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: Tom Roberts on 25 Jun 2010 00:32 colp wrote: > "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. No. This is just one more colp error. In relativity there is no preferred frame of reference, but there is a preferred CLASS OF FRAMES [#], the inertial frames. In this example clock B is at rest in an inertial frame, and A is not. That is the difference that makes your argument fail. [#] Preferred in the sense that the dynamics are different when expressed in terms of any member of the class, compared to being expressed in terms of any frame not in the class. I remind you that in Einstein's paper the phrase "stationary frame" is merely a label for some ARBITRARY inertial frame; no notion of "being absolutely stationary" is involved. IOW: in his paper "stationary" is merely a label. Tom Roberts
From: mpc755 on 25 Jun 2010 00:35 On Jun 25, 12:32 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > colp wrote: > > "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. > > No. This is just one more colp error. > > In relativity there is no preferred frame of reference, but there is a preferred > CLASS OF FRAMES [#], the inertial frames. In this example clock B is at rest in > an inertial frame, and A is not. That is the difference that makes your argument > fail. > > [#] Preferred in the sense that the dynamics are different when > expressed in terms of any member of the class, compared to > being expressed in terms of any frame not in the class. > > I remind you that in Einstein's paper the phrase "stationary frame" is merely a > label for some ARBITRARY inertial frame; no notion of "being absolutely > stationary" is involved. IOW: in his paper "stationary" is merely a label.. > > Tom Roberts 'Stationary' is merely a label because Einstein was unable to determine the cause which conditions the ether's state. '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.
From: Androcles on 25 Jun 2010 00:42 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:NqydnWEMn872rLnRRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... | colp wrote: | > "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. | | No. This is just one more colp error. | | In relativity there is no preferred frame of reference, but there is a preferred | CLASS OF FRAMES [#], the inertial frames. In this example clock B is at rest in | an inertial frame, and A is not. That is the difference that makes your argument | fail. | | [#] Preferred in the sense that the dynamics are different when | expressed in terms of any member of the class, compared to | being expressed in terms of any frame not in the class. | | I remind you that in Einstein's paper the phrase "stationary frame" is merely a | label for some ARBITRARY inertial frame; You should STUDY the meaning of INERTIAL, Roberts. I remind you that you are an incompetent fuckwit.
From: Thomas Heger on 25 Jun 2010 01:07 colp schrieb: > "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. It can be true. The best way to understand this behavior is to 'geometrize' time. That is actually what relativity does. Than we don't have uniform timeflow, but any object has its own time. Velocity is an angle in this spacetime view and c refers to 45� in respect to the worldline of an observer. But that can be seen in reverse, too, and an object receding with c measures the observer receding with c, too. Now the clocks move with the objects and stay fixed in the FoR of that object. That means time is for an object, what its own clock shows. The observed one is moving in the FoR of the observer. But the observer is an object himself and could be seen from the moving object. So what is dilated is the other clock, because the observers clock doesn't change, by definition. Hence both can see the other clock as dilated. TH
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 01:08
On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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). Except the so-called 'einstein aether' (basically just another label for spacetime) cannot be considered at rest or in motion .. nor can anything be considered at rest in it or in motion relative to it. The whole notion of motion does not apply to that 'aether'. So your examples are not relevant. |