A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 00:45 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:e9b52490-dec2-4027-8a71-c831115ab04a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation: >> >> > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler >> >> > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25. >> > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now" >> > price of $5 to $10. >> >> [...] >> >> IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but >> doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math. > > Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand > in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading > lists! > > > >> Another thing I don't like is their constant repetition of how things >> aren't what we expect because we aren't used to dealing with the >> speeds involved. That's BS. > > Yes, I get a bit tired of that even on this newsgroup. Yet it is correct. Whether you tired of it or not.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 00:47 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Illustration: >> >> > E1 >> >> > -------- >> >> > E2 >> >> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the >> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be >> > simultaneous. >> >> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on >> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the >> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about >> seperation along the axis of travel. That is correct >> In the train experient A and B >> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off >> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally >> considered in the train experiment. > > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. No .. its not > The statement was not "about > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste, > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". > > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next! There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are simultaneous in another. Bad luck STE.
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 01:26 On 1 Mar, 05:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:320d036e-35c6-4a2b-ba4b-1d8e3a9067ba(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 28 Feb, 07:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > >> I'm confused, because I thought we previously agreed that two > >> observers travelling along the same axis, maintaining equidistance > >> from both events at all times, would both report each event as > >> simultaneous with the other event. And moreover, if they not only both > >> maintained equidistance from both events, but if they maintained a > >> separation which was equal for both observers (which, if both > >> observers are moving relative to each other, requires either a > >> collision course between observers, or travel in diametrically > >> opposite directions), then there is no question that the signals are > >> received simultaneously. > > >> Illustration: > > >> E1 > > >> -------- > > >> E2 > > >> The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > >> observers may move while always reporting both events to be > >> simultaneous. > > >> _________________________________ > >> You still don't get it. You can say two events appeared to simultaneous > >> or > >> "were" simultaneous in *some* inertial reference frame. That does *not* > >> mean > >> they appeared simultaneous or "were" simultaneous in some *other* > >> reference > >> frame. The concept that is lost is "absolute simultaneity", not > >> "simultaneity within a particular reference frame". > > > But clearly if the two *observers* are moving relative to each other, > > then this is the definitive proof that events can be simultaneous when > > measured from more than one reference frame. > > No .. it isn't. Do you know what an 'event' is? > > > And in some > > circumstances, the simultaneity also aquires an "absolute" character, > > Nope > > > in that the events would be observed to be simultaneous if the two > > observers were able to synchronise their clocks by a form of > > instantaneous communication. > > Clocks that are wrong can show any time you want. But differently moving > observers will always read a different difference in time on a given pair of > separated clocks. No they won't Inertial. I suggest you get out a paper and pencil, and do some working out.
From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 01:28 On 1 Mar, 05:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > >> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > Illustration: > > >> > E1 > > >> > -------- > > >> > E2 > > >> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the > >> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be > >> > simultaneous. > > >> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on > >> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the > >> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about > >> seperation along the axis of travel. > > That is correct > > >> In the train experient A and B > >> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off > >> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally > >> considered in the train experiment. > > > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. > > No .. its not > > > The statement was not "about > > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is > > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste, > > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". > > > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next! > > There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are > simultaneous in another. There are no two frames where *all possible events* are simultaneous in both frames, but in my scenario dealing with simply two specific events, both are simultaneous in both frames.
From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 01:48
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aa78a722-f15c-4f31-a27f-231c7659ca4b(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... > On 1 Mar, 05:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Illustration: >> >> >> > E1 >> >> >> > -------- >> >> >> > E2 >> >> >> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which >> >> > the >> >> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be >> >> > simultaneous. >> >> >> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on >> >> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the >> >> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about >> >> seperation along the axis of travel. >> >> That is correct >> >> >> In the train experient A and B >> >> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off >> >> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally >> >> considered in the train experiment. >> >> > This is called "revisionism", Bruce. >> >> No .. its not >> >> > The statement was not "about >> > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is >> > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste, >> > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR". >> >> > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next! >> >> There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are >> simultaneous in another. > > There are no two frames where *all possible events* are simultaneous > in both frames, I never claimed that .. noone does. > but in my scenario dealing with simply two specific > events, both are simultaneous in both frames. Yes .. it is possible to have some events simultaneous in multiple frames. But that does not make simultaneity universal in any sense, as other pairs of events that are simultaneous in on of those frames is not simultaneous in another. So regarding "what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another" meaning "the set of all pairs of simultaneous events in one frame is NOT identical to the set of pairs of simultaneous events in another frame" is correct. THAT is the relevant point. |