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: Hayek on 28 Jun 2010 04:34 artful 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 .. I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute measurement. We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 oranges, would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets say that the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for rotations and accelerations. Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when two spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one that accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. iow : You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly they start to separate faster and faster. How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? Uwe Hayek. > 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. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: mpc755 on 28 Jun 2010 05:41 On Jun 28, 4:34 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > artful 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 .. > > I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in > motion. The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out > any absolute measurement. We are left with the choice, > we have two solutions. If your calculations with a > quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 oranges, would you > choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets say that > the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as > for rotations and accelerations. > > Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically > know when two spaceships accelerate away from each other > , which is the one that accelerates, without having > access to a accelerometer on board. > > iow : > You see two points stationary wrt to each other and > suddenly they start to separate faster and faster. > > How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? > In Einstein's train gedanken you know it is the embankment which is more at rest with respect to the aether than the train because the clocks on the train tick slower. The clocks on the train are moving against the 'flow' of aether. This movement against the 'flow' of aether increases the aether pressure against the clocks, causing the clocks to tick slower. '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". 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 state of the aether is determined mostly by its connections with the matter which is the Earth. The evidence the aether is more at rest with the respect to the embankment than it is to the train is the Hafele and Keating Experiment. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html "Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip" With respect to the surface of the Earth, the aether 'flows' east to west. (Since the aether behaves as a frictionless superfluid one- something it is more correct to state the surface of the Earth 'flows' west to east with respect to the aether). The clocks flying eastward are flying against the 'flow' of aether and tick slower. The clocks flying westward are flying with the 'flow' of aether and tick faster. Two space ships get together and synchronize their respective clocks. The space ships go on their respective journeys. The space ships get back together. The space ship with the atomic clock which shows the least amount of time has passed is the space ship which was under the greater amount of aether pressure. This greater aether pressure caused the atomic clock to 'tick' slower and this space ship was less at rest with respect to the aether.
From: Inertial on 28 Jun 2010 10:35 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c285e9e$0$22934$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > artful 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 .. > > I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. Not for the Einstein aether .. it removed the concept of motion from it .. you can't talk about it be relatively at rest or in motion. So there is no rest frame for that 'aether' > The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute measurement. > We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. Two solutions for what? > If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 oranges, > would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets say that the > inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for rotations and > accelerations. The eintein 'aether' has no concept of motion. It make no sense to talk about it being at rest in ANY frame ... or being in motion in ANY frame > Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when two > spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one that > accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. Because one changes its motion .. the other doesn't. > iow : > You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly they start to > separate faster and faster. > > How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? By looking at their velocities relative to an inertial observer .. all inertial observers agree which is accelerating
From: Hayek on 28 Jun 2010 12:48 Inertial wrote: > "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > news:4c285e9e$0$22934$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >> artful 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 .. >> >> I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. > > Not for the Einstein aether .. it removed the concept of motion from it > .. you can't talk about it be relatively at rest or in motion. So there > is no rest frame for that 'aether' > >> The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute >> measurement. We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. > > Two solutions for what? Suppose we have a preferential frame, and that the Earth moves wrt to it. Earth then launches a space ship that first accelerates, then stays immobile wrt this preferential frame. Then the clock on Earth runs slower than the clock on the spaceship. Now the spaceship turns around and accelerates back to Earth. Due to the nature of the gamma factor, the clock on the spaceship is now slowed down so much that when clocks are compared, the preferential frame vanishes, the outcome is the same as a pure relativistic approach. > >> If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 >> oranges, would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets say >> that the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for >> rotations and accelerations. > > The eintein 'aether' has no concept of motion. It make no sense to talk > about it being at rest in ANY frame ... or being in motion in ANY frame > >> Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when two >> spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one that >> accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. > > Because one changes its motion .. the other doesn't. > >> iow : >> You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly they >> start to separate faster and faster. >> >> How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? > > By looking at their velocities relative to an inertial observer .. all > inertial observers agree which is accelerating You got me on this one. I would say, the preferential frame, but because any inertial moving point will do, it is no longer preferential. I have indeed no argument here. Damned inertia. :-) Well, my first argument still stands. Can a clock tick differently on the two legs of a two way trip ? It takes ftl transmission to test it- sigh . What is your prediction ? Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Uncle Ben on 28 Jun 2010 12:59
On Jun 24, 9:08 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. Colp, what you are missing is that time is relative just as motion is relative. Go back to our two trains passing each other. You are in one train and I am in the other. Who is really moving? You are moving with respect to my gtrain. I am moving with respect to your train. There is no contradiction there, is there? You are stationaqry with respect to your train and moving with respect to my train. The same holds for me. Since you are moving with respect to me, your clock runs slow with respect to my train, and I am moving with respect to you, so my clock runs slow with respect to your train. The point is that clocks run at different rates when measured in different frames of reference. This may shock and discomfit you, but it is not a contradiction. Uncle Ben |