colp, why did AE use the word "relativity"?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Prentice Halls Federal Taxation Individuals 2011 Solutions manual is available for purchase at affordable prices. Contact me at allsolutionmanuals11[at]gmail.com to buy it today.
Next: SR is not wrong but it is incomplete
From: Daryl McCullough on 22 Jun 2010 19:49 colp says... > >On Jun 23, 9:15=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >wrote: >> colp says... >> >> >Right. The thing is that observations of time that are made in one >> >inertial frame can be used as the basis of of an inference which >> >involves a different inertial frame. For example, a twin can know >> >whether on not time is dilated for the other twin (with respect to his >> >own time) if he can measure radio pulses from that twin that are sent >> >each time the other twin's clock ticks and he knows his velocity >> >relative to the other twin. That knowledge can can then then be used >> >as the basis of an inference which involves knowledge of different >> >inertial frame. >> >> That certainly is true, but you have to remember that time dilation >> is a relationship between a clock and a coordinate system. It is *not* >> a relationship between two clocks. > >So why is a coordinate system relevant in terms of the premises of SR? Coordinate systems are only used for answering questions such as: Which event over there is simultaneous with which event right here? It's for comparing the times of different events that are spatially separated. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: colp on 22 Jun 2010 22:49 On Jun 23, 11:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > > > >On Jun 23, 9:15=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> colp says... > > >> >Right. The thing is that observations of time that are made in one > >> >inertial frame can be used as the basis of of an inference which > >> >involves a different inertial frame. For example, a twin can know > >> >whether on not time is dilated for the other twin (with respect to his > >> >own time) if he can measure radio pulses from that twin that are sent > >> >each time the other twin's clock ticks and he knows his velocity > >> >relative to the other twin. That knowledge can can then then be used > >> >as the basis of an inference which involves knowledge of different > >> >inertial frame. > > >> That certainly is true, but you have to remember that time dilation > >> is a relationship between a clock and a coordinate system. It is *not* > >> a relationship between two clocks. > > >So why is a coordinate system relevant in terms of the premises of SR? > > Coordinate systems are only used for answering questions such as: > Which event over there is simultaneous with which event right here? > It's for comparing the times of different events that are spatially > separated. But wasn't that established when Einstein discussed synchronizing clocks by sending a light signal from a master clock to a clock which was to be synchronized? He relied on the constancy of the speed of light to calculate the signal transit time based on the distance between the clocks. If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by considering the transit time of a light signal. Do you agree?
From: mpc755 on 22 Jun 2010 22:59 On Jun 22, 10:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 23, 11:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > wrote: > > > > > colp says... > > > >On Jun 23, 9:15=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > >wrote: > > >> colp says... > > > >> >Right. The thing is that observations of time that are made in one > > >> >inertial frame can be used as the basis of of an inference which > > >> >involves a different inertial frame. For example, a twin can know > > >> >whether on not time is dilated for the other twin (with respect to his > > >> >own time) if he can measure radio pulses from that twin that are sent > > >> >each time the other twin's clock ticks and he knows his velocity > > >> >relative to the other twin. That knowledge can can then then be used > > >> >as the basis of an inference which involves knowledge of different > > >> >inertial frame. > > > >> That certainly is true, but you have to remember that time dilation > > >> is a relationship between a clock and a coordinate system. It is *not* > > >> a relationship between two clocks. > > > >So why is a coordinate system relevant in terms of the premises of SR? > > > Coordinate systems are only used for answering questions such as: > > Which event over there is simultaneous with which event right here? > > It's for comparing the times of different events that are spatially > > separated. > > But wasn't that established when Einstein discussed synchronizing > clocks by sending a light signal from a master clock to a clock which > was to be synchronized? He relied on the constancy of the speed of > light to calculate the signal transit time based on the distance > between the clocks. > > If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, > then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock > shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by > considering the transit time of a light signal. > > Do you agree? Light propagates with respect to the aether. The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means the aether is mostly connected to the matter which is the Earth. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is to the train. Three observers on the train with clocks all standing at M'. The observer walking the clock from M' to B' is walking against the 'flow' of aether and their clock ticks slower than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' ticks faster than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'. Once the clocks are at A', M', and B' they all tick at the same rate because they exist under the same amount of aether pressure. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the embankment simultaneously. When the lightning strikes occur the clock at B' reads 12:00:01 and the clock at A' reads 12:00:03. The light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from A/A' arrives at M'. When the observers on the embankment get back together they all conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A'. Everything is with respect to the aether. Including the rate at which the clocks tick and the determination light travels at 'c'.
From: mpc755 on 22 Jun 2010 23:08 On Jun 22, 10:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 22, 10:49 pm, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 23, 11:49 am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > wrote: > > > > colp says... > > > > >On Jun 23, 9:15=A0am, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > > > >wrote: > > > >> colp says... > > > > >> >Right. The thing is that observations of time that are made in one > > > >> >inertial frame can be used as the basis of of an inference which > > > >> >involves a different inertial frame. For example, a twin can know > > > >> >whether on not time is dilated for the other twin (with respect to his > > > >> >own time) if he can measure radio pulses from that twin that are sent > > > >> >each time the other twin's clock ticks and he knows his velocity > > > >> >relative to the other twin. That knowledge can can then then be used > > > >> >as the basis of an inference which involves knowledge of different > > > >> >inertial frame. > > > > >> That certainly is true, but you have to remember that time dilation > > > >> is a relationship between a clock and a coordinate system. It is *not* > > > >> a relationship between two clocks. > > > > >So why is a coordinate system relevant in terms of the premises of SR? > > > > Coordinate systems are only used for answering questions such as: > > > Which event over there is simultaneous with which event right here? > > > It's for comparing the times of different events that are spatially > > > separated. > > > But wasn't that established when Einstein discussed synchronizing > > clocks by sending a light signal from a master clock to a clock which > > was to be synchronized? He relied on the constancy of the speed of > > light to calculate the signal transit time based on the distance > > between the clocks. > > > If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, > > then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock > > shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by > > considering the transit time of a light signal. > > > Do you agree? > > Light propagates with respect to the aether. > > The state of the aether is determined by its connections with the > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. This means > the aether is mostly connected to the matter which is the Earth. This > means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than > it is to the train. > > Three observers on the train with clocks all standing at M'. The > observer walking the clock from M' to B' is walking against the 'flow' > of aether and their clock ticks slower than the clock at M' and the > clock being walked to A'. The clock being walked to A' ticks faster > than the clock at M' and the clock being walked to B'. Once the clocks > are at A', M', and B' they all tick at the same rate because they > exist under the same amount of aether pressure. > > Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' and arrive at M on the > embankment simultaneously. > > When the lightning strikes occur the clock at B' reads 12:00:01 and > the clock at A' reads 12:00:03. The light from the lightning strike at > B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from A/A' arrives at M'. When > the observers on the embankment get back together they all conclude > the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at > A/A'. > > Everything is with respect to the aether. Including the rate at which > the clocks tick and the determination light travels at 'c'. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter which in Einstein's train gedanken is mainly the Earth, the Observer at M' on the train fires off a beam of light towards A' and another one towards B'. Relative to the train and the aether the light traveling towards A' is traveling with the 'flow' of aether. The light traveling towards B' is propagating against the 'flow' of aether. When the light arrives at A' and B' both Observers set their clocks to 12:00:01. The Observer at A' set their clock to 12:00:01 prior to the Observer at B'. One hour after setting their respective clocks we once again have lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' which arrive at the Observer at M on the embankment simultaneously. The clocks at A' and B' read 13:00:01 and 13:00:03 when the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' occur. It doesn't matter how the observers set their respective clocks, everything is with respect to the aether.
From: Daryl McCullough on 22 Jun 2010 23:17
colp says... >If a coordinate system isn't relevant in terms of the premises of SR, >then the question of how old one twin is when the other twin's clock >shows 200 seconds should be solvable by establishing simultaneity by >considering the transit time of a light signal. Except that the computed transit time depends on your assumptions about which observers are at rest, and which ones are in motion. So it is a coordinate-dependent calculation. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY |