Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: Androcles on 28 Jun 2010 15:23

"Uncle Ben" <ben(a)greenba.com> wrote in message
news:590feea5-cefb-42fd-835e-183570bfd69c(a)w31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
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
================================================
Bwhahahahahaha!
Bonehead is more stupid that Einstein, but Einstein is more stupid than
Bonehead. This may shock and discomfort Bonehead, but it is not a
contradiction.





From: valls on 28 Jun 2010 16:59
On 28 jun, 03:02, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> 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.
>
Consider the clock at the pole the moving one and the clock at the
equator the stationary one. Immediately the huge experimental evidence
of today GPS shows you that can’t be done. For any real example taking
from the existing world, you have always a UNIQUE inertial system to
use, the centre of mass one corresponding to all the massive bodies
involved. And that system will be ALWAYS the stationary system, being
also ALWAYS the moving system anyone of the bodies belonging to the
determined body set (involved bodies) you are starting with. The ECI
and a clock at the equator, the Solar System and any planet, etc. Try
to find a real example that contradicts what I am saying.
Stationary system and moving system NEVER can be interchanged. And
that’s NO 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.
>
We are in disagreement here. 1905 Einstein apply the relativity
formula to the moving clock at the equator, that you accept a little
above that is NOT an inertial frame. After the polygonal line is
converted in a continuous one, the uniform velocity condition can’t be
applied any more. A body with a circular path can’t be an inertial
frame, and you accepted already that. But 1905 Einstein APPLIES the
relativity formula to it in an instantaneous way, and you continue
claiming that he is not applying the relativity formula to a non-
inertial frame. Surely exists here some misunderstanding between us
not detected yet, maybe about the meaning of some English word that I
am using bad. But we both accept what 1905 Einstein is doing, then the
disagreement doesn’t seem an important one.
> Regards,
> Harald

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: Androcles on 28 Jun 2010 17:38

<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:3484ad77-439d-418d-a525-a9180aab5199(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 28 jun, 03:02, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
> And that is double wrong: as I explained to you with much elaboration,
> he did NOT apply relativity formulas to a non-inertial frame.
>
We are in disagreement here. 1905 Einstein apply the relativity
formula to the moving clock at the equator, that you accept a little
above that is NOT an inertial frame. After the polygonal line is
converted in a continuous one, the uniform velocity condition can�t be
applied any more. A body with a circular path can�t be an inertial
frame, and you accepted already that. But 1905 Einstein APPLIES the
relativity formula to it in an instantaneous way, and you continue
claiming that he is not applying the relativity formula to a non-
inertial frame. Surely exists here some misunderstanding between us
not detected yet, maybe about the meaning of some English word that I
am using bad. But we both accept what 1905 Einstein is doing, then the
disagreement doesn�t seem an important one.
======================================================
Wimp! You'll both paper over the cracks, neither one will expose
them.


From: Androcles on 28 Jun 2010 17:45

<valls(a)icmf.inf.cu> wrote in message
news:3484ad77-439d-418d-a525-a9180aab5199(a)d37g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

We are in disagreement here. 1905 Einstein apply the relativity
formula to the moving clock at the equator, that you accept a little
above that is NOT an inertial frame. After the polygonal line is
converted in a continuous one, the uniform velocity condition can�t be
applied any more. A body with a circular path can�t be an inertial
frame, and you accepted already that. But 1905 Einstein APPLIES the
relativity formula to it in an instantaneous way, and you continue
claiming that he is not applying the relativity formula to a non-
inertial frame. Surely exists here some misunderstanding between us
not detected yet, maybe about the meaning of some English word that I
am using bad. But we both accept what 1905 Einstein is doing, then the
disagreement doesn�t seem an important one.

==============================================
Paper over the cracks to hide them.






From: harald on 29 Jun 2010 03:18
On Jun 28, 10:59 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> On 28 jun, 03:02, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Consider the clock at the pole the moving one and the clock at the
> equator the stationary one.

Those are not both valid SRT reference systems - only inertial
systems
are considered.

[..]
> Stationary system and moving system NEVER can be interchanged. And
> that’s NO wrong.

That's absolutely 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.
>
> We are in disagreement here.

Absolutely! Good to see that you finally agree on that.

> 1905 Einstein apply the relativity
> formula to the moving clock at the equator,

No, he did not. But I won't repeat the explanation, I think already
Einstein explained it rather well, and with my additional
explanation,
if you still don't get it, I doubt you will. Ever...

Just to go through your lines a last time:

> that you accept a little
> above that is NOT an inertial frame. After the polygonal line is
> converted in a continuous one,

No he does not.

> the uniform velocity condition can’t be
> applied any more.

Indeed we do not.

> A body with a circular path can’t be an inertial
> frame, and you accepted already that. But 1905 Einstein APPLIES the
> relativity formula to it in an instantaneous way

Instantaneous velocity has no acceleration; it also corresponds to an
inertial reference system.

> , and you continue
> claiming that he is not applying the relativity formula to a non-
> inertial frame. Surely exists here some misunderstanding between us
> not detected yet, maybe about the meaning of some English word that
I
> am using bad. But we both accept what 1905 Einstein is doing,

You accept something else, something that you did not understand and
which he also did not do...

> then the
> disagreement doesn’t seem an important one.

It's a key point. So important that it destroys your argument of many
years when it finally "clicks". But that won't happen of course.

Goodbye,
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