But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: eric gisse on 2 Jun 2010 20:18 train 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 Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid to understand the theory. > > "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 ? Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist.
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 20:18 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:bf033c6f-bb48-4daa-972e-4f5f74e86ddd(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > 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 ? > > The modern interpretation does not mean *empty*. > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > same in all inertial frames. >> > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html Again .. those constants refer to the properties of 'empty' space (ie areas of space devoid of matter) > "What is the Interstellar Medium?" There is stuff out there .. but it is not contiguous matter .. so there are (significant) volumes where there is no matter > http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space
From: Sue... on 2 Jun 2010 20:34 On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message > > news:bf033c6f-bb48-4daa-972e-4f5f74e86ddd(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... > > > > > 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 ? > > > The modern interpretation does not mean *empty*. > > > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which > > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments > > which involve measuring the force of attraction between > > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying > > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments > > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all > > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the > > same in all inertial frames. >> > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html > > Again .. those constants refer to the properties of 'empty' space (ie areas > of space devoid of matter) > > > "What is the Interstellar Medium?" > ======================= > There is stuff out there .. but it is not contiguous matter .. so there are > (significant) volumes where there is no matter ====================== > > > http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space > > Idiot! When are you going to learn the difference between sound and light? On the off chance you ever read a book rather than eating its covers: ISBN: 1934015202 Classical Electromagnetism: An intermediate level course Richard Fitzpatrick http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html Sue...
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 20:52 "Sue..." <suzysewnshow(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:aa735cac-c422-42a0-8afb-05ea1dd08f57(a)w3g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote in message >> >> news:bf033c6f-bb48-4daa-972e-4f5f74e86ddd(a)k31g2000vbu.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > 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 ? >> >> > The modern interpretation does not mean *empty*. >> >> > << where epsilon_0 and mu_0 are physical constants which >> > can be evaluated by performing two simple experiments >> > which involve measuring the force of attraction between >> > two fixed charges and two fixed parallel current carrying >> > wires. According to the relativity principle, these experiments >> > must yield the same values for epsilon_0 and mu_0 in all >> > inertial frames. Thus, the speed of light must be the >> > same in all inertial frames. >> >> > > http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html >> >> Again .. those constants refer to the properties of 'empty' space (ie >> areas >> of space devoid of matter) >> >> > "What is the Interstellar Medium?" >> > > ======================= > >> There is stuff out there .. but it is not contiguous matter .. so there >> are >> (significant) volumes where there is no matter > > > ====================== > >> >> > > http://espg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what1.html >> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space >> >> > > Idiot! Indeed you are. No need to shout it out. > When are you going to learn the difference > between sound and light? I know the difference .. and I never mentioned anything about sound, or anything implying sound and light are the same. You reply was totally off-topic .. as usual. You clearly haven't a CLUE what other people are talking about .. that probably explains your continual irrelevant off-topic quote mining [snip more irrelevance from idiot Sue]
From: xxein on 2 Jun 2010 21:35
On Jun 2, 8:18 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Unfortunately the only people arguing are those who are too stupid to > understand the theory. xxein: Likewise for you. Just because you think you understand a theory, it hardly makes it a correct one. Dorothy was in Oz and Alice was in Wonderland. They each understood a theory of how things worked (where they were) to get back to the reality. > Reference frames do not require physical objects to exist. So then they only require the imaginary ones? You just proved that you are just imaginary. |