But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: Inertial on 19 Jun 2010 09:03 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:046b5820-2463-4496-8198-1f22ec8c79e0(a)6g2000prg.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. > > So it it possible to verify if light travels at c+v using a radar gun > system or not? Maybe .. its been verified before that it doesn't travel at c+v by much more accurate means. > Apparently policemen are pushing the outer boundaries of theoretical > physics these days Not at all. >and you thought all they were doing were giving > speeding tickets. I could do with a movie ticket .. I should ask a nearby policeman then :) > Maybe they should be funded They are .. if they get their quota ;)
From: train on 19 Jun 2010 19:52 SNIPPED STUFF > >> 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? > > Maybe .. its been verified before that it doesn't travel at c+v by much more > accurate means. > This `Maybe` is interesting. Maybe someone could explain exactly how a radar gun works, Wikipedia is not much help Lets see... http://www.radarguns.com/doppler-effect.html SO the question is why does the frequency change? Is it absorption and re-emission? In that case we have a new source emitting light at a higher frequency? > > Apparently policemen are pushing the outer boundaries of theoretical > > physics these days > > Not at all. > > >and you thought all they were doing were giving > > speeding tickets. > > I could do with a movie ticket .. I should ask a nearby policeman then :) > > > Maybe they should be funded > > They are .. if they get their quota ;)
From: train on 21 Jun 2010 12:32 SNIP > >> stupid. > >> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wave/bounce.gif > >> Which is moving? > > > That was a quote ok > > > "He quickly realized that the clock would appear stopped, since light > > could not catch up to the streetcar,buthis own clock in the > > streetcar would beat normally. > > For a start .. you cannot move so fast away from something else that it > appears stopped .. onl slowed Well ok so you are contradicting AE well that is a good sign... > > And if you WERE going so fast (c) then you would not see anything. I really dont know about that - you would see stuff in front hitting you at c+v > > Anyway .. that sort of illusion due to the time it takes for light to reach > an observer is just that .. an optical illusion. So it is not necessary for SRT ok I have realized this too however how does transit time affect SRT > > > Then it suddenly hit him, the key to the entire problem. Einstein > > recalled, "A storm broke loose in my mind." The answer was simple and > > elegant: time can beat at different rates throughout the universe, > > depending on how fast you moved. Imagine clocks scattered at different > > points in space, each one announcing a different time, each one > > ticking at a different rate." > > > Reality is not limited by the speed of light. > > Change is limited by the maximum rate at which cause and effect can > propogate. Something happening on one side of the universe cannot instantly > affect something on the other side .. it takes time. Instantly ...no > > > Light transmission is a > > medium for transformation of information, and is finite. OK > > You have it backwards there .. there is a limit for information (cause and > effect) to transmit/propagate. Light travels at that speed .. as fast as > information can go that is the assumption of SRT that nothing travels faster than light. However there is a subtle point here. If nothing travels faster ,still, by calculation you can deduce when something happens. For example, I know photons are heading towards the earth before they reach the earth. After they reach I can know where they were by working backwards It is this working backwards , the calculation of historical data, that is forbidden by SRT, SRT is a real-time theory, the moment you introduce events beyond the light horizon , there are contradictions. Not just that information is limited by the speed of light, but calculations of an event ,say. 100 hours ago, will still have to be limited, SRT insists, by the information that could have reached that event at the speed of light - in other words the event horizon for that particular point in time. However since we have access to information over the entire period, we are not limited in any real world calculations by the light horizon. Hope you understand what I mean. Agreement will come later. > > > To say reality has to stop and wait for light to get there is an > > absurdity. > > Noone says that > > > WhydidAE take it to be that oh never mind why - > > He didn't > > >but > > reality is not limited by light - > > No ..; light is limited by reality > > > youmeanthe sundidnot emit the > > photons we see now 8 minutes ago because these photons only existed > > the moment they hit us? > > No. Though it does depend on what you think a photon is. > > > does everyone here agree that reality is not limited by the speed of > > light?? > > The speed of light is limited by reality. That is the theory. The calculation of times of an event is not limited by the speed of light for historical events. If a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound? Tell me this- if a meteor falls in a forest, does it emit light?
From: Androcles on 25 Jun 2010 06:45 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2b251ff5-a578-4ff8-bc14-57838b9fbd43(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > I mean no AE does not contradict himself > ==================================== > > quote/ > Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a > conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative > motion of the conductor and the magnet. > /unquote -- Einstein. > > Gehan Ameresekere needs to say whether it is the conductor or the magnet > that is stationary, because Einstein says > quote/ > 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.'' > /unquote. > and Gehan Ameresekere sees no contradition. > > Which is moving, Gehan Ameresekere, the conductor or the magnet? As I said before, the stationary system is the system in which the observer is. So in the above case, the definition for stationary clocks is in the observers system. OK so why does he not say observer`s system? You actually think AE had this idea of an absolute stationary system in his mind when he wrote this? ================================================= Of course he did. He wrote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. " If the magnet is at rest the conductor moves with speed v. If the conductor is at rest the magnet moves with speed v. If the empty space is at rest the light moves with speed c. If the light is at rest the empty space moves with speed c. I really don't care which one you glue or nail an observer to. Which is moving, Gehan Ameresekere, the light or the empty space aka absolute stationary system aka absolute frame of reference aka aether?
From: train on 29 Jun 2010 21:22
On Jun 25, 3:45 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:2b251ff5-a578-4ff8-bc14-57838b9fbd43(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > I mean no AE does not contradict himself > > ==================================== > > > quote/ > > Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a > > conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative > > motion of the conductor and the magnet. > > /unquote -- Einstein. > > > Gehan Ameresekere needs to say whether it is the conductor or the magnet > > that is stationary, because Einstein says > > quote/ > > 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.'' > > /unquote. > > and Gehan Ameresekere sees no contradition. > > > Which is moving, Gehan Ameresekere, the conductor or the magnet? > > As I said before, the stationary system is the system in which the > observer is. So in the above case, the definition for stationary > clocks is in the observers system. OK so why does he not say > observer`s system? You actually think AE had this idea of an absolute > stationary system in his mind when he wrote this? > ================================================= > Of course hedid.He wrote: "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite > > velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. > " > > If the magnet is at rest the conductor moves with speed v. > If the conductor is at rest the magnet moves with speed v. > If the empty space is at rest the light moves with speed c. > If the light is at rest the empty space moves with speed c. > > I really don't care which one you glue or nail an observer to. > Which is moving, Gehan Ameresekere, the light or the empty space aka > absolute stationary system aka absolute frame of reference aka aether? Light is moving. Empty space is a bogus relativist construction. Thanks for showing that to me. Now what did he mean by " It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." " Maxwell's equations describe EM propagation from a stationary source - that is stationary wrt the observer. What are the conditions for Maxwell's equations to be true? Independence of the source does not come into it. |