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: Bruce Richmond on 2 Nov 2009 00:15 On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what > > > you are referring to is an error of omission. > > > Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. > > What part of the next sentence don't you understand? Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment. Also GR and SR are not the same thing. > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > intervals in the physical sense."
From: Bruce Richmond on 2 Nov 2009 00:16 On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > aisle. > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > frame of reference: > > > > A-----M-----B > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > | | | > > > | | | > > > A-----M-----B > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > simultaneity. > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nope, wrong set-up.
From: mpc755 on 2 Nov 2009 09:11 On Nov 1, 11:35 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3cb3c494-a53a-4a33-8af9-d6679eda6c4c(a)s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com... > On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what > > > you are referring to is an error of omission. > > > Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. > > What part of the next sentence don't you understand? > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > intervals in the physical sense." > > ______________________________________ > Here is the full quote: > > Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of > relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, > therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of > relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not > only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence > for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore > any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be > thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, > as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion > may not be applied to it. > > You snipped the preceding sentence ... which heavily qualifies this as being > "in a sense". You also snipped the last sentence, which says "The idea of > motion may not be applied to it". > > I have no problem with you quoting Einstein, but quoting out of context - > and in a manner which completely distorts what Einstein said - is clearly > cheating. > > GR imposes a geometry on space. That geometry is sometimes nominally > considered as applying to something, which in the above piece Einstein calls > the "ether". It does not provide a unique inertial frame of reference, which > is the claim made by people who believe in an ether (in the normal "sense" > of the word ether, hence Einstein's explicit statement that he was using it > another sense), and in fact the last sentence explicitly states that it > cannot be used as baseline for measuring motion. > > If you believe in an ether (in the sense of a privileged stationary inertial > reference frame) exists, you have to be able to describe an experiment which > shows how it could be detected, and explain why the hundreds of experiments > designed to detect the ether have all thus far failed. > > Lots of luck. I did not quote Einstein out of context. The other posted said, "Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light." Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light". That is enough of the quote to point out the other poster is incorrect. The rest of the quote goes into more detail about what the aether is, but Einstein requires there to be an aether for the propagation of light. Most experiments have been unable to detect the aether because it is entrained by the Earth. 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift' http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." In this article they refer to space as not consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is to show how the results of this experiment and the other aether experiments are in agreement with one another. There is also evidence of aether entrainment in the Pioneer Effect. The Pioneer satellites 'fall out of' the Sun's entrained aether after the pass by Uranus. Jupiter's moons orbit in the opposite direction of the inner moons because the inner moons are 'caught' in Jupiter's entrained aether but all of Jupiter's moons are contained within the displaced aether of Jupiter which is pushing back.
From: mpc755 on 2 Nov 2009 09:16 On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what > > > > you are referring to is an error of omission. > > > > Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. > > > What part of the next sentence don't you understand? > > Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment. > Also GR and SR are not the same thing. > In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you correctly? > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > > unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > > of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > > and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > > intervals in the physical sense." > >
From: mpc755 on 2 Nov 2009 09:17
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there > > > > > must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be > > > > > applied to aether. > > > > > > I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the > > > > > embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically > > > > > impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of > > > > > reference occupy the same three dimensional space. > > > > > mpc755 train thought experiment. > > > > > The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on. > > > > The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the > > > > aisle. > > > > > Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding > > > > locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the > > > > train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment > > > > frame of reference: > > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > | | | > > > > | | | > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > > When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same > > > > point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at > > > > B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space. > > > > > The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on > > > > after the lightning strikes. > > > > > This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning > > > > strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment > > > > as viewed from the embankment frame of reference: > > > > > A'----M'----B' > > > > ^ ^ ^ > > > > | | | > > > > | | | > > > > A-----M-----B > > > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' > > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning > > > > strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A' > > > > and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to > > > > travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the > > > > light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the > > > > preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M', > > > > making the train the preferred frame. > > > > > I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative > > > simultaneity. > > > It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. > > Nope, wrong set-up. Observers must be traveling in straight lines relative to where the light emitted from for Relativity of Simultaneity to be correct? |