Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463933 > unrolled thread

Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?

Started by	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
First post	2018-07-09 07:37 -0700
Last post	2018-07-24 13:46 -0700
Articles	17 on this page of 277 — 20 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]

#465254

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-22 23:33 +0200
Message-ID	<frkbhlFiv70U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465246

Am 22.07.2018 um 22:42 schrieb Thomas Heger:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> ...
>>>>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space 
>>>>>>> has not.
>>>>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no 
>>>>>> clue what
>>>>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own 
>>>>> past
>>>>> light-cone.
>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>>
>>> When and by whom?
>>
>> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
>> others.
> 
> No, you have not.
> 
> Instead you say you did, what you didn't (ad nauseam...).
> 


Actually I have found your article in de.sci.physik from 29.4.

You had tried to proof mathematically, that my assumption is wrong and 
based your arguments on SRT.

But I have written, that I think SRT is wrong.

Instead I wanted to use multiple timelines (and directions).

Then any observer is somewhere and would utilize the local time.

So in a global view the picture is very different than yours (or that of 
SRT).

And therefore I think, the universe does not behave in the way that 
Minkowski thought, because Minkowski space is not a mathematical 
construct to handle SRT with one time-dimension plus Euclidean space, 
but a 'real thing'.

Instead of only one axis of time any of the four dimensions could 
function as time and then the remaining dimensions are, what we call 
'space'.

I also wanted to replace Tensor algebra by complex-four vectors and 
geometric algebra.

Now you try to disprove this assumption by referring to theories, which 
I regard as wrong.

This is even than wrong, if you prove it mathematically, since the 
question is not answered, whether or not the used axioms are valid.

I said no and you said yes.

But 'I say so' is not a valid argument.

In case you want to know, how I came to my conclusions, I can provide 
another time the link to my 'book':

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465258

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-23 00:30 +0200
Message-ID	<72bece51-33e3-00e9-ec27-52742e48765f@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#465254

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 22:42 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>> Am 22.07.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own 
>>>>>> past
>>>>>> light-cone.
>>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>>> When and by whom?
>>> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
>>> others.
>> No, you have not.
>>
>> Instead you say you did, what you didn't (ad nauseam...).
> 
> Actually I have found your article in de.sci.physik from 29.4.

AISB.

> You had tried to proof mathematically, that my assumption is wrong and 
> based your arguments on SRT.

Instead, I based it on the *actual* definition of Minkowski space(time), not
your crackpot fantasy of it.  The former definition is the one that says
that spacelike separated events *are* a part of our universe even though we
cannot observe them (in a flat spacetime).

> But I have written, that I think SRT is wrong.

The proper abbreviation in English is still “SR” or “STR” — “special
(theory of) relativity”, not “special relativity theory”.  Have you finally
got that?

And in the same breath where you claimed that "SRT" would be wrong, you
claimed that "Herman" Minkowski is right.  As if _Hermann_ Minkowski (whose
first name you still cannot spell correctly, despite multiple occasions
where you have been corrected) had said something else than SRT.
(He did NOT.  Instead, Minkowski space[time] is a key concept of modern SRT.)
 Because you simply have no clue, and you resist all attempts at educating
you.  Hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465468

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-24 21:02 +0200
Message-ID	<frpbetFn5krU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465258

Am 23.07.2018 um 00:30 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 22.07.2018 um 22:42 schrieb Thomas Heger:
>>> Am 22.07.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own
>>>>>>> past
>>>>>>> light-cone.
>>>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>>>> When and by whom?
>>>> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
>>>> others.
>>> No, you have not.
>>>
>>> Instead you say you did, what you didn't (ad nauseam...).
>>
>> Actually I have found your article in de.sci.physik from 29.4.
> 
> AISB.
> 
>> You had tried to proof mathematically, that my assumption is wrong and
>> based your arguments on SRT.
> 
> Instead, I based it on the *actual* definition of Minkowski space(time), not
> your crackpot fantasy of it.  The former definition is the one that says
> that spacelike separated events *are* a part of our universe even though we
> cannot observe them (in a flat spacetime).
> 
>> But I have written, that I think SRT is wrong.
> 
> The proper abbreviation in English is still “SR” or “STR” — “special
> (theory of) relativity”, not “special relativity theory”.  Have you finally
> got that?
> 
> And in the same breath where you claimed that "SRT" would be wrong, you
> claimed that "Herman" Minkowski is right.  As if _Hermann_ Minkowski (whose
> first name you still cannot spell correctly, despite multiple occasions
> where you have been corrected) had said something else than SRT.
> (He did NOT.  Instead, Minkowski space[time] is a key concept of modern SRT.)
>   Because you simply have no clue, and you resist all attempts at educating
> you.  Hopeless.
> 
https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

quote

"Lorentz nannte die Verbindung t ′  von x  und t Ortszeit des 
gleichförmig bewegten Elektrons und verwandte eine physikalische 
Konstruktion dieses Begriffs zum besseren Verständnis der 
Kontraktionshypothese. Jedoch scharf erkannt zu haben, daß die Zeit des 
einen Elektrons ebenso gut wie die des anderen ist, d. h. daß t  und t ′ 
gleich zu behandeln sind, ist erst das Verdienst von A. Einstein.[2] 
Damit war nun zunächst die Zeit als ein durch die Erscheinungen 
eindeutig festgelegter Begriff abgesetzt. An dem Begriffe des Raumes 
rüttelten weder Einstein noch Lorentz, vielleicht deshalb nicht, weil 
bei der genannten speziellen Transformation, wo die x ′ , t ′  -Ebene 
sich mit der x , t -Ebene deckt, eine Deutung möglich ist, als sei die x 
-Achse des Raumes in ihrer Lage erhalten geblieben. Über den Begriff des 
Raumes in entsprechender Weise hinwegzuschreiten, ist auch wohl nur als 
Verwegenheit mathematischer Kultur einzutaxieren. Nach diesem zum wahren 
Verständnis der Gruppe G c jedoch unerläßlichen weiteren Schritt aber 
scheint mir das Wort Relativitätspostulat für die Forderung einer 
Invarianz bei der Gruppe G c  sehr matt. Indem der Sinn des Postulats 
wird, daß durch die Erscheinungen nur die in Raum und Zeit 
vierdimensionale Welt gegeben ist, aber die Projektion in Raum und in 
Zeit noch mit einer gewissen Freiheit vorgenommen werden kann, möchte 
ich dieser Behauptung eher den Namen Postulat der absoluten Welt (oder 
kurz Weltpostulat) geben."

Here Minkowski criticizes SRT and wrote, that Einstein did not alter the 
concept of space (what Minkowski thought he should).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465645

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-25 22:47 +0200
Message-ID	<a8c61cd4-a7e7-6c0c-f8e3-dd511d841d15@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#465468

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 23.07.2018 um 00:30 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> And in the same breath where you claimed that "SRT" would be wrong, you
>> claimed that "Herman" Minkowski is right.  As if _Hermann_ Minkowski (whose
>> first name you still cannot spell correctly, despite multiple occasions
>> where you have been corrected) had said something else than [SR].
>> (He did NOT.  Instead, Minkowski space[time] is a key concept of modern [SR].)
>> Because you simply have no clue, and you resist all attempts at educating
>> you.  Hopeless.
>
> https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Raum_und_Zeit_(Minkowski)

This is from a talk given by Minkowski in 1908 (shortly before he died).
The development of special and general relativity extends well beyond that
year, by Einstein and others.

> | […] An dem Begriffe des Raumes rüttelten weder Einstein noch Lorentz,
> | vielleicht deshalb nicht, weil bei der genannten speziellen
> | Transformation, wo die x ′ , t ′ -Ebene sich mit der x , t -Ebene deckt,
> | eine Deutung möglich ist, als sei die x -Achse des Raumes in ihrer Lage
> | erhalten geblieben. Über den Begriff des Raumes in entsprechender Weise
> | hinwegzuschreiten, ist auch wohl nur als Verwegenheit mathematischer
> | Kultur einzutaxieren. […]
>
> Here Minkowski criticizes SRT and wrote, that Einstein did not alter the 
> concept of space (what Minkowski thought he should).

Minkowski means the *term* “space” and refers to the fact that his spacetime
is a *mathematical* space (with imaginary time a quasi-Euclidean, with real
time, a pseudo-Euclidean space).  Also, Minkowski is referring to *both*
Lorentz and Einstein.

It is obvious that Einstein does alter the concept of *three*-dimensional
Euclidean space in in OEdoMB: space is no longer absolute, as lengths no
longer are due to the relativity of simultaneity.

From 1909 on at the latest, Einstein used Minkowski’s mathematical
formulation because it is equivalent to what Einstein had used, but it is
easier to calculate with.  That is why we are using it in modern relativity,
too.  For example, we are speaking of four-vectors.

    [It is outright *stupid* to construct some sort of competition between
     Einstein and Minkowski from the fact that they initially used
     different mathematical formulations.  Minkowski was Einstein’s
     professor of mathematics at the Zurich Polytechnic.  Both men
     had the utmost respect for each another.  Minkowski was one of the
     earlier adopters of Einstein’s special relativity, which is why
     spacetime came about in the first place.  From Minkowski’s perspective
     you can read about it what you are quoting (but not understanding), and
     from Einstein’s perspective for example in his Encyclopædia Britannica
     article “SPACE-TIME”. [1]]

Also:

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space#History>
|
| […]
|
| Though Minkowski took an important step for physics, Einstein saw its
| limitation:
|
|   “At a time when Minkowski was giving the geometrical interpretation of
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|    special relativity by extending the Euclidean three-space to a quasi
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|    Euclidean four-space that included time, Einstein was already aware
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|    that this is not valid, because it excludes the phenomenon of
|    gravitation. He was still far from the study of curvilinear coordinates
|    and Riemannian geometry, and the heavy mathematical apparatus
|    entailed.”[7]
|
| […]
|
| [7] Cornelius Lanczos (1972) "Einstein's Path from Special to General
|     Relativity", pages 5—19 of General Relativity: Papers in Honour of
|     J.L. Synge, L. O’Raifeartaigh editor, Clarendon Press, see page 11

IOW: In claiming that Minkowski said something else than special relativity,
that Einstein was wrong and Minkowski was right, you merely demonstrate your
*ignorance*.

_______
[1] <https://www.britannica.com/topic/Albert-Einstein-on-Space-Time-1987141>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465257

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-23 00:17 +0200
Message-ID	<b598c866-a941-4585-e4f9-21b18c0a6205@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#465246

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 22.07.2018 um 15:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>>>>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>>>>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past
>>>>> light-cone.
>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>> When and by whom?
>> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
>> others.
> 
> No, you have not.

But I did.

> Instead you say you did,

Because I did.

> what you didn't (ad nauseam...).

But I did.

> This is not an argument, but dumb rhetoric.

On your part, yes.  AISB: selective amnesia.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465475

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-24 21:28 +0200
Message-ID	<frpcuaFnhasU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#465257

Am 23.07.2018 um 00:17 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:

>>>>>>>> space (the universe) has a time-component, what Euclidean space has not.
>>>>>>> That is not the reason, let a lone the main reason.  You have no clue what
>>>>>>> “Euclidean space” means.
>>>>>> My assumption is, that what we call 'universe' is actually our own past
>>>>>> light-cone.
>>>>> Argumentum ad nauseam.  This assumption has already been disproved.
>>>> When and by whom?
>>> You feign amnesia now?  It was about a month ago, in de.sci.physik, I and
>>> others.
>>
>> No, you have not.
> 
> But I did.
> 
>> Instead you say you did,
> 
> Because I did.

No.

The question was, whether or not the postulates on which SRT is based 
are correct or not.

I wrote, they are not and argue with the model developed by Hermann 
Minkowski.

You replied exactly nothing, since you based your 'proof' on SRT and 
therefore on the postulates, that SRT is based on.

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467245

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-07 22:40 +0200
Message-ID	<e4b2bcaf-b00d-2712-e2b8-24d9b14b95c5@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464918

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 18.07.2018 um 22:18 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean
>>> space.
>>> I would say: no, they don't.
>> And it's probably true that you would say it.
> 
> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.

The SPACE of our universe is very close to being Euclidean, i.e. it is
approximately flat.  Its curvature is close to zero, and in the observable
universe the inner angle sum of a triangle is very close to 180°.

> The main reason:

WRONG. You still don’t get it.

> space (the universe) has a time-component,

Correct only because you said “the universe”, too.

> what Euclidean space has not. 

WRONG.

> It is also (apparently) not a linear space.

WRONG.

> So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation.

WRONG.

> That is similar to a plane, that approximates the surface of a ball in the 
> vicinity of the touching point.

NOT EVEN wrong.

> So straight lines in Euclidean space are a plausible assumption for the 
> close vicinity (to the observer), while the 'real thing' is kind of 
> 'super-set'.

NOT EVEN wrong.

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.

Apparently you are a hopeless case.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#467747

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-08-13 21:01 +0200
Message-ID	<fte2t2Fm1clU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#467245

Am 07.08.2018 um 22:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 18.07.2018 um 22:18 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean
>>>> space.
>>>> I would say: no, they don't.
>>> And it's probably true that you would say it.
>>
>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
> 
> The SPACE of our universe is very close to being Euclidean, i.e. it is
> approximately flat.  Its curvature is close to zero, and in the observable
> universe the inner angle sum of a triangle is very close to 180°.
> 

I have already written, that the term 'space' matches the description of 
the past light cone in Minkowski's spacetime.

That 'space' is obviously 'flat'.

But - OTOH - that space is not real, but kind of optical illusion.

>> The main reason:
> 
> WRONG. You still don’t get it.

Here I cannot follow.

If you write, that something is wrong, than you should say WHAT is wrong 
(and why).

> 
>> space (the universe) has a time-component,
> 
> Correct only because you said “the universe”, too.
> 
>> what Euclidean space has not.
> 
> WRONG.
> 

Not true.

'Euclidean space' is meant as set of all possible 3D coordinates, which 
follow certain axioms.

Non of these axioms nor the coordinates themselves should have any 
connection to time.

So: Euclidean space is meant as timeless (or 'static').

Clearly that is not the character of the universe we observe.

Reason: one light year further away means one year earlier.

So our vision of the night sky is 'stacked' in time (like Russian dolls).

>> It is also (apparently) not a linear space.
> 
> WRONG.
> 

If straight lines are curved, than space is not linear.

>> So the construct 'Euclidean space' is a local approximation.
> 
> WRONG.

Euclidean space is the model used in our daily life, and that is usually 
meant local.

How the real universe behaves somewhere remote, that is a question of 
debate (and research), but certainly not like Euclidean space.

...

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#468075

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-08-16 22:52 +0200
Message-ID	<0fe2fac4-708f-415e-7c5e-442c17b8ec6d@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#467747

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 07.08.2018 um 22:40 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 18.07.2018 um 22:18 schrieb mlwozniak@wp.pl:
>>>> On Wednesday, 18 July 2018 21:54:40 UTC+2, Thomas Heger  wrote:
>>>>> The question was, whether or not natural systems behave like Euclidean
>>>>> space.
>>>>> I would say: no, they don't.
>>>> And it's probably true that you would say it.
>>> Our universe is not a Euclidean space.
>>
>> The SPACE of our universe is very close to being Euclidean, i.e. it is
>> approximately flat.  Its curvature is close to zero, and in the observable
>> universe the inner angle sum of a triangle is very close to 180°.
> 
> I have already written, that the term 'space' matches the description of 
> the past light cone in Minkowski's spacetime.

And I have already explained to you numerous times that YOUR INTERPRETATION,
your /idée fixe/ of Minkowski spacetime is WRONG.  In order to save precious
free time, I refer you to Tom Robert’s rebuttal.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464694

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-17 14:19 +0200
Message-ID	<8c67deed-1e8a-f380-ba69-cc576e8f24bc@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464547

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.07.2018 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 14.07.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> So how could you distinguish one at rest from one with a certain velocity???
>>>> In relative motion of two frames of reference, you pick one frame
>>>> as the rest frame or “(coordinate( system at rest” (Einstein, “On the
>>>> Electrodynamics of  Moving Bodies” [OE(d)oMB]).  Then the other frame
>>>> is the “moving frame” (ibid.).
>>> Einstein wrote something really strange in his book.
>> Einstein’s *books* (he was usually only a *co-author* of them) are
>> *summaries* of his work for the interested layman.  They are NOT his
>> scientific theories; those have been published, as it is done, in
>> scientific papers and his doctoral thesis:
>>
>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>
>>
>>> The concept is imho nonsense:
>> But you have no clue, so your no[t]-so-humble opinion does not matter.
> 
> The quote was not from Einstein's book, but from 'Annalen der Physik' 1905.

No, it was not.

> That was his original -peer reviewed- paper in a scientific magazine.

No; it was his paper, but back then there was no peer-review.

,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik#Editors>
|
| […] In these times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein, for
| example, just sent his manuscripts to Planck who then subsequently
| published them.

    [Planck could not have published OEdoMB as the editor in 1905 was still
     Paul Karl Ludwig Drude.  But if there was no peer-review when Planck
     was the editor, it stands to reason that there also was no peer-review
     when Drude was the editor.]

> It was in German, but google provides a (rough) translation, which I 
> provide here:

Unnecessary.  The original and the official translation are readily
available online, from multiple much more credible sources than you:

<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/311>
<https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154>

And nothing of this pertains to your original claim.

> ***********quote**************************

That is a plain and bold lie, then.  Either you (or Google Translate) did
the translation, or you are quoting from the official translation.  As it
turns out, you are doing neither.

Different from your "translation", the official translation is instead
(emphasis mine):

> We also think of the two bar ends (A and B) attached clocks, which are 

    [Gibberish.]

“Further, we imagine that the two ends (A and B) of the rod are equipped
with clocks that are

> synchronous with the clocks of the system at rest, that means: their 

“synchronous with the clocks of the system at rest, i.e., whose

> measurement correspond respectively to the "time of the system at rest" 
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“readings always correspond to the ‘time of the system at rest’
          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> at the place where they are located; So these clocks are "synchronous in 
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“at the locations they happen to occupy; hence, these clocks are
                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
‘synchronous in

> the system at rest".

“the system at rest’.

> We further imagine that each clock has an observer moving with it,
                                                     ^^^^^^
“We further imagine that each clock has an observer co-moving with it,
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^

> and that these observers apply to the two clocks the criterion for the 

“and that these observers apply to the two clocks the criterion for

> synchronous movement of two clocks set forth in §1. At the time *) t_g, 
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
“synchronism formulated in §1.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^

time¹ t_A,”

This is a critical point: The criterion of synchronism is NOT one of
“synchronous movement”, but of synchronous *time* values that the clocks show.

> let a ray of light emanate from A, be reflected in B at time t_B, and 

“Suppose a ray of light starts out from A at is reflected from B at time
t_B, and

> return to A at time t_A.

“arrives back at A at time t'_A.”

Here you confuse “t_A” with “t'_A”.

> Taking into account the principle of the constancy of the speed of light,

“Taking into account the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light,

> we find:

“we find that

>            t_B -t_A = r_AB /V-v

(sic!)

“   t_B − t_A = r_AB∕(V − v)

and

  t'_A − t_B = r_AB∕(V + v)”

Here you conveniently omitted the difference between t_B − t_A and t'_A −
t_B.  I say “conveniently”, because before you have falsified the original
“t'_A” to read “t_A”.

> wherein r_AB is the length of the moving rod - measured in the 

“where r_AB denotes the length of the moving rod, measured in the

> stationary system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find 
                               ^^^^^^
“system at rest.  The observers co-moving with the moving rod would thus
                                ^^^^^^^^^
find

> the two clocks out of sync, while observers in the system at rest would 

“that the two clocks do not run synchronously while the observers in the
system at rest would

> declare the clocks in sync.

“declare them synchronous.

> Thus, we see that we must not attach absolute importance to the concept
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^
“Thus we see that we must not ascribe absolute meaning to the concept
                                               ^^^^^^^
“Meaning”, NOT “importance”.

> of equality, but that two events which, viewed from one coordinate system,
     ^^^^^^^^
> are simultaneous,

“of simultaneity; instead, two events that are simultaneous when observed
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^
from some particular coordinate system”

“Simultaneity”, NOT “equality”.
From “*some* particular coordinate system”, NOT “one coordinate system”.

> viewed from  a system moving relative to that system,
> are no longer to be understood as simultaneous events ,

“can no longer be considered simultaneous when observed from a system that
is moving relative to that system.

> *) "Time" here means "time of the stationary system" and

‘¹ “Time” here means both “time of the system at rest” and

> at the same time "pointing of the moving clock, which is in the place in question".

“the position of the hands of the moving clock located at the place in
question.”

Einstein does not make your confusing/confused claim of “at the same time”.

> (translation by google, a little adjusted by me)

Not adjusted, but MISINTERPRETED, and FALSIFIED based on your misinterpretation.

> What Einstein does is this:
> 
> he declared the runtime of the signal would be caused by the different 
> times at the moving clocks at the ends of the rod.

You have it completely backwards.

> But that is nonsense, since the runtime of a signal is caused by the 
> signal in motion, not by the time of the starting point.

What you are claiming is nonsense instead.  Utter nonsense.  From nonsense
follows anything.

> To make this a little more obvious we could replace light by sound and 
> use 330 m/s instead of 300,000 km/s. […]

False equivalence.  The speed of sound does not follow the same rules as the
speed of light; mainly because sound requires a medium (it is basically a
pressure wave) while light does not (it is an electromagnetic wave).  Also,
it matters that the speed of light is that much faster than any speed any
material body could achieve.

> [not even wrong]

Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464766

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-18 08:53 +0200
Message-ID	<fr86f5Ft67oU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464694

Am 17.07.2018 um 14:19 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Am 15.07.2018 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> Am 14.07.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>> So how could you distinguish one at rest from one with a certain velocity???
>>>>> In relative motion of two frames of reference, you pick one frame
>>>>> as the rest frame or “(coordinate( system at rest” (Einstein, “On the
>>>>> Electrodynamics of  Moving Bodies” [OE(d)oMB]).  Then the other frame
>>>>> is the “moving frame” (ibid.).
>>>> Einstein wrote something really strange in his book.
>>> Einstein’s *books* (he was usually only a *co-author* of them) are
>>> *summaries* of his work for the interested layman.  They are NOT his
>>> scientific theories; those have been published, as it is done, in
>>> scientific papers and his doctoral thesis:
>>>
>>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>
>>>
>>>> The concept is imho nonsense:
>>> But you have no clue, so your no[t]-so-humble opinion does not matter.
>>
>> The quote was not from Einstein's book, but from 'Annalen der Physik' 1905.
> 
> No, it was not.
> 
>> That was his original -peer reviewed- paper in a scientific magazine.
> 
> No; it was his paper, but back then there was no peer-review.
> 
> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik#Editors>
> |
> | […] In these times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein, for
> | example, just sent his manuscripts to Planck who then subsequently
> | published them.
> 
>      [Planck could not have published OEdoMB as the editor in 1905 was still
>       Paul Karl Ludwig Drude.  But if there was no peer-review when Planck
>       was the editor, it stands to reason that there also was no peer-review
>       when Drude was the editor.]
> 
>> It was in German, but google provides a (rough) translation, which I
>> provide here:
> 
> Unnecessary.  The original and the official translation are readily
> available online, from multiple much more credible sources than you:
> 

Sure, but what I did was this:

I had a pdf made by scanning of the original book 'Annalen der Physik' 
from 1905 (in German).

This I had converted into ASCII by OCR. Then I have sorted out various 
OCR errors.

The text was then pasted into google. translator and the result copied 
into a text editor. There I corrected various translation errors.

This does not refer to any official translation, but to the original text.

This is - of course - a valid procedure, since the version printed in 
German in 1905 *IS* the published version, not the translation.

..

>> return to A at time t_A.
> 
> “arrives back at A at time t'_A.”
> 
> Here you confuse “t_A” with “t'_A”.
> 
..
a few errors a certainly possible, since my method was slightly 
different than that of the official translators.


>> at the same time "pointing of the moving clock, which is in the place in question".
> 
> “the position of the hands of the moving clock located at the place in
> question.”
> 
> Einstein does not make your confusing/confused claim of “at the same time”.
> 

Wrong, since my text stems from the original version of 1905.

>> (translation by google, a little adjusted by me)
> 
> Not adjusted, but MISINTERPRETED, and FALSIFIED based on your misinterpretation.
> 
I made it as careful as possible, but apparently not without errors.

Certainly 'falsified' is an unjustified claim.

>> What Einstein does is this:
>>
>> he declared the runtime of the signal would be caused by the different
>> times at the moving clocks at the ends of the rod.
> 
> You have it completely backwards.
> 
>> But that is nonsense, since the runtime of a signal is caused by the
>> signal in motion, not by the time of the starting point.
> 
> What you are claiming is nonsense instead.  Utter nonsense.  From nonsense
> follows anything.
> 
>> To make this a little more obvious we could replace light by sound and
>> use 330 m/s instead of 300,000 km/s. […]
> 
> False equivalence.  The speed of sound does not follow the same rules as the
> speed of light; mainly because sound requires a medium (it is basically a
> pressure wave) while light does not (it is an electromagnetic wave).  Also,
> it matters that the speed of light is that much faster than any speed any
> material body could achieve.
> 
>> [not even wrong]
> 
> Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
> 

Sound behaves different than light, sure.

But I used sound as an example to show, that it is wrong (illogic, 
unphysical) to use the run-length of a signal to ascribe different times 
to the origin of the sources.

If is also illogic to assume, that 'readings of clocks' and 'time' are 
the same.

It would be natural to ascribe time to a certain object and let the 
coordinates run with that object.

A remote observer in relative motion has then another set of coordinates 
and in the process of converting one set of coordinates into the other, 
the clocks look like (if seen from remote) as if their readings are wrong.

This is only an apparent behavior, since the objects has its own (valid) 
set of measurements and the ones of the remote observer are distorted by 
his relative motion.

What Einstein did say was, that the objects clocks run 'wrong' and the 
object would shrink (aka 'length contraction).

TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464815

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-18 19:29 +0200
Message-ID	<0ba58cf6-2c5f-957b-2412-4269c4393329@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464766

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 17.07.2018 um 14:19 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Am 15.07.2018 um 21:05 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>> Am 14.07.2018 um 15:28 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>>>>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>>>>> So how could you distinguish one at rest from one with a certain velocity???
>>>>>> In relative motion of two frames of reference, you pick one frame
>>>>>> as the rest frame or “(coordinate( system at rest” (Einstein, “On the
>>>>>> Electrodynamics of  Moving Bodies” [OE(d)oMB]).  Then the other frame
>>>>>> is the “moving frame” (ibid.).
>>>>> Einstein wrote something really strange in his book.
>>>> Einstein’s *books* (he was usually only a *co-author* of them) are
>>>> *summaries* of his work for the interested layman.  They are NOT his
>>>> scientific theories; those have been published, as it is done, in
>>>> scientific papers and his doctoral thesis:
>>>>
>>>> <https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/>
>>>>
>>>>> The concept is imho nonsense:
>>>> But you have no clue, so your no[t]-so-humble opinion does not matter.
>>>
>>> The quote was not from Einstein's book, but from 'Annalen der Physik' 1905.
>>
>> No, it was not.
>>
>>> That was his original -peer reviewed- paper in a scientific magazine.
>>
>> No; it was his paper, but back then there was no peer-review.
>>
>> ,-<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annalen_der_Physik#Editors>
>> |
>> | […] In these times, peer-review was not yet standard. Einstein, for
>> | example, just sent his manuscripts to Planck who then subsequently
>> | published them.
>>
>>      [Planck could not have published OEdoMB as the editor in 1905 was still
>>       Paul Karl Ludwig Drude.  But if there was no peer-review when Planck
>>       was the editor, it stands to reason that there also was no peer-review
>>       when Drude was the editor.]
>>
>>> It was in German, but google provides a (rough) translation, which I
>>> provide here:
>> Unnecessary.  The original and the official translation are readily
>> available online, from multiple much more credible sources than you:
> 
> Sure, but what I did was this:
> […]

AISB: a completely unnecessary effort.  The Web site of “The Collected
Papers of Albert Einstein” has the (reprint of the) originals and the
official translations as copyable text.  So do several other institutions.

> This does not refer to any official translation, but to the original text.

If only it would.

> This is - of course - a valid procedure, since the version printed in 
> German in 1905 *IS* the published version, not the translation.

But you have falsified either the original before the translation or the
translation afterwards.

For example, I know for a fact that you know enough German to not translate
„Gleichzeitigkeit“ (“simultaneity”) as “equality” („Gleichheit“).  Google
Translate does not do that either; it gives “simultaneity” as the *only*
translation of the word.

>>> return to A at time t_A.
>>
>> “arrives back at A at time t'_A.”
>>
>> Here you confuse “t_A” with “t'_A”.
>
> ..
> a few errors a certainly possible, since my method was slightly 
> different than that of the official translators.

There are not “a few errors” in your translation; you have *falsified* the
*meaning* of Einstein’s statements to fit your agenda.  Whether it happened
due to your ongoing incompetence or intentionally, hardly matters.

>>> at the same time "pointing of the moving clock, which is in the place in question".
>>
>> “the position of the hands of the moving clock located at the place in
>> question.”
>>
>> Einstein does not make your confusing/confused claim of “at the same time”.
> 
> Wrong, since my text stems from the original version of 1905.

The original reads:

,-https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-doc/317
|
| ¹ „Zeit“ bedeutet hier „Zeit des ruhenden Systems“ und zugleich
|   „Zeigerstellung der bewegten Uhr, welche sich an dem Orte, von dem die
|   Rede ist, befindet“.

„zugleich“ („ebenso“) there is to be translated as “equally” or “also”, not
“at the same time” (“simultaneously”).

>>> (translation by google, a little adjusted by me)
>>
>> Not adjusted, but MISINTERPRETED, and FALSIFIED based on your misinterpretation.
>>
> I made it as careful as possible, but apparently not without errors.

AISB, those are not just simple errors.

> Certainly 'falsified' is an unjustified claim.

It obviously is not.

Plus, you have been caught lying or perpetuating lies of other people
several times before, in physics and other fields.

>>> To make this a little more obvious we could replace light by sound and
>>> use 330 m/s instead of 300,000 km/s. […]
>>
>> False equivalence.  The speed of sound does not follow the same rules as the
>> speed of light; mainly because sound requires a medium (it is basically a
>> pressure wave) while light does not (it is an electromagnetic wave).  Also,
>> it matters that the speed of light is that much faster than any speed any
>> material body could achieve.
>>
>>> [not even wrong]
>>
>> Your uneducated guesses are hopeless.
> 
> Sound behaves different than light, sure.
> 
> But I used sound as an example to show, that it is wrong (illogic, 
> unphysical) to use the run-length of a signal to ascribe different times 
> to the origin of the sources.

It should be obvious to you that it takes a signal with uniform propagation
speed more time to travel a greater distance, and that a clock would measure
more time to have passed for the signal traveling that distance than if it
had been shorter.

> If is also illogic to assume, that 'readings of clocks' and 'time' are 
> the same.

Of course not; a clock is a measurement instrument of time.

> It would be natural to ascribe time to a certain object and let the 
> coordinates run with that object.

Not even wrong.

> A remote observer in relative motion has then another set of coordinates 
> and in the process of converting one set of coordinates into the other, 
> the clocks look like (if seen from remote) as if their readings are wrong.

Nonsense.

> This is only an apparent behavior, since the objects has its own (valid) 
> set of measurements and the ones of the remote observer are distorted by 
> his relative motion.

Which “remote observer”?

And you did not understand what I told you that Einstein said about
perception and concepts, did you?

> What Einstein did say was, that the objects clocks run 'wrong' and the 
> object would shrink (aka 'length contraction).

No, that is just your crackpot fantasy.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464221

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-12 08:48 -0700
Message-ID	<b0055627-3d92-4a7c-849c-fd9af6bf6901@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464186

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 23:25:15 UTC+2, Volney  wrote:
> On 7/11/2018 4:31 PM, kenseto wrote:
> > On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 1:35:06 PM UTC-4, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, July 11, 2018 at 10:23:31 AM UTC-5, kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>> But if you want to specify to a moving observer how long to boil his egg to get the same result as you then the answer is 5/gamma seconds [sic]. What this mean is that a clock second is not a universal interval of absolute time and therefore you cannot tell the moving observer to boil his eggs for 5 minutes to get the same result.
> >>
> >> No, you tell him to boil for 5 minutes. He will get the same result as you:
> >> An egg which is neither soft-boiled nor hard-boiled, but will be somewhere
> >> in-between.
> > 
> > No Sir!
> > If I told him to boil his eggs for 5 minute on his clock he will get hard boiled eggs. If I told him to boil his eggs for 5/gamma minute he will get soft boil eggs as I do.
> 
> No, Ken, you are showing your lack of knowledge of relativistic motion. 
> If the moving observer uses a clock showing his proper time (a local, 
> co-moving clock, for example his wristwatch), he should cook a 5 minute 
> egg for 5 minutes on his clock. Only if he is trying to use the 
> stationary observer's clock should he invoke the gamma factor.

Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be absolutely sure 
this moronic mumble has nothing in common with real
bservers, real clocks and reality in general.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464193

From	"David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com>
Date	2018-07-11 15:26 -0700
Message-ID	<d03597db-e70d-416d-82a6-676765a78b1b@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#463933

kenseto
Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) when he formulate SRT? 

The answer: RoS or the concept of simultaneity has absolutely no effect on any physical process or any effect on any calculations using the LT. Einstein needed it (RoS) to explain all the paradoxes derived from his bogus postulate that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames of reference. 


Speed of Light is Constant because Pressure & Density are constant. 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14dGOjOuRXXIBSg-0N-vBovhwDCnrMbBioONasYH9FG0

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#464460

From	Larry Harson <johnmcandrew66@gmail.com>
Date	2018-07-15 12:41 -0700
Message-ID	<2363da5b-203c-40fd-b0f8-73f3dd59f971@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#463933

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 3:37:23 PM UTC+1, kenseto wrote:
> Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
> 
> The answer: RoS or the concept of simultaneity has absolutely no effect on any physical process or any effect on any calculations using the LT. Einstein needed it (RoS) to explain all the paradoxes derived from his bogus postulate that the speed of light is a universal constant in all frames of reference.

The answer: Because he understood it being the main consequence of SR which many would find odd or even ridiculous. Hence he emphasized it in more detail right at the beginning of his paper to gently help his peers see the idea was perfectly consistent and reasonable within his theory.

Nowadays, it's no big deal in understanding for a physics undergraduate: In Galilean relativity one observer can make measurements at the same location at different times, whereas other inertial frames will make the same measurements at different locations and times: there's a relativity of simultaneity of space measurements that we can easily see daily. SR extends this idea to the relativity of simultaneity of time measurements.

Cheers,

Larry Harson.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465488

From	consequently7990662@gmail.com
Date	2018-07-24 13:29 -0700
Message-ID	<b6497cb9-fb1d-413f-bd67-335ba4bc91fd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#463933

Relativity is based on Michelson's experiment and the velocity of light which are arbitrary.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#465493

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-07-24 13:46 -0700
Message-ID	<c9311c93-99ab-435e-9282-db3d41890e78@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#465488

On Tuesday, July 24, 2018 at 2:29:25 PM UTC-6, consequen...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Relativity is based on Michelson's experiment and the velocity of light
> which are arbitrary.

Dead wrong!  DO you use a random thought generator  to construct your posts?

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 14 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14]

csiph-web

Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?

Contents

#465254

#465258

#465468

#465645

#465257

#465475

#467245

#467747

#468075

#464694

#464766

#464815

#464221

#464193

#464460

#465488

#465493