Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: kenseto on 28 Oct 2009 11:02 On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > > support if you so choose. > > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > > light is isotropic horizontally. > > > Ken seto > > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They > found a gravitational redshift. Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal constant. > > This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The > aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is > stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' > are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and > A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M > simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is isotropic in both frames. > > If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves > travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c). Ken seto > > > > > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > > relative to the K' system. > > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers. > > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > > from to ANY observer. > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 12:24 On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > > > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > > > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > > > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > > > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > > > support if you so choose. > > > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > > > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > > > light is isotropic horizontally. > > > > Ken seto > > > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They > > found a gravitational redshift. > > Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed > of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal > constant. > > > > > This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The > > aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is > > stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' > > are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and > > A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M > > simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect > simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is > isotropic in both frames. > > > > > If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves > > travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. > > If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and > M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive > at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c). > > Ken seto > You're trying to have it both ways. You are saying if there are four lightning strikes at A, A', B, and B' then the aether is stationary relative to both the embankment frame of reference AND the train frame of reference, but if A/A' is a single lightning strike and B/B' are a single lightning strike then the aether is at rest in the train frame of reference relative to the perspective of the train OR the aether is at rest in the embankment frame of reference relative to the perspective of the embankment. This is what I am saying is physically impossible. Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. > > > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > > > relative to the K' system. > > > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.. > > > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > > > from to ANY observer. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 13:56 On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > > > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > > > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > > > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > > > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > > > support if you so choose. > > > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > > > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > > > light is isotropic horizontally. > > > > Ken seto > > > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They > > found a gravitational redshift. > > Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed > of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal > constant. > > > > > This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The > > aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is > > stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' > > are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and > > A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M > > simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect > simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is > isotropic in both frames. > > > > > If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves > > travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. > > If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and > M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive > at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c). > > Ken seto > You're trying to have it both ways. You are saying if there are four lightning strikes at A, A', B, and B' then the aether is stationary relative to both the embankment frame of reference AND the train frame of reference, but if A/A' is a single lightning strike and B/B' are a single lightning strike then the aether is at rest in the train frame of reference relative to the perspective of the train OR the aether is at rest in the embankment frame of reference relative to the perspective of the embankment. This is what I am saying is physically impossible. I understand that this is not what you think you are saying, but you are. In order for light to behave as it is in my animation, the aether must be in different states in each frame of reference. It must be at rest relative to the embankment AND at rest relative to the train in order for the light to propagate as it does in the animation. To simply say it does what it does because the speed of light is isotropic in both frames is exactly what I am saying is incorrect. You cannot simply place the magical 'isotropic' qualifier on the frames and then have light waves perform magic tricks. You can if you want, but you are then incorrect. Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. > > > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > > > relative to the K' system. > > > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.. > > > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > > > from to ANY observer. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 14:00 On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > > > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > > > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > > > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > > > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > > > support if you so choose. > > > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > > > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > > > light is isotropic horizontally. > > > > Ken seto > > > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They > > found a gravitational redshift. > > Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed > of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal > constant. > > > > > This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The > > aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is > > stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' > > are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and > > A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M > > simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect > simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is > isotropic in both frames. > > > > > If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves > > travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. > > If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect > the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and > M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive > at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c). > > Ken seto > You're trying to have it both ways. You are saying if there are four lightning strikes at A, A', B, and B' then the aether is stationary relative to both the embankment frame of reference AND the train frame of reference, but if A/A' is a single lightning strike and B/B' are a single lightning strike then the aether is at rest in the train frame of reference relative to the perspective of the train OR the aether is at rest in the embankment frame of reference relative to the perspective of the embankment. This is what I am saying is physically impossible. I understand that this is not what you think you are saying, but you are. In order for light to behave as it is in my animation, the aether must be in identical states in each frame of reference. It must be at rest relative to the embankment AND at rest relative to the train in order for the light to propagate as it does in the animation. To simply say it does what it does because the speed of light is isotropic in both frames is exactly what I am saying is incorrect. You cannot simply place the magical 'isotropic' qualifier on the frames and then have light waves perform magic tricks. You can if you want, but you are then incorrect. Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. > > > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > > > relative to the K' system. > > > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.. > > > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > > > from to ANY observer. > > > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: glird on 28 Oct 2009 17:15
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. > > > )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.) > > Sounds like a book worth reading. It is! If you'd like me to attach a copy to an email letter to you, let me know and i will send it. glird |