Relativity Error
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: Daryl McCullough on 24 Jun 2010 22:16 colp says... > >"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, >viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at >A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its >arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved >from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > >Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > >The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point >A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is >no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that >the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A >and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this >cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated >with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred >frame of reference. That's not true. If there are two inertial coordinate systems C1 and C2, then it is perfectly consistent for one clock to be running slower than a second clock, as measured in C1, and for the second clock to be running slower than the first, as measured in C2. It is *NOT* an inconsistency for two different coordinate systems to disagree about coordinate-dependent quantities. You seem to REFUSE to ever compute anything. If you actually did the math, you would see that there is no contradiction. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: artful on 24 Jun 2010 22:42 On Jun 25, 12:16 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > > > > > >"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > >viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > >A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > >arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > >from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > >Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > >The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > >A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > >no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > >the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > >and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > >cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > >with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > >frame of reference. > > That's not true. If there are two inertial coordinate systems C1 > and C2, then it is perfectly consistent for one clock to be running > slower than a second clock, as measured in C1, and for the second > clock to be running slower than the first, as measured in C2. > It is *NOT* an inconsistency for two different coordinate systems to > disagree about coordinate-dependent quantities. > > You seem to REFUSE to ever compute anything. If you actually > did the math, you would see that there is no contradiction. > > -- > Daryl McCullough > Ithaca, NY The trick is, you need to consider that simultaneity (and so clock sync) is frame dependent. Ignoring this is what is leading colp to false conclusions This analogy shows how you can have mutually slowly ticking clocks due to differences in clock sync Consider two sets of clocks at rest in two relatively moving frames of reference, S1 and S2. S1: 12:30 A:12:00 11:30 --> S2: 11:30 B:12:00 12:30 <-- Differences in simultaneity mean that S1 considers its clocks to be synchronized (even though we see them as different). Similarly S2 considers its clocks as synchronized. Notice that the synchronization depends on the direction of motion. Note that clocks A and B are corresponding and show the same time. Now .. let see what happens some time later (each clock shows a later time, and has moved relative to the other clocks set of clocks) S1: 13:30 A:13:00 12:30 --> S2: 12:30 B:13:00 13:30 <-- Now clock A is half an hour slower than the corresponding clock in S2 (A shows 13:00, the corresponding clock shows 13:30). So S2 considers that clock A is ticking slower (half the speed) than clocks at rest in S2. And clock B is half an hour slower then the corresponding clock in S1 (B shows 13:00, the corresponding clock shows 13:30). So S1 considers that clock B is ticking slower (half the speed) than clocks at rest in S1. Both measure time dilation for a clock in motion in their frame of reference .. even though both clocks are ticking at the correct rate in their own rest frames. This shows how colp's premise that "the time for both systems cannot be dilated with respect to each other" is incorrect .. when you take differences in simultaneity (and clock sync) into account.
From: mpc755 on 24 Jun 2010 23:02 On Jun 24, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 12:16 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: > > > > > colp says... > > > >"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > >viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > >A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > >arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > >from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > >Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > > >The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > >A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > > >no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > > >the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > >and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > > >cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > > >with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > > >frame of reference. > > > That's not true. If there are two inertial coordinate systems C1 > > and C2, then it is perfectly consistent for one clock to be running > > slower than a second clock, as measured in C1, and for the second > > clock to be running slower than the first, as measured in C2. > > It is *NOT* an inconsistency for two different coordinate systems to > > disagree about coordinate-dependent quantities. > > > You seem to REFUSE to ever compute anything. If you actually > > did the math, you would see that there is no contradiction. > > > -- > > Daryl McCullough > > Ithaca, NY > > The trick is, you need to consider that simultaneity (and so clock > sync) is frame dependent. Ignoring this is what is leading colp to > false conclusions > colp understands exactly what they are saying. What colp needs to understand is everything is with respect to the aether. Perform Einstein's train gedanken in a pool of water where the water is at rest with respect to the embankment and the train is full of flat bed cars which ride under and do not disturb the water. The flashes at A/A' and B/B' arrive at the Observer on the 'embankment' simultaneously. The light waves travel with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. The train is moving towards the light traveling from the lightning strike at B/B' and away from the light traveling from the lightning strike at A/A'. That is why the light from B/B' arrives at M' prior to the light from A/A'. Now all you need are clocks which tick with respect to the water pressure in which they exist to understand everything is with respect to the aether (i.e. water in this analogy). The clock being walked to B' is walked against the 'flow' of water and ticks slower. The clock being walked to A' is walked with the 'flow' of water and ticks faster. When the lightning strikes occur at B/B' and A/A' the clock at B' states the time is earlier than the clock at A'. > This analogy shows how you can have mutually slowly ticking clocks due > to differences in clock sync > > Consider two sets of clocks at rest in two relatively moving frames of > reference, S1 and S2. > > S1: 12:30 A:12:00 11:30 --> > S2: 11:30 B:12:00 12:30 <-- > > Differences in simultaneity mean that S1 considers its clocks to be > synchronized (even though we see them as different). Similarly S2 > considers its clocks as synchronized. Notice that the synchronization > depends on the direction of motion. > > Note that clocks A and B are corresponding and show the same time. > > Now .. let see what happens some time later (each clock shows a later > time, and has moved relative to the other clocks set of clocks) > > S1: 13:30 A:13:00 12:30 --> > S2: 12:30 B:13:00 13:30 <-- > > Now clock A is half an hour slower than the corresponding clock in S2 > (A shows 13:00, the corresponding clock shows 13:30). So S2 considers > that clock A is ticking slower (half the speed) than clocks at rest in > S2. > > And clock B is half an hour slower then the corresponding clock in S1 > (B shows 13:00, the corresponding clock shows 13:30). So S1 considers > that clock B is ticking slower (half the speed) than clocks at rest in > S1. > > Both measure time dilation for a clock in motion in their frame of > reference .. even though both clocks are ticking at the correct rate > in their own rest frames. > > This shows how colp's premise that "the time for both systems cannot > be dilated with respect to each other" is incorrect .. when you take > differences in simultaneity (and clock sync) into account.
From: artful on 24 Jun 2010 23:10 On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:16 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > wrote: > > > > colp says... > > > > >"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > > >viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > > >A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > > >arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > > >from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > > >Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > > > >The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > > >A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > > > >no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > > > >the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > > >and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > > > >cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > > > >with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > > > >frame of reference. > > > > That's not true. If there are two inertial coordinate systems C1 > > > and C2, then it is perfectly consistent for one clock to be running > > > slower than a second clock, as measured in C1, and for the second > > > clock to be running slower than the first, as measured in C2. > > > It is *NOT* an inconsistency for two different coordinate systems to > > > disagree about coordinate-dependent quantities. > > > > You seem to REFUSE to ever compute anything. If you actually > > > did the math, you would see that there is no contradiction. > > > > -- > > > Daryl McCullough > > > Ithaca, NY > > > The trick is, you need to consider that simultaneity (and so clock > > sync) is frame dependent. Ignoring this is what is leading colp to > > false conclusions > > colp understands exactly what they are saying. Nope .. colp doesn't get it yet. You can't take one facet of SR in isolation and completely ignore the rest .. its all or nothing. > What colp needs to > understand is everything is with respect to the aether. That doesn't change anything. Whatever frame may be the aether rest frame (if any) doesn't change any of the math of SR or LET. There is no preferred or special frame in SR or LET when it comes to what one measures. It all still works the same with no contradictions. [snip rest of mpc755 nonsense]
From: mpc755 on 24 Jun 2010 23:22
On Jun 24, 11:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 24, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 12:16 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > > wrote: > > > > > colp says... > > > > > >"If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > > > >viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > > > >A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > > > >arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > > > >from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > > > >Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > > > > >The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > > > >A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > > > > >no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > > > > >the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > > > >and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > > > > >cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > > > > >with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > > > > >frame of reference. > > > > > That's not true. If there are two inertial coordinate systems C1 > > > > and C2, then it is perfectly consistent for one clock to be running > > > > slower than a second clock, as measured in C1, and for the second > > > > clock to be running slower than the first, as measured in C2. > > > > It is *NOT* an inconsistency for two different coordinate systems to > > > > disagree about coordinate-dependent quantities. > > > > > You seem to REFUSE to ever compute anything. If you actually > > > > did the math, you would see that there is no contradiction. > > > > > -- > > > > Daryl McCullough > > > > Ithaca, NY > > > > The trick is, you need to consider that simultaneity (and so clock > > > sync) is frame dependent. Ignoring this is what is leading colp to > > > false conclusions > > > colp understands exactly what they are saying. > > Nope .. colp doesn't get it yet. You can't take one facet of SR in > isolation and completely ignore the rest .. its all or nothing. > You are the one who is ignoring Einstein's concept of ether. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places ... disregarding the causes which condition its state.". The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by matter. > > What colp needs to > > understand is everything is with respect to the aether. > > That doesn't change anything. Whatever frame may be the aether rest > frame (if any) doesn't change any of the math of SR or LET. There is > no preferred or special frame in SR or LET when it comes to what one > measures. It all still works the same with no contradictions. > Why can't you understand there is a difference between mathematics and nature? In order to understand nature you have to understand the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means the state of the aether is mostly determined by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. This means the analogy of an embankment and a train existing in a pool of water where the train is full of flat bed cars which ride under and do not disturb the water accurately reflects what occurs in Einstein's train gedanken. You can switch it around. Make is so the light waves arrive at M' simultaneously. Since the train is moving against the 'flow' of water in the direction of B' this means the lightning strike occurs at A/A' earlier then the lightning strike at B/B' with respect to the water. When the Observers on the train got together at M' they synchronized their clocks. The clock walked to B' ticked slower than the clock walked to A'. The lightning strike at A/A' occurs when the clock at A' reads 12:00:05. When the lightning strike at B/B' occurs later, with respect to the water, the clock at B' reads 12:00:05. The light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' arrive at M' simultaneously. The light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrives prior to the lightning strike at A/A' at M. The above is easy to understand if you can conceptualize light traveling through water at rest with respect to the embankment. The light waves travel with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. |