaneously (thus if they actually do stop the clock), which is a given in the original problem but not part of these new animations, then, form the stations perspective, the flashers would appear to flash at different times.

Fixed Cross wrote:

If the timing of the flashes has been calibrated in terms of this stations perspective in order to reach the middle point (as measured from the stations perspective) between two flashers, again seen from the stations perspective, then I agree.

The defined scenario is that the flashers go off simultaneously such as to travel the distance Xs toward the station clock. Because the distance Xs is the same for both flashers (the clock is centered), and the photons must travel at the exact same speed as each other, they must meet at the station clock and stop it. The fact that the flashers were moving at the moment they flashed is irrelevant as per the theory.

Fixed Cross wrote:

But I can't see this correlate with the original train/station scenario, as that included other information.

As far as I understand, if the flashers have actually been calibrated to hit the trains clock simultaneously (thus if they actually do stop the clock), which is a given in the original problem but not part of these new animations, then, form the stations perspective, the flashers would appear to flash at different times.

The flashers are not "calibrated to hit" anything. They merely go off simultaneously and at equal distance from each clock (perhaps even triggered by a pair of sidetrack arms). There is no "calibrating" involved.

The composite animes display what necessarily must follow given such a situation. Any clock not centered at the time the light reaches the center cannot be stopped.

Where is the confusion?

The confusion is only due to the scenario being related to the train/station scenario. These are different scenarios.

With what you've described here, I see no problem. The moving clock does not stop.

Fixed Cross wrote:

With what you've described here, I see no problem. The moving clock does not stop.

So I really DO have to draw a box around the moving flashers and clock???



You seriously can't see the similarity between those???

The UPPER portion of the latter anime is the "station perspective", the same one we were just discussing. The only difference is that in the first, the clock was "tossed" and in the other a train was carrying the clock and the flashers.

No, the difference is that there is now suddenly an extra reference frame. Or did you mean for me to disregard the proposed trains perspective? (and if so why did you include the pic?)

If so, I still don't see a problem. The clock does not stop.

Fixed Cross wrote:

No, the difference is that there is now suddenly an extra reference frame. Or did you mean for me to disregard the proposed trains perspective? (and if so why did you include the pic?)

If so, I still don't see a problem. The clock does not stop.

We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective. And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.  

And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.

The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop. When the only premises of a logical sequence are definitions and a theory, and the conclusion is a contradiction, the theory is invalidated.

oops, hold on.

I screwed up your post, pressing edit instead of quote. I think there is a sentence missing. If you could restore it, thanks. Sorry.

Quote :

We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective.

Exactly. This means that relativity did not yet apply to the situation we had defined.

Quote :

And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.

Only if we only consider one aspect of relativity, which is the c does not depend on the speed of the object from which it is emitted as perceived from a perspective moving relative to this object.

The top down perspective moves in respect to the moving clock.

Quote :

And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.

Which is the same as the perspective of the emitter moving relative to the station, which I brought up earlier for that reason.

Quote :

The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop.

If all four photons are seen to be emitted at the exact same moment. Relativity allows that, if they arrive at the clocks simultaneously (which is what the definitions state), they aren't.



"Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future."

Quote :

When the only premises of a logical sequence are definitions and a theory, and the conclusion is a contradiction, the theory is invalidated.

Relativity only states that definitions of time and space as valid in reference frame A is dependent on whatever is perceived as c from reference frame A.



"Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame."

So the definitions illustrated in the first four animations were all dependent on the stations reference frame.

If both clocks stop, then the photons from the station are seen to be emitted at a different time than the photons on the train. If all photons are seen to be emitted simultaneously and two of them meet each other at a point that proves to be the real location of either of the clocks, only one of the clocks can stop.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

We have ONLY been talking about the station perspective.

Exactly. This means that relativity did not yet apply to the situation we had defined.

All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

And according to the station's perspective, the train clock cannot stop. It won't matter what anyone else's perspective is. According to the theory of relativity, the train clock cannot stop.

Only if we only consider one aspect of relativity, which is the c does not depend on the speed of the object from which it is emitted as perceived from a perspective moving relative to this object.

Again, the underlying intent of relativity is to form a consistent set of laws. One of those fundamental laws that must always apply, is that the speed of light must always be measured as exactly the same no matter who is measuring it, moving or not.

We must always consider that one "law" whether others are involved or not. And by considering merely that one, we are already locked into a conclusion. That one law by itself demands that the moving clock does not stop if not at the center line when the light reaches it. But there are no other laws that would change the situation.

Fixed Cross wrote:

The top down perspective moves in respect to the moving clock.

It isn't "moving" if it is "with respect" to it. That is what "with respect to it" means.

What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together. In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

And then the "problem" comes in when we change our perspective and look at the same scenario from the train as the station's clock passes by.

Which is the same as the perspective of the emitter moving relative to the station, which I brought up earlier for that reason.

And I said that it would become relevant and this is where it becomes relevant - when you apply the exact same laws to the train's perspective.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Quote :

The scenario is identical, merely reversed. Thus we can already tell that according to the train, it is the station's clock that cannot stop.

If all four photons are seen to be emitted at the exact same moment. Relativity allows that, if they arrive at the clocks simultaneously (which is what the definitions state), they aren't.

The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality. That is "affirming the consequent" or "choosing the result and then declaring the initial state based upon it".

The flashers flash at a particular moment. The photons have no idea where they are going to end up.



"Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future."

The theory of relativity of simultaneity is ONLY about the appearances due to the time that it takes for light to travel to each observer. We are "above" that concern. We are not watching something that depends upon us seeing when the flashers "really flashed". We are defining when they are to flash. The clocks are the "observers". But in this scenario each of the observers must declare an alternate reality than the other ONLY if they accept relativity. But the clocks either stop or they don't.

And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track. With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment. The distance Xs would get involved in trying to set where the arms are to be located, but Xs is variable and can be anything as long as it remains the same Xs on both sides of the clock.

Time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity are all irrelevant to this scenario with no consequences to the outcome.



And I don't know which post or sentence you are referring to as getting screwed up. What was the sentence?

So is the jury still out?

The decision is between;

A) Logic and mathematics = Relative is incorrect (or at least imprecise)
=>> self-honesty, self-harmony, rationality, independent thought, sight of the light

B) Illogic and vagueness = Relativity is true
=>> self-deceit, inner dissonance, irrationality, faith, blindness

C) Jury is still out

The choice and consequence is yours, as always.

James S Saint wrote:

All theories must always apply. And actually that was stated in Einsteins special relativity thesis. That was actually the whole underlying concern. Physics requires a set of laws that are not dependent upon the situation of the Earth moving through space at an unknown pace. Relativity was offered as a means to form laws/principles that would be accurate regardless of such space travel.

Yes, this is why you have to make your definitions in terms of relativity in order to test relativity.
But you choose the objectivist way of defining a situation, which is an a priori negation of relativity.

Your definition states that both train and station are actually the same reference frame.

Quote :

It isn't "moving" if it is "with respect" to it. That is what "with respect to it" means.

With respect to means in reference to, relative to.
Motion of an object is defined with respect to another reference frame. It is stationary with respect to itself, if it is not accelerating with respect to another object.

Quote :

What you are calling the "top down perspective" is actually merely the perspective of both proposed reference frames together.

Relativity was developed because such a perspective is impossible.
One can not have two different reference frames within one reference frame. A = A, thus also A ≠ (≠A).

Quote :

In this scenario, the clocks either stop or they don't. If you consider either perspective by itself, it is always the other clock that must not stop. That "top down perspective" is merely the forced conclusion for a single history. The individual perspectives would have to declare a different actual history than the other. But only one history can exist.

Things are influenced by things in different orders; the sequence of events leading up to the present is different as registered by (having affect in) different reference frames.

Quote :

The time of the emission isn't dependent upon when they reach their destination... unless you want to start reversing time and causality.

If the speed is fixed and known, and you decide on a time of arrival, the moment of departure you're going to use is wholly dependent on that time.

Quote :

The theory of relativity of simultaneity is ONLY about the appearances due to the time that it takes for light to travel to each observer.

If that would be the case Copernican logic would suffice.

Because the speed of light is seen as the same from all reference frames, and other things are seen as moving with different speeds; in short because light behaves in a fundamentally different way than matter, all your calculations involving the travel of light are going to be inconsistent with calculations disregarding the speed of light.

Relativity involves the speed of light at the basis of every calculation about mass and energy, so as to never come to the conclusion that reality is inconsistent with itself.

The fact that light is perceived as traveling at equal speed from reference frames moving with respect to each other, is by the standards by which you've set your definitions, illogical.

So as I see it now, your only option is to prove that the speed of light is in fact not equal from all reference frames.

Quote :

And besides that, we can easily remove any concern for simultaneity merely by having relevant things actually touch, such as the triggering of the flashers by touching arms at the side of the track.

It's interesting to look at the problem from that angle.

What I think would happen is that the station perspective perceives the photons on the train to be departing at a different time than the moment that the trigger connects. The time difference would be due to the fact that the speed of the train has to be converted into the perspective of the station, "valued in terms of".

The experiential connecting to of a reference frame moving with respect to your own is an act that is influenced by the limits of propagation of affect.

Quote :

With zero distance involved, the entire simultaneity issue is void. BOTH frames would have to accept that the flashers were triggered at the same moment.

And yet they can not help perceiving each other as being influenced by it at a different moment.