But What Does Einstein Mean - Really?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Aether Displacement
Next: Aether Displacement
From: BURT on 5 Jun 2010 01:01 On Jun 4, 8:50 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > > > would gather space energy to itself. > > > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > > > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > > > it comes to relativity. > > > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > People will get smarter with the help of genius. > > That is all there is to it. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > There is no doubt in my mind that there is but one genius in the > history of physics- and his name was Isaac Newton. Everything else is > borrowed time.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Einstein was better. He was God's scientist. Mitch Raemsch
From: train on 8 Jun 2010 09:51 On Jun 5, 8:50 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 10:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > 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. Butshow 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 (oopsdidI 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 Ididnot 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > > > would gather space energy to itself. > > > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > > > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > > > it comes to relativity. > > > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > People will get smarter with the help of genius. > > That is all there is to it. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > There is no doubt in my mind that there isbutone genius in the > history of physics- and his name was Isaac Newton. Everything else is > borrowed time. I agree.Also notice how we are not arguing and no one argues about Newton's reasoning or thought experiments? Why is that?
From: train on 8 Jun 2010 09:53 On Jun 5, 10:01 am, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 4, 8:50 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 4, 10:39 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 7:57 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 4, 9:51 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 4, 7:46 pm, xxein <xx...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. Butshow 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 (oopsdidI 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 Ididnot 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Shouldn't normal energy flowing through space bump into all of that > > > > > energy fluctuating in the space? > > > > > > If it were true energy quantity would snowball by any motion through > > > > > the space; all points containing the fluctuation. Motion of energy > > > > > would gather space energy to itself. > > > > > Of course this is clearly evidence that it does not happen. > > > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > > > Hi Burt. Remember, we are only good as we make it- how smart we are. > > > > Sometimes, I feel, that there really is no well defined phenomena when > > > > it comes to relativity. > > > > We are going to get smarter- if nothing else- out of sheer boredom.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > People will get smarter with the help of genius. > > > That is all there is to it. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > There is no doubt in my mind that there isbutone genius in the > > history of physics- and his name was Isaac Newton. Everything else is > > borrowed time.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Einsteinwas better. He was God's scientist. > > Mitch Raemsch Who did not believe God was loving... maybe God should have sent someone else. Maybe he does play dice
From: harald on 10 Jun 2010 11:53 On Jun 10, 1:58 am, train <gehan.ameresek...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 9:03 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: [..] > > > Tis strange. I always thought that saying light propagates at a rate > > > of c without giving any stipulation relative to what it was measured > > > against was strange. This confirms that there is no basis for speed > > > relative to empty space. I cannot accept this definition. > > > > An astronaut floats in space, at what velocity is he moving? > > > Einstein borrowed that phrasing from common language as used by > > Maxwell and Lorentz. In order to give it operational meaning for the > > purpose of the theory, he redefined the light postulate as follows: > > > "Any ray of light moves in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates > > with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a > > stationary or by a moving body." > > > Harald > > OK let me parse that sentence > > > "Any ray of light moves > > `ray of light` is that not inexact since a ray of light consists of a > visible stream of photons ie ray of sunlight? Maybe he met the tip of > the ray of light? 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. Einstein might have been clearer if he stated "light wave", but most people concerned understand how light speed can be measured. > in the ``stationary'' system of co-ordinates > > why the inverted commas? Why stationary why not say `observer` or > `target` system of coordinates? Stationary wrt to what? He already explained that: "take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good" and "call it the ``stationary system''", in order to "distinguish this system of co- ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter". > > with the determined velocity c, > > OK > > whether the ray be emitted by a > > the ray of light again > > > stationary or by a moving body." > > sounds a lot like Personal Ether Theory to me PET Theory > > it goes something like this- > > `each observer is floating in a virtual personal ether that extends to > infinity and which entrains, entraps, restricts and otherwise > constrains all photons to travel at c relative to that observer` No. That postulate is compatible with a stationary ether model (it even stems from the use of that model by Lorentz), but it is *not* compatible with entrained ether models (just think about it: the speed of light as measured in the solar system would then not be c near the earth). And it has been argued - despite Einstein's suggestion to the contrary - that his light postulate is only compatible with stationary ether models. > but note talking about the behavior of light within a coordinate > system - coordinate box I call it - does not say anything about the > behaviour between coordinate systems That is exact, and even the central issue of SRT. As he put it: the [light postulate] is only apparently irreconcilable with the [relativity postulate]. > or reference box as I call it - > unless you take the additional step of saying that light emitted in > another reference box will travel at c in your reference box - why is > he saying this? ????! Light is not "emitted in a reference box", and the light postulate already states that light that is emitted from a moving body (according to your system) will be measured to travel at c with your coordinate system and clocks. That is not an additional step, as it had already been stated. > Is it the principle of equivalence? No, the second postulate states that the speed of light is not affected by the speed of the emitting system, and will still travel at c according to your measurements. That is the light postulate. > I will describe > how the principle of equivalence has been wrongly applied here . It is not applied in SRT. Harald
From: Androcles on 10 Jun 2010 13:41
"harald" <hvan(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 to Einstein'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 that Einstein was 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 |