 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Simultaneity of Relativity... |
|
Page 25 of 32 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 24, 25, 26 ... 30, 31, 32 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| mpc755... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 6:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
[/quote]
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:15 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
[/quote]
Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.
Also GR and SR are not the same thing.
[quote]'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."[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Nope, wrong set-up. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Webb... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"mpc755" <mpc755 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb3c494-a53a-4a33-8af9-d6679eda6c4c at (no spam) s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
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."
______________________________________
Here is the full quote:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. 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. But this ether may not be
thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion
may not be applied to it.
You snipped the preceding sentence ... which heavily qualifies this as being
"in a sense". You also snipped the last sentence, which says "The idea of
motion may not be applied to it".
I have no problem with you quoting Einstein, but quoting out of context -
and in a manner which completely distorts what Einstein said - is clearly
cheating.
GR imposes a geometry on space. That geometry is sometimes nominally
considered as applying to something, which in the above piece Einstein calls
the "ether". It does not provide a unique inertial frame of reference, which
is the claim made by people who believe in an ether (in the normal "sense"
of the word ether, hence Einstein's explicit statement that he was using it
another sense), and in fact the last sentence explicitly states that it
cannot be used as baseline for measuring motion.
If you believe in an ether (in the sense of a privileged stationary inertial
reference frame) exists, you have to be able to describe an experiment which
shows how it could be detected, and explain why the hundreds of experiments
designed to detect the ether have all thus far failed.
Lots of luck. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 11:35 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam... at (no spam) DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
[quote]"mpc755" <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cb3c494-a53a-4a33-8af9-d6679eda6c4c at (no spam) s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
'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."
______________________________________
Here is the full quote:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of
relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense,
therefore, there exists an ether. 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. But this ether may not be
thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media,
as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion
may not be applied to it.
You snipped the preceding sentence ... which heavily qualifies this as being
"in a sense". You also snipped the last sentence, which says "The idea of
motion may not be applied to it".
I have no problem with you quoting Einstein, but quoting out of context -
and in a manner which completely distorts what Einstein said - is clearly
cheating.
GR imposes a geometry on space. That geometry is sometimes nominally
considered as applying to something, which in the above piece Einstein calls
the "ether". It does not provide a unique inertial frame of reference, which
is the claim made by people who believe in an ether (in the normal "sense"
of the word ether, hence Einstein's explicit statement that he was using it
another sense), and in fact the last sentence explicitly states that it
cannot be used as baseline for measuring motion.
If you believe in an ether (in the sense of a privileged stationary inertial
reference frame) exists, you have to be able to describe an experiment which
shows how it could be detected, and explain why the hundreds of experiments
designed to detect the ether have all thus far failed.
Lots of luck.
[/quote]
I did not quote Einstein out of context. The other posted said,
"Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light."
Einstein said, "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". That is enough of the quote to point out the other poster
is incorrect. The rest of the quote goes into more detail about what
the aether is, but Einstein requires there to be an aether for the
propagation of light.
Most experiments have been unable to detect the aether because it is
entrained by the Earth.
'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift'
http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf
"The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in
other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley
(1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill
(2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)."
In this article they refer to space as not consisting of aether but "a
dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale is a quantum foam system".
The point of referring to this article is to show how the results of
this experiment and the other aether experiments are in agreement with
one another.
There is also evidence of aether entrainment in the Pioneer Effect.
The Pioneer satellites 'fall out of' the Sun's entrained aether after
the pass by Uranus. Jupiter's moons orbit in the opposite direction of
the inner moons because the inner moons are 'caught' in Jupiter's
entrained aether but all of Jupiter's moons are contained within the
displaced aether of Jupiter which is pushing back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.
Also GR and SR are not the same thing.
[/quote]
In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for
propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable
for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you
correctly?
[quote]'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."
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
[/quote]
Observers must be traveling in straight lines relative to where the
light emitted from for Relativity of Simultaneity to be correct? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
[/quote]
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be
correct? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.
Also GR and SR are not the same thing.
In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for
propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable
for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you
correctly?
[/quote]
That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are
understanding it.
When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how
light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that
however it got from place to place it always traveled at c,
reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement.
SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal
constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only
that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one
frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure
the same beam to be traveling at c.
Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he
didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory.
Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he
never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether
similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours.
[quote]
'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."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.
Also GR and SR are not the same thing.
In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for
propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable
for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you
correctly?
That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are
understanding it.
When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how
light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that
however it got from place to place it always traveled at c,
reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement.
SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal
constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only
that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one
frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure
the same beam to be traveling at c.
[/quote]
I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to
all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You are tying the
emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which
is inaccurate.
Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and
Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold.
[quote]Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he
didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory.
Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he
never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether
similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours.
'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."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as
M' passes between them. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:19 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:15 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:47 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
Since Einstein required the aether for the propagation of light, what
you are referring to is an error of omission.
Einstein did not require an aether for propagation of light.
What part of the next sentence don't you understand?
Those words had not been written when he wrote the train experiment.
Also GR and SR are not the same thing.
In SR and the train experiment Einstein does not require an aether for
propagation of light, but in GR space without aether is unthinkable
for there would be no propagation of light? Am I understanding you
correctly?
That is pretty much what I wrote but I don't think you are
understanding it.
When Einstein wrote SR there was still much dissagreement about how
light was transmitted. Experimental evidence had established that
however it got from place to place it always traveled at c,
reguardless of the state of motion of those making the measurement.
SR explained how that could happen based on c being a universal
constant. It didn't matter how light got from place to place, only
that it always traveled at the same speed. And not for just one
frame. Two frames moving relative to each other could both measure
the same beam to be traveling at c.
Einstein's later quote does not support your theory. Many say he
didn't mean aether as proposed in any past or present aether theory.
Even if he did we know that it would have to agree with SR since he
never said that SR was wrong. So that would limit you to an aether
similar to LET, not a dragged aether theory like yours.
[/quote]
But Einstein believe there is an aether or there is no propagation of
light, which means there is an aether in SR and if the idea of motion
cannot be applied to the aether and the train frame of reference and
the embankment frame of reference both occupy the same three
dimensional space then this implies the aether is at rest in both
frames which is impossible.
I have tried to explain to you how light travels at 'c' relative to
all Observer's but you are not understanding it. You are tying the
emission point to a particular point in three dimensional space which
is inaccurate.
Resolve the mpc755 train thought experiment in terms of SR and
Relativity of Simultaneity. If you can't, then SR doesn't hold.
Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, the mpc755 train
thought experiment is physically impossible for a single lightning
strike at A/A' and a single lightning strike at B/B'.
[quote]
'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."- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 7:35 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as
M' passes between them.
[/quote]
So, where does the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B'
travel from to each Observer? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:16 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as
M' passes between them.
[/quote]
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
When the Observers get back together they each conclude the light
reached them at 12:00:01. But the Observer on the embankment insists
the light from the lightning strikes must have reached the Observer at
M' after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A and B
to the Observer at M' than it did to the Observer at M and the
Observer on the train insists the light from the lightning strikes had
to have reached the Observer at M after 12:00:01 because the light had
further to travel from A' and B' to the Observer at M than it did to
the Observer at M'.
The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both
correctly conclude the light could not have reached both Observers
simultaneously because it did not travel the same distance to both
Observers, but their clocks say otherwise.
How do you resolve this in SR and Relativity of Simultaneity? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
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.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train experiment or relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects the two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity to be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your set-up is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay equal as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M' on the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes at A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00. It takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
[/quote]
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means that it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light fronts to
reach.
Ken Seto
[quote]
When the Observers get back together they each conclude the light
reached them at 12:00:01. But the Observer on the embankment insists
the light from the lightning strikes must have reached the Observer at
M' after 12:00:01 because the light had further to travel from A and B
to the Observer at M' than it did to the Observer at M and the
Observer on the train insists the light from the lightning strikes had
to have reached the Observer at M after 12:00:01 because the light had
further to travel from A' and B' to the Observer at M than it did to
the Observer at M'.
The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both
correctly conclude the light could not have reached both Observers
simultaneously because it did not travel the same distance to both
Observers, but their clocks say otherwise.
How do you resolve this in SR and Relativity of Simultaneity?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 1:13 pm
|
|