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: harald on 25 Jun 2010 08:25 On Jun 25, 7:08 am, 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: > > 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. That's also a misunderstanding (a subtle one) - except if you pretend that Einstein contradicted himself in the same speech: "The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state." To emphasize this, notice also that he "forgot" to mention what you suggest to be an essential difference: "this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them." Instead of concluding that Einstein came up with a physically impossible concept that contradicted what he emphasized in the same speech, I find it much more plausible that he mainly differed from Lorentz in the way he formulated their concepts; Einstein stuck to an overly positivistic language. Harald
From: harald on 25 Jun 2010 08:36 On Jun 25, 12:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > On 24 jun, 23:32, 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. Right. > Then, in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 > paper, the moving system (clock at the equator) can be considered > stationary system, and the stationary system (clock at the pole) > can be considered moving system? > By the way, is the moving system in this example an inertial frame? > If not, how can we apply to it relativity formulas? > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) No. And No. And not only Einstein succinctly explained how, but I also explained the same to you and PD with much more elaboration. Good luck to others. ;-) Harald
From: Daryl McCullough on 25 Jun 2010 08:47 harald says... > >On Jun 25, 7:08=A0am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Jun 25, 1:02=A0pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Jun 24, 10:42=A0pm, 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'. o your >> examples are not relevant. > >That's also a misunderstanding (a subtle one) - except if you pretend >that Einstein contradicted himself in the same speech: > >"The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted >conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for >the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the >causes which condition its state." Whether Einstein mentioned it or not, it is simply a fact that General Relativity has no notion of a preferred rest frame, and has no notion of absolute motion of an object. So, "artful" is exactly right. In an expanding universe such as ours, you can come up with an unambiguous standard of rest: namely the frame in which the expansion of the universe looks isotropic (the same in all directions). However, that definition is not forced on you by General Relativity. The laws of physics work exactly the same in whatever frame you want to consider "at rest". -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: valls on 25 Jun 2010 10:49 On 25 jun, 07:36, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 25, 12:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 24 jun, 23:32, 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. > > Right. > > > Then, in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 > > paper, the moving system (clock at the equator) can be considered > > stationary system, and the stationary system (clock at the pole) > > can be considered moving system? > > By the way, is the moving system in this example an inertial frame? > > If not, how can we apply to it relativity formulas? > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > No. And No. And not only Einstein succinctly explained how, but I also > explained the same to you and PD with much more elaboration. Good luck > to others. ;-) > My first question is Then, in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 paper, the moving system (clock at the equator) can be considered stationary system, and the stationary system (clock at the pole) can be considered moving system? If your answer is No we are in total agreement, 1905 Einstein doesnt identify stationary system with moving system, not being possible then to interchange their roles. My second question is By the way, is the moving system in this example an inertial frame?. If your answer is also No, we are again in total agreement, a moving entity with a gravitational centripetal acceleration with a circular path cant be considered an inertial frame in 1905. And about the application of relativity formulas to a non-inertial frame, I am also following 1905 Einstein accepting that it can be done. The unique difference between us in this point seems to be then that my reasons to accept 1905 Einstein behaviour are perhaps different from yours. You use a Galilean transformation in your 1905 Einstein justification, if I dont remember bad. For me is more than sufficient the huge experimental evidence of today GPS supporting 1905 Einstein. > Harald RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Inertial on 25 Jun 2010 10:58
<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message news:beb7e147-ebaf-494f-bbc0-c6641550cc50(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > On 25 jun, 07:36, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: >> On Jun 25, 12:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 24 jun, 23:32, 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. >> >> Right. >> >> > Then, in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 >> > paper, the �moving system� (clock at the equator) can be considered >> > �stationary system�, and the �stationary system� (clock at the pole) >> > can be considered �moving system�? >> > By the way, is the �moving system� in this example an inertial frame? >> > If not, how can we apply to it relativity formulas? >> >> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >> >> No. And No. And not only Einstein succinctly explained how, but I also >> explained the same to you and PD with much more elaboration. Good luck >> to others. ;-) >> > My first question is �Then, in the real example at the end of > paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 paper, the �moving system� (clock at the > equator) can be considered �stationary system�, and the �stationary > system� (clock at the pole) can be considered �moving system�? If your > answer is �No� we are in total agreement, 1905 Einstein doesn�t > identify �stationary system� with �moving system�, not being possible > then to interchange their roles. The clock was at first 'stationary' and then 'moved'. If you reverse that then it was at first moving and then became stationary. > My second question is � By the way, is the �moving system� in this > example an inertial frame?�. If your answer is also �No�, we are again > in total agreement, a moving entity with a gravitational centripetal > acceleration with a circular path can�t be considered an inertial > frame in 1905. It wasn't circular .. we are talking about straight line movement from A to B > And about the application of relativity formulas to a non-inertial > frame, I am also following 1905 Einstein accepting that it can be > done. Of course it can be done .. but not with exactly the same formulas as an inertial frame > The unique difference between us in this point seems to be then > that my reasons to accept 1905 Einstein behaviour are perhaps > different from yours. You use a Galilean transformation in your 1905 > Einstein justification, if I don�t remember bad. For me is more than > sufficient the huge experimental evidence of today GPS supporting 1905 > Einstein. "1950 Einstien" was no different to SR (but without, as I recall, the effects on relativistic mass .. I'd have to check again) |