But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: Inertial on 2 Jun 2010 21:47 "xxein" <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > 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? That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical argument > You just proved that > you are just imaginary. No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical argument
From: harald on 3 Jun 2010 12:08 On Jun 3, 1:59 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 3:44 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, 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 > > > That is a popular account. Here is a translation of > > his original document: > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > > In case something isn't clear, you do well to compare > > those two; the second is a summary of the first. > > > > 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" > > > Yes. > > > > First question: What does he mean by 'empty space?' > > > The vacuum, in which light waves propagate - he referred to Maxwell's > > theory for stationary systems. At first he didn't think much of that > > but over time he changed his mind, as he explained here: > > >http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > > > > 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 ? > > > What difference does that make? If a booklet in the seat pocket of an > > airplane states that its cruise speed is 900 km/h, do you need it to > > add "two points" in order to understand it? However, you do need to > > consider a material reference system relative to which you think you > > can define empty space -- as he next discusses. > > > Note also that in 1905 he formulated it as follows: > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > Harald > > Thanks for the 'original' document. Now again he is > using the terms 'at rest' and 'in motion' rather loosely > > "For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a > certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts > of the conductor are situated." What is "loosely" about such a standard electricity description? But you are loosing focus. Einstein immediately clarified about "rest" and "motion": "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." And, as he later explained: "If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K', K'', etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner [..] on condition that [..] we [..¨] have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system absolutely at rest, and all other Galileian systems K in motion." - http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html I think that Einstein explained rather well what he meant with "rest" and "motion". Harald
From: harald on 3 Jun 2010 12:21 On Jun 3, 2:05 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 3:44 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, 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 > > > That is a popular account. Here is a translation of his original > > document: > > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > > In case something isn't clear, you do well to compare those two; the > > second is a summary of the first. > > > > 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" > > > Yes. > > > > First question: What does he mean by 'empty space?' > > > The vacuum, in which light waves propagate - he referred to Maxwell's > > theory for stationary systems. At first he didn't think much of that > > but over time he changed his mind, as he explained here: > > >http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > > > > 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 ? > > > What difference does that make? If a booklet in the seat pocket of an > > airplane states that its cruise speed is 900 km/h, do you need it to > > add "two points" in order to understand it? However, you do need to > > consider a material reference system relative to which you think you > > can define empty space -- as he next discusses. > > > Note also that in 1905 he formulated it as follows: > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > Harald > > Also he states > > "They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first > order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics > will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of > mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of > which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the > status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is > only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is > always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is > independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > Firstly, the fact that it does not matter if the magnet or the wire is > moving, as long as they are moving wrt each other, does not support > the leap to 'all frames of reference' here we are concerned with two > only the magnet frame and the wire frame of reference He did not claim that, and what do you find unclear? > Curiously, in order to specify that light is propagated independent of > the motion of the emitting body, he is admitting that the velocity of > the emitting body is to be measured and compared to the velocity of > light. No, and it's curious that you think that he did! For example: If I see that the light rays that are emitted by two differently moving sources arrive at the same time (for example from double stars), why do you think that I would have to measure and compare the speed of each source with that of the light rays? > But if space is empty, where is our reference point? If space > is not empty, hydrogen molecules and all, there is a reference point > ie 'light is always propagated at c with respect to the hydrogen > molecules situated in empty space' which is absurd don't you think? Is > it because he lived in the early 1900s that he had this limited view? No, the speed of light in vacuum differs from that in glass or hydrogen, there is nothing absurd about that. Do you really find it difficult to understand what people mean with that? And as I already replied: If a booklet in the seat pocket of an airplane states that its cruise speed is 900 km/h, do you need it to add "two points" in order to understand it? However, you do need to consider a material reference system relative to which you think you can define empty space -- as he next discusses. Harald
From: Androcles on 3 Jun 2010 12:42 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:4cfeb0d8-72ce-4456-aeef-0c3c4ec59276(a)r27g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jun 3, 1:59 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 3, 3:44 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On Jun 2, 4:57 pm, 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 > > > That is a popular account. Here is a translation of > > his original document: > > > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > > > In case something isn't clear, you do well to compare > > those two; the second is a summary of the first. > > > > 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" > > > Yes. > > > > First question: What does he mean by 'empty space?' > > > The vacuum, in which light waves propagate - he referred to Maxwell's > > theory for stationary systems. At first he didn't think much of that > > but over time he changed his mind, as he explained here: > > >http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html > > > > 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 ? > > > What difference does that make? If a booklet in the seat pocket of an > > airplane states that its cruise speed is 900 km/h, do you need it to > > add "two points" in order to understand it? However, you do need to > > consider a material reference system relative to which you think you > > can define empty space -- as he next discusses. > > > Note also that in 1905 he formulated it as follows: > > > "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c > > which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." > > > Harald > > Thanks for the 'original' document. Now again he is > using the terms 'at rest' and 'in motion' rather loosely > > "For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there > arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a > certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts > of the conductor are situated." What is "loosely" about such a standard electricity description? But you are loosing focus. Einstein immediately clarified about "rest" and "motion": "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good." And, as he later explained: "If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K', K'', etc., which are moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being formulated in a particularly simple manner [..] on condition that [..] we [..�] have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling this system �absolutely at rest,� and all other Galileian systems K �in motion.�" - http://www.bartleby.com/173/5.html I think that Einstein explained rather well what he meant with "rest" and "motion". ============================================== http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ � 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times "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.'' Does Einstein mean the stationary system, with the time defined in it, isn't really stationary? But What Does Einstein Mean - Really? Prove you actually think, as I know you don't.
From: xxein on 3 Jun 2010 18:21
On Jun 2, 9:47 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "xxein" <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1b535b20-6942-4ddd-a024-00b44bb80195(a)s41g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > > > 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? > > That does not follow. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > argument > > > You just proved that > > you are just imaginary. > > No .. he didn't. Really. .you should learn how to construct a logical > argument xxein: OK. I read in what he said was that a reference frame does not require any existence to exist. Without energy and matter, how can a reference frame exist? Either than energy and matter, what else do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference points without the motion of something, you are welcome to believe that. But show me how that reference frame is realizable without an existence. I'm afraid that you have just lost time and distance (along with any velocity you may want to ascribe to them). |