Properties of a preferred frame, an inertial frame in SR and
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 15:53 On Jul 21, 2:45 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 3:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 21, 1:59 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > No idiot....the top of a building have a different state of absolute > > > motion than the ground floor. > > > > Ken Seto > > > Ken, you've said in the past that relative motion is the difference > > between two absolute motion vectors. So if there is a difference in > > absolute motion between the top and the ground floor, then there would > > have to be nonzero relative motion between top and ground floor. Are > > the top and bottom of a building in relative motion? > > I said that relative motion between two objects A and B is the vector > components difference of their absolute motion along the line joining > them. This means that the vector components difference of A and B of a > building at the vertical direction is zero. But it does not mean that > A and B have the same state of absolute motion in the aether. Which means that the difference in the absolute motion has to be solely in the horizontal direction. Otherwise, a vertical component of the difference would appear. Now that we've established that the difference in the absolute motion is wholly horizontal, it is worth noting that there are two orthogonal directions in the horizontal plane, and you can always choose coordinates in a plane such that a horizontal vector has zero magnitude in one horizontal direction and nonzero magnitude in the other horizontal direction. PD
From: oriel36 on 21 Jul 2010 17:07 On Jul 21, 8:04 pm, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 21, 7:55 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 9:05 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 7/21/10 7:45 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > On Jul 20, 11:49 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/20/10 9:57 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > >>> On Jul 20, 9:33 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>> Different gravitational potential means different states of absolute > > > >>>>> motion. That's why Pound and Rebka found frequency shift in the > > > >>>>> vertical direction. > > > > >>>> You obviously don't understand the word "motion", Ken.. > > > > >>> Wormy you obviously don't understand the term "absolute motion". > > > > >> I take it you thing absolute motion means no motion. Perhaps you > > > >> can articulate what you mean by "absolute motion", Ken. > > > > > Hey idiot it does not mean no motion. It mean motion wrt the aether or > > > > the light waves being carried by the aether. > > > > I forgot that is your catchall "definition" of motion, Ken. > > > > As it turns out, the clocks in the Pound and Rebka experiment > > > are stationary with respect to each other, and yet the tick at > > > different rates due to time dilation as predicted by general > > > relativity. > > > No idiot....they have different absolute motions at different > > heights....the top of a building move faster wrt the aether than the > > ground floor. > > > Ken Seto > > Why stop there,the building further North towards the geographical > poles is moving faster the the building nearer the equator. > > The thing about that is once you give the maximum equatorial speed,the > entire show is over - 15 degrees/1037.5 miles per hour thank you very > much !. > > On second thoughts,carry on,you all seem to be enjoying yourselves > even if Flamsteed,whom Newton apparently hated,gets the last laugh > with his 'sidereal time' reasoning which divorces the Earth planetary > dynamics from the original astronomical references and shoves them > into a celestial sphere mess called right ascension. > > > > > > > > No aether, no motion, no absolute anything is require. What is > > > important is the RELATIVE difference in the earth's gravitation > > > at the sites of the two clocks.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - Oops !that would be the building further North is moving slower than the building closer to the equator and here are the values for 1 degree/4 minutes of rotation - http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u014/tables/table02.html Of course Isaac followed Flamsteed hence the tables reflecting the independent rotation of the Earth are meaningless insofar as attaching rotation to the 'fixed stars',inertial space ,stellar circumpolar motion or whatever else you like the call the same thing is a big no- no,get that everyone - big big no-no. The reason 'absolute time' has no external reference,just as Isaac said,is because the timekeeping average of the 24 hour day which allows for a steady progression of days also serves as a substitute for steady or constant rotation.
From: Sam Wormley on 21 Jul 2010 17:31 On 7/21/10 10:52 AM, JT wrote: > No SR can not deal with multiple simultaneous observations of > different objects, it breaks down. I proved it in a thread recently > discussing with Sam and PD. They were unable to plot the position of > third object. What's this bullshit, JT? You need to read this: Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity and reference frames Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA This article reports on an investigation of student understanding of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The results indicate that after standard instruction students at all academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist. See: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109 VII. CONCLUSION "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that students have with the definition of the time of an event and the role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret the phrase �relativity of simultaneity� as implying that the simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to confront the startling ideas of special relativity".
From: colp on 21 Jul 2010 19:28 On Jul 22, 9:31 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/21/10 10:52 AM, JT wrote: > > > No SR can not deal with multiple simultaneous observations of > > different objects, it breaks down. I proved it in a thread recently > > discussing with Sam and PD. They were unable to plot the position of > > third object. > > What's this bullshit, JT? > > You need to read this: > > Student understanding of time in special relativity: simultaneity > and reference frames > > Rachel E. Scherr, Peter S. Shaffer, and Stamatis Vokos > Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA > > This article reports on an investigation of student understanding > of the concept of time in special relativity. A series of research > tasks are discussed that illustrate, step-by-step, how student > reasoning of fundamental concepts of relativity was probed. The > results indicate that after standard instruction students at all > academic levels have serious difficulties with the relativity of > simultaneity and with the role of observers in inertial reference > frames. Evidence is presented that suggests many students construct > a conceptual framework in which the ideas of absolute simultaneity > and the relativity of simultaneity harmoniously co-exist. > > See:http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0207109 > > VII. CONCLUSION > > "This investigation has identified widespread difficulties that > students have with the definition of the time of an event and the > role of intelligent observers. After instruction, more than 2/3 of > physics undergraduates and 1/3 of graduate students in physics are > unable to apply the construct of a reference frame in determining > whether or not two events are simultaneous. Many students interpret > the phrase relativity of simultaneity as implying that the > simultaneity of events is determined by an observer on the basis of > the reception of light signals. They often attribute the relativity > of simultaneity to the difference in signal travel time for different > observers. In this way, they reconcile statements of the relativity > of simultaneity with a belief in absolute simultaneity and fail to > confront the startling ideas of special relativity". The phrase "and fail to confront the startling ideas of special relativity" should read "and reject the internal contradictions inherent in special relativity" The internal contradiction regarding simultaneity can be traced back to Einstein's "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", in which he asserts that mechanics & optics have no properties relating to an absolute frame of reference, and then contradicts this in his example of time dilation by referring to a stationary frame and a moving frame. If Einstein were to have described his example of time dilation in terms consistent with his principle of relativity (i.e. no absolute frame), then the clock paradox would be immediately apparent.
From: Inertial on 21 Jul 2010 19:47
"colp" wrote in message news:140ffcc4-9375-4cca-b256-40aa9b6be5f0(a)v35g2000prn.googlegroups.com... > The phrase "and fail to confront the startling ideas of special >relativity" should read "and reject the internal contradictions >inherent in special relativity" You keep claiming there are contradictions, and you've never provided any evidence of one. Put your money where you mouth is and show an internal contradiction in SR. >The internal contradiction regarding simultaneity can be traced back >to Einstein's "Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", in which he asserts >that mechanics & optics have no properties relating to an absolute >frame of reference, and then contradicts this in his example of time >dilation by referring to a stationary frame and a moving frame. Just because he uses two frames does NOT mean there is an absolute frame. >If Einstein were to have described his example of time dilation in >terms consistent with his principle of relativity (i.e. no absolute >frame), then the clock paradox would be immediately apparent. There is no paradox .. no contradiction. SR's prediction are self-consistent. If you claim otherwise ... PROVE IT !! |