But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: Inertial on 3 Jun 2010 20:33 "train" <gehan.ameresekere(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > 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?) Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe completely devoid of matter > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of coruse. > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > 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 No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > 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. You don't your argument again is flawed
From: harald on 4 Jun 2010 03:38 On Jun 3, 6:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "harald" <h...(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. Thanks for citing that, for I had in mind to point out that Einstein was only thinking of material reference frames with rigid measuring rods resting on them, and that he really meant that material reference points for defining a reference system as well as clocks for defining its time *must* be all in rest relative to each other ("It is essential"). We all know that that was *mistaken*: as a reminder, one of the most used (approximate) inertial coordinate systems, the ECI "frame", is a virtual frame that has its material reference points that are used to define it *moving* relative to it, and also the clocks that are used to define the time in it are moving relative to it. Apart of that, as cited above, Einstein did not even consider the notion of "really" stationary; instead he regarded the term "stationary" as a free or arbitrary choice out of the set of inertial ("Newtonian") systems. Harald
From: train on 4 Jun 2010 09:52 On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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?) > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > completely devoid of matter > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > coruse. > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > 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 > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > 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. > > You don't your argument again is flawed
From: xxein on 4 Jun 2010 22:46 On Jun 4, 9:52 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 5:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "train" <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e3a6a4d5-3714-4af5-af3f-10c36657db9c(a)s1g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > > > > 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?) > > > Your argument is still wrong. We were NOT talking about a universe > > completely devoid of matter > > > > OK so we have two points and a rigid reference system ( er rigid with > > > respect to time or space? Hmnnn... > > > Those two points do not need to corrsepond to any material object, of > > coruse. > > > > An electromagnetic wave travels from A to B. No problem here. > > > Yeup .. or whatever it is light really is > > > > 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 > > > No .. that is NOT what he meant .. and that is not the case in SR > > Sorry I did not complete the line of thought - since AE then saw the > impossibility of travelling at more than he speed of light, as above, > he sought a way to reconcile the conflicting ideas. > > OK, a question then - is permitivity defined between two reference > points ( inside or outside the vacuum) regardless of the relative > movement between the two points? Surely the units must be all wrong ? > If not, does permitivity specify that the points are not moving with > respect to each other? OR Permitivity is defined within a stationary > reference frame only? These are my questions. Hope it wont return > void(). Void is better then nothing I suppose. :) > > > > > > > > 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. > > > You don't your argument again is flawed- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: Permitivity wrt what in a vacuum? You are now giving physical properties to a vacuum which should have none. You have a lot to learn if you want to make any theory of physics a viable explanation of the physic.
From: xxein on 4 Jun 2010 22:50
On Jun 3, 8:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "xxein" <xx...(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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - xxein: And there is a google more to think ratioally about. |