But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 3 Jun 2010 19:24 On Jun 3, 3:21 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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? Space and time can be empty. > Either than energy and matter, what else > do you think of an existence? Then... Reference to what? Empty space and time exist. > 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).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Mitch Raemsch
From: OG on 3 Jun 2010 19:50 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ca4c6bdf-6ac7-4239-adc9-b81cd5d9dc83(a)v29g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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. What do you mean by reference points? What is a 'reference point' ? > Should he not have said that the velocity of light between two > points in empty space is c = 300,000 km /sec ? Can you tell me what you think a single 'reference point' is in empty space, and then what varieties of 'two reference points' might exist?
From: train on 3 Jun 2010 20:04 On Jun 4, 3:21 am, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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). Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong word?) OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with respect to time or space? Hmnnn... An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your measurements at c, and if you where to ride on t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up traveling at multiples of c Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. T
From: BURT on 3 Jun 2010 20:17 On Jun 3, 5:04 pm, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 3:21 am, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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). > > Bravo! That is what I an getting at. Reality (oops did I say the wrong > word?) > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > I think AE envisaged it as follows: If you were to travel on the > forward tip of the EM wave, then again the laws for the EM wave have > to hold, therefore if you shone a light while traveling on a light > beam, that light beam would also travel, according to your > measurements at c, and if you where to ride on > t h a t light beam it would also be measured at c. So you end up > traveling at multiples of c > > Meanwhile how does permitivity apply when you are barreling through > space at speeds that were not addressed by the initial definition of > permitivity that is the permitivity of free space between two points > fixed with respect to one another? Seems like an unjustified leap. > > T- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - The space-time continuum is spread out inbetween energy forms. Space-time is inside energy as the infinitely small aether point. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 20:30
"xxein" <xxein(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:3713f4de-34d7-4854-b3a4-84f999714f04(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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? A reference frame is not a physical object,. Your argument i void > If you want to think that an empty and infinite space has reference > points I am not referring to empty infinite space .. we live in a universe where there is matter > 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). Trains argument was that you cannot talk about the speed of light in a vacuum .. because there are no reference points in the vacuum .. but if there are objects for use as reference points outside the area of vacuum, you can construct references points within it .. so his argument is void |