Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: valls on 25 Jun 2010 11:41
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.
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.
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 don’t 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: PD on 25 Jun 2010 11:56
On Jun 24, 8:08 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> 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.

Once again, you have demonstrated that COLP'S Oversimplified
Relativity is self-contradictory and should be rejected. However,
relativity is not.

Please identify the two *events* that are implicit in the passage
above.

Then identify the two OTHER *events* that are implicit in your
flipping of the statement.

Then we can talk.

PD
From: Androcles on 25 Jun 2010 13:44

<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:

> 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.
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.

=================================================
By the principle of relativity the satellite sees the Earth moving beneath
it,
just as a passenger in a plane sees the Earth move beneath the plane.
By the principle of relativity someone on the Moon sees the Earth rotate
on its axis. The Earth moves. The ignoramus Roberts brought in the term
"inertial", we are not discussing inertial at all. So I agree with you on
the
second point, but not with your first. The stationary clock at the equator
(or in Cuba, close enough) sees the entire universe move. The sun moves
across the sky, doesn't it?
===================================================


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 don�t remember bad. For me is more than
sufficient the huge experimental evidence of today GPS supporting 1905
Einstein.
===================================================
You have no idea what the principle of relativity is.
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the
present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do
not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the
reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable
phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the
magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two
cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For
if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the
neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite
energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are
situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no
electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor,
however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no
corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative
motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.

Examples of this sort,...will hereafter be called the ``Principle of
Relativity'' -- Paragraph 1 and 2.




From: harald on 28 Jun 2010 03:36
On Jun 25, 2:47 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
> 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 thewater
> >> > pressure in which they exist to understand everything is with respect
> >> > to the aether (i.e.waterin thisanalogy).
>
> >> 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.

Indeed.

> So, "artful" is exactly right.

No, you missed the point.

> 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".

Sure.

Harald
From: harald on 28 Jun 2010 04:02
On Jun 25, 4:49 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> 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 [#], theinertialframes. In this example clock B is at rest in
> > > > aninertialframe, 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 ARBITRARYinertialframe; 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 aninertialframe?
> > > 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.
> 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.
> 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 don’t remember bad. For me is more than
> sufficient the huge experimental evidence of today GPS supporting 1905
> Einstein.
>
> >Harald
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

You continue to miss the point, as I feared. Perhaps you are looking
for keywords in my answers, and if you see the ones you like, then you
think that we therefore agree? However, clearly you cannot understand
Einstein's logical (and correct) reasoning, even after I explained it
to you.

For example:

> "Einstein doesn’t
> identify “stationary system” with “moving system”,

That's right,

> not being possible then to interchange their roles."

And that's wrong.

> a moving entity with a gravitational centripetal
> acceleration with a circular path can’t be considered an inertial
> frame in 1905.

That is again right,

> And about the application of relativity formulas to a non-inertial
> frame, I am also following 1905 Einstein accepting that it can be
> done.

And that is double wrong: as I explained to you with much elaboration,
he did NOT apply relativity formulas to a non-inertial frame.

Regards,
Harald
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge