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	20 on this page of 277 — 20 participants

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

Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →

#464003

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-07-09 18:22 -0700
Message-ID	<803b470a-676d-48df-8cfd-744f17d607a2@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#463989

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 5:03:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > >
> > > Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity
> > > (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
> > 
> > He didn't "bring it up" demented one.  It is a consequence of the LT.
> 
> Historian’s fallacy.  You have it backwards.

Nope.  RoS was not used to "formulate" the LT.  Are you demented, too?

> [Irrelevant stuff deleted]

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

#464034

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-10 13:25 +0200
Message-ID	<802227bd-1e40-f16c-3869-96522ed3a4b4@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464003

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 5:03:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Gary Harnagel wrote:
>>> On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
>>>> Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity
>>>> (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
>>> He didn't "bring it up" demented one.  It is a consequence of the LT.
>> Historian’s fallacy.  You have it backwards.
> 
> Nope.

Yes, you DO have it backwards.  IN HINDSIGHT, the RoS is a consequence of
the LT.  But NOT for Einstein: HE DERIVED the LT THROUGH THE RoS FROM THE
TWO PRINCIPLES/POSTULATES.  In a nutshell, his reasoning in OEdoMB is:

  (aether not detectable + speed of light constant in rest frame)
  + (Galilean principle of relativity = principle of relativity in ED)
  → speed of light constant and the same in every inertial frame
  → relativity of simultaneity → length contraction + time dilation
  → LT → Maxwell + LT = law of physics.

That he did that is his great accomplishment: He showed that the
undetectable, luminiferous aether, corresponding to whose AD-HOC PROPERTIES
LORENTZ et al. DEFINED THE SAME coordinate transformation before, was A
SUPERFLUOUS ASSUMPTION.  ALL the observations could be explained WITHOUT it.

> RoS was not used to "formulate" the LT.

But it was.  READ EINSTEIN’S PAPER!

> Are you demented, too?

Ad personam.

>> [Irrelevant stuff deleted]

Irrational.  Hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#464039

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2018-07-10 04:48 -0700
Message-ID	<dd1f0439-4b08-4e7e-8d0d-87fdd40cf8bd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464034

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:25:49 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 5:03:41 PM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> > > Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-6, kenseto wrote:
> > > > > Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity
> > > > > (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
> > > >
> > > > He didn't "bring it up" demented one.  It is a consequence of the LT.
> > > > Historian’s fallacy.
> > >
> > >  You have it backwards.
> > 
> > Nope.
> 
> Yes, you DO have it backwards.  IN HINDSIGHT, the RoS is a consequence of
> the LT.  But NOT for Einstein: HE DERIVED the LT THROUGH THE RoS FROM THE
> TWO PRINCIPLES/POSTULATES.  In a nutshell, his reasoning in OEdoMB is:
> 
>   (aether not detectable + speed of light constant in rest frame)
>   + (Galilean principle of relativity = principle of relativity in ED)
>   → speed of light constant and the same in every inertial frame
>   → relativity of simultaneity → length contraction + time dilation
>   → LT → Maxwell + LT = law of physics.

Which contradicts your assertion.

> That he did that is his great accomplishment: He showed that the
> undetectable, luminiferous aether, corresponding to whose AD-HOC PROPERTIES
> LORENTZ et al. DEFINED THE SAME coordinate transformation before, was A
> SUPERFLUOUS ASSUMPTION.  ALL the observations could be explained WITHOUT it.
> 
> > RoS was not used to "formulate" the LT.
> 
> But it was.  READ EINSTEIN’S PAPER!

Your own words refute your assertion.

> > Are you demented, too?
> 
> Ad personam.

Pot, kettle, black.

> > > [Irrelevant stuff deleted]
> 
> Irrational.  Hopeless.
> 
> -- 
> PointedEars
> 
> Twitter: @PointedEars2
> Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

Pot,kettle, black.

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

#464044

From	Galin Itnik Uskanov <van@vovwuk.ac>
Date	2018-07-10 11:55 +0000
Message-ID	<pi26ru$g6p$3@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#464039

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > RoS was not used to "formulate" the LT.
>> 
>> But it was.  READ EINSTEIN’S PAPER!
> 
> Your own words refute your assertion.
> 
>> > Are you demented, too?
>> 
>> Ad personam.
> 
> Pot, kettle, black.

Glad to see you finally both are in agreement. Went not unnoticed.

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

#464069

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-10 16:28 +0200
Message-ID	<9365493c-a300-10d3-f12b-99440b0d1c2a@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464039

Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 5:25:49 AM UTC-6, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Yes, you DO have it backwards.  IN HINDSIGHT, the RoS is a consequence of
>> the LT.  But NOT for Einstein: HE DERIVED the LT THROUGH THE RoS FROM THE
>> TWO PRINCIPLES/POSTULATES.  In a nutshell, his reasoning in OEdoMB is:
>>
>>   (aether not detectable + speed of light constant in rest frame)
>>   + (Galilean principle of relativity = principle of relativity in ED)
>>   → speed of light constant and the same in every inertial frame
>>   → relativity of simultaneity → length contraction + time dilation
>>   → LT → Maxwell + LT = law of physics.
> 
> Which contradicts your assertion.

On the contrary.  Nobody, including Lorentz, had any idea of the relativity
of simultaneity before Einstein introduced the concept.

>> That he did that is his great accomplishment: He showed that the
>> undetectable, luminiferous aether, corresponding to whose AD-HOC PROPERTIES
>> LORENTZ et al. DEFINED THE SAME coordinate transformation before, was A
>> SUPERFLUOUS ASSUMPTION.  ALL the observations could be explained WITHOUT it.
>>
>>> RoS was not used to "formulate" the LT.

JFTR: Straw man.  Nobody but you said that.  It was implied by Ken Seto that
the RoS was _brought up_ by Einstein _when_ he formulated _SRT_, which is
*correct* for a change.

>> But it was.  READ EINSTEIN’S PAPER!
> 
> Your own words refute your assertion.

No, they do not; on the contrary.

>> -- 
>> PointedEars
>> […]
> 
> Pot,kettle, black.

Why are you replying (this) *to a Usenet signature*?

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#463960

From	JanPB <filmart@gmail.com>
Date	2018-07-09 12:29 -0700
Message-ID	<45d73414-a755-4726-8905-82bfbe27867e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#463933

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 7:37:23 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) when he formulate SRT?

It's a consequence of his assumption. So he derived it, he didn't "bring it up"
just because.

--
Jan

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

#463982

From	Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com>
Date	2018-07-09 22:31 +0000
Message-ID	<pi0no2$999$2@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#463933

kenseto <setoken@att.net> 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.
> 

This is not a fiction-sharing forum. 
Fabricating history is pointless. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#463986

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-10 00:53 +0200
Message-ID	<65aff95e-0bad-afe5-4e6c-58afce8ed124@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#463933

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

He explains this in the paper, beginning at the end of the introduction:

| […]
|   Like every other electrodynamics, the theory to be developed is based on
| the kinematics of the rigid body, since assertions of each and any theory
| concern the relations between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks,
| and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient regard for this circumstance
| is at the root of the difficulties with which the electrodynamics of
| moving bodies must presently grapple.
|
|
|                             Ⅰ. Kinematic Part
|
|                     §1. Definition of simultaneity
|
| […]
|   If we want to describe the /motion/ of a material point, we give the
| values of its coordinates as a function of time. However, we should keep
| in mind that for such a mathematical description to have physical meaning,
| we first have to clarify what is to be understood here by "time."  We have
| to bear in mind that all our propositions involving time are always
| propositions about /simultaneous events/.  If, for example, I say that
| "the train arrives here at 7 o'clock," that means, more or less, "the
| pointing of the small hand of my clock to 7 and the arrival of the train
| are simultaneous events.
| […]

> [not even wrong]

Hopeless.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#464107

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-10 22:13 +0200
Message-ID	<fqkiaeF8qckU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#463986

Am 10.07.2018 um 00:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> kenseto wrote:
>> Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
> 
> He explains this in the paper, beginning at the end of the introduction:
> 
> | […]
> |   Like every other electrodynamics, the theory to be developed is based on
> | the kinematics of the rigid body, since assertions of each and any theory
> | concern the relations between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks,
> | and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient regard for this circumstance
> | is at the root of the difficulties with which the electrodynamics of
> | moving bodies must presently grapple.
> |
> |
> |                             Ⅰ. Kinematic Part
> |
> |                     §1. Definition of simultaneity
> |
> | […]
> |   If we want to describe the /motion/ of a material point, we give the
> | values of its coordinates as a function of time. However, we should keep
> | in mind that for such a mathematical description to have physical meaning,
> | we first have to clarify what is to be understood here by "time."  We have
> | to bear in mind that all our propositions involving time are always
> | propositions about /simultaneous events/.  If, for example, I say that
> | "the train arrives here at 7 o'clock," that means, more or less, "the
> | pointing of the small hand of my clock to 7 and the arrival of the train
> | are simultaneous events.
> | […]
> 
>> [not even wrong]

Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...

But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.

If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is 
not simultaneity with remote observers involved.

We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.

There is no need to synchronize anything and we have no need to dispute 
with observers, passing by at relativistic velocities.

The main feature of time is something else. That is the series of 
events, which we usually count (tick, tack,....).

The number of ticks is what we mean with time. Hence time is mainly 
meant as duration, not as absolute value of some kind of abstract 
measure - let alone the time at a space station near Alpha Centaury.

TH

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

#464151

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-11 08:43 +0200
Message-ID	<fd5885ae-c106-968e-7127-8b91cfbde2e7@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464107

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...

He was exactly right.  You have no clue.

> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.

Yes it is.

> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is 
> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.

But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
“the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.

> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.

Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
There is no other way.

> There is no need to synchronize anything […]

Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#464153

From	Ování Bodrého <urh@nwroen.ol>
Date	2018-07-11 10:51 +0000
Message-ID	<pi4nfh$108o$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#464151

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
> 
> He was exactly right.  You have no clue.

_exactly right_ is imbecilious.

>> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.

> Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
> minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
> There is no other way.

and again, a _proper clock_ belongs to the same category of imbecilious. 
No such thing, but _clock_ only. And for the record, there are no bad 
clocks. You just display your ignorance not understanding relativity.

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

#464169

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-11 17:14 +0200
Message-ID	<fqml5lFki9cU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464151

Am 11.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
> 
> He was exactly right.  You have no clue.

I don't like SRT and think it's wrong.

(I prefer a slightly different version, which was developed by Herman 
Minkowski.)

One reason is his construct of 'simultaneity', which I regard as 
unphysical and superfluous.

IOW: when was the last time, that you have synchronized a clock with 
someone remote in space?

>> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
>> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is
>> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
> 
> But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
> “the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.

I wouldn't stretch SRT's principles that far.

>> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
> 
> Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
> minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
> There is no other way.

No. Time is associated with processes in nature, like the phases of the 
Moon or the development of a living being.

Those processes are associated with certain durations and frequencies.

Clocks of are simulating such processes in a certain fashion, where we 
are able to count the events. Then a counter shows us, how many of them 
occurred in the form of a human friendly number.

But essentially a clock counts events and presents the results in the 
form of e.g. date/hour/minute/second.

But these reading ARE NOT time, but the result of a process in a machine.

Time is a phenomenon in nature, which these machines measure.

>> There is no need to synchronize anything […]
> 
> Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.
> 

I can actually read and have already read Einstein's paper (in German).

And what I did not like was his statement, that time is about simultaneity.

I wrote: no, time is NOT about simultaneity, since time is a LOCAL measure.

TH

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

#464187

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-11 23:54 +0200
Message-ID	<3f4d3578-2fd1-2fc1-d680-b2119b978ed7@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464169

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
>> He was exactly right.  You have no clue.
> 
> I don't like SRT and think it's wrong.

That does not change experimental results that indicate strongly that SR(T)
is correct.

> (I prefer a slightly different version, which was developed by Herman 
> Minkowski.)

No, in fact, it has already been showed that you have no clue what you are
talking about.

> One reason is his construct of 'simultaneity', which I regard as 
> unphysical and superfluous.

It is very obviously neither.

> IOW: when was the last time, that you have synchronized a clock with 
> someone remote in space?

A millisecond ago.  That someone was a something, though.  Are you using a
satellite-based navigation system?

>>> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is
>>> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
>> But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
>> “the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.
> 
> I wouldn't stretch SRT's principles that far.

This is not a stretch.  It is simply what it *means* to say “the egg has
cooked for five minutes”.  Some time has passed in the rest frame, and that
duration has been measured by a proper clock in certain units.  As one
minute is defined to be 60 seconds, 5 minutes are 300 seconds, and one
second (1 s) is currently (since 1983) defined as the time in which one
would observe at rest 9'192'631'770 cycles of the radiation that is
absorbed/emitted in the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms (a “natural
process”).

>>> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
>> Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
>> minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
>> There is no other way.
> 
> No. Time is associated with processes in nature, like the phases of the 
> Moon or the development of a living being.

That does not change the fact that proper clocks measure time, i.e. they
allow us to divide the passage of time into units that we can grasp and use,
and to specify instances in time, temporal coordinates, with *numbers*.
Keep in mind that a clock work on processes in nature, too, and that the
SI unit of time is based on how nature works.

> Those processes are associated with certain durations and frequencies.

But the concept of duration is meaningless without a way to quantify such,
without a good way to compare durations.  Clocks allow us to do that.

And the concept of frequency already *requires* that quantification of time.

> Clocks of are simulating such processes in a certain fashion,

There is no simulation.  You have no clue.

> But essentially a clock counts events and presents the results in the 
> form of e.g. date/hour/minute/second.

An event is a location in spacetime.  Clocks do not count events.

> But these reading ARE NOT time, but the result of a process in a machine.

They are a *measure* of time, a way to *quantify* it.

> Time is a phenomenon in nature, which these machines measure.

These machines (not all clocks are machines; consider sundials) are based on
phenomena in nature, too, which is why this works so well.

>>> There is no need to synchronize anything […]
>> Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.
> 
> I can actually read

Maybe so, but you have not understood what you read.

> and have already read Einstein's paper (in German).

But not only you have not understood it, you have misunderstood it.

> And what I did not like was his statement, that time is about simultaneity.

That does not change the fact that it is true.

> I wrote: no, time is NOT about simultaneity, since time is a LOCAL measure.

Which is nonsense.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#464220

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Date	2018-07-12 16:16 +0200
Message-ID	<fqp66nF4dlgU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#464151

Am 11.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
> 
> He was exactly right.  You have no clue.
> 
>> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.
> 
> Yes it is.

That depends on the definition of 'time'.

If I have a look at my wrist-watch, I do not need to synchronize my 
watch with yours.

Actually I do not care, whether or not your clock runs slow, fast or 
backwards.

>> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is
>> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
> 
> But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
> “the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.

They are also happening at the same location. This is NOT the problem, 
that SRT tries to cover.

SRT discusses the synchronization of clocks between remote observers.

But what has that to do with physics and/or processes in nature ?

>> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
> 
> Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
> minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
> There is no other way.

Now you only need to measure 'properness' of your proper clocks.

> 
>> There is no need to synchronize anything […]
> 
> Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.
> 

I told you, that I have read and think, that Einstein was wrong and 
Herman Minkowski was right.

TH

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

#464228

From	Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de>
Date	2018-07-12 18:50 +0200
Message-ID	<e8c50042-a722-894a-e087-8252e2045fa6@PointedEars.de>
In reply to	#464220

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
>>
>> He was exactly right.  You have no clue.
>>
>>> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.
>>
>> Yes it is.
> 
> That depends on the definition of 'time'.

No, it does not.

> If I have a look at my wrist-watch, I do not need to synchronize my 
> watch with yours.

You have to if you want to make an appointment with me and do not want to be
late.

> Actually I do not care, whether or not your clock runs slow, fast or 
> backwards.

If that appointment would be important, you would care.  For example, if you
had a job, you would care whether you appear in the office *on time* (e.g.
as defined by your superior) or not, because you might be get fired if you
are constantly late.  Even if you had not had a job, but had a date with a
nice woman/man, you would not want to be late to it.

Since it is impractical for two or more people to constantly synchronize
their clocks with each other, they synchronize them using a common, publicly
available time signal, and trust that their clocks are working properly.

>>> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is
>>> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
>>
>> But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
>> “the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.
> 
> They are also happening at the same location.

Approximately.  An egg *is* moving in the pot while cooking there.
(I am having a /dèjá-vu/ here.  Had we not already resolved this in
de.sci.physics?)

> This is NOT the problem, that SRT tries to cover.

Therefore it is even more ridiculous that *you* brought it up.

> SRT discusses the synchronization of clocks between remote observers.

No, it does not.

> But what has that to do with physics and/or processes in nature ?

If you would actually read about relativity, you would know.
The information is easy to find, and I probably have told you examples
already.  Certainly I have mentioned them here.  Do your own homework.

>>> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
>> Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
>> minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
>> There is no other way.
> 
> Now you only need to measure 'properness' of your proper clocks.

If at rest every second has the same length, then it is a proper clock.

>>> There is no need to synchronize anything […]
>> Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.
> 
> I told you, that I have read

Not carefully enough.

> and think, that Einstein was wrong and Herman Minkowski was right.

The man was German, his first name is _Hermann_ (as you have been told before).

What you think about something is irrelevant if you have not studied it
carefully enough.  And in this case (and many others) you have not.

-- 
PointedEars

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

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

#464230

From	Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com>
Date	2018-07-12 10:00 -0700
Message-ID	<9fe1c97c-f491-4331-9619-2dbb4f87df8e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464220

On Thursday, July 12, 2018 at 10:16:57 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 11.07.2018 um 08:43 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
> > 
> > He was exactly right.  You have no clue.
> > 
> >> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.
> > 
> > Yes it is.
> 
> That depends on the definition of 'time'.
> 
> If I have a look at my wrist-watch, I do not need to synchronize my 
> watch with yours.
> 
> Actually I do not care, whether or not your clock runs slow, fast or 
> backwards.

Einstein described it as according to Mr. Lahn's description.
To use your watch, you say: "I arrived at work at 8AM".
You are describing the simultaneous events of the watch
displaying 8:00AM and your arrival at your workplace.
IOW time is only measured by such simultaneous events.

> 
> >> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is
> >> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
> > 
> > But that the events “the clock shows that five minutes have passed” and
> > “the egg has reached a certain cooking state” are simultaneous.
> 
> 
> They are also happening at the same location. This is NOT the problem, 
> that SRT tries to cover.

But it gets back to measuring time and
it's intimate relation to simultaneous events
even in the local comoving system.
> 
> SRT discusses the synchronization of clocks between remote observers.
> 
> But what has that to do with physics and/or processes in nature ?
> 
> >> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
> > 
> > Circular reasoning.  One uses the timer to *tell* that it has been five
> > minutes.  Time is what a clock (any kind of proper clock) *tells* you.
> > There is no other way.
> 
> Now you only need to measure 'properness' of your proper clocks.
> 
> > 
> >> There is no need to synchronize anything […]
> > 
> > Yes, there is.  Einstein explains why.  Learn to read.
> > 
> 
> I told you, that I have read and think, that Einstein was wrong and 
> Herman Minkowski was right.
> 
> 
> TH

Just curious. Exactly what do you think Einstein had wrong?

Ed P

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

#464170

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2018-07-11 08:23 -0700
Message-ID	<dab671cc-7482-4e62-9ff1-f6fa83cc0aaa@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464107

On Tuesday, July 10, 2018 at 4:13:05 PM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 10.07.2018 um 00:53 schrieb Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> > kenseto wrote:
> >> Why did Einstein bring up the concept of relativity of simultaneity (RoS) when he formulate SRT?
> > 
> > He explains this in the paper, beginning at the end of the introduction:
> > 
> > | […]
> > |   Like every other electrodynamics, the theory to be developed is based on
> > | the kinematics of the rigid body, since assertions of each and any theory
> > | concern the relations between rigid bodies (coordinate systems), clocks,
> > | and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient regard for this circumstance
> > | is at the root of the difficulties with which the electrodynamics of
> > | moving bodies must presently grapple.
> > |
> > |
> > |                             Ⅰ. Kinematic Part
> > |
> > |                     §1. Definition of simultaneity
> > |
> > | […]
> > |   If we want to describe the /motion/ of a material point, we give the
> > | values of its coordinates as a function of time. However, we should keep
> > | in mind that for such a mathematical description to have physical meaning,
> > | we first have to clarify what is to be understood here by "time."  We have
> > | to bear in mind that all our propositions involving time are always
> > | propositions about /simultaneous events/.  If, for example, I say that
> > | "the train arrives here at 7 o'clock," that means, more or less, "the
> > | pointing of the small hand of my clock to 7 and the arrival of the train
> > | are simultaneous events.
> > | […]
> > 
> >> [not even wrong]
> 
> Well, yes, but Einstein was at least partially right...
> 
> But actually time is not about simultaneity at all.
> 
> If we boil an egg, for instance, and have to wait five minutes, there is 
> not simultaneity with remote observers involved.
> 
> We have to start a timer (aka 'sand clock') and wait five minutes.
> 
> There is no need to synchronize anything and we have no need to dispute 
> with observers, passing by at relativistic velocities.

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. 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.

> 
> The main feature of time is something else. That is the series of 
> events, which we usually count (tick, tack,....).
> 
> The number of ticks is what we mean with time. Hence time is mainly 
> meant as duration, not as absolute value of some kind of abstract 
> measure - let alone the time at a space station near Alpha Centaury.
> 
> 
> TH

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

#464171

From	moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
Date	2018-07-11 15:40 +0000
Message-ID	<pi58d5$aea$1@pcls7.std.com>
In reply to	#464170

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>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. 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, Stupid Ken. Every observer sees his own proper clock as ticking at the
usual correct rate. The stationary observer tells the moving observer to
cook the egg for 5 minutes according to the moving observer's local clock
(proper time).

Remember the first postulate, the laws of physics are the same in all
inertial frames, so one consequence of that is that a clock local to any
inertial observer runs at the correct rate (proper time).

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

#464177

From	mlwozniak@wp.pl
Date	2018-07-11 12:16 -0700
Message-ID	<bf13f839-4fd1-4b2b-b63b-a52d83756f8d@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464171

On Wednesday, 11 July 2018 17:40:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney  wrote:
> kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:
> 
> >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. 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, Stupid Ken. Every observer sees his own proper clock as ticking at the
> usual correct rate.

Fortunately, we have GPS now, so we can be absolutely sure
this moronic mumble has nothing in common with real observers,
real clocks and reality in general; it's nothing but
some naive tautologies of an liturgical language of the
cult of Great Guru.

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

#464173

From	Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
Date	2018-07-11 10:35 -0700
Message-ID	<d3d5eacc-a60a-4699-a3ee-a0f68f6921cd@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#464170

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.

You are very confused about the most basic aspects of special relativity.
How to you expect anybody to take IRT seriously? What is all this strange,
idiosyncratic vocabulary that you attempt to introduce? What in heck is
this "clock second" that you rant about? 

No, don't tell me. I don't need to know.

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

Page 3 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 14 Next page →

csiph-web

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

Contents

#464003

#464034

#464039

#464044

#464069

#463960

#463982

#463986

#464107

#464151

#464153

#464169

#464187

#464220

#464228

#464230

#464170

#464171

#464177

#464173