Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 07:04 > > I just liked 'inertial(a)rest' .. it seemed an appropriate name for > sci.physics.relativity > > Hadn't noticed the @rest. Makes it obvious, but now I have motion sickness. Are you moving or stationary?
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 07:08 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b98dc47$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> I just liked 'inertial(a)rest' .. it seemed an appropriate name for >> sci.physics.relativity >> >> > > Hadn't noticed the @rest. Makes it obvious, but now I have motion > sickness. Are you moving or stationary? Doesn't matter .. I'm inertial :):)
From: Ste on 11 Mar 2010 07:40 On 11 Mar, 01:31, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7df1fc51-d0aa-461b-8c57-cbd52d6c9438(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On 9 Mar, 23:41, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:e37617e7-52f9-4fbd-a740-bac32eb220dd(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On 9 Mar, 05:34, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> Did you look at the diagrams on the Wikipedia page on the twins > >> >> paradox > >> >> as I > >> >> suggested? > > >> >> This shows *exactly* what the moving and stationary clocks see as > >> >> happening > >> >> at all stages of the thought experiment. > > >> > This isn't the twins paradox, > > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox > > >> Of course it is the twins paradox. Do you even know what the twins > >> paradox > >> is ? Lets see what the web page says > > >> "In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special > >> relativity, > >> in which a twin makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and > >> returns home to find he has aged less than his identical twin who stayed > >> on > >> Earth. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin > >> as > >> traveling, and so, according to the theory of special relativity, > >> paradoxically each should find the other to have aged more slowly. How > >> the > >> seeming contradiction is resolved, and how the absolute effect (one twin > >> really aging less) can result from a relative motion, can be explained > >> within the standard framework of special relativity. The effect has been > >> verified experimentally using precise measurements of clocks flown in > >> airplanes.[1][2]" > > > I repeat myself again, the scenario we have here is *not* the twins > > paradox. > > Then what are you talking about now? > > >> > so it would be strange to find the > >> > answer to my question there. Also, I've read that page in the past, > >> > and I don't recall it having relevant detail. > > >> Clearly you are either lying about reading it, or you didn't understand > >> it. > > > No, perhaps you didn't understand. As I say, this is *not* the twins > > paradox, because in the twins paradox only *one* twin leaves Earth. > > Then what are you talking about now? Perhaps you should review the previous postings, but as a quick summary, this scenario essentially involves *both* twins leaving Earth, in diametrically opposite directions. Hence when the twins return to Earth, they are the same age as each other (although both younger than a third sibling who remained on Earth).
From: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 07:42 On Mar 10, 11:12 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 7:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > "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." > > Cretin. Yes, "as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time." I understand you selectively cut-and-paste one particular line in order to remain ignorant of what Einstein means by 'motion'. The idea of motion may not be applied to the aether because the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. This does not mean the aether can not be displaced by the matter. "Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance - we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. 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."
From: mpc755 on 11 Mar 2010 07:42 On Mar 10, 11:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 9:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 8:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > You know for a while you were making progress. (I'm sure some here > > > are thinking the same about me ;) You managed to get away from each > > > frame having its own ether to having them share a single ether (for EM > > > waves anyway). Now if you could just get away from trying to attach > > > one of the frames to the ether... > > > > Did you ever get anywhere with that diagram I made to explain RoS to > > > you. Einstein presented the train experiment from the point of view > > > of the tracks, but he never said that the tracks were at rest WRT the > > > ether. > > > > - 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. > > > > But you have no way of knowing which clock is ticking faster. To > > > measure the tick rate of a moving clock requires more than one clock > > > at rest. And then you end up making assumptions to sychronize them.. > > > Those assumptions affect your measurements. > > > The two clocks are synchronized at some point in time. Then the clock > > at M and the clock at M' travel past one another. The Observer on the > > train and the Observer on the embankment have enough time to determine > > which clock is ticking faster. The clock which is ticking faster when > > M and M pass each other is the clock most at rest with respect to the > > aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > You need at least one more clock to measure a tic rate. Given clock > B, you compare the time on clock M to that on clock M' when they > pass. You cannot compare them a second time because M' is moving. So > you compare M' to B when they pass. With that comparison you can > decide whether the clock at M' has gained or lost time, but that > calculation assumes the clocks at M and B read the same. And > assumptions were required when those clocks were synchronized. Why can't you measure the clocks at M and M' a second time?
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI) Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights |