But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: mpc755 on 16 Jun 2010 22:15 On Jun 2, 10:57 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Much discussion has taken place about SRT, however much of it seems to > alternate between what Einstein said, what he meant, what he is taken > to have meant and modern interpretations of the Theory Of Special > Relativity > > Going back to the original document written by AE at > > http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html > > we may be able to discern what he said and what he meant, at least, > and discuss the self - consistency of the theory from this point > > "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which > light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or > believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines > with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec" > > First question: What does he mean by 'empty space?' If space is empty > there are no reference points against which to measure the speed of > light. Should he not have said that the velocity of light between two > points in empty space is c = 300,000 km /sec ? 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ... disregarding the causes which condition its state." The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. Aether and matter are different states of the same material. The material is mæther. Mæther has mass. Aether and matter have mass. Aether is uncompressed mæther and matter is compressed mæther. Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure exerted by the aether. Gravity is pressure exerted by displaced aether towards matter.
From: Androcles on 17 Jun 2010 04:48 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ec09b77b-6da3-443e-84bf-cadbbfd48d8a(a)v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 16, 6:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > What experiment ? A radar gun isn't an experiment. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/experiment : test, trial <make another experiment of his suspicion - Shakespeare> b : a tentative procedure or policy c : an operation or procedure carried out under controlled conditions in order to discover an unknown effect or law, to test or establish a hypothesis, or to illustrate a known law The cop forms the hypothesis that the car's speed is in excess of the posted speed limit under controlled conditions and uses a radar gun to test a known law. A radar gun couldn't be more of an experiment if it tried, an experiment is the whole reason for its existence. The Inert idiot thinks a scientist has to look like this: http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/mad-scientist-clipart.gif when they really look like this: http://mmeow.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/burglar.gif And an experiment is this: http://www.thadguy.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/rat_experiment.png What trumpet? A vuvuzela isn't a trumpet. What vehicle? Roller skates are not a vehicle. What brain? The Inert idiot is anencephalous.
From: train on 19 Jun 2010 07:55 On Jun 17, 7:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e1139ab9-8dcc-40c6-9259-5048d5346e9c(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 6:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(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 notmeanobservers 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 InertialbutI 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,butsynchronization 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 itdidarrive sooner. Butthat 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? > > > I dot think where and when is a problem to find out > > You could put detectors on the stationary and moving targets to verify when > the radar pulse hits them and make sure its the same time and distance. > Then see if the reflections arrive at same place. And you'd have to make > the pulse short enough .. because as it is not instant, the target will be > moving while the pulse is being reflected .. so if the moving target is > moving toward the radar gun, then the initial the leading edge will be > reflected further away than the trailing edge of the pulse. > > Really.. its not a good experiment due to all these factors. > > >- you know the > > distances, sunchrnize the clocks if you need, and fire the radar gun > > at the when you calculate, with SRT and without, the moving car will > > pass the stationary car. Surely the whole point of SRT is to make > > these measurements adjusted so as to be accurate? Think GPS. > > There is nothing to adjust .. light (and radar) travels at c (or rather > reduced from c in net speed due to medium (air)) > > > > >> > 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. You said then the initial the leading edge will be reflected further away than the trailing edge of the pulse. do you by any chance mean c+v? T
From: train on 19 Jun 2010 07:57 On Jun 17, 7:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e1139ab9-8dcc-40c6-9259-5048d5346e9c(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 16, 6:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(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 notmeanobservers 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 InertialbutI 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,butsynchronization 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 itdidarrive sooner. Butthat 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? > > > I dot think where and when is a problem to find out > > You could put detectors on the stationary and moving targets to verify when > the radar pulse hits them and make sure its the same time and distance. > Then see if the reflections arrive at same place. And you'd have to make > the pulse short enough .. because as it is not instant, the target will be > moving while the pulse is being reflected .. so if the moving target is > moving toward the radar gun, then the initial the leading edge will be > reflected further away than the trailing edge of the pulse. > > Really.. its not a good experiment due to all these factors. > > >- you know the > > distances, sunchrnize the clocks if you need, and fire the radar gun > > at the when you calculate, with SRT and without, the moving car will > > pass the stationary car. Surely the whole point of SRT is to make > > these measurements adjusted so as to be accurate? Think GPS. > > There is nothing to adjust .. light (and radar) travels at c (or rather > reduced from c in net speed due to medium (air)) > > > > >> > 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. So it it possible to verify if light travels at c+v using a radar gun system or not? Apparently policemen are pushing the outer boundaries of theoretical physics these days and you thought all they were doing were giving speeding tickets. Maybe they should be funded
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 09:01
"train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:166f1f63-76fc-49bf-8ca1-cc9eeb7595fe(a)23g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 17, 7:09 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e1139ab9-8dcc-40c6-9259-5048d5346e9c(a)n37g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 16, 6:37 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "train" <gehan.ameresek...(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 notmeanobservers 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 InertialbutI 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,butsynchronization 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 itdidarrive sooner. Butthat 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? >> >> > I dot think where and when is a problem to find out >> >> You could put detectors on the stationary and moving targets to verify >> when >> the radar pulse hits them and make sure its the same time and distance. >> Then see if the reflections arrive at same place. And you'd have to make >> the pulse short enough .. because as it is not instant, the target will >> be >> moving while the pulse is being reflected .. so if the moving target is >> moving toward the radar gun, then the initial the leading edge will be >> reflected further away than the trailing edge of the pulse. >> >> Really.. its not a good experiment due to all these factors. >> >> >- you know the >> > distances, sunchrnize the clocks if you need, and fire the radar gun >> > at the when you calculate, with SRT and without, the moving car will >> > pass the stationary car. Surely the whole point of SRT is to make >> > these measurements adjusted so as to be accurate? Think GPS. >> >> There is nothing to adjust .. light (and radar) travels at c (or rather >> reduced from c in net speed due to medium (air)) >> >> >> >> >> > 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. > > You said > > then the initial the leading edge will be > reflected further away than the trailing edge of the pulse. > > do you by any chance mean c+v? No .. why on earth would you think I'd mean something like that? |