Relativity Error
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Symmetry of BP's economic blowout & scarcity of their product?
Next: De Walls shows, all forces come from charge
From: artful on 25 Jun 2010 01:11 On Jun 25, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 12:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:20 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > nope > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places ... > > disregarding the causes which condition its state.". > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > aether's state of displacement. > > > The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by > > matter. > > > Everything is with respect to the aether. In order to determine > > synchronicity you must know your state with respect to the aether. > > > In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is mostly > > determined by its connections with the Earth. > > > Einstein is incorrect in assuming the clocks at A and B are > > synchronous to begin with. > > > In Einstein's train gedanken, it is correct for the Observer on the > > train and the Observer on the embankment to conclude the aether is > > more at rest with respect to the embankment than the train. > > In order to determine the synchronicity of events with respect to > nature you must know your state with respect to the aether. > > If you conclude lightning strikes are simultaneous in your > mathematically constructed frame of reference then that in no way > determines if the lightning strikes were simultaneous in nature. Wrong .. there is no such thing as 'state with respect to the aether', nor would any such state change what SR/LET predicts. Your ignorance is, as always, astounding.
From: mpc755 on 25 Jun 2010 02:17 On Jun 25, 1:11 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 2:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:29 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 12:20 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > nope > > > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > > > "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > > > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places ... > > > disregarding the causes which condition its state.". > > > > The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the > > > matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > > aether's state of displacement. > > > > The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by > > > matter. > > > > Everything is with respect to the aether. In order to determine > > > synchronicity you must know your state with respect to the aether. > > > > In Einstein's train gedanken the state of the aether is mostly > > > determined by its connections with the Earth. > > > > Einstein is incorrect in assuming the clocks at A and B are > > > synchronous to begin with. > > > > In Einstein's train gedanken, it is correct for the Observer on the > > > train and the Observer on the embankment to conclude the aether is > > > more at rest with respect to the embankment than the train. > > > In order to determine the synchronicity of events with respect to > > nature you must know your state with respect to the aether. > > > If you conclude lightning strikes are simultaneous in your > > mathematically constructed frame of reference then that in no way > > determines if the lightning strikes were simultaneous in nature. > > Wrong .. there is no such thing as 'state with respect to the aether', > nor would any such state change what SR/LET predicts. Your ignorance > is, as always, astounding.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places ... disregarding the causes which condition its state.". The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement. The cause which conditions the aether's state is its displacement by matter.
From: mpc755 on 25 Jun 2010 02:23 On Jun 25, 1:08 am, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 24, 10:42 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Now all you need are clocks which tick with respect to the water > > pressure in which they exist to understand everything is with respect > > to the aether (i.e. water in this analogy). > > Except the so-called 'einstein aether' (basically just another label > for spacetime) cannot be considered at rest or in motion .. nor can > anything be considered at rest in it or in motion relative to it. The > whole notion of motion does not apply to that 'aether'. So your > examples are not relevant. "[Extended physical objects to which the idea of motion cannot be applied] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time" "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "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." What part of "consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time" and "particles observable through time" and "parts which may be tracked through time" are you not able to understand? And then we have: "if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium." And "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" What is you interpretation of the state of the aether as determined by its connections with the matter? The shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, having no ground for the assumption the aether consists of movable particles capable of being separately tracked through time, determined by the aether's connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places, is the aether's state of displacement.
From: valls on 25 Jun 2010 06:55 On 24 jun, 23:32, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > colp wrote: > > "If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, > > viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at > > A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its > > arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved > > from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B ..." > > > Einstien, Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies > > > The text describes the time dilation of a clock that moves from point > > A to point B. In other words, the moving clock runs slow. If there is > > no preferred frame of reference then it is just as true to say that > > the clock is viewed as part of a stationary system and the points A > > and B are in a moving system which moves at velocity -v. But this > > cannot be true, because the time for both systems cannot be dilated > > with respect to each other. This means that there must be a preferred > > frame of reference. > > No. This is just one more colp error. > > In relativity there is no preferred frame of reference, but there is a preferred > CLASS OF FRAMES [#], the inertial frames. In this example clock B is at rest in > an inertial frame, and A is not. That is the difference that makes your argument > fail. > > [#] Preferred in the sense that the dynamics are different when > expressed in terms of any member of the class, compared to > being expressed in terms of any frame not in the class. > > I remind you that in Einstein's paper the phrase "stationary frame" is merely a > label for some ARBITRARY inertial frame; no notion of "being absolutely > stationary" is involved. IOW: in his paper "stationary" is merely a label.. > Then, in the real example at the end of paragraph 4 of his 30Jun1905 paper, the moving system (clock at the equator) can be considered stationary system, and the stationary system (clock at the pole) can be considered moving system? By the way, is the moving system in this example an inertial frame? If not, how can we apply to it relativity formulas? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: harald on 25 Jun 2010 07:58
On Jun 25, 5:22 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 11:10 pm, artful <artful...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 25, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: [..] > > > What colp needs to > > > understand is everything is with respect to the aether. > > > That doesn't change anything. Whatever frame may be the aether rest > > frame (if any) doesn't change any of the math of SR or LET. There is > > no preferred or special frame in SR or LET when it comes to what one > > measures. It all still works the same with no contradictions. > > Why can't you understand there is a difference between > mathematics and nature? Artful clarified the difference between "preferred" and "absolute", something that the OP perhaps had not noticed. > In order to understand nature you have to understand the state of the > aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the > state of the aether in neighboring places. Hmm... sounds like Einstein's physical interpretation of GRT: "What is fundamentally new in the ether of the general theory of relativity as opposed to the ether of Lorentz consists in this, that the state of the former is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, which are amenable to law in the form of differential equations; whereas the state of the Lorentzian ether in the absence of electromagnetic fields is conditioned by nothing outside itself, and is everywhere the same." > This means the state of the aether is mostly determined by its > connections with the matter which is the Earth. That has nothing to do with SRT and the problem of colp, see above. > This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the > embankment than it is to the train. No, and that doesn't work. Harald [...] |