 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Simultaneity of Relativity... |
|
Page 24 of 32 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 23, 24, 25 ... 30, 31, 32 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Bruce Richmond... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 6:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
[/quote]
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
[quote]A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
[/quote]
And you are full of shit.
[quote]If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
[/quote]
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
[snip a bunch of crap] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| YBM... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 10:44 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mpc755 wrote:
[quote][idiocies]
as the light waves interacted with the moving aether.
Point of clarification:
[/quote]
There is nothing to clarify: this is bullshit from
start to finish. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center..
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
[/quote]
And you are full of shit.
'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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
Yes, there isn't an "absolutely stationary space" because the aether
has the quality characteristic of motion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:35 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
And you are full of shit.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
[/quote]
Right back at you. Your link is not to the train thought experiment.
That can be found here and makes no mention of the aether. What it
does say is
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its
own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of
the time of an event."
You are trying to eliminate what he arrived at here by invoking
multiple aethers. In Einstein's train thought experiment the two
frames share the same empty space. Being empty there is nothing in
the space itself to make reference to. And for the two frames to be
truely equal both must be able to use reference points that are
stationary in their own coordinate system when making observations.
[quote]"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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
[/quote]
Saying that it isn't needed for computations and saying it doesn't
exist are two different things. He did not say that Lorents's aether
did not exist, just that he did not need to invoke it to make his
point. You have yet to explain how your aether works when multiple
frames moving relative to each other overlap and share the same space.
[quote]Yes, there isn't an "absolutely stationary space" because the aether
has the quality characteristic of motion.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:35 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
And you are full of shit.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Right back at you. Your link is not to the train thought experiment.
That can be found here and makes no mention of the aether. What it
does say is
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its
own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of
the time of an event."
You are trying to eliminate what he arrived at here by invoking
multiple aethers. In Einstein's train thought experiment the two
frames share the same empty space. Being empty there is nothing in
the space itself to make reference to. And for the two frames to be
truely equal both must be able to use reference points that are
stationary in their own coordinate system when making observations.
[/quote]
Correct. That is why the two frames sharing the same space, where the
frames are in relative motion to each other, cannot both have the
aether at rest. That is the mistake Einstein made.
[quote]
"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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
Saying that it isn't needed for computations and saying it doesn't
exist are two different things. He did not say that Lorents's aether
did not exist, just that he did not need to invoke it to make his
point. You have yet to explain how your aether works when multiple
frames moving relative to each other overlap and share the same space.
[/quote]
I have repeatedly explained how overlapping frames moving relative to
each other overlap and share the same space. That is the whole pebble
being dropped into water analogy. If the aether is at rest relative to
the train light travels at 'c' relative to the aether at rest in the
train frame of reference and determining how far the light travels
from A and B to any Observer is incorrect. If the aether is at rest
relative to the train frame of reference, the light wave travels from
A' and B' to ALL Observers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:35 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used.. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen..
And you are full of shit.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Right back at you. Your link is not to the train thought experiment.
That can be found here and makes no mention of the aether. What it
does say is
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its
own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of
the time of an event."
You are trying to eliminate what he arrived at here by invoking
multiple aethers. In Einstein's train thought experiment the two
frames share the same empty space. Being empty there is nothing in
the space itself to make reference to. And for the two frames to be
truely equal both must be able to use reference points that are
stationary in their own coordinate system when making observations.
Correct. That is why the two frames sharing the same space, where the
frames are in relative motion to each other, cannot both have the
aether at rest. That is the mistake Einstein made.
[/quote]
He did not make that mistake since he did not invoke the aether at all
in his explaination.
[quote]
"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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
Saying that it isn't needed for computations and saying it doesn't
exist are two different things. He did not say that Lorents's aether
did not exist, just that he did not need to invoke it to make his
point. You have yet to explain how your aether works when multiple
frames moving relative to each other overlap and share the same space.
I have repeatedly explained how overlapping frames moving relative to
each other overlap and share the same space.
[/quote]
No you have not. The closest I have seen you come is to claim that
each frame has its own aether and that they move adjacent to each
other with a transition layer. You have never explained how they
share the same aether and both measure the speed of light to be c.
[quote]That is the whole pebble
being dropped into water analogy. If the aether is at rest relative to
the train light travels at 'c' relative to the aether at rest in the
train frame of reference and determining how far the light travels
from A and B to any Observer is incorrect. If the aether is at rest
relative to the train frame of reference, the light wave travels from
A' and B' to ALL Observers.
[/quote]
So you are saying that A and B cannot measure light to travel at c
using their own rest frame, that they need to use train frame
coordinates. That not only contradicts Einstein's SR but the
principal of relativity as well. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:43 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:15 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:35 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you.. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
And you are full of shit.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Right back at you. Your link is not to the train thought experiment.
That can be found here and makes no mention of the aether. What it
does say is
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its
own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of
the time of an event."
You are trying to eliminate what he arrived at here by invoking
multiple aethers. In Einstein's train thought experiment the two
frames share the same empty space. Being empty there is nothing in
the space itself to make reference to. And for the two frames to be
truely equal both must be able to use reference points that are
stationary in their own coordinate system when making observations.
Correct. That is why the two frames sharing the same space, where the
frames are in relative motion to each other, cannot both have the
aether at rest. That is the mistake Einstein made.
He did not make that mistake since he did not invoke the aether at all
in his explaination.
[/quote]
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission. If Einstein had invoked
the aether, which he would have, he would have said the "Idea of
motion may not be applied to it", in order for him to maintain
Relativity and Simultaneity and his train thought experiment. Saying
the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether is incorrect.
[quote]
"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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
Saying that it isn't needed for computations and saying it doesn't
exist are two different things. He did not say that Lorents's aether
did not exist, just that he did not need to invoke it to make his
point. You have yet to explain how your aether works when multiple
frames moving relative to each other overlap and share the same space..
I have repeatedly explained how overlapping frames moving relative to
each other overlap and share the same space.
No you have not. The closest I have seen you come is to claim that
each frame has its own aether and that they move adjacent to each
other with a transition layer. You have never explained how they
share the same aether and both measure the speed of light to be c.
[/quote]
Aether is entrained. Different frames occupying different areas of
three dimensional space can each have the aether at rest relative to
the frame of reference. If multiple frames occupy the same space and
the frames are in motion relative to one another, the aether cannot be
at rest relative to each frame.
[quote]That is the whole pebble
being dropped into water analogy. If the aether is at rest relative to
the train light travels at 'c' relative to the aether at rest in the
train frame of reference and determining how far the light travels
from A and B to any Observer is incorrect. If the aether is at rest
relative to the train frame of reference, the light wave travels from
A' and B' to ALL Observers.
So you are saying that A and B cannot measure light to travel at c
using their own rest frame, that they need to use train frame
coordinates. That not only contradicts Einstein's SR but the
principal of relativity as well.
[/quote]
Yes. I am saying if the aether is at rest relative to the train,
Observer's who measure to A and B are measuring to marks that are
irrelevant in terms of where the lightning strikes occurred and how
far the light travels. It does not contradict the principal of
relativity. It supports the principal of relativity by stating two
frames occupying the same space cannot both have the aether at rest
relative to the frame of reference.
In order for frames occupying the same space to be physically
equivalent in all respects, the aether must be moving the same
relative to both. This would require the aether to be moving with the
train and to be moving with the embankment. This would cause there to
be a line of demarcation between the train frame of reference and the
embankment frame of reference. If this were the case, then the light
would be 'scrambled' as it reaches the Observers as the light waves
interact with the moving aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 2:32 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
[/quote]
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space.
[/quote]
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity.
[/quote]
If the Observer at M' concludes the light traveled from A' and B' to
where M' is and the light traveled from A' and B' to the Observer at
M, and the Observer at M concludes the light traveled from A and B to
where M is and the light traveled from A and B to the Observer at M'.
This means the Observer at M' will see the light from the lightning
strike at A' and B' and then see the light from the lightning strike
at A and B and the Observer at M will see the light from the lightning
strike at A and B and the see the light from the lightning strike at
A' and B'. This is physically impossible since there is a single
lightning strike at A/A' and a single lightning strike at B/B'.
I still think this is unresolvable by Relativity of Simultaneity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:47 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 2:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:15 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 1:20 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:35 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 11:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
I think your track observer just got his arm ripped off by the train's
window frame ;)
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
And you are full of shit.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
You are assuming there was an aether involved in Einstein's train
thought experiment which makes you incorrect. Einstein stipulated
that light travels at c. He made no claims about how that happen.
And you are full of shit.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Right back at you. Your link is not to the train thought experiment.
That can be found here and makes no mention of the aether. What it
does say is
"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are
not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity
of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its
own particular time ; unless we are told the reference-body to which
the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of
the time of an event."
You are trying to eliminate what he arrived at here by invoking
multiple aethers. In Einstein's train thought experiment the two
frames share the same empty space. Being empty there is nothing in
the space itself to make reference to. And for the two frames to be
truely equal both must be able to use reference points that are
stationary in their own coordinate system when making observations.
Correct. That is why the two frames sharing the same space, where the
frames are in relative motion to each other, cannot both have the
aether at rest. That is the mistake Einstein made.
He did not make that mistake since he did not invoke the aether at all
in his explaination.
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
[/quote]
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light. There
were other theories that could explain the propagation of light.
Rather than choose one he based his theory on the observed properties
of light.
[quote]If Einstein had invoked
the aether, which he would have, he would have said
[/quote]
You do not speak for Einstein. Quit trying to put words in his mouth.
[quote]the "Idea of
motion may not be applied to it", in order for him to maintain
Relativity and Simultaneity and his train thought experiment. Saying
the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether is incorrect.
"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."
Einstein claims how light propagates and that is through an aether.
What Einstein never resolved completely is the following:
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
Einstein could not resolve how the aether could be at rest in the K
system and not in the K' system. Einstein could not resolve it because
the aether is not at rest relative to the K system and at rest
relative to the K' system. Since Einstein did not resolve this issue
he punted and said the aether does not move. "The idea of motion may
not be applied to [aether]".
And that is where Einstein is incorrect. The idea of motion may be
applied to aether. See the Pioneer Effect and the orbit of Jupiter's
moons to see examples of aether moving as it is entrained by the Sun
(Pioneer Effect) and Jupiter.
And when Einstein said the aether was superfluous he was referring to
the stationary aether of Lorentz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
'The introduction of a "luminiferous ether" will prove to be
superfluous in as much as the view here to be developed will not
require an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.'
Saying that it isn't needed for computations and saying it doesn't
exist are two different things. He did not say that Lorents's aether
did not exist, just that he did not need to invoke it to make his
point. You have yet to explain how your aether works when multiple
frames moving relative to each other overlap and share the same space.
I have repeatedly explained how overlapping frames moving relative to
each other overlap and share the same space.
No you have not. The closest I have seen you come is to claim that
each frame has its own aether and that they move adjacent to each
other with a transition layer. You have never explained how they
share the same aether and both measure the speed of light to be c.
Aether is entrained. Different frames occupying different areas of
three dimensional space can each have the aether at rest relative to
the frame of reference. If multiple frames occupy the same space and
the frames are in motion relative to one another, the aether cannot be
at rest relative to each frame.
[/quote]
Agreed. Now quit trying to claim that you can use that explaination
under special circumstances. Their are an infinite number of frames
and some will always be sharing the space of your chosen frame. So
you can never claim the aether is at rest with just your chosen frame.
[quote]That is the whole pebble
being dropped into water analogy. If the aether is at rest relative to
the train light travels at 'c' relative to the aether at rest in the
train frame of reference and determining how far the light travels
from A and B to any Observer is incorrect. If the aether is at rest
relative to the train frame of reference, the light wave travels from
A' and B' to ALL Observers.
So you are saying that A and B cannot measure light to travel at c
using their own rest frame, that they need to use train frame
coordinates. That not only contradicts Einstein's SR but the
principal of relativity as well.
Yes. I am saying if the aether is at rest relative to the train,
Observer's who measure to A and B are measuring to marks that are
irrelevant in terms of where the lightning strikes occurred and how
far the light travels. It does not contradict the principal of
relativity.
[/quote]
Observers in the rest frame of A and B have every right to use them as
reference points.
[quote]It supports the principal of relativity by stating two
frames occupying the same space cannot both have the aether at rest
relative to the frame of reference.
[/quote]
You need to read the principal of relativity so that you don't say
such stupid things.
[quote]In order for frames occupying the same space to be physically
equivalent in all respects, the aether must be moving the same
relative to both. This would require the aether to be moving with the
train and to be moving with the embankment. This would cause there to
be a line of demarcation between the train frame of reference and the
embankment frame of reference. If this were the case, then the light
would be 'scrambled' as it reaches the Observers as the light waves
interact with the moving aether.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:52 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity.
[/quote]
The Observer at M on the embankment could insist the light from A and
B reached M and then the light from A and B reached the Observer at
M', and the Observer at M' on the train could insist the light from A'
and B' reached M' and then the light from A' and B' reached the
Observer at M, but the only way for the light to reach each observer
first is for the light to reach each Observer simultaneously, which is
not possible as the thought experiment is configured in Relativity of
Simultaneity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
[/quote]
And you have already stated that the aether can't be at rest WRT two
relativly moving frames that share the same space. Seems you are
running out of options.
[quote]I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space.
[/quote]
But they obviously can share the same space, and both measure the
speed of light to be c using the coordinates of their own frame. If
your theory can't explain how that happens your theory is wrong. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of light to exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of motion may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest relative to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train which is physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and B exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on opposite sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment and the corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The arrows represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from the embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A' exist at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the lightning strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the line A and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like after the lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away from the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A and M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this requires the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is either that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B' to M and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 5:57 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]
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.
[/quote]
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
'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." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 9:38 am
|
|