What is the Aether?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Spirit of Truth on 11 Jun 2007 00:20 "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message > news:CH2bi.1296$TC1.1056(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... >> >> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:46615322$0$4425$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... >> > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message >> > news:bM88i.5370$u56.1203(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> >> >> >> "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message >> >> news:46600ec8$0$10391$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... >> >> > "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message >> >> > news:rEO7i.5094$u56.5006(a)newssvr22.news.prodigy.net... >> >> > >> >> >> Alright, since you understand all of this...please explain >> >> >> to me (and others) the twin paradox in simple words referring to >> >> >> the physical univese without using words like "frames" please! >> >> > >> >> > You mean explain a point of relativistic physics without >> >> > using any physics concepts? Do you demand that painters >> >> > paint your house without using brushes or ladders, too? >> >> >> >> No, that's a cop out. You can talk in English words describing >> >> the relevent points where a difference occurs and explain why >> >> each observer has a difference again in simple English words. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Through relavity whether GR or SR I get reciprocal accelerations, >> >> > >> >> > How? Only one twin accelerates away from the other. >> >> > Acceleration is not relative but absolute, so the >> >> > situation is not symmetrical for the two twins. >> >> >> >> No, they apparantly disagree that the acceleration is absolute. >> > >> > No. Only one twin feels the acceleration. >> >> Yes, but that is simply that can be taken as an experience >> of a gravitational field with the Universe accelerating around >> that Twin. > > So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin > feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker. Common, Greg, apply yourself to this! What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour. > >> >> >> A local gravitational field takes the place of it and the Universe >> >> accelerates away. >> > >> > What local gravitational field? The thought experiment can >> > take place far from any large masses. Or are you referring >> > to the equivalence of acceleration and a uniform gravitational >> > field? In that case, again, only one twin experiences it. >> > This "field" is only experienced by the twin that is >> > accelerating. >> >> Yes, the latter and the answer is as above. > > Ditto. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >That >> >> > acceleration is absolute and not relative can be proven >> >> > easily by noting that, if you were to place pails of >> >> > water in two cars and one were to accelerate while the >> >> > other sits still, the one that accelerated would have >> >> > the water in its pail slosh and perhaps spill, while the >> >> > unaccelerated car's pail would show no reaction to the >> >> > other car's motion. This is considered to be a good thing >> >> > in general, for bathtubs around the globe. >> >> > >> >> >> reciprocal inertial motion, reciprocal decelerations >> >> > >> >> > No, decelerations are like accelerations. >> >> >> >> Same as I wrote above. Greg, if one treats accelerations >> >> and decelerations as absolutes obviously the problems go away >> >> ...but all the sites I see don't allow those to be taken as >> >> differentiating the twins. >> > >> > I find that hard to fathom. Acceleration is the thing >> > that breaks the symmetry between the twins' otherwise >> > identical experiences. In relativity-speak, it >> > distinguishes their frames of reference. >> >> Well, Einstein reckoned it wasn't that and the differentiation was >> in the changing frames at the destination of one of the Twins. > > Um, er, how does one change frames if not by acceleration? I said at the destination as opposed to the starting and finishing. >> > The important difference is the different spacetime >> > intervals that the two twins cover. On a simple >> > worldline map (space on the X-axis, time on the Y-axis), >> > the twin with the longer worldline, with both twins >> > starting together and ending together, experiences less >> > time. >> > Uncle Al does a credible job in describing a version of >> > the thought experiment that even eliminates the >> > acceleration component during the period when each >> > twin's clocks are running during the "test": >> > http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d17e0a0788cf1d21/1df7d9a7dbeca962?lnk=st&q=&rnum=2&hl=en#1df7d9a7dbeca962 >> > It might be worth taking a look. >> > [snip] >> >> Actually Uncle Al appears to have destructive impulses >> towards clocks and in fact David put it better as follows >> but an opposite action and evaluation is possible so it >> fails to differentiate the two. >> >> "Consider that you could have >> * clock B stay home, >> * clock A synchronize with B in passing (having accelerated >> before), then >> * some long distance away A' synchronizes with A in passing, >> while >> * A' retuns to pass by B where >> * the difference between B and A' is noted. >> No acceleration in the experimental period, yet different >> elapsed time." >> >> Point is you could have that happen in reverse >> with the A seeing himself as not moving and the first clock >> synchonize with what he sees as a moving B etc. > > The accelerating twin will always know that it's > he who's accelerating. Acceleration is absolute. Fine, when I find an appropriate link I post it for you. from: Spirit Of Truth (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
From: Greg Neill on 11 Jun 2007 07:24 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:kk3bi.1304$TC1.1254(a)newssvr17.news.prodigy.net... > Greg, you are coping out again. The lack of simultaneity example in there > shows exactly why lack of simultaneity is false. Simultaneity is an observer dependent thing, and should be (to any thinking individual) an obvious consequence of the finite speed of light.
From: Greg Neill on 11 Jun 2007 07:53 "Spirit of Truth" <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote in message news:D24bi.18061$C96.12346(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > > "Greg Neill" <gneillREM(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > > So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin > > feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker. > > Common, Greg, apply yourself to this! > What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards > the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are > moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press > on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains > will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour. Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not measure a damned thing (no change). Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue conversing. Have fun.
From: Bilge on 11 Jun 2007 08:24 On 2007-06-11, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: > > "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message > news:slrnf66unh.61o.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >> On 2007-06-02, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >>> >>> "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message >>> news:slrnf62els.3qi.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >>>> On 2007-05-30, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >>>>> "Bilge" <dubious(a)radioactivex.sz> wrote in message >>>>> news:slrnf5g3mm.c9g.dubious(a)iris.lebesque-al.net... >>>>>> On 2007-05-26, Spirit of Truth <juneharton(a)prodigy.net> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Is ``Spirit of Truth'' some sort of backwoods slang for moonshine? >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thus Einsteinian relativity actually postulates an ever existent past >>>>>>> and future, no free will and a blocktime universe... all of which >>>>>>> IS false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gee. That's news to me and the rest of the physics constabulary, I'm >>>>>> sure. >>>>>> Could you please reference the origional article by einstein in which >>>>>> those >>>>>> postulates appear? >>>>> >>>>> Read 'The Fabric Of The Cosmos' by Brian Greene...a Best Seller. >>>>> Einstein refers in his 1905 ? lecture to lack of simultaneiety...just >>>>> doesn't expose it's real consequence. >>>> You mean like the experimental data which support it? >>> >>> You obviously HAVEN'T read it. >> >> I read scientific journals for scientific information. >> >> [...] >>>> The many epr experiments. >>> >>> List even one experiment proving lack of simultaneity, Bilge. >> >> >> ``Quantum Correlations with Spacelike Separated Beam Splitters in Motion: >> Experimental Test of Multisimultaneity'' >> Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120404 (2002) > > Common, Bilge, show some inkling that you know what we are talking about > here. In other words, you didn't bother to read the article, but you think I might be worried about your opinion of me and forget you are a dumbfuck. That's okay, since I never expected you to read it and you met my expectation. I thought it was a tossup as to whether you would confirm that with a reply. Seriously, out of all of the possibly interesting things to do in the world, you couldn't find one that you had any talent for? I guess not. > Look, here is another example showing how lack of simultaneity is nonsense. > >http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001008/00/Conclusions_About_Simultaneity_of_Two_Events.pdf Gee, do you really think an appeal to philosophy is more credible as a description of reality than a real experiment performed with real intruments? I'm sure you do.
From: Double-A on 12 Jun 2007 01:17
On Jun 11, 4:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > "Spirit of Truth" <junehar...(a)prodigy.net> wrote in messagenews:D24bi.18061$C96.12346(a)newssvr23.news.prodigy.net... > > > > > "Greg Neill" <gneill...(a)OVEsympatico.ca> wrote in message > >news:466cbd78$0$8748$9a6e19ea(a)news.newshosting.com... > > > So what? The fact of the matter is that only *one* twin > > > feels the acceleration. It's therefore a symmetry breaker. > > > Common, Greg, apply yourself to this! > > What I can tell you, Greg, is truth. If you are moving towards > > the mountains at say 20 miles per hour then the mountains are > > moving towards you at 20 miles per hour and if you press > > on the accelerator and accelerate at 5 miles per hour the mountains > > will accelerate towards you at that additional 5 miles per hour. > > Oy vey. An accelerometer on the car will measure the > acceleration engendered by pressing on the gas. A > similar accelerometer on the mountainside will not > measure a damned thing (no change). > > Since you can't seem to wrap your head around this > trivial concept, it would be pointless to continue > conversing. > > Have fun. What if it is the massive gravity of the mountains that is causing the acceleration of the car? The accelerometer in the car would not measure a thing. Double-A |