Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: PD on 22 Oct 2009 18:11 On Oct 22, 4:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What Einstein failed to realize is a light wave travels at 'c' > relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. This is inconsistent with the results of Filippas and Fox. It doesn't have anything to do with "realizing" anything. It has to do with whether the predictions of an aether model match experiments designed to test those predictions. When they don't match, the aether model goes toe-up.
From: glird on 22 Oct 2009 18:41 On Oct 22, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Objects are the matter they contain. And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and around the object. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www- groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." Such is the reason why Einstein incorrectly concluded the notion of motion cannot be applied to the aether. >>> That is NOT the reason, but so what. > > > > > Einstein failed to realize the aether can be at rest relative to K and at rest relative to K'. >>> I wasn't Einstein; it was Lorentz and Maxwell who asserted that the aether was universally stationary in Newton's classical 3d space. > > > > > He didn't have to do that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames and > > > That is only true if the frames "are physically equivalent to it in all respects", which is impossible if A and A' are co-located. If A and A' are not co-located and the aether is at rest relative to the embankment and at rest relative to the train, then you have Simultaneity of Relativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk It's either one or the other. Either A and A' are co-located and B and B' are co-located in which case it is physically impossible for the frames to be inertial frames of reference because the aether cannot be at rest relative to both, or A and A' are not co-located and B and B' are not co-located. >>> Let system 1 be inertially moving through classical physics' universally stationary aether at v = .2c and let system 2 be located in that same space through which it is moving at .4c. Now take away the aether and let 1 be moving at 2c and the other at 4c through empty space. Now let cs 1 be at rest in this empty space and cs 2 move at 100,000 mps through this empty space in which light moves at c. None of that has anything to do with the "relativity of simultaneity"; which is a product of Einstein's method of setting consecutive clocks of a given system to MEASURE c as a constant each way in any and all directions, regardless of the different velocities of various such systems. > > > > It is physically impossible in nature for A and A' to be co-located > > > and for B and B' to be co-located and for the train frame of reference > > > and the embankment frame of reference to be physically equivalent in > > > all respects. > > > That is not 100% accurate. The aether could be moving relative to both > > frames of reference as to make the frames physically equivalent in all > > respects. > > > If that is the case, then the light from B will reach M' earlier than the light from B' in all frames of reference and the light from A' will reach M earlier than the light from A in all respects. In this scenario, the light will reach the Observers at M and M' continually for some period of time as the light waves interact with the moving aether. >> It isn't the aether that is moving, it is system 2. Given that system 1 is "the 'stationary' system" and that system 2 moves at v, then -- as Einstein wrote -- a ray of light moving at c wrt the empty space in which cs 1 is at rest will pass system 2 at c-v in the direction cs 2 is moving and at c+v in the return leg. > > What is physically impossible is for A and A' to be co-located and for B and B' to be co-located and for the aether to be at rest relative to both the embankment and the train.> Define "co-located". << If A and A' are co-located and B and B' are co-located, then for the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference to be physically equivalent in all respects, the aether must be co- moving. > > > > that's why he concluded that the notion of motion cannot applied to the aether. However, he failed to realize that the speed of light on earth is isotropic only in the same gravitational potential. >> Not so. What you (and Androcles) fail to realize is that Einstein knew that the speed of kight is NOT isotropic on the axis of motion, whether or not a g-field is present. THAT'S why he also knew that esynched clocks of a moving system would NOT agree with synchronous stationary clocks as to whether two events were simultaneous. <<Vertically the speed of light is anisotropic. I have designed experiments to detect absolute motion in the vertical direction in the following link:http://www.geocities.com.kn_seto/ 2008experiment.pdf Ken Seto >> So have a lot of people long ago insofar as light moving up and down in Earth's g-field. BUT if we let a ray move from A to B and reflect thence to A, on a vertical rod moving through empty space at v in a direction perpendicular to its ends A and B, the time it takes to travel from A to B would be identical to that required for the return trip from B to A. Therefore, in EINSTEIN'S treatment the speed of light was isotopic in the vertical directions Y and Z and anisotropic on X' of a system moving at v on X of system K. glird
From: mpc755 on 22 Oct 2009 19:14 On Oct 22, 6:41 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > > > > > > Objects are the matter they contain. > > And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and > around the object. > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www- > groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > "Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory > distinguish the K system above all K' systems, which are physically > equivalent to it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at > rest relatively to the K system? For the theoretician such an > asymmetry in the theoretical structure, with no corresponding > asymmetry in the system of experience, is intolerable. If we assume > the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to > K', the physical > equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not > indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." > Such is the reason why Einstein incorrectly concluded the notion of > motion cannot be applied to the aether. >>> > > That is NOT the reason, but so what. > Einstein is saying it is unacceptable for the aether to be at rest relative to K, but in motion relative to K'. Any chance you could switch to Google groups or something else so your responses will be readable? > > > > > > Einstein failed to realize the aether can be at rest relative to K and > > at rest relative to K'. >>> > > I wasn't Einstein; it was Lorentz and Maxwell who asserted that the > aether was universally stationary in Newton's classical 3d space. > > > > > > He didn't have to do that the speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames and > > > > That is only true if the frames "are physically equivalent to it in all respects", which is impossible if A and A' are co-located. > > If A and A' are not co-located and the aether is at rest relative to > the embankment and at rest relative to the train, then you have > Simultaneity of Relativity:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > It's either one or the other. Either A and A' are co-located and B > and B' are co-located in which case it is physically impossible for > the > frames to be inertial frames of reference because the aether cannot be > at rest relative to both, or A and A' are not co-located and B and B' > are not co-located. >>> > > Let system 1 be inertially moving through classical physics' > universally stationary aether at v = .2c and let system 2 be located > in that same space through which it is moving at .4c. Now take away > the aether and let 1 be moving at 2c and the other at 4c through empty > space. Now let cs 1 be at rest in this empty space and cs 2 move at > 100,000 mps through this empty space in which light moves at c. > > None of that has anything to do with the "relativity of > simultaneity"; which is a product of Einstein's method of setting > consecutive clocks of a given system to MEASURE c as a constant each > way in any and all directions, regardless of the different velocities > of various such systems. > > > > > It is physically impossible in nature for A and A' to be co-located > > > > and for B and B' to be co-located and for the train frame of reference > > > > and the embankment frame of reference to be physically equivalent in > > > > all respects. > > > > That is not 100% accurate. The aether could be moving relative to both > > > frames of reference as to make the frames physically equivalent in all > > > respects. > > > > If that is the case, then the light from B will reach M' earlier than the light from B' in all frames of reference and the light from A' will reach M earlier than the light from A in all respects. > > In this scenario, the light will reach the Observers at M and M' > continually for some period of time as the light waves interact with > the moving aether. >> > > It isn't the aether that is moving, it is system 2. Given that system > 1 is "the 'stationary' system" and that system 2 moves at v, then -- > as Einstein wrote -- a ray of light moving at c wrt the empty space in > which cs 1 is at rest will pass system 2 at c-v in the direction cs 2 > is moving and at c+v in the return leg. > > > > What is physically impossible is for A and A' to be co-located and for B and B' to be co-located and for the aether to be at rest relative to both the embankment and the train.> > > Define "co-located". > > << If A and A' are co-located and B and B' are co-located, then for > the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference to > be physically equivalent in all respects, the aether must be co- > moving.> > > > that's why he concluded that the notion of motion cannot applied to the aether. However, he failed to realize that the > > speed of light on earth is isotropic only in the same gravitational > potential. >> > > Not so. What you (and Androcles) fail to realize is that Einstein > knew that the speed of kight is NOT isotropic on the axis of motion, > whether or not a g-field is present. THAT'S why he also knew that > esynched clocks of a moving system would NOT agree with synchronous > stationary clocks as to whether two events were simultaneous. > > <<Vertically the speed of light is anisotropic. I have designed > experiments to detect absolute motion in the vertical > direction in the following link:http://www.geocities.com.kn_seto/ > 2008experiment.pdf > Ken Seto >> > > So have a lot of people long ago insofar as light moving up and down > in Earth's g-field. > BUT if we let a ray move from A to B and reflect thence to A, on a > vertical rod moving through empty space at v in a direction > perpendicular to its ends A and B, the time it takes to travel from A > to B would be identical to that required for the return trip from B to > A. Therefore, in EINSTEIN'S treatment the speed of light was isotopic > in the vertical directions Y and Z and anisotropic on X' of a system > moving at v on X of system K. > > glird
From: glird on 23 Oct 2009 11:38 On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Do you know the definition of simultaneity for > two spatially separated events? An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"? )If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you don't! If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.) glird
From: kenseto on 23 Oct 2009 11:49
On Oct 22, 11:02 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 22, 10:25 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 21, 4:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 19, 12:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 17, 4:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 17, 11:47 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > ><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > > > > > > > Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a > > > > > > > given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in > > > > > > > quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we > > > > > > > measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as > > > > > > > low as it is in a vacuum. > > > > > > > Correct. When light travels through water, it is still propagating > > > > > > through the aether which exists in the water. > > > > > > > > < And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.> > > > > > > > In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes. > > > > > > > In terms of c = ft/sec, No. > > > > > > > > < Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. > > > > > > > > > Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive > > > > > > > objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is > > > > > > > traveling. > > > > > > > > glird > > > > > > > I see a clear delineation between the object and the aether. There are > > > > > > theories which tie the two together and there are no 'empty voids' > > > > > > between the aether and the object, but I see it much more conceptually > > > > > > easy to understand and intuitive to separate the object from the > > > > > > aether when discussing things. > > > > > > > For example, the C-60 molecule in the double slit experiment. The C-60 > > > > > > molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit in the > > > > > > double slit experiment because it always enters and exits a single > > > > > > slit. But the C-60 molecule is 'connected' to the aether which is the > > > > > > wave which enters and exits both slits. > > > > > > > I see it easier to discuss light bending around the Sun as the > > > > > > displaced aether caused by the Sun causing the light to bend. Not the > > > > > > aether composing the Sun causing the light to bend. > > > > > > > Light travels through the Earth's atmosphere. The light is traveling > > > > > > through the aether associated with the Earth's atmosphere. Where does > > > > > > the Earth's atmosphere end and there being what we would consider to > > > > > > be 'just aether'? I don't know. > > > > > > > But I still see it as the light being bent by the aether displaced by > > > > > > the Sun, not the displaced aether composing the Sun even though the > > > > > > Sun and the displaced aether are connected. > > > > > > > The Earth exists in the Sun's entrained aether. Does this entrained > > > > > > aether still compose the Sun? I find that confusing. > > > > > > Objects are the matter they contain. > > > > > And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and > > > > around the object. > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish > > > the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to > > > it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively > > > to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the > > > theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system > > > of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest > > > relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical > > > equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not > > > indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." > > > > Such is the reason why Einstein incorrectly concluded the notion of > > > motion cannot be applied to the aether. > > > > Einstein failed to realize the aether can be at rest relative to K and > > > at rest relative to K'. > > > He didn't have to do that the speed of light is isotropic in all > > inertial framesand > > That is only true if the frames "are physically equivalent to it in > all respects", which is impossible if A and A' are co-located. > > If A and A' are not co-located and the aether is at rest relative to > the embankment and at rest relative to the train, then you have > Simultaneity of Relativity: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > It's either one or the other. Either A and A' are co-located and B and > B' are co-located in which case it is physically impossible for the > frames to be inertial frames of reference because the aether cannot be > at rest relative to both, or A and A' are not co-located and B and B' > are not co-located. > > It is physically impossible in nature for A and A' to be co-located > and for B and B' to be co-located and for the train frame of reference > and the embankment frame of reference to be physically equivalent in > all respects. The aether is always at rest....A/A' and B/B' are two strikes of lightning. M and M' are at different equal distances from the strikes and the speed of light is isotropic in both frames and therefore M and M' will see the strikes to be simultaneous but at different times (because they are at different equal distances from the strikes. Ken Seto > > > > > that's why he concluded that the notion of motion > > cannot applied to the aether. However, he failed to realize that the > > speed of light on earth is isotropic only in the same gravitational > > potential. Verticlly the speed of light is anisotropic. I have > > designed experiments to detect absolute motion in the vertical > > direction in the following link:http://www.geocities.com.kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > Ken Seto > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |