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: mpc755 on 2 Nov 2009 09:36 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 along the line which intersects the two lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be correct?
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 00:19 On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? > That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are understanding it. When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that however it got from place to place it always traveled at c, reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement. SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure the same beam to be traveling at c. Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory. Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours. > > > > '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."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 00:28 On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are > understanding it. > > When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how > light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that > however it got from place to place it always traveled at c, > reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement. > SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal > constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only > that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one > frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure > the same beam to be traveling at c. > I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You are tying the emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which is inaccurate. Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold. > Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he > didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory. > Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he > never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether > similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours. > > > > > > > '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."- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 00:33 On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 along the line which intersects the two > lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be > correct?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as M' passes between them.
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 00:34
On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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? > > That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are > understanding it. > > When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how > light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that > however it got from place to place it always traveled at c, > reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement. > SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal > constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only > that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one > frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure > the same beam to be traveling at c. > > Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he > didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory. > Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he > never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether > similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours. > But Einstein believe there is an aether or there is no propagation of light, which means there is an aether in SR and if the idea of motion cannot be applied to the aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference both occupy the same three dimensional space then this implies the aether is at rest in both frames which is impossible. I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You are tying the emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which is inaccurate. Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold. Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, the mpc755 train thought experiment is physically impossible for a single lightning strike at A/A' and a single lightning strike at B/B'. > > > > > > '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."- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |