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: paparios on 23 Jun 2010 08:24 On 23 jun, 03:47, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 23, 6:58 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > There is no preferred frame of reference > > If there is no preferred frame of reference, then you are left with > the problem of simultaneity that Daryl and I were discussing. Can you > resolve that problem?- In Special Relativity there are frame dependent measures and frame independent measures. Time, length are frame dependent measures, as it is evident by just examining the Lorentz Transformation Equations x=(x+vt)/(sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)) ; t=(t+vx/c^2)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) x'=(x-vt)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) ; t=(t-vx/c^2)/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) These equations relate coordinates (x,t) of a given inertial frame K to coordinates (x',t') of another inertial frame K', where the relative speed between the origin of coordinates of the frames is equal to v. The interval between events ds, on the other hand, is a frame independent measure. ds^2=c^2dt^2-dx^2 ds^2=c^2dt'^2-dx'^2 If the interval measures 0 on a given inertial frame, it will measure 0 on any other inertial frame. From this invariance, it follows that dt'=dt*(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) And so, if you want to know the time interval indicated by the moving clock (t'2-t'1), when the time interval of the at rest clock (t2-t1), the answer is t'2-t'1=integral from t1 to t2 of dt*(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)) Miguel Rios
From: whoever on 23 Jun 2010 09:27 "colp" <colp(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message news:5d7993e1-c8c3-436a-8a32-82bb533626af(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 23, 6:58 pm, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: >> "colp" <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote in message >> >> news:1fe24a04-f80f-4491-b1ff-96211f2092d8(a)k39g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Jun 23, 3:17 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) >> > wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> > I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox >> > was real >> >> There is no symmetric twin paradox >> >> > or there is a preferred frame of reference. >> >> There is no preferred frame of reference > > If there is no preferred frame of reference, There isn't .. You get the same results for what happens at a given event no matter what hte frame of reference > then you are left with > the problem of simultaneity that Daryl and I were discussing. Can you > resolve that problem? What problem. Simultaneity is simply not absolute .. it is relative. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: colp on 23 Jun 2010 11:44 On Jun 23, 2:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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'. The Michelson-Morely experiment didn't detect any motion relative to the theoretical aether, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. If the aether coupling with the earth was large enough, the measurable effect could be less than experimental error. Are there any experimental results which would support the aether theory?
From: PD on 23 Jun 2010 12:21 On Jun 23, 10:44 am, colp <c...(a)solder.ath.cx> wrote: > On Jun 23, 2:59 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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'. > > The Michelson-Morely experiment didn't detect any motion relative to > the theoretical aether, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. > If the aether coupling with the earth was large enough, the measurable > effect could be less than experimental error. Are there any > experimental results which would support the aether theory There are no experimental results that would support the aether theory over relativity, despite attempts to search for them. There are experimental results other than the Michelson Morley experiment that rule out an aether strongly entrained by the Earth. PD
From: colp on 23 Jun 2010 12:28
On Jun 23, 10:48 pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > colp says... > > > > >On Jun 23, 3:17=A0pm, stevendaryl3...(a)yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) > >wrote: > >> 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. > > >I'm not making any assumptions. I said that either the twin paradox > >was real or there is a preferred frame of reference. > > But there is no paradox. You have disagreement between two different > coordinate systems about which events are simultaneous. Coordinate systems are arbitrary conventions which are not required by the premises of SR. The paradox isn't about events that are simultaneous because it occurs when the twins return to the point that they started from. > > Disagreement between coordinate systems is *not* a paradox. In the symmetric twin paradox, SR predicts that each twin will see the other's clock run slow, but it must be seen to run fast in order to that the twin's clocks read the same time at the end of the experiment and avoid the paradox. The premises of SR specify observed time dilation, never time compression, so the paradox cannot be avoided. <quote> 2. An ideal clock traveling at speed v for time period t will show an elapsed time of T = t square-root(1-(v/c)^2). </quote> > > >Since paradoxes do not exist in reality the only remaining conclusion > >is that there is a preferred frame reference. > > Arbitrarily calling one frame the preferred frame makes no difference, > whatsoever, to the issue of whether there is a paradox or not. The preferred frame of reference is not determined arbitrarily. > > In the twin paradox, you have the paradoxical situation where > (1) In the coordinate system of the stationary twin, the traveling > twin is younger. > (2) In the coordinate system of the traveling twin, the stationary > twin is older. > > You could introduce a preferred frame, and *arbitrarily* say that > the stationary twin's coordinate system is the preferred one, and > that the traveling twin's coordinate system is bogus. How does > that change anything? You want to call one twin's perspective > correct, and the other twin's perspective deluded? Fine. So > you change the words, to: > > (1) The traveling twin is *actually* younger than the stationary > twin. > > (2) The stationary twin *appears* to be younger then the traveling > twin, when viewed from a bogus coordinate system. > > That change is just words. It has made *no* difference to the > physics. The issue can be resolved by eliminating the paradoxical cases and deducing that the preferred frame of reference in the case of the symmetric twins is the frame of reference in which the twins journey's are symmetric. > One can state the principle of relativity in the following > way: > > There is no experiment that can allow us to determine which > coordinate systems is preferred, and which coordinate system > is bogus. You can't prove a claim by negation. In other words, the fact that you haven't detected something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. > > Unless you have such an experiment, we must always consider > the possibility that whatever coordinate system we are using > happens to be the bogus one. So, for practical purposes, we > need a physics that tells how things look from the point of > view of a bogus coordinate system, without knowing what the > preferred coordinate system is. Need implies a threat. What is the threat? > > Special Relativity *is* that physics. No, it is a theory which can predict paradoxical outcomes. > There *is* no difference > between saying "there is no preferred frame" and saying "there > is a preferred frame, but we have no way of ever finding out > what it is". I'm not saying that we have no way of ever finding out what it is. > > The theory of the preferred frame is *identical* to SR, in all > of its testable predictions. No it isn't. SR predicts that two observers moving at relativistic speeds relative to each other will observe the time dilation of the other. The theory of the preferred frame says that if the velocity of one observer with respect to the preferred frame is the negative of the velocity of the other with respect to the preferred frame, then the observers will not observe each other's time to be dilated. |