Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off.
Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein> chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step > in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of > reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me > that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a > method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. > > Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B > are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two > clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame > aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past > they all start ticking. > > Harry > > > On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I agree that video is not terribly useful. >> >> Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. >> Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. >> >> We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal >> distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. >> >> A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered >> synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B >> will see the light from them at the same moment. >> >> Why it is invalid: >> >> The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of >> seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting >> clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. >> >> Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 >> seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. >> >> Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. >> Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the >> same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes >> longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left >> takes only .5 seconds. >> >> B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the >> synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. >> >> Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end >> up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was >> constant. >> >> Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested >> such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. >> >> Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is >> rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full >> loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if >> measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods >> of synchronization. >> >> Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for >> testing the constancy of the speed of light. >> >> If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the >> speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. >> One such scheme is synchronization from the center. >> >> This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion >> of a Sagnac loop. >> >> And if another scheme of synchronization must be accepted since >> Einstein's method is rigged, then this would also apply to a spaceship that >> is moving in a very subtle arc, an arc that would make a circle of any size >> even larger than a galaxy. >> >> Since all real world motion is not perfectly straight, then even a >> momentary subtle arc would have to behave as if it were part of a giant >> Sagnac loop that. >> >> This quickly turns into the speed of light not being constant outside of >> completely perfect inertial frames that do not exist in reality. >> >> John >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> John, >>> Forget these videos. >>> I just realized they are not a fair critique of special relativity >>> because they don't factor in the the postulate of the constancy of light >>> speed. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Sorry, >>>> I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The >>>> second section is added below. >>>> Harry >>>> >>>> On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... >>>>> >>>>> [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect >>>>> method to synchronize clocks - case (A). >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiE&list=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw >>>>> >>>>> ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein >>>>> his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** >>>>> The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought >>>>> experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be >>>>> synchronized >>>>> with events in a moving frame. >>>>> >>>>> The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds >>>>> that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the >>>>> corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually >>>>> matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) >>>>> >>>>> Harry >>>>> >>>>> **1. Definition of Simultaneity >>>>> >>>>> Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of >>>>> Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more >>>>> precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from >>>>> others >>>>> which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the "stationary system." >>>>> >>>>> If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of >>>>> co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the >>>>> employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean >>>>> geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. >>>>> >>>>> If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the >>>>> values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear >>>>> carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no >>>>> physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by >>>>> "time." We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time >>>>> plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for >>>>> instance, >>>>> I say, "That train arrives here at 7 o'clock," I mean something like this: >>>>> "The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the >>>>> train are simultaneous events."3 >>>>> >>>>> It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending >>>>> the definition of "time" by substituting "the position of the small hand >>>>> of >>>>> my watch" for "time." And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when >>>>> we >>>>> are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the >>>>> watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect >>>>> in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to >>>>> the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote >>>>> from the watch. >>>>> >>>>> We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by >>>>> an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the >>>>> co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands >>>>> with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him >>>>> through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it >>>>> is >>>>> not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, >>>>> as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical >>>>> determination along the following line of thought. >>>>> >>>>> If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can >>>>> determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by >>>>> finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these >>>>> events. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects >>>>> resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine >>>>> the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood of B. But it is >>>>> not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an >>>>> event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and >>>>> a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the >>>>> latter >>>>> cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definitionthat the "time" >>>>> required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to >>>>> travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the "A time" from A >>>>> towards >>>>> B, let it at the "B time" be reflected at B in the direction of A, and >>>>> arrive again at A at the "A time" . >>>>> >>>>> In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if >>>>> >>>>> We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from >>>>> contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the >>>>> following relations are universally valid:-- >>>>> >>>>> If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A >>>>> synchronizes with the clock at B. >>>>> If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the >>>>> clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. >>>>> >>>>> Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have >>>>> settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located >>>>> at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of >>>>> "simultaneous," or "synchronous," and of "time." The "time" of an event is >>>>> that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock >>>>> located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and >>>>> indeed >>>>> synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified stationary >>>>> clock. >>>>> >>>>> In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity >>>>> >>>>> to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space. >>>>> >>>>> It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in >>>>> the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the >>>>> stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system." >>>>> >>>>> from >>>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times >>>> >>>> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and >>>> on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two >>>> principles we define as follows:-- >>>> >>>> The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not >>>> affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the >>>> other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. >>>> Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with >>>> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by >>>> a moving body. Hence >>>> >>>> where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § >>>> 1. >>>> >>>> Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as >>>> measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the >>>> axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of >>>> co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with >>>> velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then >>>> imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, and >>>> imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-- >>>> >>>> (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the >>>> rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by >>>> superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were at >>>> rest. >>>> (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and >>>> synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what >>>> points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are >>>> located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, measured >>>> by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is >>>> also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod." >>>> >>>> In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be >>>> discovered by the operation (a)--we will call it "the length of the rod in >>>> the moving system"--must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. >>>> >>>> The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the >>>> length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system." This we shall >>>> determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it >>>> differs from l. >>>> >>>> Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by these >>>> two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving rigid >>>> body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly represented by >>>> the same body at rest in a definite position. >>>> >>>> We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are >>>> placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is >>>> to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time of the >>>> stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are >>>> therefore "synchronous in the stationary system." >>>> >>>> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, and >>>> that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in § 1 >>>> for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from A at >>>> the time4 , let it be reflected at B at the time , and reach A again at the >>>> time . Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the >>>> velocity of light we find that >>>> >>>> where denotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary >>>> system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two >>>> clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system would >>>> declare the clocks to be synchronous. >>>> >>>> So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the >>>> concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of >>>> co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as >>>> simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion >>>> relatively to that system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM, John Berry <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ >>>>>> >>>>>> There are 6 simple videos showing arguments against various parts of >>>>>> Special Relativity. >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/NeoclassicRelativity >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
