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: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 15:07 On Oct 31, 10:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > 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"? > > > > > > > > > Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate. > > > > > > > > If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will > > > > > > > always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different > > > > > > > times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. > > > > > > > Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as > > > > > > > long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both > > > > > > > directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. > > > > > > > > That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what > > > > > > > it actually means: > > > > > > > IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your > > > > > > > definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space, > > > > > > > then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of > > > > > > > motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in > > > > > > > Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per > > > > > > > successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for > > > > > > > them to be "synchronous". > > > > > > > It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as > > > > > > > constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually > > > > > > > synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition. > > > > > > > In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is > > > > > > allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame > > > > > > claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its > > > > > > clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered > > > > > > irrelevent. > > > > > > > LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the > > > > > > illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second > > > > > > frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the > > > > > > first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway. > > > > > > And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect. > > > > > > Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory > > > > > but he had no way around it. > > > > > > '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." > > > > > > The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K' > > > > > are not physically equivalent relative to the aether. > > > > > > Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the > > > > > aether, not a frame of reference. > > > > > We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of > > > > light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a > > > > coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the > > > > speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c > > > > relative to the system. > > > > I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way. > > > Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do. > > But the question is, from where does the light emit from? In the > pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when > the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on > the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from? Do you say the > ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of > reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the > pebble was dropped into the pool on the train? > > > > A light > > > wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are > > > mathematical constructs. > > > Correct. We construct them as we se fit. > > > Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without > > using time or distance. > > > To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance > > traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend > > entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can > > make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the > > coordinate system. > > And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on > the aether it is propagating through. > > > > > > > > Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any > > > system. > > > > What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to > > > a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of > > > reference. > > > > If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving > > > train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all > > > directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an > > > Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the > > > train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand, > > > the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to > > > where the observers hand *is*. > > > So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point > > in the train frame which is moving in the track frame. > > Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of > reference. > > > > Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space > > > in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is > > > irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave > > > associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer. > > > To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the > > embankment. > > To both Observer's yes. > > > > > > > > > > If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train, > > > and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the > > > pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the > > > embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a > > > window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave > > > associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the > > > wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the > > > Observer on the embankments hand? > > > > The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center > > > of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave > > > associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand. > > > > The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the > > > Observer's hand. > > > Not in the embankment's frame of reference. > > Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of > reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the > water. > > If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and > the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per- > minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of > the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and > the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the > embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude > the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment > conclude the wave traveled to reach him? > > The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into > the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at > 1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center > of the pool to his hand. > > Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in > three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of > reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble > traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is > misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using > the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the > embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled > from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect. > > Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at > the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward > from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in > the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of > light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's > hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the > Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of > light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand. > > Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train, > then the light wave will > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time to catch up. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 31 Oct 2009 17:06 On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time > to catch up. > > Mitch Raemsch You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the aether.
From: Bruce Richmond on 31 Oct 2009 20:29 On Oct 31, 1:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote > > > > > > > > > > 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"? > > > > > > > > > Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate. > > > > > > > > If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will > > > > > > > always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different > > > > > > > times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. > > > > > > > Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as > > > > > > > long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both > > > > > > > directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. > > > > > > > > That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what > > > > > > > it actually means: > > > > > > > IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your > > > > > > > definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space, > > > > > > > then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of > > > > > > > motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in > > > > > > > Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per > > > > > > > successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for > > > > > > > them to be "synchronous". > > > > > > > It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as > > > > > > > constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually > > > > > > > synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition. > > > > > > > In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is > > > > > > allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame > > > > > > claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its > > > > > > clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered > > > > > > irrelevent. > > > > > > > LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the > > > > > > illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second > > > > > > frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the > > > > > > first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway. > > > > > > And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect. > > > > > > Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory > > > > > but he had no way around it. > > > > > > '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." > > > > > > The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K' > > > > > are not physically equivalent relative to the aether. > > > > > > Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the > > > > > aether, not a frame of reference. > > > > > We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of > > > > light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a > > > > coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the > > > > speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c > > > > relative to the system. > > > > I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way. > > > Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do. > > But the question is, from where does the light emit from? And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center. In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit relative to things in the track frame. > In the > pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when > the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on > the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from? Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for position. > Do you say the > ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of > reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the > pebble was dropped into the pool on the train? If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the pool isn't moving. > > > A light > > > wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are > > > mathematical constructs. > > > Correct. We construct them as we se fit. > > > Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without > > using time or distance. > > > To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance > > traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend > > entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can > > make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the > > coordinate system. > > And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on > the aether it is propagating through. > We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether. If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different spots as it passes through. > > > > > > Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any > > > system. > > > > What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to > > > a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of > > > reference. > > > > If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving > > > train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all > > > directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an > > > Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the > > > train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand, > > > the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to > > > where the observers hand *is*. > > > So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point > > in the train frame which is moving in the track frame. > > Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of > reference. But the track frame doesn't use that moving water as a reference point. It uses points that are at rest in the track frame. > > > Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space > > > in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is > > > irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave > > > associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer. > > > To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the > > embankment. > > To both Observer's yes. > Track observers only use points at rest in the track frame as reference points. The point where the ripples are radiating from is not at rest in the track frame. > > > > > > > > If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train, > > > and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the > > > pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the > > > embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a > > > window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave > > > associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the > > > wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the > > > Observer on the embankments hand? > > > > The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center > > > of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave > > > associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand. > > > > The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the > > > Observer's hand. > > > Not in the embankment's frame of reference. > > Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of > reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the > water. And if that water is moving it affects the measured speed of the wave relative to points at rest in the frame of reference. > If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and > the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per- > minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of > the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and > the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the > embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude > the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment > conclude the wave traveled to reach him? Not going to waste my time, see above. > The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into > the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at > 1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center > of the pool to his hand. Plus whatever distance the pool traveled while the wave was traveling. > Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in > three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of > reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble > traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is > misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using > the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the > embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled > from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect. > > Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at > the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward > from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in > the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of > light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's > hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the > Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of > light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand. > > Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train, > then the light wave will propagate outward from the center of the pool > at 'c' in all directions relative to the aether which is at rest > relative to the train. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the > embankment's hand, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' from where > the center of the pool on the train *is* to the Observer's hand *is* > because the aether is at rest relative to the train. A man on the train takes a baseball bat and holds it out stationary in front of him. Another man on the train can walk in front of the bat without fear because the bat isn't moving. Now you stick your hand out as the train passes by at 100 mph. Does the bat hit your had at 0 mph or 100 mph? If the man swings the bat so that it is moving at 10 mph relative to the train does it hit you at 10 mph or 110 mph? The two frames do not consider the bat to be traveling the same speed. The difference with light is that we use it as a standard when constructing the coordinate system. Take two observers with clocks that tick at the same rate and place them some distance apart. We have declared that light travels at c in either direction. If observer A reflects light off observer B and times its return he can calculate the distance between them. Observer B can do the same thing and he will get the same answer as A. It wouldn't matter if someone else said the aether was moving relative to them, they are still in agreement on the distance between them. Knowing the distance between them they can then synchronize their clocks, again based on the fact that the one way trip at c must take half the time of the two way trip at c. If they then time the one way speed of light they better get c because that is what they used to set the clock! You are trying to build a dragged aether theory. But there is no way it can work if multiple observers in different states of motion are sharing the same empty space. You can't say that the aether in on spot is moving in 20 different directions at the same time. So you end up with one aether that provides the illusion of being at rest in all frames, as in LET, or you forget about the aether and just agree that each frame measures the speed of light to be c as in SR.
From: BURT on 31 Oct 2009 20:59 On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time > > to catch up. > > > Mitch Raemsch > > You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except > a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the > aether. Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity. Leaving light behind or vice versa. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 31 Oct 2009 21:08
On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time > > > to catch up. > > > > Mitch Raemsch > > > You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except > > a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the > > aether. > > Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can > move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before > reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity. > Leaving light behind or vice versa. > > Mitch Raemsch Take a look at the animation which represents Simultaneity of Relativity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk If you superimpose the frames of reference over the same three dimensional space, something else happens because the aether will be either at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the embankment or not at rest relative to either. Either way, it doesn't matter, light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. |