But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: train on 14 Jun 2010 20:11 On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >news:a05ea844-50cc-43bd-aa51-688b1d358db3(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jun 11, 6:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:acabac4d-09c7-4f6e-b48d-b02dd727bc05(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com.... > >> On Jun 10, 10:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > >> wrote: > > >> > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >> >news:c043d370-515b-4992-a1f0-4483cf995871(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Nobody can see photons flying; what we can see is the scattering of > >> > light on particles. In other words, we can only directly see light > >> > that falls on our eyes, and our eye does not tell us if it was a > >> > photon, ray, or wave. > > >> > =============================================== > >> > Or what its speed is. We get that from it's emission colour and its > >> > observed > >> > colour. > > >> > Professor C.A.Doppler had it work out, > >> > f' = f *(c+v)/c > >> > cf' = f *(c+v) > >> > cf'/f = c+v > >> > cf'/f - c = v > >> > v = c(f'/f-1) > > >> > Whether the car comes to the radar gun or the radar gun goes to the > >> > car, > >> > the relative speed is v. Hence Doppler radar and a speeding ticket for > >> > travelling at speed v. > >> > The speed of light relative toEinstein's > >> > superfluous aether = > >> > superfluous empty space = > >> > superfluous stationary frame of reference = > >> > superfluous inertial frame = > >> > superfluous absolute frame = > >> > is non sequitur, > >> > the speed of light relative to the emitter, c, is pertinent. > > >> > Radar guns work just fine (by millions of experiments) proving > >> > thatEinsteinwas a jerk, his calculation V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c is > >> > nonsense and would not agree with radar gun experiments. > >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif > > >> Ok, more of what AE said, from the 1905 paper > > >> "Butit 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 definition that the ``time'' required by light > >> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B > >> to A" > > >> If A and B are stationary srt each other why is this necessary, > > You can't compare times if you do not use some way of synchronizing the > times on the clocks. As we know (from the postulates) that the speed of > light between to objects that are stationary wrt each other is the same in > both directions, then you can use that as a way to synchronise the clocks.. > Other methods are equivalent (eg put the two clocks together and then move > them apart with the same-but-opposite-direction speeds). > > >> if A > >> and B are not, why is this possible > > Why is what possible? The SR clock-synch only works when they are > relatively at rest. > > > - if A and B are moving parallel > >> towards each other then AB is not equal to BA. > > >> Right? > > Yes .. and the clock synch is only defined to work when they are NOT moving > relative to each other. Androcles has been told this hundreds of times,but > he still posts his lies and half-truths claiming that the clock sync applies > when A and B are moving wrt each other. If the laws if physics are the same in all reference frames, and the ones not moving relative to each other, inertial frames I migh tadd, then what is the use of defining synchronization? All clocks in all inertial reference frames will run at the same rate, if the clocks are identical. A and B seems like a clever diversion to prop up or set up the theory, of course I could be wrong. Right?
From: Inertial on 14 Jun 2010 20:25 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a9efeb7a-b2e8-47dd-866d-4f1dbad6a1a4(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >news:a05ea844-50cc-43bd-aa51-688b1d358db3(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> > On Jun 11, 6:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >>news:acabac4d-09c7-4f6e-b48d-b02dd727bc05(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> On Jun 10, 10:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message >> >> >> >news:c043d370-515b-4992-a1f0-4483cf995871(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > Nobody can see photons flying; what we can see is the scattering of >> >> > light on particles. In other words, we can only directly see light >> >> > that falls on our eyes, and our eye does not tell us if it was a >> >> > photon, ray, or wave. >> >> >> > =============================================== >> >> > Or what its speed is. We get that from it's emission colour and its >> >> > observed >> >> > colour. >> >> >> > Professor C.A.Doppler had it work out, >> >> > f' = f *(c+v)/c >> >> > cf' = f *(c+v) >> >> > cf'/f = c+v >> >> > cf'/f - c = v >> >> > v = c(f'/f-1) >> >> >> > Whether the car comes to the radar gun or the radar gun goes to the >> >> > car, >> >> > the relative speed is v. Hence Doppler radar and a speeding ticket >> >> > for >> >> > travelling at speed v. >> >> > The speed of light relative toEinstein's >> >> > superfluous aether = >> >> > superfluous empty space = >> >> > superfluous stationary frame of reference = >> >> > superfluous inertial frame = >> >> > superfluous absolute frame = >> >> > is non sequitur, >> >> > the speed of light relative to the emitter, c, is pertinent. >> >> >> > Radar guns work just fine (by millions of experiments) proving >> >> > thatEinsteinwas a jerk, his calculation V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c is >> >> > nonsense and would not agree with radar gun experiments. >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif >> >> >> Ok, more of what AE said, from the 1905 paper >> >> >> "Butit 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 definition that the ``time'' required by light >> >> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B >> >> to A" >> >> >> If A and B are stationary srt each other why is this necessary, >> >> You can't compare times if you do not use some way of synchronizing the >> times on the clocks. As we know (from the postulates) that the speed of >> light between to objects that are stationary wrt each other is the same >> in >> both directions, then you can use that as a way to synchronise the >> clocks. >> Other methods are equivalent (eg put the two clocks together and then >> move >> them apart with the same-but-opposite-direction speeds). >> >> >> if A >> >> and B are not, why is this possible >> >> Why is what possible? The SR clock-synch only works when they are >> relatively at rest. >> >> > - if A and B are moving parallel >> >> towards each other then AB is not equal to BA. >> >> >> Right? >> >> Yes .. and the clock synch is only defined to work when they are NOT >> moving >> relative to each other. Androcles has been told this hundreds of >> times,but >> he still posts his lies and half-truths claiming that the clock sync >> applies >> when A and B are moving wrt each other. > > If the laws if physics are the same in all reference frames, All inertial ones > and the > ones not moving relative to each other, If two frames are not moving relative to each other they are equivalent frames .. all it is is a diferent of where you put the [0,0,0,0] point and how you orient your x,y,z axes. > inertial frames I migh tadd, > then what is the use of defining synchronization? It is about how time relates at different LOCATIONS. > All clocks in all > inertial reference frames will run at the same rate, Yes they do .. as measured by observers also at rest in their frame. BUT that does not mean observers moving relative to the clock will also measure the clock as ticking at the same rate as their own clock. Note that when measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) .. it is that motion through time nad space between ticks that results in the difference in measured ticking rates. > if the clocks are > identical. A and B seems like a clever diversion to prop up or set up > the theory, of course I could be wrong. Right? You could be wrong indeed. Its not a diversion .. its key to the theory.
From: train on 15 Jun 2010 19:51 On Jun 15, 5:25 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a9efeb7a-b2e8-47dd-866d-4f1dbad6a1a4(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >news:a05ea844-50cc-43bd-aa51-688b1d358db3(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> > On Jun 11, 6:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:acabac4d-09c7-4f6e-b48d-b02dd727bc05(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > >> >> On Jun 10, 10:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:c043d370-515b-4992-a1f0-4483cf995871(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups..com... > > >> >> > Nobody can see photons flying; what we can see is the scattering of > >> >> > light on particles. In other words, we can only directly see light > >> >> > that falls on our eyes, and our eye does not tell us if it was a > >> >> > photon, ray, or wave. > > >> >> > =============================================== > >> >> > Or what its speed is. We get that from it's emission colour and its > >> >> > observed > >> >> > colour. > > >> >> > Professor C.A.Doppler had it work out, > >> >> > f' = f *(c+v)/c > >> >> > cf' = f *(c+v) > >> >> > cf'/f = c+v > >> >> > cf'/f - c = v > >> >> > v = c(f'/f-1) > > >> >> > Whether the car comes to the radar gun or the radar gun goes to the > >> >> > car, > >> >> > the relative speed is v. Hence Doppler radar and a speeding ticket > >> >> > for > >> >> > travelling at speed v. > >> >> > The speed of light relative toEinstein's > >> >> > superfluous aether = > >> >> > superfluous empty space = > >> >> > superfluous stationary frame of reference = > >> >> > superfluous inertial frame = > >> >> > superfluous absolute frame = > >> >> > is non sequitur, > >> >> > the speed of light relative to the emitter, c, is pertinent. > > >> >> > Radar guns work just fine (by millions of experiments) proving > >> >> > thatEinsteinwas a jerk, his calculation V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c is > >> >> > nonsense and would not agree with radar gun experiments. > >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif > > >> >> Ok, more of what AE said, from the 1905 paper > > >> >> "Butit 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 definition that the ``time'' required by light > >> >> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B > >> >> to A" > > >> >> If A and B are stationary srt each other why is this necessary, > > >> You can't compare times if you do not use some way of synchronizing the > >> times on the clocks. As we know (from the postulates) that the speed of > >> light between to objects that are stationary wrt each other is the same > >> in > >> both directions, then you can use that as a way to synchronise the > >> clocks. > >> Other methods are equivalent (eg put the two clocks together and then > >> move > >> them apart with the same-but-opposite-direction speeds). > > >> >> if A > >> >> and B are not, why is this possible > > >> Why is what possible? The SR clock-synch only works when they are > >> relatively at rest. > > >> > - if A and B are moving parallel > >> >> towards each other then AB is not equal to BA. > > >> >> Right? > > >> Yes .. and the clock synch is only defined to work when they are NOT > >> moving > >> relative to each other. Androcles has been told this hundreds of > >> times,but > >> he still posts his lies and half-truths claiming that the clock sync > >> applies > >> when A and B are moving wrt each other. > > > If the laws if physics are the same in all reference frames, > > All inertial ones > > > and the > > ones not moving relative to each other, > > If two frames are not moving relative to each other they are equivalent > frames .. all it is is a diferent of where you put the [0,0,0,0] point and > how you orient your x,y,z axes. > > > inertial frames I migh tadd, > > then what is the use of defining synchronization? > > It is about how time relates at different LOCATIONS. > > > All clocks in all > > inertial reference frames will run at the same rate, > > Yes they do .. as measured by observers also at rest in their frame. BUT > that does not mean observers moving relative to the clock will also measure > the clock as ticking at the same rate as their own clock. Note that when > measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different > locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) .. it is that > motion through time nad space between ticks that results in the difference > in measured ticking rates. > > > if the clocks are > > identical. A and B seems like a clever diversion to prop up or set up > > the theory, of course I could be wrong. Right? > > You could be wrong indeed. Its not a diversion .. its key to the theory. Thanks Inertial but I am not sure I understand the following: Note that when measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) A moving clock is a different from a stationary clock and the system we are talking about, but synchronization between clocks that are stationary is not needed, I think. How would you disprove Androcles assertion that radar guns disprove SRT? The change of wavelength is possible, however what is important is the speed of the extreme front of the wave - the proverbial tip of the ray of light - if this arrives sooner at the radar gun from a reflection off a moving car than a stationary car then we can say light has seeded up after bouncing off a car. Is this within experimental error and is it detectable?
From: Androcles on 15 Jun 2010 20:36 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3ea45ae0-99ee-433a-9128-96e25d683bd7(a)u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... On Jun 15, 5:25 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a9efeb7a-b2e8-47dd-866d-4f1dbad6a1a4(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >> >news:a05ea844-50cc-43bd-aa51-688b1d358db3(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > >> > On Jun 11, 6:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > >> > wrote: > >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >>news:acabac4d-09c7-4f6e-b48d-b02dd727bc05(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... > >> >> On Jun 10, 10:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > >> >> wrote: > > >> >> > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > >> >> >news:c043d370-515b-4992-a1f0-4483cf995871(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > Nobody can see photons flying; what we can see is the scattering > >> >> > of > >> >> > light on particles. In other words, we can only directly see light > >> >> > that falls on our eyes, and our eye does not tell us if it was a > >> >> > photon, ray, or wave. > > >> >> > =============================================== > >> >> > Or what its speed is. We get that from it's emission colour and > >> >> > its > >> >> > observed > >> >> > colour. > > >> >> > Professor C.A.Doppler had it work out, > >> >> > f' = f *(c+v)/c > >> >> > cf' = f *(c+v) > >> >> > cf'/f = c+v > >> >> > cf'/f - c = v > >> >> > v = c(f'/f-1) > > >> >> > Whether the car comes to the radar gun or the radar gun goes to > >> >> > the > >> >> > car, > >> >> > the relative speed is v. Hence Doppler radar and a speeding ticket > >> >> > for > >> >> > travelling at speed v. > >> >> > The speed of light relative toEinstein's > >> >> > superfluous aether = > >> >> > superfluous empty space = > >> >> > superfluous stationary frame of reference = > >> >> > superfluous inertial frame = > >> >> > superfluous absolute frame = > >> >> > is non sequitur, > >> >> > the speed of light relative to the emitter, c, is pertinent. > > >> >> > Radar guns work just fine (by millions of experiments) proving > >> >> > thatEinsteinwas a jerk, his calculation V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c is > >> >> > nonsense and would not agree with radar gun experiments. > >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif > > >> >> Ok, more of what AE said, from the 1905 paper > > >> >> "Butit 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 definition that the ``time'' required by > >> >> light > >> >> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from > >> >> B > >> >> to A" > > >> >> If A and B are stationary srt each other why is this necessary, > > >> You can't compare times if you do not use some way of synchronizing the > >> times on the clocks. As we know (from the postulates) that the speed of > >> light between to objects that are stationary wrt each other is the same > >> in > >> both directions, then you can use that as a way to synchronise the > >> clocks. > >> Other methods are equivalent (eg put the two clocks together and then > >> move > >> them apart with the same-but-opposite-direction speeds). > > >> >> if A > >> >> and B are not, why is this possible > > >> Why is what possible? The SR clock-synch only works when they are > >> relatively at rest. > > >> > - if A and B are moving parallel > >> >> towards each other then AB is not equal to BA. > > >> >> Right? > > >> Yes .. and the clock synch is only defined to work when they are NOT > >> moving > >> relative to each other. Androcles has been told this hundreds of > >> times,but > >> he still posts his lies and half-truths claiming that the clock sync > >> applies > >> when A and B are moving wrt each other. > > > If the laws if physics are the same in all reference frames, > > All inertial ones > > > and the > > ones not moving relative to each other, > > If two frames are not moving relative to each other they are equivalent > frames .. all it is is a diferent of where you put the [0,0,0,0] point and > how you orient your x,y,z axes. > > > inertial frames I migh tadd, > > then what is the use of defining synchronization? > > It is about how time relates at different LOCATIONS. > > > All clocks in all > > inertial reference frames will run at the same rate, > > Yes they do .. as measured by observers also at rest in their frame. BUT > that does not mean observers moving relative to the clock will also > measure > the clock as ticking at the same rate as their own clock. Note that when > measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different > locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) .. it is that > motion through time nad space between ticks that results in the difference > in measured ticking rates. > > > if the clocks are > > identical. A and B seems like a clever diversion to prop up or set up > > the theory, of course I could be wrong. Right? > > You could be wrong indeed. Its not a diversion .. its key to the theory. Thanks Inertial but I am not sure I understand the following: Note that when measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) A moving clock is a different from a stationary clock and the system we are talking about, but synchronization between clocks that are stationary is not needed, I think. How would you disprove Androcles assertion that radar guns disprove SRT? The change of wavelength is possible, however what is important is the speed of the extreme front of the wave - the proverbial tip of the ray of light - if this arrives sooner at the radar gun from a reflection off a moving car than a stationary car then we can say light has seeded up after bouncing off a car. Is this within experimental error and is it detectable? ================================================= 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.'' -- Einstein. Since it is essential, you'd better find a stationary system to gedanken with.
From: Inertial on 15 Jun 2010 21:37
"train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3ea45ae0-99ee-433a-9128-96e25d683bd7(a)u3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 15, 5:25 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:a9efeb7a-b2e8-47dd-866d-4f1dbad6a1a4(a)y6g2000pra.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 12, 4:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >news:a05ea844-50cc-43bd-aa51-688b1d358db3(a)x27g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 11, 6:30 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> >>news:acabac4d-09c7-4f6e-b48d-b02dd727bc05(a)40g2000pry.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> On Jun 10, 10:41 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message >> >> >> >> >news:c043d370-515b-4992-a1f0-4483cf995871(a)i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > Nobody can see photons flying; what we can see is the scattering >> >> >> > of >> >> >> > light on particles. In other words, we can only directly see >> >> >> > light >> >> >> > that falls on our eyes, and our eye does not tell us if it was a >> >> >> > photon, ray, or wave. >> >> >> >> > =============================================== >> >> >> > Or what its speed is. We get that from it's emission colour and >> >> >> > its >> >> >> > observed >> >> >> > colour. >> >> >> >> > Professor C.A.Doppler had it work out, >> >> >> > f' = f *(c+v)/c >> >> >> > cf' = f *(c+v) >> >> >> > cf'/f = c+v >> >> >> > cf'/f - c = v >> >> >> > v = c(f'/f-1) >> >> >> >> > Whether the car comes to the radar gun or the radar gun goes to >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > car, >> >> >> > the relative speed is v. Hence Doppler radar and a speeding >> >> >> > ticket >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > travelling at speed v. >> >> >> > The speed of light relative toEinstein's >> >> >> > superfluous aether = >> >> >> > superfluous empty space = >> >> >> > superfluous stationary frame of reference = >> >> >> > superfluous inertial frame = >> >> >> > superfluous absolute frame = >> >> >> > is non sequitur, >> >> >> > the speed of light relative to the emitter, c, is pertinent. >> >> >> >> > Radar guns work just fine (by millions of experiments) proving >> >> >> > thatEinsteinwas a jerk, his calculation V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) = c is >> >> >> > nonsense and would not agree with radar gun experiments. >> >> >> >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img76.gif >> >> >> >> Ok, more of what AE said, from the 1905 paper >> >> >> >> "Butit 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 definition that the ``time'' required by >> >> >> light >> >> >> to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel >> >> >> from B >> >> >> to A" >> >> >> >> If A and B are stationary srt each other why is this necessary, >> >> >> You can't compare times if you do not use some way of synchronizing >> >> the >> >> times on the clocks. As we know (from the postulates) that the speed >> >> of >> >> light between to objects that are stationary wrt each other is the >> >> same >> >> in >> >> both directions, then you can use that as a way to synchronise the >> >> clocks. >> >> Other methods are equivalent (eg put the two clocks together and then >> >> move >> >> them apart with the same-but-opposite-direction speeds). >> >> >> >> if A >> >> >> and B are not, why is this possible >> >> >> Why is what possible? The SR clock-synch only works when they are >> >> relatively at rest. >> >> >> > - if A and B are moving parallel >> >> >> towards each other then AB is not equal to BA. >> >> >> >> Right? >> >> >> Yes .. and the clock synch is only defined to work when they are NOT >> >> moving >> >> relative to each other. Androcles has been told this hundreds of >> >> times,but >> >> he still posts his lies and half-truths claiming that the clock sync >> >> applies >> >> when A and B are moving wrt each other. >> >> > If the laws if physics are the same in all reference frames, >> >> All inertial ones >> >> > and the >> > ones not moving relative to each other, >> >> If two frames are not moving relative to each other they are equivalent >> frames .. all it is is a diferent of where you put the [0,0,0,0] point >> and >> how you orient your x,y,z axes. >> >> > inertial frames I migh tadd, >> > then what is the use of defining synchronization? >> >> It is about how time relates at different LOCATIONS. >> >> > All clocks in all >> > inertial reference frames will run at the same rate, >> >> Yes they do .. as measured by observers also at rest in their frame. BUT >> that does not mean observers moving relative to the clock will also >> measure >> the clock as ticking at the same rate as their own clock. Note that when >> measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different >> locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) .. it is >> that >> motion through time nad space between ticks that results in the >> difference >> in measured ticking rates. >> >> > if the clocks are >> > identical. A and B seems like a clever diversion to prop up or set up >> > the theory, of course I could be wrong. Right? >> >> You could be wrong indeed. Its not a diversion .. its key to the theory. > > Thanks Inertial but I am not sure I understand the following: Lets see if I can help you > Note that when > measuring a moving clock, you have to compare its time and different > locations in your inertial frame (ie it moves between ticks) That what I said. > A moving clock is a different from a stationary clock Only in that it is moving .. so successive ticks happen at different locations > and the system > we are talking about, but synchronization between clocks that are > stationary is not needed, I think. Of course you need to synchonise them if you want to know what the time is at more than one location (which is the whole point of having more than one clock). What is the use of two clocks if they are not set to the same time? You are very limited if all you can compare is the times at each location independently and not be able to compare the times. > How would you disprove Androcles assertion that radar guns disprove > SRT? Its an assertion .. unless he can show HOW they disprove it (which he can't, of course, because it doesn't) > The change of wavelength is possible, however what is important is the > speed of the extreme front of the wave - the proverbial tip of the ray > of light - if this arrives sooner at the radar gun from a reflection > off a moving car than a stationary car then we can say light has > seeded up after bouncing off a car. You COULD say that .. IF it did arrive sooner. But that isn't what happens. You are talking about how a radar gun could work in a hypothetical world where SR does not hold. > Is this within experimental error What experiment ? A radar gun isn't an experiment. And using something like one in an experiment where you reflecting it off both a moving and stationary target and see if they return at the same time is not easy to arrange. Because you need to know WHERE and WHEN the radar pulse hits the moving target in order to put a stationary target at that same location (or distance away). How would you arrange that? > and is it detectable? However, the speed of EMR *has* been measured from VERY fast moving sources and it still travels at c in the observers frame. There is no addition of speeds happening. |