Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #464766

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

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Why did Einstein bring up the concept of simultaneity when he formulate SRT?
Date	2018-07-18 08:53 +0200
Message-ID	<fr86f5Ft67oU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(10 earlier) <12dd9b6f-dd01-1241-049d-2f28c9a5889f@PointedEars.de> <fr1adaFk6n9U1@mid.individual.net> <6e3069af-0efa-0142-f028-a434a8c5f3f8@PointedEars.de> <fr3tj1F4jh5U1@mid.individual.net> <8c67deed-1e8a-f380-ba69-cc576e8f24bc@PointedEars.de>

Show all headers | View raw

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

Sure, but what I did was this:

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

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

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

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

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

..

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


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

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

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

Certainly 'falsified' is an unjustified claim.

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

Sound behaves different than light, sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

TH

Thread

csiph-web