Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: kenseto on 5 Nov 2009 19:36 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. So how come Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light from the front (c+v) AND RECEDING AWAY FROM THE LIGHT FROM THE REAR (C-V)??? Ken Seto > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 5 Nov 2009 20:37 On Nov 5, 7:36 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. > > So how come Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light from the > front (c+v) AND RECEDING AWAY FROM THE LIGHT FROM THE REAR (C-V)??? > > Ken Seto > Because from the perspective of M he is. That doesn't prevent M' from constructing his own coordinate system and measuring the speed of light to be c with respect to himself. > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 5 Nov 2009 20:43 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message news:e8111b69-7e24-4c8e-bedd-18289d31c8af(a)a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > So how come Einstein said that M' is rush toward the light from the > front (c+v) AND RECEDING AWAY FROM THE LIGHT FROM THE REAR (C-V)??? Your ignorance is showing .. it is closing velocity (as observed by the observer relative to whom M' is moving at v). Please try to keep up .. these ideas have been around for over a hundred years, you'd think you'd have heard of this before.
From: glird on 9 Nov 2009 12:19 On Oct 13, 6:36 pm, PD wrote: > > Do you know the definition of simultaneity for > two spatially separated events? I do. Do You? If so, please write it out for us. Note: As used in Einstein's tor, it means "If events occur at two spatially separated events, one at A and one at B, their "simultaneity" requires that two clocks - one at A and the other at B - that are set to mark rAB/c-v equal to rAB/c+v will mark them as happening at the same time. It is obvious that since the clocks are NOT synchronous (other than via Einstein's novel definition of the word) the two events were NOT simultaneous either. glird
From: glird on 9 Nov 2009 12:37
On Oct 17, 9:24 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr> wrote: > >>> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote: > ... > > Objects are the matter they contain. > > Talking to yourself again? > It's sad. You have a problem, it has nothing > to to with physics. > Isn't there any newsgroup about mental >illness where you could post? Try sigh.ybm |