From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 18:30 On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? > > > _______________________________ > > Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the > > reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference > > frame where lengths and times are "correct". > > > There > > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field > > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing > > priveleged as in having different properties about it. > > > _____________________________ > > It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real > > length > > is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I > > don't actually believe it exists at all. > > Real length??? What makes length real? Distances across round atoms reveal atomic size that does not vary. Mitch Raemsch > > ___________________________ > Ask the people who believe in the ether. It's their concept. > BTW, you asked for a definition of a "privileged reference frame". I posted > a not very good one. But this is a standard term in physics, not for me to > define. Googling it gives 150,000 hits, and the very first onehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frameexplains it exactly in this > context opf SR. Should have done this in the first place.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: BURT on 10 Mar 2010 18:34 On Mar 10, 3:30 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 9:01 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? > > > > _______________________________ > > > Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the > > > reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference > > > frame where lengths and times are "correct". > > > > There > > > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field > > > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing > > > priveleged as in having different properties about it. > > > > _____________________________ > > > It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real > > > length > > > is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I > > > don't actually believe it exists at all. > > > Real length??? What makes length real? > > Distances across round atoms reveal atomic size that does not vary. > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > > ___________________________ > > Ask the people who believe in the ether. It's their concept. > > BTW, you asked for a definition of a "privileged reference frame". I posted > > a not very good one. But this is a standard term in physics, not for me to > > define. Googling it gives 150,000 hits, and the very first onehttp://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frameexplainsit exactly in this > > context opf SR. Should have done this in the first place.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are 4 electron shells that determine the four fundamental sizes of the atom. If they are not round there would be different fundamental sizes by the fact of being lopsided. Mitch Raemsch
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2010 19:45 On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > > > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > > > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > > > hiderence in understanding SR. > > > > ________________________________ > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a > > > little easier (in my opinion). > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected > > > within LET. > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist". > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a > > strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):) > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs > to objects as they move with respect to the aether. > > The issue with LET is everything is relative. > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > places" - Albert Einstein. You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert Einstein. > This means the aether is more at rest with > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the > length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is > longer than the train. > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment. > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on > the embankment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which frame is more at rest WRT the ether.
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 20:00 On Mar 10, 7:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > > > > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > > > > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > > > > hiderence in understanding SR. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a > > > > little easier (in my opinion). > > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the > > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame > > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected > > > > within LET. > > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. > > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be > > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist". > > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. > > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to > > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help > > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may > > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A > > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest > > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really > > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows > > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a > > > strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real > > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):) > > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs > > to objects as they move with respect to the aether. > > > The issue with LET is everything is relative. > > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by > > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > places" - Albert Einstein. > > You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one: > > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up > ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert Einstein. > To make a post such as yours without a definition of what Einstein means by 'motion' shows how little you know. "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Once you are willing to understand how Einstein defined motion, as particles which can be separately tracked through time, maybe you can advance from your state of being an ignoramus. p.s. You still haven't answered how it is the train is length contacted because it is moving relative to the aether and the embankment is more at rest with respect to the embankment but at the same time LET has everything being relative. The answer is both the Observer at M and the Observer at M' will determine the train to be length contracted and for the clocks on the train to be ticking slower than the clocks on the embankment. It is one thing having to deal with the QM delusional denial posters on this forum and it is something entirely different having to deal with the likes of you. Once you realize in the earth frame of reference the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train you can respond to my posts, until then, don't waste my time. > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with > > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The > > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted > > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the > > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length > > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the > > length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the > > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is > > longer than the train. > > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment. > > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment > > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater > > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing > > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train > > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other > > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment > > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on > > the embankment.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > frame is more at rest WRT the ether.
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 20:10
On Mar 10, 7:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > > >news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > > > > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > > > > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > > > > hiderence in understanding SR. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a > > > > little easier (in my opinion). > > > > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the > > > > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame > > > > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected > > > > within LET. > > > > That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. > > > > > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be > > > > detected" to "it doesn't exist". > > > > Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. > > > > Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to > > > it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help > > > > LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may > > > be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A > > > moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest > > > in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really > > > confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows > > > things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a > > > strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real > > > slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):) > > > It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs > > to objects as they move with respect to the aether. > > > The issue with LET is everything is relative. > > > For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by > > connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring > > places" - Albert Einstein. > > You like Einstein quotes about the ether so try this one: > > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up > ascribing a definite state of motion to it" - Albert Einstein. > "If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics - if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." "[extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Once you are willing to understand how Einstein defined motion, as particles which can be separately tracked through time, maybe you can advance from your statement. p.s. You still haven't answered how it is the train is length contacted because it is moving relative to the aether and the embankment is more at rest with respect to the embankment but at the same time LET has everything being relative. The answer is both the Observer at M and the Observer at M' will determine the train to be length contracted and for the clocks on the train to be ticking slower than the clocks on the embankment. > > > > This means the aether is more at rest with > > respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The > > train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted > > while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the > > embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length > > contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the > > length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the > > embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is > > longer than the train. > > > The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment. > > Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment > > is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater > > pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing > > it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train > > where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other > > both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment > > would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on > > the embankment.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. The clock which ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether. |