Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 18:31 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. > > > > > > )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 > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 28 Oct 2009 19:26 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. > > > > > > > > )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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 19:48 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. A light wave isn't tried to a frame of reference. Coordinate systems and frames of reference are mathematical constructs. Light does not travel at a speed other that 'c' relative to any system. What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to any particular frame of reference. If you drop a pebble into 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 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*. 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 and the path the wave associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer. > > > > > > > > )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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 28 Oct 2009 20:33 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. A light wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are mathematical constructs. 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*. 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. 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. > > > > > > > > )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- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: YBM on 29 Oct 2009 00:00
mpc755 a �crit : > On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: ..... >> 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. You definitely don't. > I am saying nature does not work that way. You've definitely been proven wrong, by *experiments*. |