Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
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: 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 - > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Nov 2009 19:29 On Nov 3, 12:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 He could have believed that light was transported in buckets by little blue fairies, it wouldn't have made any difference in the train experiment. What matters is that both frames measure *the same light* to travel at c in their own frame. > 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. The idea that motion cannot be applied to the aether is another way of saying that no frame can exclude other frames from considering themselves to be at rest. The track frame sees the train moving relative to the wave fronts and sees that the M' does not see the flashes from A' and B' at the same instant. There is no getting around that fact. There is only one wave front moving out from the strike at A/A' and one from B/B'. Those wave fronts meet at only one point on the tracks, and that is at M. M' sees one flash before M and the other after M. Since A' and B' are equal distances from M', and light travels at c in the train frame, the only explaination is that in the train frame the strikes happen at different times. BTW, the tracks and the train do not occupy the same three dimensional space. Each frame is using its own set of dimensions. In track coordinates the x coordinate of M' is constantly changing since he is moving at v. In the train frame M' is at rest so his coordinates don't change. > I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to > all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You have the waves traveling at c relative to the pond which is at rest in the train frame but moving in the track frame. That results in the leading edge of the waves traveling at c+v relative to the tracks. The track frame makes measurements relative to the tracks, not the train or the pond. > You are tying the > emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which > is inaccurate. In the track frame I am tying the emission to the track coordinates where the emission took place. In the train frame it is tied to the train coordinates where it took place. They are both correct for their respective frames. > 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'. > LET says otherwise.
From: mpc755 on 3 Nov 2009 20:10
On Nov 3, 7:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Nov 3, 12:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > He could have believed that light was transported in buckets by little > blue fairies, it wouldn't have made any difference in the train > experiment. What matters is that both frames measure *the same light* > to travel at c in their own frame. > > > 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. > > The idea that motion cannot be applied to the aether is another way of > saying that no frame can exclude other frames from considering > themselves to be at rest. > > The track frame sees the train moving relative to the wave fronts and > sees that the M' does not see the flashes from A' and B' at the same > instant. There is no getting around that fact. There is only one > wave front moving out from the strike at A/A' and one from B/B'. > Those wave fronts meet at only one point on the tracks, and that is at > M. M' sees one flash before M and the other after M. > How is that possible? M' maintains the same distance from A' and B' at all times. M' also maintains the same distance from A and B at all times. M' is moving along a line that is at all times equi-distant from A and B. > Since A' and B' are equal distances from M', and light travels at c in > the train frame, the only explaination is that in the train frame the > strikes happen at different times. > > BTW, the tracks and the train do not occupy the same three dimensional > space. Each frame is using its own set of dimensions. In track > coordinates the x coordinate of M' is constantly changing since he is > moving at v. In the train frame M' is at rest so his coordinates > don't change. > > > I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to > > all Observer's but you are not understanding it. > > You have the waves traveling at c relative to the pond which is at > rest in the train frame but moving in the track frame. That results > in the leading edge of the waves traveling at c+v relative to the > tracks. The track frame makes measurements relative to the tracks, > not the train or the pond. > > > You are tying the > > emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which > > is inaccurate. > > In the track frame I am tying the emission to the track coordinates > where the emission took place. In the train frame it is tied to the > train coordinates where it took place. They are both correct for > their respective frames. > > > 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'. > > LET says otherwise. |