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: harald on 29 Jun 2010 08:21 On Jun 28, 6:48 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > Inertial wrote: > > "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message > >news:4c285e9e$0$22934$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > >> artful 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 .. > > >> I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. > > > Not for the Einstein aether .. it removed the concept of motion from it > > .. you can't talk about it be relatively at rest or in motion. So there > > is no rest frame for that 'aether' > > >> The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute > >> measurement. We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. > > > Two solutions for what? > > Suppose we have a preferential frame, and that the Earth > moves wrt to it. Earth then launches a space ship that > first accelerates, then stays immobile wrt this > preferential frame. Then the clock on Earth runs slower > than the clock on the spaceship. Now the spaceship turns > around and accelerates back to Earth. Due to the nature > of the gamma factor, the clock on the spaceship is now > slowed down so much that when clocks are compared, the > preferential frame vanishes, the outcome is the same as > a pure relativistic approach. Then why do you call it "preferred"? > >> If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 > >> oranges, would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets say > >> that the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for > >> rotations and accelerations. > > > The eintein 'aether' has no concept of motion. It make no sense to talk > > about it being at rest in ANY frame ... or being in motion in ANY frame Note: Einstein held that the concept of motion cannot be *applied* to the Lorentz ether, because it cannot be tracked through time; but Lorentz disagreed with that way of phrasing it. > >> Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when two > >> spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one that > >> accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. > > > Because one changes its motion .. the other doesn't. > > >> iow : > >> You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly they > >> start to separate faster and faster. > > >> How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? > > > By looking at their velocities relative to an inertial observer .. all > > inertial observers agree which is accelerating > > You got me on this one. I would say, the preferential > frame, but because any inertial moving point will do, > it is no longer preferential. Exactly. ;-) > I have indeed no argument > here. Damned inertia. :-) > > Well, my first argument still stands. Can a clock tick > differently on the two legs of a two way trip ? Why not? Inversely, if it can *not*, according to observations in any inertial reference system, "tick differently" at different speeds, then the Galilean transformations are valid and SRT is wrong (neglecting gravitation of course). > It takes ftl transmission to test it- sigh . > > What is your prediction ? Prediction of what? Harald
From: Hayek on 29 Jun 2010 09:29 harald wrote: > On Jun 28, 6:48 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> Inertial wrote: >>> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>> news:4c285e9e$0$22934$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>> artful 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 .. >>>> I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. >>> Not for the Einstein aether .. it removed the concept of motion from it >>> .. you can't talk about it be relatively at rest or in motion. So there >>> is no rest frame for that 'aether' >>>> The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute >>>> measurement. We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. >>> Two solutions for what? >> Suppose we have a preferential frame, and that the Earth >> moves wrt to it. Earth then launches a space ship that >> first accelerates, then stays immobile wrt this >> preferential frame. Then the clock on Earth runs slower >> than the clock on the spaceship. Now the spaceship turns >> around and accelerates back to Earth. Due to the nature >> of the gamma factor, the clock on the spaceship is now >> slowed down so much that when clocks are compared, the >> preferential frame vanishes, the outcome is the same as >> a pure relativistic approach. > > Then why do you call it "preferred"? Because you base your calculations on it. With SR you base the calculations of time dilation on the relative speed, with a preferential frame you base the calculations on this frame. With SR the clock who accelerated always slows down, on both legs, with a preferential frame clock dilation is calculated by using the absolute speed wrt the preferential frame. > > > >> If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 > > >> oranges, would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets > say > > >> that the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for > > >> rotations and accelerations. > > > > > The eintein 'aether' has no concept of motion. It make no sense > to talk > > > about it being at rest in ANY frame ... or being in motion in ANY > frame > > Note: Einstein held that the concept of motion cannot be *applied* to > the Lorentz ether, because it cannot be tracked through time; but > Lorentz disagreed with that way of phrasing it. > > > >> Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when > two > > >> spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one > that > > >> accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. > > > > > Because one changes its motion .. the other doesn't. > > > > >> iow : > > >> You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly > they > > >> start to separate faster and faster. > > > > >> How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? > > > > > By looking at their velocities relative to an inertial > observer .. all > > > inertial observers agree which is accelerating > > > > You got me on this one. I would say, the preferential > > frame, but because any inertial moving point will do, > > it is no longer preferential. > > Exactly. ;-) > > > I have indeed no argument > > here. Damned inertia. :-) > > > > Well, my first argument still stands. Can a clock tick > > differently on the two legs of a two way trip ? > > Why not? > Inversely, if it can *not*, according to observations in any inertial > reference system, "tick differently" at different speeds, then the > Galilean transformations are valid and SRT is wrong (neglecting > gravitation of course). You do not see the problem, I think. > > It takes ftl transmission to test it- sigh . > > > > What is your prediction ? > > Prediction of what? "Can a clock tick differently on the two legs of a two way trip ?" Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Inertial on 29 Jun 2010 09:40 "Hayek" <hayektt(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message news:4c29f533$0$22917$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... > harald wrote: >> On Jun 28, 6:48 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >>> Inertial wrote: >>>> "Hayek" <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message >>>> news:4c285e9e$0$22934$e4fe514c(a)news.xs4all.nl... >>>>> artful 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 .. >>>>> I would rather say : It can be considered at rest OR in motion. >>>> Not for the Einstein aether .. it removed the concept of motion from it >>>> .. you can't talk about it be relatively at rest or in motion. So >>>> there >>>> is no rest frame for that 'aether' >>>>> The gamma factor works both ways, it cancels out any absolute >>>>> measurement. We are left with the choice, we have two solutions. >>>> Two solutions for what? >>> Suppose we have a preferential frame, and that the Earth >>> moves wrt to it. Earth then launches a space ship that >>> first accelerates, then stays immobile wrt this >>> preferential frame. Then the clock on Earth runs slower >>> than the clock on the spaceship. Now the spaceship turns >>> around and accelerates back to Earth. Due to the nature >>> of the gamma factor, the clock on the spaceship is now >>> slowed down so much that when clocks are compared, the >>> preferential frame vanishes, the outcome is the same as >>> a pure relativistic approach. >> >> Then why do you call it "preferred"? > > Because you base your calculations on it. > > With SR you base the calculations of time dilation on the relative speed, > with a preferential frame you base the calculations on this frame. > > With SR the clock who accelerated always slows down, on both legs, with a > preferential frame clock dilation is calculated by using the absolute > speed wrt the preferential frame. > >> >> > >> If your calculations with a quadratic equations yield 5 and -10 >> > >> oranges, would you choose -10 oranges ? Neither would I, so lets >> say >> > >> that the inertial or einsteinian ether is absolute, just as for >> > >> rotations and accelerations. >> > >> > > The eintein 'aether' has no concept of motion. It make no sense >> to talk >> > > about it being at rest in ANY frame ... or being in motion in ANY >> frame >> >> Note: Einstein held that the concept of motion cannot be *applied* to >> the Lorentz ether, because it cannot be tracked through time; but >> Lorentz disagreed with that way of phrasing it. >> >> > >> Ask yourself the question : how can you mathematically know when >> two >> > >> spaceships accelerate away from each other , which is the one >> that >> > >> accelerates, without having access to a accelerometer on board. >> > >> > > Because one changes its motion .. the other doesn't. >> > >> > >> iow : >> > >> You see two points stationary wrt to each other and suddenly >> they >> > >> start to separate faster and faster. >> > >> > >> How do you know which accelerates and which one does not ? >> > >> > > By looking at their velocities relative to an inertial >> observer .. all >> > > inertial observers agree which is accelerating >> > >> > You got me on this one. I would say, the preferential >> > frame, but because any inertial moving point will do, >> > it is no longer preferential. >> >> Exactly. ;-) >> >> > I have indeed no argument >> > here. Damned inertia. :-) >> > >> > Well, my first argument still stands. Can a clock tick >> > differently on the two legs of a two way trip ? >> >> Why not? >> Inversely, if it can *not*, according to observations in any inertial >> reference system, "tick differently" at different speeds, then the >> Galilean transformations are valid and SRT is wrong (neglecting >> gravitation of course). > > You do not see the problem, I think. > >> > It takes ftl transmission to test it- sigh . >> > >> > What is your prediction ? >> >> Prediction of what? > > "Can a clock tick differently on the two legs of a two way trip ?" Yes .. we have observed that happening experimentally
From: valls on 29 Jun 2010 16:10 On 29 jun, 02:18, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Jun 28, 10:59 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > On 28 jun, 03:02, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Jun 25, 4:49 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > On 25 jun, 07:36,harald<h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 25, 12:55 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > > > > > > 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 [#], theinertialframes. In this example clock B is at rest in > > > > > > > aninertialframe, 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 ARBITRARYinertialframe; no notion of "being absolutely > > > > > > > stationary" is involved. IOW: in his paper "stationary" is merely a label. > > > > > > Right. > > > > > > > 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 aninertialframe? > > > > > > If not, how can we apply to it relativity formulas? > > > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > > > No. And No. And not only Einstein succinctly explained how, but I also > > > > > explained the same to you and PD with much more elaboration. Good luck > > > > > to others. ;-) > > > > > My first question is 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? If your > > > > answer is No we are in total agreement, 1905 Einstein doesnt > > > > identify stationary system with moving system, not being possible > > > > then to interchange their roles. > > > > My second question is By the way, is the moving system in this > > > > example an inertial frame?. If your answer is also No, we are again > > > > in total agreement, a moving entity with a gravitational centripetal > > > > acceleration with a circular path cant be considered an inertial > > > > frame in 1905. > > > > And about the application of relativity formulas to a non-inertial > > > > frame, I am also following 1905 Einstein accepting that it can be > > > > done. The unique difference between us in this point seems to be then > > > > that my reasons to accept 1905 Einstein behaviour are perhaps > > > > different from yours. You use a Galilean transformation in your 1905 > > > > Einstein justification, if I dont remember bad. For me is more than > > > > sufficient the huge experimental evidence of today GPS supporting 1905 > > > > Einstein. > > > > > >Harald > > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > You continue to miss the point, as I feared. Perhaps you are looking > > > for keywords in my answers, and if you see the ones you like, then you > > > think that we therefore agree? However, clearly you cannot understand > > > Einstein's logical (and correct) reasoning, even after I explained it > > > to you. > > > > For example: > > > > > "Einstein doesnt > > > > identify stationary system with moving system, > > > > That's right, > > > > > not being possible then to interchange their roles." > > > > And that's wrong. > > > Consider the clock at the pole the moving one and the clock at the > > equator the stationary one. > > Those are not both valid SRT reference systems - only inertial > systems > are considered. > If those are not valid inertial systems for you, how can you justify their presence in the first 1905 Relativity paper? Strange way to accept that their roles cant be interchanged. In the 1905 Einstein real example exists a UNIQUE inertial system, the centre of mass one of all the bodies involved, what corresponds with the today denoted GPS ECI. 1905 Einstein is using it when considering at rest the clock at the pole. The centre of mass of ANY centre of mass inertial system (CM) is considered at rest (in our case all the rotating axis is at rest, including both poles and the centre of mass). This is a Newtonian concept developed long before 1905 Einstein. And it is also a Newtonian concept that a CM can be used to describe the movements of ONLY the bodies taking into account when computing its centre of mass. As a result, the used CM is ALWAYS the stationary system, and the moving system is ALWAYS a body (or some subset) of the body set corresponding to the CM. You will NEVER find a case where the stationary system can interchange roles with the moving system. Try to find one if not convinced yet. > [..] > > Stationary system and moving system NEVER can be interchanged. And > > thats NO wrong. > > That's absolutely wrong. > Put an example that contradicts me. Be patient, my prediction is that you will spend the rest of your life without reaching it. > > > > a moving entity with a gravitational centripetal > > > > acceleration with a circular path cant be considered an > inertial > > > > frame in 1905. > > > > > That is again right, > > > > > > And about the application of relativity formulas to a non- > inertial > > > > frame, I am also following 1905 Einstein accepting that it can > be > > > > done. > > > > > And that is double wrong: as I explained to you with much > elaboration, > > > he did NOT apply relativity formulas to a non-inertial frame. > > > > We are in disagreement here. > > Absolutely! Good to see that you finally agree on that. > > > 1905 Einstein apply the relativity > > formula to the moving clock at the equator, > > No, he did not. But I won't repeat the explanation, I think already > Einstein explained it rather well, and with my additional > explanation, > if you still don't get it, I doubt you will. Ever... > Read the 1905 text: [If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line, we arrive to this result: If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2)tv^2/c^2 second slow. Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.] 1905 Einstein is applying here the 1905R formula to a moving system, the clock at the equator, that is NOT an inertial frame. No explanation at all (your one or any other done or by done, including after 1905 Einsteins ones) can change this basic fact. The instantaneous way of the formula application is totally incompatible with the UNIFORM velocity concept associated with the 1905 inertial frame concept (or even the today one). What doesnt imply at all that the formula cant be applied in that way! The huge experimental evidence of today GPS supports that the formula CAN be used to a body moving with ANY velocity compatible with the Physics laws valid in any inertial frame, what suggests that 1905R has A MORE WIDE SCOPE than the recognized today, that is the road I am following. > Just to go through your lines a last time: > I am always revising not only what I write, but also all what I think. It is the unique way to detect and correct errors. > > that you accept a little > > above that is NOT an inertial frame. After the polygonal line is > > converted in a continuous one, > > No he does not. > 1905 Einsteins words contradicts you: [If we assume that the result proved for a polygonal line is also valid for a continuously curved line] The procedure is simple Newtonian Calculus, the pass to the limit. > > the uniform velocity condition cant be > > applied any more. > > Indeed we do not. > Surely yes, you need to reach the UNIFORM condition in all the continuous curved line points, to say later that the inertial frame character is not violated. > > A body with a circular path cant be an inertial > > frame, and you accepted already that. But 1905 Einstein APPLIES the > > relativity formula to it in an instantaneous way > > Instantaneous velocity has no acceleration; it also corresponds to an > inertial reference system. > I think you reach at the end to a flagrant contradiction. Even having a zero instantaneous velocity, you can have non-zero acceleration. Consider the start instant for a body at rest in a gravitational field left in free fall. The moving clock at the equator has a permanent non- zero gravitational centripetal constant acceleration. You must revise your inertial frame concept a little in order to obtain a coherent view. Your Instantaneous velocity has no acceleration is false. Only a UNIFORM instantaneous velocity can has no acceleration. > > , and you continue > > claiming that he is not applying the relativity formula to a non- > > inertial frame. Surely exists here some misunderstanding between us > > not detected yet, maybe about the meaning of some English word that > I > > am using bad. But we both accept what 1905 Einstein is doing, > > You accept something else, something that you did not understand and > which he also did not do... > I accept from 1905 Einstein only what I can understand in the context of a coherent view. For example, you can find in his text two different versions of his Principle of Relativity, one talking about the same laws in all inertial frames (the one I accept), and another talking about the same laws for frames moving with UNIFORM velocities among them (the one I reject, considering it a re-introduction of the non-massive imaginary inertial frames, the absolute one and the derived moving with all possible uniform velocities with respect to the first). This is the reason why I am so happy with his moving system with a NOT uniform velocity. The stationary systems (CM) are the unique inertial ones, the moving systems are simply the bodies belonging to some CM where its movement with ANY compatible velocity can be described. This view finds total support in the huge experimental evidence of today GPS. > > then the > > disagreement doesnt seem an important one. > > It's a key point. So important that it destroys your argument of many > years when it finally "clicks". But that won't happen of course. > What argument are you referring? If it is so important, please, make it explicit to me. No one can be considered free of errors, no matter how many years in it. > Goodbye, > Harald Best regards, RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
From: PD on 29 Jun 2010 17:40
On Jun 29, 3:10 pm, va...(a)icmf.inf.cu wrote: > > If those are not valid inertial systems for you, how can you justify > their presence in the first 1905 Relativity paper? Strange way to > accept that their roles cant be interchanged. I don't think it *should* have been in the 1905 paper. Einstein was trying to do something here, and he made a good shot at it, but it's got its problems. Keep in mind that the "twin paradox" that this is a variant of was not formulated, nor its resolution clearly laid out, until 1911. Einstein didn't even really start thinking about general relativity until well after the 1905 paper, and it wasn't until he did that the example he was using here would be correctly treated. There's a danger in thinking that papers are complete and perfect as they are. Very often they present hunches, or incomplete thoughts, or sometimes conclusions that are correct but for wrong or incomplete reasons -- especially if they are fair leaps. PD |