Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #470978 > unrolled thread

Ectoplasm

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

Contents

  Ectoplasm xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-08 09:37 -0700
    Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 09:51 +0100
      Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 10:12 +0100
        Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 12:07 +0000
          Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 13:32 +0100
            Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 17:05 +0000
              Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 18:42 +0100
                Re: Ectoplasm Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 17:53 +0000
                  Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 19:16 +0100
                    Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 18:27 +0000
                      Re: Ectoplasm "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 12:23 -0700
                    Re: Ectoplasm Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 19:27 +0000
                      Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 08:16 +0100
                        Re: Ectoplasm Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 11:52 +0000
                          Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 14:54 +0100
                            Re: Ectoplasm (Whoops! Typos eh!) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 16:00 +0100
                              Re: Ectoplasm (Whoops! Typos eh!) xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-11 08:27 -0700
                                Re: Ectoplasm ( and Epistemology and Einstein's Nefarious Practices.) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 16:57 +0100
                    Re: Ectoplasm Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-16 08:56 -0500
                      Re: Ectoplasm xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-16 12:48 -0700
                      Re: Ectoplasm xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-16 13:01 -0700
                      Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 18:38 +0100
                        Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-17 18:04 +0000
                        Re: Ectoplasm Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-17 14:00 -0500
                        Re: Ectoplasm "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 20:59 -0700
                          Re: Ectoplasm "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-17 21:16 -0700
                            Re: Ectoplasm "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2018-09-23 20:07 -0700
                Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-10 18:16 +0000
                  Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-11 07:52 +0100
                    Re: Ectoplasm moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-09-11 12:01 +0000
              Re: Ectoplasm Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-14 21:16 +0200
                Re: Ectoplasm Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-09-16 20:23 +0200
        Re: Ectoplasm xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-10 07:03 -0700
        Re: Ectoplasm Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-09-10 09:39 -0500
          Re: Ectoplasm Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-10 16:18 +0100
          Re: Ectoplasm Wilbur Foley <boue@eywffl.uf> - 2018-09-10 17:07 +0000
    Re: Ectoplasm (or History and Foundations of the LT) Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-09-13 16:24 +0100
      Re: Ectoplasm (or History and Foundations of the LT) xip1415926@gmail.com - 2018-09-14 03:45 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#470978 — Ectoplasm

+++++ Lorentz’s Michelson-Morley device

Lorentz’s short 1892 review puts forward of a version of length contraction:  Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether.

The Michelson-Morley device moves in a fixed ether.  Dynamic interaction between the device and the fixed medium affects roundtrip speed-of-light on both transverse axis Y′ and longitudinal axis X′ ( primes indicate motion ).  More ether drag occurs on X′ than on Y′, rendering slower speed on longitudinal X′.  It is slower speed on longitudinal arm of length x′ than on transverse arm of length y′, where lengths are equal:  x′ = y′.    Mismatched speeds are observable on the device as sequential return times at the central apex spectrometer.

Or at least that is the ether theory.  But the spectrometer does not observer it, observing instead a common return time.

Lorentz said make parallel arm of length x′ shorter than transverse length y′.  Then the slow signal on X′ has less distance to go, can do it in less time, and returns together with the faster signal on Y′.

Spectrometer problem solved.  An ether theory remains, and unequal speeds on arms X′ and Y′ remain.  These are kinematic facts out of kilter with modern SRT ( spezielle Relativitätstheorie ), but the idea then was to placate the apex spectrometer.  (  It is not a clock and does not know if the common return time reflects speed c. )

A problem crops up.  Longitudinal and transverse arms X′ and Y′ are now of unequal lengths ( x′ ≠ y′ ) whereas Michelson in the pilot house believes lengths are of equal.

Lorentz’s answer:  “Molecular forces” which shorten arm X′ also shorten the meter stick which measures arm X′, so the shortness of X′ is not detectable.  This solves Michelson’s problem.   1892:  “When comparing meter sticks … we would never detect the discussed changes.” 

Lorentz’s colleagues looked askance.

Something lurks which Lorentz does not seem to have dealt with.

Roundtrip ether speed on transverse axis Y′ is slow and on longitudinal axis X′ is unduly slow.  Such speed on X′ remains if you merely reduce x′ by means of physical compression.  You are going less distance in less time, and unduly slow speed is still there.   However, to eliminate unequal arm lengths x′ < y′, you say that x′ = y′, and then your ray of light on X′ is going ‘the same’ distance as prior to compression, but in less time, and you have faster speed on X′ such as to equal speed on arm Y′, though neither are equal to speed c.

Lorentz did not need a speed effect, only an apex time effect.  Einstein does not quite say, in EDoMB-1905, that he needs some form of length contraction to solve a speed of light problem.  As the arduous discussion of Operation (b) shows, Einstein’s conception of length contraction is unclear.  In Appendix 1 of 1920 he refers to “unit measuring-rods” which seem quite similar to Lorentz’s 1892 meter stick.

Meanwhile, shortly after 1905, a rumor got started.  Length contraction isn’t meter sticks.  It’s endpoint clocks.  More particularly, it’s the inability of the stationary guy to figure out where the endpoints of moving rod L′ are, “at a definite time.”

+++++ What do the LT’s do?

In 1892 Lorentz had no need to stand still in the aether and watch the MMX go by at speed v.  Such an observer will say that the longitudinal arm “appears shorter” ( to use an expression from EDoMB Section 4 ) than its stationary counterpart because it ( the moving arm ) actually ‘is shorter.’

Lorentz wanted to solve a time problem on the moving device and he did it with real world change of size.  His real world change of size is accompanied by a fake meter stick.  Not the meter stick itself, but the fake distance it attributes to the moving arm is foisted off on the moving guy so that he may believe his moving arm is not smaller.  The necromancers have done their job.

You have a fringe benefit when you put the fake light path number in the numerator of a speed quotient and then you have more or less solved a speed-of-light problem.

It is fashionable to invert the logic and say that you have a speed of light problem which the LT’s solve when they deliver up a short moving rigid body.  Einstein didn’t argue along these lines.  There are lots of problems.

It’s true* that the LT’s mandate a short meter stick.  But the short meter stick does not mandate shortened overall distance, or at least not necessarily.  It might in some circumstances.

* Actually no, not true.  Exclusively on the X axis ( the abscissa ) the LT’s get by without a short meter stick, i.e., they solve a speed-of-light problem with the clunky old standard meter stick.  

The LT’s naturally do light path distance.  The LT’s do not naturally do a rigid body.

+++++ Light path on axis X′

Flat on the abscissa and without gamma the LT’s are:

x′ = x – v · t

t′ = t – vx/c²

The subtractive quantities create light path distance x′ versus distance x; and light path duration time t′ versus duration t.  Distance x′ is what you might call dead reckoning while duration t′ is LT wizardry.

Substitute light path time of arrival t = x / c and light path destination x = c · t:

x′ = [ ( c – v ) / c ] · x

t′ = [ ( c – v ) / c ] · t

At this moment, the origin point of axis X′, namely x′ = 0, is at X location x = v · t.  Light path distance on axis X′ from x′ = 0  to x = c · t is a fraction of light path distance from x = 0 to x = c · t on axis X, the fraction being ( c – v ) / c.

Light path time of flight on axis X′ is a fraction of time of flight on axis X, the fraction being ( c – v ) / c.

To determine speed of light on axis X′ you write a quotient x′ / t′, which, since the fraction divides out, is x / t.  Since x / t = c, you have x′ / t′ = c.

Light path time of flight on axis X′ is determined by kitchen clock [ t′ ] at light path destination ( x, t ).  It is keeping time t′ for the benefit of axis X′, and is standard ticking of a kitchen clock.  But it is reset.  You take clock [ t′ ] off the wall and twirl the thumbscrew on the back-plane.  Time t′ is then time t plus or minus an increment. 

Now write the LT’s flat on the abscissa with gamma:

x′ = g · ( x – v · t )

t′ = g · ( t – vx/c² )

Rewrite based on the above substitutions:

x′ = sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] · x

t′ = sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] · t

We have here proof that you cannot sight read the sheet music.

The co-efficient(s) are now greater than they were before:

sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] > [ ( c – v ) / c ]

The spatial fraction suggests that light path distance from x = v · t to x = c · t is a greater portion of the whole than it was prior to gamma, and the temporal fraction suggests that time of flight on X′ is greater than prior to gamma.  Not so. 

The physical situation of x = v · t rendered by the gamma fraction remains just like the physical situation rendered by the non-gamma fraction.  But the numbers on axis X′, as judged from location x′ = 0, differ from what they are without gamma.  After all, the equations deliver, on their left-hand-sides, numbers pulled off axis X′.  But you can’t see what the equations are doing simply by looking at them.

Gamma truncates both the unit of space ( meter stick ) and the unit of time, on axis X′. We have a short meter stick as we have always been led to believe.  But we also have a short unit of time, very much contrary to the mythology according to which we have time dilation ( enlargement of the unit of time ).

Without gamma, you don’t have any LT wizardry on the spatial axis: light path distance x′ is just what you would expect.

Without gamma, on the temporal axis, you have non-Newtonian adjustment of a moment in time.

With gamma, your understanding of the spatial dimension is subject to something like a co-efficient of contraction.

With gamma, your trusty old kitchen clock is doctoring up the passage of time.  The 😀 ectoplasm 😀 of the epoch was detected.  It was 1905.

+++++ Angling off into three dimensions

Strictly on the abscissa, gamma is not necessary since, as already stated, you get light path quotient x′ / t′ = c without it.

When you angle off the X axis, gamma must be retained on the X′ component of a vector in three dimensions, X′, Y′, Z′.  EDoMB Section 3 mentions in passing a “spherical wave”.  The sphere is three dimensional.  Gamma is necessary on the X′ component of all radial rays off the abscissa as judged in the moving system.  

The LT’s are a little like the Pythagorean Theorem: they kick when they are multi-dimensional although they work on one dimension, just like the PT.

h = sqrt [ x² + y² ]

If you are flat on the abscissa you have y = 0:

h = sqrt [ x² + 0 ] = sqrt [ x² ] = x

In other words, the square root can be there, but you don’t need it.  Gamma has that quality also: you don’t need it on the X axis.

In general the LT’s call for a multi-dimensional hypotenuse on which you have speed c:

h′ / t′ = c

h′ = sqrt[ x′² + y′² + z′² ]

The quotient will not work unless gamma appears in the expression for x′:

x′ = g · ( x – v · t )

+++++ Dealing with a rigid body

EDoMB Section 4, dealing with a “rigid sphere”, repurposes the LT’s to deal with a rigid body.   The spatial LT, at time t = 0 is explicitly: 

x′ = g · ( x – v · t )

Without gamma:  x′ = x

With gamma: x′ = g · x

The second of these equations is a very ambiguous business.  You may consider x′ on the left-hand-side to be a rigid body of the same size as x on the right-hand-side, though differently enumerated.  Alternatively, as per Section 4, you may consider primed and unprimed ( moving and stationary ) rigid bodies of some fixed value, say x′ = 10 and x = 10, in which case the gamma equation represents transformation of axis X′ on which rigid body x′ = 10 is smaller than rigid body x = 10 on X.  At time t = 0, butt ends of the rigid bodies are co-located at a common origin x′ = 0 and x = 0.  Remote ends of the rigid bodies are not co-located at time t = 0.

+++++ Roundtrip

The LT’s are a one way light path interpretation.  If you have roundtrip you cannot solve a speed of light problem with a destination clock, since the destination clock is also the start clock and cannot be separately reset.  However you can solve an s-o-l problem with a short meter stick, and your options are to make the rigid body overall shorter, or to leave the rigid body unchanged in size and give it a greater measured value.  If you do s-o-l exclusively on the basis of roundtrip light path distance, your unit of distance factor is:

unit of distance factor = 1 – v² / c²

If you do s-o-l partly on the basis of distance transformation and partly on the basis of clock rate, your distance factor is:

unit of distance factor = sqrt ( 1 – v² / c² ) = 1 / g

unit of time factor = sqrt ( 1 – v² / c² ) = 1 / g
 
++++  Get ready for Sections 1 and 2

Einstein goes into EDoMB Sections 1 and 2 without mentioning the above stuff: no mention of speed of light; no mention of the Lorentz Transforms.  Instead, Section 2 winds up with synchrony-simultaneity, and verbiage suggests these yield something like actual Lorentz Contraction of 1892.  But it is unclear, the key verbiage being Operation (b): “The length of rod L′′ differs from rod L.”  Is it actual in the sense of “is shorter”, or  a lens effect due to motion wherein something merely “appears shorter”? 

+++++ Synchrony

Synchrony of EDoMB Section 1 depends on a stationary clock bar of fixed length ( not named ).  Let’s say this fixed distance is x.

Endpoints are named P and Q.  ( A and B in the original. Befindet sich im Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr.  German does not confuse Punkte A with its indefinite article.  )  Clock times are tP and tQ.   Clock names are not in the original but are conveniently [ tP ] and [ tQ ].

The stationary nature of these clocks is given more precisely, quote: “It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system.”

Synchrony is “defined” by a condition of equal time intervals, that is outward bound light path duration from P to Q is equal to inward bound duration from Q to P.

Shown: tQ – tP = t′P – tQ

In Section 3, the synchrony equation is rewritten:

Shown Section 3:   ½ · ( t′P + tP ) = tQ

Times tP and t′P are initial and final times at the starting line P.  Synchrony is arranged by the setting on midway clock [ tQ ].  In other words, it might be that the time intervals are not really equal, but clock [ tQ ] is set to render an equality.   Then time tQ is synchronized time.

Quantities on each side are durations, named “time intervals” in Principle 2 of Section 2.  Notice: the distance between clocks [ tP ] and [ tQ ] is fixed x.  We have a light speed equation:

Not shown: x / ( tQ – tP ) = x / ( t′P – tQ )

This shows that inward bound light speed is equal to outward bound light speed.  But this speed need not be the universal constant:

x / ( tQ – tP ) ≠ c and x / ( t′P – tQ ) ≠ c.

Notice something else not mentioned in EDoMB.  Points P and Q of Section 1 stake out a distance in the stationary system ↓-PQ-↓.

Operation (b) of Section 2 puts P and Q in motion:

→ PQ →

At some moment, “at a definite time”, some pair of stationary monuments will correspond to moving points P and Q.  Call these locations R and S: ↓-RS-↓.  Clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ] at these stationary locations are synchronized according to the rule.

tS – tR = t′R – tS

For convenience, clocks [ tR ] and [ tP ] are co-located at an origin at time t = 0.  If moving clock [ tQ ] reads as does on momentarily co-located clock [ tS ] of ↓-RS-↓, an error of synchrony will exist on clock [ tQ ], as judged on its moving clock bar →[ tP ] — [ tQ ]→.

Synchrony on stationary clock [ tS ] of ↓-RS-↓ and on moving clock [ tQ ] of →PQ→ depend on one half of roundtrip time rather than the whole of oneway time, because that’s how synchrony is defined.  The error of synchrony is then also a twoway effect:

Error of synchrony, oneway: tQ = tS · ( 1 – v/c )

Error of synchrony, roundtrip: tQ = tS · ( 1 – v² / c² )

Einstein’s definition of synchrony is of the second order in v / c.  It is counter-intuitive.  If by chance synchrony impinges on ‘length contraction’, you have the second order effect which length contraction requires, and you wouldn’t get it with oneway synchrony.

+++++ Operations (a) and (b) + 1920

EDoMB-1905 Section 2 has a rod or rigid body which is not named though it has length variable lower case l.  Obscure & looks like # 1.

For clarity the rod here has name rod L, which name is not a length variable.  

Rod L has various states of motion and is renamed accordingly with primes.

Rod L without primes is “a stationary rod whose length is measured by a measuring rod which is also stationary.”   

Rod L′ ( prime ) is moving and its length is “the length of the rod in the moving system.”

Rod L′′ ( double prime ) is the moving rod as above, but involves “the length of the moving rod in the stationary system.”

The length as measured of L′′ is r-italic-AB in the original of Section 2.

Paraphrased with some supporting material, Operation (a) is: “The length of rod L′ as measured in its own system ( moving ) must equal the length of the rod L as measured in its own system ( stationary ).”

Paraphrased with some supporting material, Operation (b) is: “The length of rod L′′ differs in geometrical respects from rod L, both considerations being in the stationary system.”

Special and General Theory - 1920 Section 10 has a further statement of fact, although the model there is a moving train, identified by endpoints. 

Paraphrased with some supporting material, 1920 Section 10 is: “The length of rod L′′ as measured in its own system ( stationary ) differs from the length of rod L′ as measured in its own system ( moving ).”

We have three statements regarding the size of rod L, where size is “in geometrical respects” or “as measured.” 

Basically, the three facts hold good on Lorentz’s 1892 mechanical contraption.  Is SRT just a rehash of Lorentz’s MMX?  A fourth statement is missing:

Missing ingredient: The length of moving rod L′ differs in geometrical respects from stationary rod L.

Prima facie, since rod L′′ differs from rod L ( in geometrical respects ), so it would seem that rod L′ must also differ from rod L.  Not necessarily.  Rod L′ itself is not viewed; only a proxy known as rod L′′.  Rod L′ may remain identical in geometrical respects to stationary rod L, but its proxy rod L′′ is seen ( from the stationary axis ) to differ from rod L due to problems related to “a definite time.”  Then rod L′ is not subject Lorentz Contraction of the MMX sort.

As it happens, the LT’s envision rod L′ as just stated: rod L′ is identical to rod L in geometrical respects and differs as measured.  Lorentz’s model wherein moving rod L′ is actually shorter than L cannot be delivered by the LT’s. 

+++++ Speed of light

Three facts given above ( two from 1905, one from 1920 ) combine into a deduction:

Deduction:  The unit measuring-rod ( meter stick ) on moving rigid body L′ differs from the meter stick on stationary body L.

Regardless of your take on the actual size ( missing ingredient ) of rod L′, the short meter stick motif on rod L′ holds good.

Why is a short meter stick on rod L′ ?  Lorentz in 1892 has reason.  Appendix 1 of 1920 has a reason.  EDoMB is very unclear.

On stationary rod L is a ray of light of speed c.  On top of rod L, rod L′ moves with speed v.  Rod L′ will naturally interpret the L-ray to have speed less than c, by a factor of the first order in v / c if the L-ray is oneway, by a factor of the second order in v /c if the L-ray is roundtrip.

You can restore the L-ray to speed c on L′ if you tinker with time and distance on rod L′.  Just how you do that is a very vexed business.   

+++++ Section 4

But the “rigid sphere” of EDoMB Section 4 seems to require precisely that change of size, and most likely therefore is monumentally in the wrong.   Fourmilab translation.

A sphere is lodged in “moving system” system K′ ( k-lower case italic originally ) of Greek co-ordinates ξ-η-ζ .  An equation of a sphere is written with these three Greek spatial variables.

Shown:  ξ² + η² + ζ² = R²

Meanwhile, frame K′ has been transformed according to the LT’s.  On axis Ξ ( xi ) at time t = 0 the equation of transformation is:  ξ = g · x.   Starting out, x and ξ are of the same value at the same location.  Transformation of the axis assigns a greater value to ξ at this location ( event ), ξ > x, while other co-ordinates remain unchanged: η = y and ζ = z.   No transformation math is shown.

Now, outside of an LT event, we consider ξ when it has some value equal to x, ie, ξ = x.  The location of ξ on axis X is x / g, but you cannot write x = x / g, and Einstein writes no length contraction equation. 

Horizontal radial point ξ of the sphere in frame K′ is now x / g in frame K.  It is necessary to write in frame K ( using ascii co-ordinates ) an equation of three dimensional shape which retains the location of ξ.

Gamma is flipped out the denominator and the result is an equation of an ellipsoid:

Shown:  g² · x² + y² + z² = R²

Einstein looks at the ellipsoid and adduces a ratio of lengths:

Shown--   1  :  ( 1 / g )

“Thus, whereas Y and Z dimensions of the sphere do not appear modified by motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : 1/g.”

Very ambiguous.  Language suggests the horizontal arm of the ellipsoid in K versus horizontal arm of a stationary sphere in K.  No metered variables are present, though both radii are in frame K and use the single metric, as a ratio requires.

However, “appears shortened” might apply to the longitudinal radius of the ellipsoid in relation to one of its transverse radii.  Here again, the single stationary metric is on both sides, and the ratio works.  Very unclear.

The shape in K is a clone of the shape in K′.  Both are ellipsoids.  It works if moving system K′ is anisotropic.  To an observer moving with the system the equation of a sphere in frame K′ is reality, but it is not reality to an outside observer who sees system distortion.

Anisotropy is not mentioned in EDoMB, nor hardly anywhere else in SRT.  Why not?

Is the “X dimension” of the moving sphere a thingumabob which is actually shorter than its stationary counterpart?  Or is it a matter of appearances: “the X dimension appears shortened”?  

It is the x = 10 motif.  You can observe x = 10 on the embankment at any old time.  To observe ( on the embankment ) moving point ξ = 10 in relation to x = 10 you must do so at a particular time and Section 4 says, quote: “The equation of this surface expressed in x, y, z at the time t = 0 is…”

You are observing the two objects at time t = 0 at which time x = 0 and ξ = 0 are co-located.  Presumably at that time x = 10 and ξ = 10 are no co-located. You must have ubiquitous time t = 0 on the embankment - simultaneous time, which does not exist.

+++++  Appendix 1 – 1920:  Wikisource

Epithets “stationary” and “moving” do not appear in Appendix 1.  Inertial frames K or K′ are in relative motion.  Relative motion is quantified by constant v, but no equation of motion is shown:

Not shown: x = v · t

Unimportantly, v is a consortium of other constants:  v = c · a / b

Relative motion appears in a statement: “If we call v the velocity with which the origin of K′ is moving relative to K.”

We have the standard version of Lorentz Transformation at time t = 0:

Shown: x′ = g · x

It is understood in the usual way, left ← to ← right, where the right-hand-side represents K and the left-hand-side represents K′.  The quantity at right, x, is transformed into the quantity at left, x′, within the confines of event x ~ x′.  All good coin Lorentz Transformation.

The equation is written and then Appendix 1 reads it left → to → right.   In particular the value ‘1’ is placed on the left-hand-side.

Shown: x′ = 1

Not shown: 1 = g · x

The place in space of event x ~ x′ is identified as x′ = 1 in frame K′, which as such is a “unit measuring-rod” as it exists in frame K′ moving relatively to K.  Frame K will now assess the quantity ‘1’ as x:

Shown: x = 1 / g

The expression is termed a “snapshot”, taken in frame K, of the unit measuring-rod of frame K′, and is not ordinarily an equation since no variable appears on the r-h-s.  You have merely a left ← to ← right assignment operator without the ambiguity of a non-equation:

Non-equation:  x = 1 / g · x

Quote: “Two points of axis-X′ which are separated by the distance x′ = 1 when measured in system K′ are thus separated in our instantaneous photograph by the distance:  x = 1/g.”

Question: What does frame K′ have to say about all this?    Common sense tells us that the unit measuring-rod of K, as viewed in a snapshot taken from from K′, is:

x′ = g

But this is not the case.

Quote: “From what has been said, the two snapshots must be identical.”

Nothing has been said, leaving us to infer that identical snapshots are rendered by the forward and inverse transforms:

Forward:  x′ = g · ( x – v · t )

Inverse:  x = g · ( x′ + v · t′ )

At time t = 0:

Forward:  x′ = g · x

Inverse:  x = g · x′

If, from frame K′, you look at the u-m-r in frame K through the lens of the inverse transform, you get:

x′ = 1 / g

The two snapshots are then identical: x = 1 / g and x′ = 1 / g.

It sounds a lot like petitio principii with which SRT is rife.  We contrive a theory that gives the answer we want, not knowing why nature requires the theory in the first place.  Why must the snapshots be identical?

The “unit measuring-rod” of Appendix 1 is similar to the “meter stick” of Lorentz 1892: both are smaller than their stationary counterparts.  The small meter stick of 1892 is distorted just like the moving rigid body which it measures, basically unable to report any changes at all.  The unit measuring-rod of 1920 leaves Newtonian light path ( x – v · t ) unchanged in size while reporting a larger value.

Factor gamma of 1892 infects a thingumabob which is also a roundtrip light path.

Factor gamma of 1905 ellipsoid ( Section 4 ) infects only a thingumabob.

Factor gamma of Appendix 1 1920 infects only a one way light path.

+++++ Appendix 1 behind the scenes

Recall the Lorentz Transforms.  If you are strictly on the abscissa, you restore a oneway ray of light on the moving axis to speed c without gamma. 

Restate the forward and inverse transforms with gamma.

Forward:  x′ = g · ( x – v · t )

Inverse:  x = g · ( x′ + v · t′ )

Get rid of t and t′ by means of t = x / c and t′ = x′ / c.

Forward:  x′ = g · [ ( c – v ) / c ] · x 

Inverse:  x = g · [ ( c + v ) / c ] · x′

On the positive abscissa: the ratio ( c – v ) / c is speed of light on X′ in relation to s-o-l on X, a slower speed.

On the negative abscissa: the ratio ( c + v ) / c is speed of light on X′ in relation to s-o-l on X, a higher speed.

You can write generic speed relationships and you find that they are not equal:

( c – v ) / c ≠ c / ( c + v )

Ratios are approximately equal if for example c = 10 and v = 1:

9 / 10 ≈ 10 / 11

You can make these inverted ratios exactly equal with gamma:

[ g · ( c – v ) ] / c = c / [ g · ( c + v ) ]

You have in effect put unit measuring-rod ( 1 / g ) on axis X′, balancing special effects on the positive and negative moving abscissa. But why do you need that balance?  Einstein does not say.

+++++ Simultaneity

Rod L′ exists within its habitat of moving axis X′.  When observed from stationary axis X, the moving object is known as L′′, and it must be observed at a definite time as judged on axis X.  That sure sounds like simultaneous time.

EDoMB-Section 1 is called “Definition of Simultaneity.”  Section 1 does not define simultaneity.  It defines synchrony.

As outlined previously, Section 2 has moving object →PQ→ the length of which is to be determined on the embankment.  A momentary stakeout featuring points R and S results: ↓-RS-↓.  Once these stakes are driven, distance between them can be determined at leisure.  Distance RS incorrectly renders distance PQ if, at the moment of stakeout, simultaneous times at R and S are misjudged.

Ah, but no.  We have a misjudgment of synchrony, not simultaneity, and the misjudgment applies to clocks [ tP ] and [ tQ ] not clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ].

It is a double reversal in a document where everything is a reversal of some sort, and it doesn’t make any sense.

Should we have simultaneity rather than synchrony, the stakeout of R and S on the stationary axis occurs at a moment when attendant clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ] read the same time, which “same time” implies a time equation of the sort:

tR = tS

No such equation is written in EDoMB nor anywhere else.

Endpoints of a light path are synchronous clocks more or less by definition.

Endpoints of a thingumabob are simultaneous clocks.  According to some scholars ( Max Jammer ), Einstein knuckled under and in 1914 said that simultaneity cannot be defined.

My ass is grass
my ox is gored
my goose is cooked
I’m throwing in the towel.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#471230

On 08/09/2018 17:37, xip1415926@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> +++++ Lorentz’s Michelson-Morley device
> 
> Lorentz’s short 1892 review puts forward of a version of length contraction:  Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether.
> 
> The Michelson-Morley device moves in a fixed ether.  Dynamic interaction between the device and the fixed medium affects roundtrip speed-of-light on both transverse axis Y′ and longitudinal axis X′ ( primes indicate motion ).  More ether drag occurs on X′ than on Y′, rendering slower speed on longitudinal X′.  It is slower speed on longitudinal arm of length x′ than on transverse arm of length y′, where lengths are equal:  x′ = y′.    Mismatched speeds are observable on the device as sequential return times at the central apex spectrometer.
> 
> Or at least that is the ether theory.  But the spectrometer does not observer it, observing instead a common return time.
> 
> Lorentz said make parallel arm of length x′ shorter than transverse length y′.  Then the slow signal on X′ has less distance to go, can do it in less time, and returns together with the faster signal on Y′.
> 
> Spectrometer problem solved.  An ether theory remains, and unequal speeds on arms X′ and Y′ remain.  These are kinematic facts out of kilter with modern SRT ( spezielle Relativitätstheorie ), but the idea then was to placate the apex spectrometer.  (  It is not a clock and does not know if the common return time reflects speed c. )
> 
> A problem crops up.  Longitudinal and transverse arms X′ and Y′ are now of unequal lengths ( x′ ≠ y′ ) whereas Michelson in the pilot house believes lengths are of equal.
> 
> Lorentz’s answer:  “Molecular forces” which shorten arm X′ also shorten the meter stick which measures arm X′, so the shortness of X′ is not detectable.  This solves Michelson’s problem.   1892:  “When comparing meter sticks … we would never detect the discussed changes.”
> 
> Lorentz’s colleagues looked askance.
> 
> Something lurks which Lorentz does not seem to have dealt with.
> 
> Roundtrip ether speed on transverse axis Y′ is slow and on longitudinal axis X′ is unduly slow.  Such speed on X′ remains if you merely reduce x′ by means of physical compression.  You are going less distance in less time, and unduly slow speed is still there.   However, to eliminate unequal arm lengths x′ < y′, you say that x′ = y′, and then your ray of light on X′ is going ‘the same’ distance as prior to compression, but in less time, and you have faster speed on X′ such as to equal speed on arm Y′, though neither are equal to speed c.
> 
> Lorentz did not need a speed effect, only an apex time effect.  Einstein does not quite say, in EDoMB-1905, that he needs some form of length contraction to solve a speed of light problem.  As the arduous discussion of Operation (b) shows, Einstein’s conception of length contraction is unclear.  In Appendix 1 of 1920 he refers to “unit measuring-rods” which seem quite similar to Lorentz’s 1892 meter stick.
> 
> Meanwhile, shortly after 1905, a rumor got started.  Length contraction isn’t meter sticks.  It’s endpoint clocks.  More particularly, it’s the inability of the stationary guy to figure out where the endpoints of moving rod L′ are, “at a definite time.”
> 
> +++++ What do the LT’s do?
> 
> In 1892 Lorentz had no need to stand still in the aether and watch the MMX go by at speed v.  Such an observer will say that the longitudinal arm “appears shorter” ( to use an expression from EDoMB Section 4 ) than its stationary counterpart because it ( the moving arm ) actually ‘is shorter.’
> 
> Lorentz wanted to solve a time problem on the moving device and he did it with real world change of size.  His real world change of size is accompanied by a fake meter stick.  Not the meter stick itself, but the fake distance it attributes to the moving arm is foisted off on the moving guy so that he may believe his moving arm is not smaller.  The necromancers have done their job.
> 
> You have a fringe benefit when you put the fake light path number in the numerator of a speed quotient and then you have more or less solved a speed-of-light problem.
> 
> It is fashionable to invert the logic and say that you have a speed of light problem which the LT’s solve when they deliver up a short moving rigid body.  Einstein didn’t argue along these lines.  There are lots of problems.
> 
> It’s true* that the LT’s mandate a short meter stick.  But the short meter stick does not mandate shortened overall distance, or at least not necessarily.  It might in some circumstances.
> 
> * Actually no, not true.  Exclusively on the X axis ( the abscissa ) the LT’s get by without a short meter stick, i.e., they solve a speed-of-light problem with the clunky old standard meter stick.
> 
> The LT’s naturally do light path distance.  The LT’s do not naturally do a rigid body.
> 
> +++++ Light path on axis X′
> 
> Flat on the abscissa and without gamma the LT’s are:
> 
> x′ = x – v · t
> 
> t′ = t – vx/c²
> 
> The subtractive quantities create light path distance x′ versus distance x; and light path duration time t′ versus duration t.  Distance x′ is what you might call dead reckoning while duration t′ is LT wizardry.
> 
> Substitute light path time of arrival t = x / c and light path destination x = c · t:
> 
> x′ = [ ( c – v ) / c ] · x
> 
> t′ = [ ( c – v ) / c ] · t
> 
> At this moment, the origin point of axis X′, namely x′ = 0, is at X location x = v · t.  Light path distance on axis X′ from x′ = 0  to x = c · t is a fraction of light path distance from x = 0 to x = c · t on axis X, the fraction being ( c – v ) / c.
> 
> Light path time of flight on axis X′ is a fraction of time of flight on axis X, the fraction being ( c – v ) / c.
> 
> To determine speed of light on axis X′ you write a quotient x′ / t′, which, since the fraction divides out, is x / t.  Since x / t = c, you have x′ / t′ = c.
> 
> Light path time of flight on axis X′ is determined by kitchen clock [ t′ ] at light path destination ( x, t ).  It is keeping time t′ for the benefit of axis X′, and is standard ticking of a kitchen clock.  But it is reset.  You take clock [ t′ ] off the wall and twirl the thumbscrew on the back-plane.  Time t′ is then time t plus or minus an increment.
> 
> Now write the LT’s flat on the abscissa with gamma:
> 
> x′ = g · ( x – v · t )
> 
> t′ = g · ( t – vx/c² )
> 
> Rewrite based on the above substitutions:
> 
> x′ = sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] · x
> 
> t′ = sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] · t
> 
> We have here proof that you cannot sight read the sheet music.
> 
> The co-efficient(s) are now greater than they were before:
> 
> sqrt[ ( c – v ) / ( c + v ) ] > [ ( c – v ) / c ]
> 
> The spatial fraction suggests that light path distance from x = v · t to x = c · t is a greater portion of the whole than it was prior to gamma, and the temporal fraction suggests that time of flight on X′ is greater than prior to gamma.  Not so.
> 
> The physical situation of x = v · t rendered by the gamma fraction remains just like the physical situation rendered by the non-gamma fraction.  But the numbers on axis X′, as judged from location x′ = 0, differ from what they are without gamma.  After all, the equations deliver, on their left-hand-sides, numbers pulled off axis X′.  But you can’t see what the equations are doing simply by looking at them.
> 
> Gamma truncates both the unit of space ( meter stick ) and the unit of time, on axis X′. We have a short meter stick as we have always been led to believe.  But we also have a short unit of time, very much contrary to the mythology according to which we have time dilation ( enlargement of the unit of time ).
> 
> Without gamma, you don’t have any LT wizardry on the spatial axis: light path distance x′ is just what you would expect.
> 
> Without gamma, on the temporal axis, you have non-Newtonian adjustment of a moment in time.
> 
> With gamma, your understanding of the spatial dimension is subject to something like a co-efficient of contraction.
> 
> With gamma, your trusty old kitchen clock is doctoring up the passage of time.  The 😀 ectoplasm 😀 of the epoch was detected.  It was 1905.
> 
> +++++ Angling off into three dimensions
> 
> Strictly on the abscissa, gamma is not necessary since, as already stated, you get light path quotient x′ / t′ = c without it.
> 
> When you angle off the X axis, gamma must be retained on the X′ component of a vector in three dimensions, X′, Y′, Z′.  EDoMB Section 3 mentions in passing a “spherical wave”.  The sphere is three dimensional.  Gamma is necessary on the X′ component of all radial rays off the abscissa as judged in the moving system.
> 
> The LT’s are a little like the Pythagorean Theorem: they kick when they are multi-dimensional although they work on one dimension, just like the PT.
> 
> h = sqrt [ x² + y² ]
> 
> If you are flat on the abscissa you have y = 0:
> 
> h = sqrt [ x² + 0 ] = sqrt [ x² ] = x
> 
> In other words, the square root can be there, but you don’t need it.  Gamma has that quality also: you don’t need it on the X axis.
> 
> In general the LT’s call for a multi-dimensional hypotenuse on which you have speed c:
> 
> h′ / t′ = c
> 
> h′ = sqrt[ x′² + y′² + z′² ]
> 
> The quotient will not work unless gamma appears in the expression for x′:
> 
> x′ = g · ( x – v · t )
> 
> +++++ Dealing with a rigid body
> 
> EDoMB Section 4, dealing with a “rigid sphere”, repurposes the LT’s to deal with a rigid body.   The spatial LT, at time t = 0 is explicitly:
> 
> x′ = g · ( x – v · t )
> 
> Without gamma:  x′ = x
> 
> With gamma: x′ = g · x
> 
> The second of these equations is a very ambiguous business.  You may consider x′ on the left-hand-side to be a rigid body of the same size as x on the right-hand-side, though differently enumerated.  Alternatively, as per Section 4, you may consider primed and unprimed ( moving and stationary ) rigid bodies of some fixed value, say x′ = 10 and x = 10, in which case the gamma equation represents transformation of axis X′ on which rigid body x′ = 10 is smaller than rigid body x = 10 on X.  At time t = 0, butt ends of the rigid bodies are co-located at a common origin x′ = 0 and x = 0.  Remote ends of the rigid bodies are not co-located at time t = 0.
> 
> +++++ Roundtrip
> 
> The LT’s are a one way light path interpretation.  If you have roundtrip you cannot solve a speed of light problem with a destination clock, since the destination clock is also the start clock and cannot be separately reset.  However you can solve an s-o-l problem with a short meter stick, and your options are to make the rigid body overall shorter, or to leave the rigid body unchanged in size and give it a greater measured value.  If you do s-o-l exclusively on the basis of roundtrip light path distance, your unit of distance factor is:
> 
> unit of distance factor = 1 – v² / c²
> 
> If you do s-o-l partly on the basis of distance transformation and partly on the basis of clock rate, your distance factor is:
> 
> unit of distance factor = sqrt ( 1 – v² / c² ) = 1 / g
> 
> unit of time factor = sqrt ( 1 – v² / c² ) = 1 / g
>   
> ++++  Get ready for Sections 1 and 2
> 
> Einstein goes into EDoMB Sections 1 and 2 without mentioning the above stuff: no mention of speed of light; no mention of the Lorentz Transforms.  Instead, Section 2 winds up with synchrony-simultaneity, and verbiage suggests these yield something like actual Lorentz Contraction of 1892.  But it is unclear, the key verbiage being Operation (b): “The length of rod L′′ differs from rod L.”  Is it actual in the sense of “is shorter”, or  a lens effect due to motion wherein something merely “appears shorter”?
> 
> +++++ Synchrony
> 
> Synchrony of EDoMB Section 1 depends on a stationary clock bar of fixed length ( not named ).  Let’s say this fixed distance is x.
> 
> Endpoints are named P and Q.  ( A and B in the original. Befindet sich im Punkte A des Raumes eine Uhr.  German does not confuse Punkte A with its indefinite article.  )  Clock times are tP and tQ.   Clock names are not in the original but are conveniently [ tP ] and [ tQ ].
> 
> The stationary nature of these clocks is given more precisely, quote: “It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system.”
> 
> Synchrony is “defined” by a condition of equal time intervals, that is outward bound light path duration from P to Q is equal to inward bound duration from Q to P.
> 
> Shown: tQ – tP = t′P – tQ
> 
> In Section 3, the synchrony equation is rewritten:
> 
> Shown Section 3:   ½ · ( t′P + tP ) = tQ
> 
> Times tP and t′P are initial and final times at the starting line P.  Synchrony is arranged by the setting on midway clock [ tQ ].  In other words, it might be that the time intervals are not really equal, but clock [ tQ ] is set to render an equality.   Then time tQ is synchronized time.
> 
> Quantities on each side are durations, named “time intervals” in Principle 2 of Section 2.  Notice: the distance between clocks [ tP ] and [ tQ ] is fixed x.  We have a light speed equation:
> 
> Not shown: x / ( tQ – tP ) = x / ( t′P – tQ )
> 
> This shows that inward bound light speed is equal to outward bound light speed.  But this speed need not be the universal constant:
> 
> x / ( tQ – tP ) ≠ c and x / ( t′P – tQ ) ≠ c.
> 
> Notice something else not mentioned in EDoMB.  Points P and Q of Section 1 stake out a distance in the stationary system ↓-PQ-↓.
> 
> Operation (b) of Section 2 puts P and Q in motion:
> 
> → PQ →
> 
> At some moment, “at a definite time”, some pair of stationary monuments will correspond to moving points P and Q.  Call these locations R and S: ↓-RS-↓.  Clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ] at these stationary locations are synchronized according to the rule.
> 
> tS – tR = t′R – tS
> 
> For convenience, clocks [ tR ] and [ tP ] are co-located at an origin at time t = 0.  If moving clock [ tQ ] reads as does on momentarily co-located clock [ tS ] of ↓-RS-↓, an error of synchrony will exist on clock [ tQ ], as judged on its moving clock bar →[ tP ] — [ tQ ]→.
> 
> Synchrony on stationary clock [ tS ] of ↓-RS-↓ and on moving clock [ tQ ] of →PQ→ depend on one half of roundtrip time rather than the whole of oneway time, because that’s how synchrony is defined.  The error of synchrony is then also a twoway effect:
> 
> Error of synchrony, oneway: tQ = tS · ( 1 – v/c )
> 
> Error of synchrony, roundtrip: tQ = tS · ( 1 – v² / c² )
> 
> Einstein’s definition of synchrony is of the second order in v / c.  It is counter-intuitive.  If by chance synchrony impinges on ‘length contraction’, you have the second order effect which length contraction requires, and you wouldn’t get it with oneway synchrony.
> 
> +++++ Operations (a) and (b) + 1920
> 
> EDoMB-1905 Section 2 has a rod or rigid body which is not named though it has length variable lower case l.  Obscure & looks like # 1.
> 
> For clarity the rod here has name rod L, which name is not a length variable.
> 
> Rod L has various states of motion and is renamed accordingly with primes.
> 
> Rod L without primes is “a stationary rod whose length is measured by a measuring rod which is also stationary.”
> 
> Rod L′ ( prime ) is moving and its length is “the length of the rod in the moving system.”
> 
> Rod L′′ ( double prime ) is the moving rod as above, but involves “the length of the moving rod in the stationary system.”
> 
> The length as measured of L′′ is r-italic-AB in the original of Section 2.
> 
> Paraphrased with some supporting material, Operation (a) is: “The length of rod L′ as measured in its own system ( moving ) must equal the length of the rod L as measured in its own system ( stationary ).”
> 
> Paraphrased with some supporting material, Operation (b) is: “The length of rod L′′ differs in geometrical respects from rod L, both considerations being in the stationary system.”
> 
> Special and General Theory - 1920 Section 10 has a further statement of fact, although the model there is a moving train, identified by endpoints.
> 
> Paraphrased with some supporting material, 1920 Section 10 is: “The length of rod L′′ as measured in its own system ( stationary ) differs from the length of rod L′ as measured in its own system ( moving ).”
> 
> We have three statements regarding the size of rod L, where size is “in geometrical respects” or “as measured.”
> 
> Basically, the three facts hold good on Lorentz’s 1892 mechanical contraption.  Is SRT just a rehash of Lorentz’s MMX?  A fourth statement is missing:
> 
> Missing ingredient: The length of moving rod L′ differs in geometrical respects from stationary rod L.
> 
> Prima facie, since rod L′′ differs from rod L ( in geometrical respects ), so it would seem that rod L′ must also differ from rod L.  Not necessarily.  Rod L′ itself is not viewed; only a proxy known as rod L′′.  Rod L′ may remain identical in geometrical respects to stationary rod L, but its proxy rod L′′ is seen ( from the stationary axis ) to differ from rod L due to problems related to “a definite time.”  Then rod L′ is not subject Lorentz Contraction of the MMX sort.
> 
> As it happens, the LT’s envision rod L′ as just stated: rod L′ is identical to rod L in geometrical respects and differs as measured.  Lorentz’s model wherein moving rod L′ is actually shorter than L cannot be delivered by the LT’s.
> 
> +++++ Speed of light
> 
> Three facts given above ( two from 1905, one from 1920 ) combine into a deduction:
> 
> Deduction:  The unit measuring-rod ( meter stick ) on moving rigid body L′ differs from the meter stick on stationary body L.
> 
> Regardless of your take on the actual size ( missing ingredient ) of rod L′, the short meter stick motif on rod L′ holds good.
> 
> Why is a short meter stick on rod L′ ?  Lorentz in 1892 has reason.  Appendix 1 of 1920 has a reason.  EDoMB is very unclear.
> 
> On stationary rod L is a ray of light of speed c.  On top of rod L, rod L′ moves with speed v.  Rod L′ will naturally interpret the L-ray to have speed less than c, by a factor of the first order in v / c if the L-ray is oneway, by a factor of the second order in v /c if the L-ray is roundtrip.
> 
> You can restore the L-ray to speed c on L′ if you tinker with time and distance on rod L′.  Just how you do that is a very vexed business.
> 
> +++++ Section 4
> 
> But the “rigid sphere” of EDoMB Section 4 seems to require precisely that change of size, and most likely therefore is monumentally in the wrong.   Fourmilab translation.
> 
> A sphere is lodged in “moving system” system K′ ( k-lower case italic originally ) of Greek co-ordinates ξ-η-ζ .  An equation of a sphere is written with these three Greek spatial variables.
> 
> Shown:  ξ² + η² + ζ² = R²
> 
> Meanwhile, frame K′ has been transformed according to the LT’s.  On axis Ξ ( xi ) at time t = 0 the equation of transformation is:  ξ = g · x.   Starting out, x and ξ are of the same value at the same location.  Transformation of the axis assigns a greater value to ξ at this location ( event ), ξ > x, while other co-ordinates remain unchanged: η = y and ζ = z.   No transformation math is shown.
> 
> Now, outside of an LT event, we consider ξ when it has some value equal to x, ie, ξ = x.  The location of ξ on axis X is x / g, but you cannot write x = x / g, and Einstein writes no length contraction equation.
> 
> Horizontal radial point ξ of the sphere in frame K′ is now x / g in frame K.  It is necessary to write in frame K ( using ascii co-ordinates ) an equation of three dimensional shape which retains the location of ξ.
> 
> Gamma is flipped out the denominator and the result is an equation of an ellipsoid:
> 
> Shown:  g² · x² + y² + z² = R²
> 
> Einstein looks at the ellipsoid and adduces a ratio of lengths:
> 
> Shown--   1  :  ( 1 / g )
> 
> “Thus, whereas Y and Z dimensions of the sphere do not appear modified by motion, the X dimension appears shortened in the ratio 1 : 1/g.”
> 
> Very ambiguous.  Language suggests the horizontal arm of the ellipsoid in K versus horizontal arm of a stationary sphere in K.  No metered variables are present, though both radii are in frame K and use the single metric, as a ratio requires.
> 
> However, “appears shortened” might apply to the longitudinal radius of the ellipsoid in relation to one of its transverse radii.  Here again, the single stationary metric is on both sides, and the ratio works.  Very unclear.
> 
> The shape in K is a clone of the shape in K′.  Both are ellipsoids.  It works if moving system K′ is anisotropic.  To an observer moving with the system the equation of a sphere in frame K′ is reality, but it is not reality to an outside observer who sees system distortion.
> 
> Anisotropy is not mentioned in EDoMB, nor hardly anywhere else in SRT.  Why not?
> 
> Is the “X dimension” of the moving sphere a thingumabob which is actually shorter than its stationary counterpart?  Or is it a matter of appearances: “the X dimension appears shortened”?
> 
> It is the x = 10 motif.  You can observe x = 10 on the embankment at any old time.  To observe ( on the embankment ) moving point ξ = 10 in relation to x = 10 you must do so at a particular time and Section 4 says, quote: “The equation of this surface expressed in x, y, z at the time t = 0 is…”
> 
> You are observing the two objects at time t = 0 at which time x = 0 and ξ = 0 are co-located.  Presumably at that time x = 10 and ξ = 10 are no co-located. You must have ubiquitous time t = 0 on the embankment - simultaneous time, which does not exist.
> 
> +++++  Appendix 1 – 1920:  Wikisource
> 
> Epithets “stationary” and “moving” do not appear in Appendix 1.  Inertial frames K or K′ are in relative motion.  Relative motion is quantified by constant v, but no equation of motion is shown:
> 
> Not shown: x = v · t
> 
> Unimportantly, v is a consortium of other constants:  v = c · a / b
> 
> Relative motion appears in a statement: “If we call v the velocity with which the origin of K′ is moving relative to K.”
> 
> We have the standard version of Lorentz Transformation at time t = 0:
> 
> Shown: x′ = g · x
> 
> It is understood in the usual way, left ← to ← right, where the right-hand-side represents K and the left-hand-side represents K′.  The quantity at right, x, is transformed into the quantity at left, x′, within the confines of event x ~ x′.  All good coin Lorentz Transformation.
> 
> The equation is written and then Appendix 1 reads it left → to → right.   In particular the value ‘1’ is placed on the left-hand-side.
> 
> Shown: x′ = 1
> 
> Not shown: 1 = g · x
> 
> The place in space of event x ~ x′ is identified as x′ = 1 in frame K′, which as such is a “unit measuring-rod” as it exists in frame K′ moving relatively to K.  Frame K will now assess the quantity ‘1’ as x:
> 
> Shown: x = 1 / g
> 
> The expression is termed a “snapshot”, taken in frame K, of the unit measuring-rod of frame K′, and is not ordinarily an equation since no variable appears on the r-h-s.  You have merely a left ← to ← right assignment operator without the ambiguity of a non-equation:
> 
> Non-equation:  x = 1 / g · x
> 
> Quote: “Two points of axis-X′ which are separated by the distance x′ = 1 when measured in system K′ are thus separated in our instantaneous photograph by the distance:  x = 1/g.”
> 
> Question: What does frame K′ have to say about all this?    Common sense tells us that the unit measuring-rod of K, as viewed in a snapshot taken from from K′, is:
> 
> x′ = g
> 
> But this is not the case.
> 
> Quote: “From what has been said, the two snapshots must be identical.”
> 
> Nothing has been said, leaving us to infer that identical snapshots are rendered by the forward and inverse transforms:
> 
> Forward:  x′ = g · ( x – v · t )
> 
> Inverse:  x = g · ( x′ + v · t′ )
> 
> At time t = 0:
> 
> Forward:  x′ = g · x
> 
> Inverse:  x = g · x′
> 
> If, from frame K′, you look at the u-m-r in frame K through the lens of the inverse transform, you get:
> 
> x′ = 1 / g
> 
> The two snapshots are then identical: x = 1 / g and x′ = 1 / g.
> 
> It sounds a lot like petitio principii with which SRT is rife.  We contrive a theory that gives the answer we want, not knowing why nature requires the theory in the first place.  Why must the snapshots be identical?
> 
> The “unit measuring-rod” of Appendix 1 is similar to the “meter stick” of Lorentz 1892: both are smaller than their stationary counterparts.  The small meter stick of 1892 is distorted just like the moving rigid body which it measures, basically unable to report any changes at all.  The unit measuring-rod of 1920 leaves Newtonian light path ( x – v · t ) unchanged in size while reporting a larger value.
> 
> Factor gamma of 1892 infects a thingumabob which is also a roundtrip light path.
> 
> Factor gamma of 1905 ellipsoid ( Section 4 ) infects only a thingumabob.
> 
> Factor gamma of Appendix 1 1920 infects only a one way light path.
> 
> +++++ Appendix 1 behind the scenes
> 
> Recall the Lorentz Transforms.  If you are strictly on the abscissa, you restore a oneway ray of light on the moving axis to speed c without gamma.
> 
> Restate the forward and inverse transforms with gamma.
> 
> Forward:  x′ = g · ( x – v · t )
> 
> Inverse:  x = g · ( x′ + v · t′ )
> 
> Get rid of t and t′ by means of t = x / c and t′ = x′ / c.
> 
> Forward:  x′ = g · [ ( c – v ) / c ] · x
> 
> Inverse:  x = g · [ ( c + v ) / c ] · x′
> 
> On the positive abscissa: the ratio ( c – v ) / c is speed of light on X′ in relation to s-o-l on X, a slower speed.
> 
> On the negative abscissa: the ratio ( c + v ) / c is speed of light on X′ in relation to s-o-l on X, a higher speed.
> 
> You can write generic speed relationships and you find that they are not equal:
> 
> ( c – v ) / c ≠ c / ( c + v )
> 
> Ratios are approximately equal if for example c = 10 and v = 1:
> 
> 9 / 10 ≈ 10 / 11
> 
> You can make these inverted ratios exactly equal with gamma:
> 
> [ g · ( c – v ) ] / c = c / [ g · ( c + v ) ]
> 
> You have in effect put unit measuring-rod ( 1 / g ) on axis X′, balancing special effects on the positive and negative moving abscissa. But why do you need that balance?  Einstein does not say.
> 
> +++++ Simultaneity
> 
> Rod L′ exists within its habitat of moving axis X′.  When observed from stationary axis X, the moving object is known as L′′, and it must be observed at a definite time as judged on axis X.  That sure sounds like simultaneous time.
> 
> EDoMB-Section 1 is called “Definition of Simultaneity.”  Section 1 does not define simultaneity.  It defines synchrony.
> 
> As outlined previously, Section 2 has moving object →PQ→ the length of which is to be determined on the embankment.  A momentary stakeout featuring points R and S results: ↓-RS-↓.  Once these stakes are driven, distance between them can be determined at leisure.  Distance RS incorrectly renders distance PQ if, at the moment of stakeout, simultaneous times at R and S are misjudged.
> 
> Ah, but no.  We have a misjudgment of synchrony, not simultaneity, and the misjudgment applies to clocks [ tP ] and [ tQ ] not clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ].
> 
> It is a double reversal in a document where everything is a reversal of some sort, and it doesn’t make any sense.
> 
> Should we have simultaneity rather than synchrony, the stakeout of R and S on the stationary axis occurs at a moment when attendant clocks [ tR ] and [ tS ] read the same time, which “same time” implies a time equation of the sort:
> 
> tR = tS
> 
> No such equation is written in EDoMB nor anywhere else.
> 
> Endpoints of a light path are synchronous clocks more or less by definition.
> 
> Endpoints of a thingumabob are simultaneous clocks.  According to some scholars ( Max Jammer ), Einstein knuckled under and in 1914 said that simultaneity cannot be defined.
> 
> My ass is grass
> my ox is gored
> my goose is cooked
> I’m throwing in the towel.
> 

Alternatively we could accept Maxwell's Theory,
that light travels at a speed appropriate to,
and RELATIVE TO, the stuff it is traveling through.
This would fully explain the null result of the MMX,
without any length contractions or time dilations eh!

keith stein

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

#471231

On 10/09/2018 09:51, Keith Stein wrote:


> Alternatively we could accept Maxwell's Theory,
> that light travels at a speed appropriate to,
> and RELATIVE TO, the stuff* it is traveling through.
> This would fully explain the null result of the MMX,
> without any length contractions or time dilations eh!
> 
> keith stein

*stuff = matter of finite non zero density, NOT "Ectoplasm" eh!

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

#471235

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 10/09/2018 09:51, Keith Stein wrote:


>> Alternatively we could accept Maxwell's Theory,
>> that light travels at a speed appropriate to,
>> and RELATIVE TO, the stuff* it is traveling through.

>*stuff = matter of finite non zero density, NOT "Ectoplasm" eh!

The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.

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

#471238

On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/09/2018 09:51, Keith Stein wrote:
> 
> 
>>> Alternatively we could accept Maxwell's Theory,
>>> that light travels at a speed appropriate to,
>>> and RELATIVE TO, the stuff* it is traveling through.
> 
>> *stuff = matter of finite non zero density, NOT "Ectoplasm" eh!
> 
> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.

Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".

keith stein

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

#471283

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:

>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.

>Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".

The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.

The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
mu_r*mu_0.

Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
Weber and Kohlrausch.

In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
since in empty space there is nothing there to move!

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

#471300

On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
> 
>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
> 
> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
> 
> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
> mu_r*mu_0.
> 
> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
> Weber and Kohlrausch.
> 
> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!


No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
where there aren't any, Michael.

keith stein




> 

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

#471303

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 
>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>> 
>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>> 
>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>> 
>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>> mu_r*mu_0.
>> 
>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>> 
>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
> 
> 
> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
> where there aren't any, Michael.
> 
> keith stein
> 

Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous. 

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

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

#471308

On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>
>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>
>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>
>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>
>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>
>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>
>>
>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>
>> keith stein
>>
> 
> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
> 

There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non 
existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the 
frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic 
velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!

keith stein

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

#471310

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:

>On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>> 

>There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
>and extrapolating to perfect vacuum.

No difference. Reaching absolute zero means removing every single bit of
thermal energy so that there is none (zero) left. A perfect vacuum means
eliminating every single atom, particle etc. from a region of space.
Probably more doable than absolute zero.

> When one extrapolates to (non 
>existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the 
>frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic 
>velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
>velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!

It's not a speed relative to "nothing". It is a speed relative to
EVERYTHING (everything inertial).

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

#471314

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 11:27:08 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> >On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
> >> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
> >> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
> >> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
> >> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
> >> 
> 
> >There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
> >and extrapolating to perfect vacuum.
> 
> No difference. Reaching absolute zero means removing every single bit of
> thermal energy so that there is none (zero) left. A perfect vacuum means
> eliminating every single atom, particle etc. from a region of space.
> Probably more doable than absolute zero.
> 
> > When one extrapolates to (non 
> >existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the 
> >frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic 
> >velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
> >velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!
> 
> It's not a speed relative to "nothing". It is a speed relative to
> EVERYTHING (everything inertial).

Space contraction.

Having that a "frame" basically moves through 
space and the surrounds along with it identifies 
what is the relativistic (where, everything's 
relative, that this is relativistic) as that which 
basically sees in the reductio of motion from a to b 
that as a matter of "exchange" it pretty much works 
up more neatly (totally) to be space contraction 
as along the lines of Lorentz-Fitzgerald.

Finding a "quantum gravity" (or a "total gravity" 
and here as my opinion a "fall gravity" for the 
universal gravitation) involves that SR, GR, and 
QM and various field theories all have to explain 
and be explained by one "physics".

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

#471315

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>> 
>>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>> 
>>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>> 
>>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>> 
>>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>> 
>>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
>>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
>>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
>>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>> 
>>> keith stein
>>> 
>> 
>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>> 
> 
> There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
> and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non 
> existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the 
> frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic 
> velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
> velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!

But it’s not nothing. You are now saying that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE
reference for the signal speed is a medium. This is of course not true. 

Now it may be that a PARTICULAR THEORY uses the medium as a speed
reference, but it isn’t so that the only sensible theories are ones like
that. 

> 
> keith stein
> 
> 



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

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

#471378

On 10/09/2018 20:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>>>
>>>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>>>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>>>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>>>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>>>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>>>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>>>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>
>>>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>>>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>>>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>>>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>>>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>>>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>>>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>>>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>>>
>>>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>>>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>>>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
>>>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
>>>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>>>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
>>>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>
>>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
>>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
>>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
>>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>>>
>>
>> There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
>> and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non
>> existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the
>> frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic
>> velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
>> velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!
> 
> But it’s not nothing.

I assume you mean that "perfect vacuum" is not "nothing",
which is indeed the modern view, i understand. Although
there again Maxwell was there before us. He put it like
this "A vacuum is what is left in a vessel after everything
which can be removed from the vessel has been removed"

> You are now saying that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE
> reference for the signal speed is a medium. This is of course not true.

Well i would be equally happy with notion that the speed
of light within a vessel containing a "vacuum" is defined
with reference to that vessel. What to me is inconceivable
is that it could have the same speed with respect to every
thing eh!

> Now it may be that a PARTICULAR THEORY uses the medium as a speed
> reference, but it isn’t so that the only sensible theories are ones like
> that.
> 
>>
>> keith stein
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

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

#471382

Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 20:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>>>>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>>>>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>>>>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>>>>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>>>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>>>>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>>>>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>>>>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>>>>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>>>>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>>>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>>>>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>>>>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>>>>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>>>>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>>>>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>>>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>>>>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
>>>>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
>>>>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>>>>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
>>>>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>>>> 
>>>>> keith stein
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
>>>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
>>>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
>>>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
>>> and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non
>>> existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the
>>> frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic
>>> velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
>>> velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!
>> 
>> But it’s not nothing.
> 
> I assume you mean that "perfect vacuum" is not "nothing",
> which is indeed the modern view, i understand. Although
> there again Maxwell was there before us. He put it like
> this "A vacuum is what is left in a vessel after everything
> which can be removed from the vessel has been removed"
> 
>> You are now saying that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE
>> reference for the signal speed is a medium. This is of course not true.
> 
> Well i would be equally happy with notion that the speed
> of light within a vessel containing a "vacuum" is defined
> with reference to that vessel. What to me is inconceivable
> is that it could have the same speed with respect to every
> thing eh!

I think that’s the problem. You’re only able to think of it as a speed in
reference to some material thing. And you say that if your imagination is
so limited, then it should be for everyone. Meanwhile, other people, not so
limited, understand how the speed needs no material reference. 

> 
>> Now it may be that a PARTICULAR THEORY uses the medium as a speed
>> reference, but it isn’t so that the only sensible theories are ones like
>> that.
>> 
>>> 
>>> keith stein
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 



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

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

#471388

On 11/09/2018 12:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 20:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>>>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>>>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>>>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>>>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>>>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>>>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>>>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and others)
>>>>>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to account for
>>>>>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, and a
>>>>>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a displacement
>>>>>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>>>>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is D contains
>>>>>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B divided by the
>>>>>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole bunch of
>>>>>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the vacuum
>>>>>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce the speed
>>>>>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>>>>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know their
>>>>>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to the known
>>>>>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was electromagnetic
>>>>>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 experiment by
>>>>>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first form is
>>>>>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>>>>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of anything
>>>>>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple reason
>>>>>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate values for
>>>>>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>>>>>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make difficulties
>>>>>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute temperature on
>>>>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a line and
>>>>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because we’ve gotten
>>>>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
>>>> and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non
>>>> existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the
>>>> frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic
>>>> velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
>>>> velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!
>>>
>>> But it’s not nothing.
>>
>> I assume you mean that "perfect vacuum" is not "nothing",
>> which is indeed the modern view, i understand. Although
>> there again Maxwell was there before us. He put it like
>> this "A vacuum is what is left in a vessel after everything
>> which can be removed from the vessel has been removed"
>>
>>> You are now saying that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE
>>> reference for the signal speed is a medium. This is of course not true.
>>
>> Well i would be equally happy with notion that the speed
>> of light within a vessel containing a "vacuum" is defined
>> with reference to that vessel. What to me is inconceivable
>> is that it could have the same speed with respect to every
>> thing eh!
> 
> I think that’s the problem. You’re only able to think of it as a speed in
> reference to some material thing. And you say that if your imagination is
> so limited, then it should be for everyone.




In my limited system, there is
       NO LIMIT
       ON SPEED
Indeed I myself frequently travel
at speed >> c, in my imagination eh!

FIRST CLASS
(AVERAGE SPEED = INFINITE)
dep. time.................09.00 GMT or whatever
arr. time.................left as exercise
for students
of
time               eh!

In 2nd Class
we will be examining
DIGITAL SOLUTIONS to
the one dimensional
wave equation
d2 / dx^2 = c^2 * d2/ dt^2

How would YOU Solve the above equation
DIGITALLY.

It turns out that its very simple,
since whatever d2 refers to
it is going to travel at speed c
( relative to the local medium )
      which isn't too sh-abbey
for 2nd Class eh!

keith stein













  > Meanwhile, other people, not so
> limited, understand how the speed needs no material reference.
> 
>>
>>> Now it may be that a PARTICULAR THEORY uses the medium as a speed
>>> reference, but it isn’t so that the only sensible theories are ones like
>>> that.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> keith stein
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 

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

#471394 — Re: Ectoplasm (Whoops! Typos eh!)

>   > Meanwhile, other people, not so
>> limited, understand how the speed needs no material reference.




On 11/09/2018 14:54, Keith Stein wrote:
> On 11/09/2018 12:52, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/09/2018 20:27, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:53, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 18:05, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>> Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/09/2018 13:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The only problem with that is that Maxwell's Equations just
>>>>>>>>>> come up with the speed of light = constant. Never constant
>>>>>>>>>> relative to anything, just the same constant everywhere.
>>>>>>>>>> Part of the motivation for Einstein's SR later, which raised
>>>>>>>>>> the speed of light=c to all inertial observers to a postulate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Clearly you have never read Maxwell's "Treatise on Electricity
>>>>>>>>> and Magnetism", Michael. If you had you would surely know that
>>>>>>>>> Maxwell did NOT come up with the speed of light = constant, but
>>>>>>>>> rather a speed which depended on the electric permitivity and
>>>>>>>>> magnetic permeability OF THE MEDIUM. Not only did he NOT
>>>>>>>>> introduce the constants epsilon0 and mu0, but it is obvious
>>>>>>>>> that he would have reject such concepts, since the final
>>>>>>>>> chapter of his famous Treatise is headed "A MEDIUM NECESSARY".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The modern Maxwell's Equations (modified by Heaviside, Hertz and 
>>>>>>>> others)
>>>>>>>> have two forms: an unwieldy form where you essentially have to 
>>>>>>>> account for
>>>>>>>> every single charge and current but applies to all situations, 
>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>> simpler/integral form where materials of a bulk form have a 
>>>>>>>> displacement
>>>>>>>> field D replacing the electric field E, and the H magnetizing field
>>>>>>>> replacing the magnet field B. The difference between D and E is 
>>>>>>>> D contains
>>>>>>>> a permittivity of a material which is E_r*E_0, and H is B 
>>>>>>>> divided by the
>>>>>>>> magnetic permeability mu of the material, which is mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The first form does not involve materials (except as a whole 
>>>>>>>> bunch of
>>>>>>>> charges/currents that have to be accounted for) and produces the 
>>>>>>>> vacuum
>>>>>>>> speed of light c=1/sqrt(mu_0*E_0). The second form can produce 
>>>>>>>> the speed
>>>>>>>> of light in a material with permittivity E_r*E_0 and permeability
>>>>>>>> mu_r*mu_0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maxwell did not know E_0 and mu_0 individually, but he did know 
>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>> product, and noticed that 1/square root of it was very close to 
>>>>>>>> the known
>>>>>>>> speed of light. This is why Maxwell suggested light was 
>>>>>>>> electromagnetic
>>>>>>>> radiation. The product E_0*mu_0 was discovered in an 1855 
>>>>>>>> experiment by
>>>>>>>> Weber and Kohlrausch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In empty space (no charges, no currents, no materials) the first 
>>>>>>>> form is
>>>>>>>> used and E_0*mu_0 is constant, so the speed of light 
>>>>>>>> c=1/sqrt(E_0*mu_0) is
>>>>>>>> also constant.  It does not (cannot) depend on the velocity of 
>>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>>> since in empty space there is nothing there to move!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one ever measured E_0 or mu_0, Michael, for the very simple 
>>>>>>> reason
>>>>>>> that THERE ISN'T ANY VACUUM. If you measure the appropriate 
>>>>>>> values for
>>>>>>> a low pressure gas then you obtain the velocity of light RELATIVE TO
>>>>>>> THAT LOW PRESSURE GAS. It is really very simple. You make 
>>>>>>> difficulties
>>>>>>> where there aren't any, Michael.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> keith stein
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn’t this like saying no one has measured where absolute 
>>>>>> temperature on
>>>>>> the temperature scale is? There comes a point where you can fit a 
>>>>>> line and
>>>>>> say these are the values of T_0, mu_0, and epsilon_0, because 
>>>>>> we’ve gotten
>>>>>> ever so close and the extrapolation is completely unambiguous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a critical difference between extrapolating to absolute zero,
>>>>> and extrapolating to perfect vacuum. When one extrapolates to (non
>>>>> existent) perfect vacuum one is omitting the "stuff" which defines the
>>>>> frame of reference with which light travels at its characteristic
>>>>> velocity c, and thereby creating non existent difficulties, because a
>>>>> velocity relative to "nothing" is meaningless eh!
>>>>
>>>> But it’s not nothing.
>>>
>>> I assume you mean that "perfect vacuum" is not "nothing",
>>> which is indeed the modern view, i understand. Although
>>> there again Maxwell was there before us. He put it like
>>> this "A vacuum is what is left in a vessel after everything
>>> which can be removed from the vessel has been removed"
>>>
>>>> You are now saying that the ONLY CONCEIVABLE
>>>> reference for the signal speed is a medium. This is of course not true.
>>>
>>> Well i would be equally happy with notion that the speed
>>> of light within a vessel containing a "vacuum" is defined
>>> with reference to that vessel. What to me is inconceivable
>>> is that it could have the same speed with respect to every
>>> thing eh!
>>
>> I think that’s the problem. You’re only able to think of it as a speed in
>> reference to some material thing. And you say that if your imagination is
>> so limited, then it should be for everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my limited system, there is
>        NO LIMIT
>        ON SPEED
> Indeed I myself frequently travel
> at speed >> c, in my imagination eh!
> 
> FIRST CLASS
> (AVERAGE SPEED = INFINITE)
> dep. time.................09.00 GMT or whatever
> arr. time.................left as exercise
> for students
> of
> time               eh!
> 
> In 2nd Class
> we will be examining
> DIGITAL SOLUTIONS to
> the one dimensional
> wave equation
> d2 / dx^2 = c^-2 * d2/ dt^2 (corrected)
> 
> How would YOU Solve the above equation
> DIGITALLY.
> 
> It turns out that its very simple,
> since whatever d2 refers to
> it is going to travel at speed c
> ( relative to the local medium )
>       which isn't too shabby
> for 2nd Class eh!
> 
> keith stein

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

#471396 — Re: Ectoplasm (Whoops! Typos eh!)

Einstein’s problem in 1905 is not the aether or its nature or “molecular forces” referred to by Lorentz in 1892.  Einstein’s problem is epistemology.

Simplify to one dimension on the abscissa, i.e., on axis X.  On axis X is a stationary “rigid body” named rod L ( unprimed ).  For convenience, the near end of rod L is at X location x = 0 at time t = 0.  The far end of rod L will be adjacent to some milepost on axis X.  This milepost can be found at any time since rod L is not moving.  Let’s say for example that the observer on axis X determines in some leisurely manner that the far end of rod L is at milepost 10.  Then the length of rod L is x = 10.

Let there be a moving version of rod L called rod L′ ( prime ).  Prime only indicates motion.  For convenience, one end of rod L′ is at x = 0 at time t = 0, as judged on axis X.  Where is the far end of rod L′ ?  The appropriate milepost on axis X must now be located at a particular time, name time t = 0.  Einstein uses the term “discovered.”

[ EDoMB - 1905 Fourmilab translation, Section 2 ]

Einstein suggests that the phenomenon of time t = 0 at x = 0 cannot be transported to any other location on axis X.  By this he seems to mean that simultaneous time is not available.   Section 2 confusingly implies that synchronous time is sufficient at a distant milepost, and synchronous time is transmissible from one location to another. 

As I indicated at the beginning of this thread, Einstein’s synchrony practices are nefarious although not necessarily wrong.  In any case, he does not carry his conception of synchrony to a formula for length contraction.   

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

#471398 — Re: Ectoplasm ( and Epistemology and Einstein's Nefarious Practices.)

On 11/09/2018 16:27, xip1415926@gmail.com wrote:
> Einstein’s problem in 1905 is not the aether or nature or “molecular forces” referred to by Lorentz in 1892.  Einstein’s problem is epistemology.
> 
> Simplify to one dimension on the abscissa, i.e., on axis X.  On axis X is a stationary “rigid body” named rod L ( unprimed ).  For convenience, the near end of rod L is at X location x = 0 at time t = 0.  The far end of rod L will be adjacent to some milepost on axis X.  This milepost can be found at any time since rod L is not moving.  Let’s say for example that the observer on axis X determines in some leisurely manner that the far end of rod L is at milepost 10.  Then the length of rod L is x = 10.
> 
> Let there be a moving version of rod L called rod L′ ( prime ).  Prime only indicates motion.  For convenience, one end of rod L′ is at x = 0 at time t = 0, as judged on axis X.  Where is the far end of rod L′ ?
At x' = x = 10   At t' = t = 0

> The appropriate milepost on axis X must now be located at a particular time, name time t = 0.  Einstein uses the term “discovered.”
> 
> [ EDoMB - 1905 Fourmilab translation, Section 2 ]
> 
> Einstein suggests that the phenomenon of time t = 0 at x = 0 cannot be transported to any other location on axis X.  By this he seems to mean that simultaneous time is not available.   Section 2 confusingly implies that synchronous time is sufficient at a distant milepost, and synchronous time is transmissible from one location to another.
> 
> As I indicated at the beginning of this thread, Einstein’s synchrony practices are nefarious although not necessarily wrong.  In any case, he does not carry his conception of synchrony to a formula for length contraction.
> 

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

#472067

On 9/10/18 1:16 PM, Keith Stein wrote:
> [...]

You just don't understand how speeds are MEASURED. In each and every 
case there is a (local) inertial frame relative to which the measurement 
is made. That is, to measure ANY speed one must set up a known distance 
(using rulers, or equivalent), and measure the time the object took to 
travel that distance -- this INHERENTLY requires clocks located at each 
end of the distance, which must be synchronized with each other. The 
only way to do all that such that people will agree it is a measurement 
of speed, is to use a (local) inertial frame.

Any optical medium has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

So measuring the speed of light in a perfect vacuum makes sense, because 
the measurement is not "relative to the vacuum", it is relative to some 
particular (local) inertial frame.

Your concern about residual gas in a laboratory vacuum, or in 
inter-galactic space, has no practical impact, because to detect the 
difference between c and c/n would require an inertial frame moving 
faster than 0.99 c relative to the residual gas -- that's impossible as 
the impact of the residual gas on such a spaceship would destroy it.

Moreover, as I keep repeating: the assumptions Maxwell made about his 
medium simply do not apply to intergalactic space -- he assumed the 
medium is CONTINUOUS, and we KNOW that does not apply.

And also, as I keep repeating: Maxwell's theory is KNOWN TO BE WRONG. It 
does NOT describe electromagnetic radiation, it is merely an 
APPROXIMATION TO QED.

Tom Roberts

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

#472105

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 9:58:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:

> 
> You just don't understand how speeds are MEASURED. In each and every 
> case there is a (local) inertial frame relative to which the measurement 
> is made. That is, to measure ANY speed one must set up a known distance 
> (using rulers, or equivalent), and measure the time the object took to 
> travel that distance -- this INHERENTLY requires clocks located at each 
> end of the distance, which must be synchronized with each other. The 
> only way to do all that such that people will agree it is a measurement 
> of speed, is to use a (local) inertial frame.
> 
> Tom Roberts


You have a single clock measuring roundtrip speed.  This clock logs start time and return time, and subtracts start time from return time obtaining a roundtrip time interval, call it T, which time interval is applied to roundtrip distance of 2x:  c = 2x/T.  

As to how you get oneway speed on distance x is a fraught business.  Einstein in EDoMB-1905 Section 1 implicitly uses  t = ½ T, ie, c = x/t.

If you use straight oneway time ( based on two clocks ) of  t = c/x, and if in reality speed is c – v, you have an error in time t of the first order in v / c.

By Einstein's method, if in reality you have speed c – v on the journey out and c + v on the journey in, you have an error in time T = c/2x of the second order in v / c.

Einstein said this condition exists BY DEFINITION, thereby eliminating ordinary oneway speed based on two separate clocks.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web