Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: kenseto on 29 Oct 2009 10:06 On Oct 28, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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, This is because the speed of light is isotropic in all reference frames....and the isotropy of the speed of light is not due to that the ether is at rest in each inertial frame. >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. Again if there is only one source at each end of the train both M and M' will see the light fronts simultaneously but at different times. This is because both M and M' are in different states of absolute motion wrt the light fronts. > > 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. Your problem is that you think that direction of relative motion between M and M' will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the M' frame but not in the M frame. This means that you have selectively select that M is in a preferred frame....that is M is not moving wrt the light fronts but M' is moving wrt the light fronts. Such thinking is wrong and it destroys the isotropy of the speed of light in the train. > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 29 Oct 2009 14:33 On Oct 29, 10:06 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 28, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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, > > This is because the speed of light is isotropic in all reference > frames....and the isotropy of the speed of light is not due to that > the ether is at rest in each inertial frame. > > >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. > > Again if there is only one source at each end of the train both M and > M' will see the light fronts simultaneously but at different times. > This is because both M and M' are in different states of absolute > motion wrt the light fronts. > > > > > 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. > > Your problem is that you think that direction of relative motion > between M and M' will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the > M' frame but not in the M frame. This means that you have selectively > select that M is in a preferred frame....that is M is not moving wrt > the light fronts but M' is moving wrt the light fronts. Such thinking > is wrong and it destroys the isotropy of the speed of light in the > train. > You use the term 'isotropic' in order to allow magic to occur. If you superimpose the two frames in my animation, then exactly what is occurring in the animation should occur if A/A' are the same point in three dimensional space and B/B' are the same point in three dimensional space. With you definition of 'isotropic' to say my animation is correct for the lightning strikes as represented at A, A', B, and B' in the animation but something else occurs if the two 'isotropic' frames are superimposed on the same three dimensional space at the time of the lightning strikes is to be incorrect. Something else occurs if the frames are overlayed because the aether is not at rest relative to both frames of reference. > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 30 Oct 2009 19:24 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > )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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 31 Oct 2009 13:53 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 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.
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 |