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: mpc755 on 24 Jun 2010 23:46 On Jun 24, 11:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Correction: The light from the lighting strike at A/A' arrives prior to the lightning strike at B/B' at M on the embankment.
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 00:20 On Jun 25, 1:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. nope [snip irrelevance, misunderstanding and sutpidty] Nothing left
From: mpc755 on 25 Jun 2010 00:29 On Jun 25, 12:20 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > nope > '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. Everything is with respect to the aether. In order to determine synchronicity you must know your state with respect to the aether. In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is mostly determined by its connections with the Earth. Einstein is incorrect in assuming the clocks at A and B are synchronous to begin with. In Einstein's train gedanken, it is correct for the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment to conclude the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than the train.
From: eric gisse on 25 Jun 2010 00:31 colp wrote: [...] > 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. I now see why you didn't want to play the 'Where did you learn SR?' game with me. Folks a lot stupider and a lot more stubborn than you have tried the 'argue from a position of abject ignorance' gambit. It won't work for you any better than it is working for them.
From: mpc755 on 25 Jun 2010 00:32
On Jun 25, 12:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 12:20 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > nope > > '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. > > Everything is with respect to the aether. In order to determine > synchronicity you must know your state with respect to the aether. > > In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is mostly > determined by its connections with the Earth. > > Einstein is incorrect in assuming the clocks at A and B are > synchronous to begin with. > > In Einstein's train gedanken, it is correct for the Observer on the > train and the Observer on the embankment to conclude the aether is > more at rest with respect to the embankment than the train. In order to determine the synchronicity of events with respect to nature you must know your state with respect to the aether. If you conclude lightning strikes are simultaneous in your mathematically constructed frame of reference then that in no way determines if the lightning strikes were simultaneous in nature. |