Special Relativity has come into being for more than one hundred years, it is still half-baked and underdeveloped.the objective physical world.
in 1905 Einstein considered only outbound motion, ignoring inbound motion; the former motion causes time dilation, while the latter causes time contraction, although the above-mentioned dilation and contraction only occur in the perspective and not in
because not knowing backward motion also causes time contraction, Einstein's follower mess up perspective time with physical time, and blindly conclude that perspective time dilation is physical time dilation.
YES, I do, in the end of chapter 5, in chapter 7 and chapter8 of my book <absolute time >
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
YES, I do, in the end of chapter 5, in chapter 7 and chapter8 of my book <absolute time >
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
So, to paraphrase what you said above: "No".
Sylvia.
Thanks for your message. thank you for reading my book.reported cannot meet this requirement at all. Corresponding experiments cannot verify the time dilation of outbound motion.
let me make some explanations:
1. Regarding inbound motion cause time contraction, what I had in chapter 7, is not the thought experiment. I used 4 different methods to demonstrate the time contraction. I derived the inbound motion Lorenz transformation mathematically.
2. Regarding the scientific experiment in the real world, there is no way to test Lorenz transformation for outbound motion, where the motion must be Uniform linear motion. The so-called experiments of jet planes orbiting the earth that have been
3. The experiment without considering the inbound motion is a random interpretation experiment while it involved inbound motion. In 1905, Einstein was able to consider outbound motion, so why did so many physicists a hundred years later not simply usemiddle school mathematics to calculate the Lorentz transformation of inbound motion? I am a layman in physics, even I can deduce it. This is a strange thing.
4. I knew the story of Mr. Essen, but I don't know his book you mentioned. I loved to buy one, but i can not find it in amazon.com. however I don't think Essen had ever talked about inbound motion causing time contraction.
On 14-Apr-23 11:19 am, Jack Liu wrote:
YES, I do, in the end of chapter 5, in chapter 7 and chapter8 of my book <absolute time >
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfhOL63jvB2Dmn4JCRmOx6S8Dh9nRbdC/view
I think what was intended was whether there is one experiment that has
been performed that supports what you have said, not whether there is
one experiment that you think would do so if it were actually performed.
Sylvia.
So, to paraphrase what you said above: "No".
Sylvia.
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it. I used four methods to derive this result, which can be verified using middle school mathematics.
According to your logic, before Einstein published the theory of relativity in 1905, he must have led a group of physicists to conduct scientific experiments?
--Jack
On 14-Apr-23 5:02 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
So, to paraphrase what you said above: "No".
Sylvia.
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it. I used four methods to derive this result, which can be verified using middle school mathematics.
According to your logic, before Einstein published the theory of relativity in 1905, he must have led a group of physicists to conduct scientific experiments?
--JackEinstein made no assumption about time dilation and contraction at all,
so claiming he only considered only half of it makes no sense.
He assumed that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of
physics are the same for all observers.
Einstein made no assumption about time dilation and contraction at all,
so claiming he only considered only half of it makes no sense.
He assumed that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of
physics are the same for all observers.
The Lorentz transform comes out of that.
Sylvia
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 4:19:28?AM UTC-5, Sylvia El
Einstein made no assumption about time dilation and contraction at all,
so claiming he only considered only half of it makes no sense.
He assumed that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of physics are the same for all observers.
The Lorentz transform comes out of that.
Sylvia
Thanks for response. I agree with you that Einstein assumed that the speed
of light is constant, and that the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frame of reference.
let me clarify my point one more time: In his famous relativity essay in 1905, Einstein considered only outbound motion, ignoring inbound motion;
the former motion causes time dilation, while the latter causes time contraction.
On 14-Apr-23 5:02 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
So, to paraphrase what you said above: "No".
Sylvia.
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it. I used four methods to derive this result, which can be verified using middle school mathematics.
According to your logic, before Einstein published the theory of relativity in 1905, he must have led a group of physicists to conduct scientific experiments?
--JackEinstein made no assumption about time dilation and contraction at all,
so claiming he only considered only half of it makes no sense.
He assumed that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of
physics are the same for all observers.
The Lorentz transform comes out of that.
Sylvia
On 14-Apr-23 5:02 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it. I used four methods to derive this result, which can be verified using middle school mathematics.
It is completely unclear what you might mean by all this.
The Lorentz transformation applies to all possible velocity vectors.
It must, or else the Lorentz transformations wouldn't form a group.
Jan
This is indeed curious, because, I have a printout of Einstein's 1905 paper in front of me, he writes about a ray of light emitted in the direction of increasing E (Epsilon, which is the x - axis in the moving system) . Is that what you mean? These aretwo systems moving towards each other, what about systems moving apart?
I have not analyzed the mathematics yet, hopefully I will be able to without time dilation.
are two systems moving towards each other, what about systems moving apart?This is indeed curious, because, I have a printout of Einstein's 1905 paper in front of me, he writes about a ray of light emitted in the direction of increasing E (Epsilon, which is the x - axis in the moving system) . Is that what you mean? These
I have not analyzed the mathematics yet, hopefully I will be able to without time dilation.please analyze the mathematics, you will reach other set of Lorenz transformation for approaching object , and you would find time contraction ----negative effect of time dilation. looking forward to your result. have good weekend
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:40:00 PM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:are two systems moving towards each other, what about systems moving apart?
This is indeed curious, because, I have a printout of Einstein's 1905 paper in front of me, he writes about a ray of light emitted in the direction of increasing E (Epsilon, which is the x - axis in the moving system) . Is that what you mean? These
You are talking to a fellow crank.Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct. ?I have not analyzed the mathematics yet, hopefully I will be able to without time dilation.please analyze the mathematics, you will reach other set of Lorenz transformation for approaching object , and you would find time contraction ----negative effect of time dilation. looking forward to your result. have good weekend
Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct. ?
Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct. ?inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return. chapter 8 of absolute time provided easiest and simplest solution for twin paradox.
Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct. ?inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return. chapter 8 of absolute time provided easiest and simplest solution for twin paradox.
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return. chapter 8 of absolute time provided easiest and simplest solution for twin paradox.Why don't you post your assumptions and proof step by step so we can either tear it down or confirm it?
Like all theories, it is symmetric and beautiful.
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return. chapter 8 of absolute time provided easiest and simplest solution for twin paradox.Idiot
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result
in same age of twins after travel twin return.
On 2023-04-15 03:13:01 +0000, Jack Liu said:
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which resultHow do you explain the observation that the travelling twin ages less?
in same age of twins after travel twin return.
Mikko
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:48:58 AM UTC-5, Mikko wrote:
On 2023-04-15 03:13:01 +0000, Jack Liu said:
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return.How do you explain the observation that the travelling twin ages less?
Mikkomost important thing is always to keep in mind that motion is relative. therefore, there is no absolute one-side age-less for any twin. The status of the two frames of reference is equal. Traveling twins have no age advantage .
any of the twin could seem age less in other twin's perspective, as long as they are not in same position.
please read chapter 6: time and perspective.
Jack Liu <liu...@gmail.com> wrote:
let me clarify my point one more time: In his famous relativity essay in 1905, Einstein considered only outbound motion, ignoring inbound motion; the former motion causes time dilation, while the latter causes time contraction.It is completely unclear what you might mean by all this.
The Lorentz transformation applies to all possible velocity vectors.
It must, or else the Lorentz transformations wouldn't form a group.
please read chapter 6: time and perspective.
he appears to be mixing Doppler frequency shifts with time dilation.
please read chapter 6: time and perspective.I will read chapter 6. However your work needs some more clarity in certain sections.
I would really like to see your mathematics peer reviewed by an expert: tell them the conclusions are wrong and the assumptions are wrong, give them that, but ask if given the wrong assumptions, does it prove the case.
There is no way anyone is going to work from negated Relativity theory.
win's perspective, as long as they are not in same position.
please read chapter 6: time and perspective.I will read chapter 6. However your work needs some more clarity in certain sections.
I would really like to see your mathematics peer reviewed by an expert: tell them the conclusions are wrong and the assumptions are wrong, give them that, but ask if given the wrong assumptions, does it prove the case.
There is no way anyone is going to work from negated Relativity theory.one of my friend a physics professor even could not review my book. He has no ability to deduce the relativistic factor of outbound motion, let alone deduce the relativistic factor of outbound motion. He doesn't understand Minkowski geometry.
please read chapter 6: time and perspective."Thus, according to such physical magic, the special relativity
can delay the aging of a terminally ill patient lying motionless
on a hospital bed, as long as relativity physicists find another
person under the sun to make relative motion to the patient. It
is best for the other person to do high-speed motion, like close
to the speed of light; thus, the therapeutic effect will be more
obvious from the perspective of that high-speed travel person
in the point of view of Dr. Special Relativity."
You make a good point here. If we were able to make the Earth travel, by some powerful rocket motor, then we could have the Earth age younger than everything else.
Twins: The Earth twin is the travelling twin, with the Earth, and he returns to the spaceship and finds that the entire Earth is x years younger than the spaceship twin.
Then: this time it is the spaceships turn to travel. The spacetwin travels and then comes back to find that he is x2 years younger than the Earth twin.
Now is x1 = x2, they end up the same age. Not sure about the rest of the universe.
"The so-called time dilation ef-
fect by relativity experts is actually just the delay effect of in- formation transmission."
This needs to be checked. Please let us know how you can verify this statement or falsify it. A thought experiment will help.
Your style is very informal, but brought many a smile.
"The key is to keep in mind that those time dilations and length contractions are effects in perspective. The dilated time and
contracted length belongs to the mind of observer, they are
not physical time and length."
This is all very well, but you have to ask the question, how do I prove the above statement mathematically? Is it in the
equations I have not looked at? Have the equations been reviewed by an expert that is acceptable to this forum?
please read chapter 6: time and perspective."Thus, according to such physical magic, the special relativity
can delay the aging of a terminally ill patient lying motionless
on a hospital bed, as long as relativity physicists find another
person under the sun to make relative motion to the patient. It
is best for the other person to do high-speed motion, like close
to the speed of light; thus, the therapeutic effect will be more
obvious from the perspective of that high-speed travel person
in the point of view of Dr. Special Relativity."
You make a good point here. If we were able to make the Earth travel, by some powerful rocket motor, then we could have the Earth age younger than everything else.
On 14-Apr-23 5:02 pm, Jack Liu wrote:
So, to paraphrase what you said above: "No".
Sylvia.
You have left out the last step, Sylvia.My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it. I used four methods to derive this result, which can be verified using middle school mathematics.
According to your logic, before Einstein published the theory of relativity in 1905, he must have led a group of physicists to conduct scientific experiments?
--JackEinstein made no assumption about time dilation and contraction at all,
so claiming he only considered only half of it makes no sense.
He assumed that the speed of light is constant, and that the laws of
physics are the same for all observers.
The Lorentz transform comes out of that.
Sylvia
Special Relativity has come into being for more than one hundred
years, it is still half-baked and underdeveloped.
[... nonsense based on serious misunderstandings]
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound
motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it.
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which
result in same age of twins after travel twin return.
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) the
proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ by
a factor gamma^2.
On 4/13/23 4:57 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
Special Relativity has come into being for more than one hundred
years, it is still half-baked and underdeveloped.
Not true. It is YOUR PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS of SR that are
"half-baked and underdeveloped".
[... nonsense based on serious misunderstandings]This is flat-out wrong. See my earlier response to you in another
My point is simple: outbound motion causes time dilation, inbound
motion causes time contraction. Einstein only considered half of it.
thread. Repeating this falsehood does not make it true.
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, whichExcept in actual experiments it doesn't. Your claims are wrong, in that
result in same age of twins after travel twin return.
they disagree with both the theory of Special Relativity and experiments.
Tom Roberts
On 4/15/23 11:44 AM, patdolan wrote:
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) the proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ bySuch nonsense you write. There is only one relative velocity for a given object and coordinate system. Moreover, the "proper velocity" of any
a factor gamma^2.
object is identically zero, because "proper" means "in the object's rest frame".
[This is not astronomy, in which "proper velocity" has
a completely different meaning.]
Tom Roberts
On 4/15/23 11:44 AM, patdolan wrote:Tom Roberts, you pudding fingered fool. Two observers, O and O' in relative motion. The observer O at rest in S will measure a relative velocity for observer O'. Call that velocity v. Plug v into the LTs. Time really does pass slower for O' in S and
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) the proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ bySuch nonsense you write. There is only one relative velocity for a given object and coordinate system. Moreover, the "proper velocity" of any
a factor gamma^2.
object is identically zero, because "proper" means "in the object's rest frame".
[This is not astronomy, in which "proper velocity" has
a completely different meaning.]
Tom Roberts
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 12:06:19 PM UTC-7, Tom Roberts wrote:meter sticks really do shorten for O' in S. This is not an illusion. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE MANY WORLDS INTERPRETATION OF SR that states there in "another" coordinate system S' in which everything thing is just peachy for O'. I am contemplating the only
On 4/15/23 11:44 AM, patdolan wrote:
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) the proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ bySuch nonsense you write. There is only one relative velocity for a given object and coordinate system. Moreover, the "proper velocity" of any object is identically zero, because "proper" means "in the object's rest frame".
a factor gamma^2.
[This is not astronomy, in which "proper velocity" has
a completely different meaning.]
Tom RobertsTom Roberts, you pudding fingered fool. Two observers, O and O' in relative motion. The observer O at rest in S will measure a relative velocity for observer O'. Call that velocity v. Plug v into the LTs. Time really does pass slower for O' in S and
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.
When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:56:56 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:same value at the same S'-time, O will notice that their readings at a given S-time are actually unequal. These two clocks (both at rest in S') are running at the same rate, but in terms of S the readings of these clocks are offset (skewed) from each
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.In addition to those two effects, O will also notice that the clocks of O' are not synchronized "correctly", meaning that if O' has clocks at each end of a rod (at rest in S') pointed in the direction of relative motion, and those clocks read the
Sure enough, accortding to S' this would imply that an object at rest in S (meaning it is moving along increments with dx=0) is moving at speed dx'/dt' = g^2 v.When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.That would be true if the spatially-separate clocks at rest in S' were all correctly synchronized according to S, with no offset in their values. If that were the case, then x',t' would be related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)dt.
all three (not just two) relativistic effects, i.e., time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity, and we find that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.However, due to the skew in the synchronizations noted above (the crucial third relativistic effect, which you overlooked), the coordinates x',t' are actually related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx). From these we can confirm
Trevor, simultaneity plays no part. I can make a measurement of Tom Robert's velocity relative to me in my FoR in April of 2023 while he is 5 light years away, and get the value v. A sloth-like Tom Roberts then makes a measurement in my FoR of hisvelocity relative to me in April of 2024 and gets a velocity v'. Neither of us has need of the other's clocks or sticks.
You are mixing TWO REST frames, each with its own clocks. Tom and I are using MY frame to make both measurements. In that case Tom measures v' and I measure v. You have a problem with that? Then you'll need to take it up with the first postulate.Put another way Trevor, what you are failing to understand is that as a guest in my FoR, Tom's meter sticks REALLY ARE shorter and his clocks REALLY DO run slower. This is not some sort of illusion. It is an iron clad consequent of the LTs. You want
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:value at the same S'-time, O will notice that their readings at a given S-time are actually unequal. These two clocks (both at rest in S') are running at the same rate, but in terms of S the readings of these clocks are offset (skewed) from each other.
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.In addition to those two effects, O will also notice that the clocks of O' are not synchronized "correctly", meaning that if O' has clocks at each end of a rod (at rest in S') pointed in the direction of relative motion, and those clocks read the same
Sure enough, accortding to S' this would imply that an object at rest in S (meaning it is moving along increments with dx=0) is moving at speed dx'/dt' = g^2 v.When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.That would be true if the spatially-separate clocks at rest in S' were all correctly synchronized according to S, with no offset in their values. If that were the case, then x',t' would be related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)dt.
However, due to the skew in the synchronizations noted above (the crucial third relativistic effect, which you overlooked), the coordinates x',t' are actually related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx). From these we can confirmall three (not just two) relativistic effects, i.e., time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity, and we find that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:56:56 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:same value at the same S'-time, O will notice that their readings at a given S-time are actually unequal. These two clocks (both at rest in S') are running at the same rate, but in terms of S the readings of these clocks are offset (skewed) from each
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.In addition to those two effects, O will also notice that the clocks of O' are not synchronized "correctly", meaning that if O' has clocks at each end of a rod (at rest in S') pointed in the direction of relative motion, and those clocks read the
Sure enough, accortding to S' this would imply that an object at rest in S (meaning it is moving along increments with dx=0) is moving at speed dx'/dt' = g^2 v.When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.That would be true if the spatially-separate clocks at rest in S' were all correctly synchronized according to S, with no offset in their values. If that were the case, then x',t' would be related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)dt.
all three (not just two) relativistic effects, i.e., time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity, and we find that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.However, due to the skew in the synchronizations noted above (the crucial third relativistic effect, which you overlooked), the coordinates x',t' are actually related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx). From these we can confirm
Simultaneity plays no part.
Neither of us has need of the other's clocks or sticks.
...as a guest in my FoR, Tom's meter sticks REALLY ARE shorter and his clocks REALLY DO run slower.
This is not some sort of illusion. It is an iron clad consequent of the LTs.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:same value at the same S'-time, O will notice that their readings at a given S-time are actually unequal. These two clocks (both at rest in S') are running at the same rate, but in terms of S the readings of these clocks are offset (skewed) from each
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:56:56 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.In addition to those two effects, O will also notice that the clocks of O' are not synchronized "correctly", meaning that if O' has clocks at each end of a rod (at rest in S') pointed in the direction of relative motion, and those clocks read the
dt. Sure enough, accortding to S' this would imply that an object at rest in S (meaning it is moving along increments with dx=0) is moving at speed dx'/dt' = g^2 v.When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.That would be true if the spatially-separate clocks at rest in S' were all correctly synchronized according to S, with no offset in their values. If that were the case, then x',t' would be related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)
confirm all three (not just two) relativistic effects, i.e., time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity, and we find that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.However, due to the skew in the synchronizations noted above (the crucial third relativistic effect, which you overlooked), the coordinates x',t' are actually related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx). From these we can
... there are multiple methods to calculate velocity.
...if you want to find out the velocity of your car over the measured mile, all you need do is subtract the time on your wristwatch...
... multiple clock requirements assume the conclusion that all clocks de-synchronize with relative movement.
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 8:17:41 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:same value at the same S'-time, O will notice that their readings at a given S-time are actually unequal. These two clocks (both at rest in S') are running at the same rate, but in terms of S the readings of these clocks are offset (skewed) from each
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 7:56:56 PM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:
On Saturday, April 15, 2023 at 6:11:49 PM UTC-7, patdolan wrote:
I watch O' make measurement in slow motion with clocks that run too slow and with meter sticks that are too short.In addition to those two effects, O will also notice that the clocks of O' are not synchronized "correctly", meaning that if O' has clocks at each end of a rod (at rest in S') pointed in the direction of relative motion, and those clocks read the
dt. Sure enough, accortding to S' this would imply that an object at rest in S (meaning it is moving along increments with dx=0) is moving at speed dx'/dt' = g^2 v.When observer O' is finished measuring and calculating I watch him slowly hold up his results that his relative velocity to me v' is a value that is greater than my relative velocity to him v by a factor of gamma^2.That would be true if the spatially-separate clocks at rest in S' were all correctly synchronized according to S, with no offset in their values. If that were the case, then x',t' would be related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)
confirm all three (not just two) relativistic effects, i.e., time dilation, length contraction, and the skew of simultaneity, and we find that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.However, due to the skew in the synchronizations noted above (the crucial third relativistic effect, which you overlooked), the coordinates x',t' are actually related to x,t by the equations dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx). From these we can
divided by the difference between the time the car is at B and the time it was at A, and obviously if we skew the readings of the clocks at A and B we can get any time difference we want. We need the clocks at A and B to be synchronized in order to giveSimultaneity plays no part.
To the contrary, the meaning of velocity is a change in spatial position for a given change in time, and this explicitly entails a specified simultaneity, e.g., the speed of a car is moving from A to B is, by definition, the distance between A and B
involve using the clocks and rulers at rest in a given frame, then you may want to start a new thread.Neither of us has need of the other's clocks or sticks.Up above you said you were watching O' make his measurement using his dilated clocks and contracted rulers, and this (you said) is why he measures your speed as -gamma^2 v. If you are talking about something completely different now, that doesn't
S' ahave skewed simultaneity in terms of S (and vice versa). All three of these effects are real, measurable, physical effects....as a guest in my FoR, Tom's meter sticks REALLY ARE shorter and his clocks REALLY DO run slower.
If you mean that, in terms of S, the clocks at rest in S' run slow by the factor sqrt(1-v^2), and the spatial length of a standard meter stick is sqrt(1-v^2) meters, yes, that is correct. In addition, inertially synchronized clocks that are at rest in
coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations (NOT by the transformations you suggested, that account for just two of the three effects, as explained above).This is not some sort of illusion. It is an iron clad consequent of the LTs.If by "this" you are referring to time dilation, length contraction, AND the skew of inertial simultaneity, then yes, they are not illusions, they are real physical facts, and all three are entailed unequivocally by the fact that standard inertial
... there are multiple methods to calculate velocity.
...if you want to find out the velocity of your car over the measured mile, all you need do is subtract the time on your wristwatch...
... multiple clock requirements assume the conclusion that all clocks de-synchronize with relative movement.
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:07:41 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:systems
... there are multiple methods to calculate velocity.
Indeed there are, and these "methods" correspond to systems of measurement, which can be expressed as systems of coordinates, of which there are infinitely many. There's a special class of coordinate systems, called the standard inertial coordinate
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 1:07:41 AM UTC-7, Trevor Lange wrote:systems, that are distinguished by the fact that all the equations of physics take their simple homogeneous and isotropic form when expressed in terms of such systems. These systems correspond to the readings on a grid of standard rulers and clocks at
... there are multiple methods to calculate velocity.
Indeed there are, and these "methods" correspond to systems of measurement, which can be expressed as systems of coordinates, of which there are infinitely many. There's a special class of coordinate systems, called the standard inertial coordinate
Remember, your claim, charitably expressed in grown-up language, is that standard inertial coordinate systems x,t and x',t' are related by dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=(1/g)dt, from which it follows that, according to S' an object at rest in S is moving atspeed dx'/dt' = -g^2 v. However, the relationship between x,t and x',t' is actually dx'=g(dx-vdt) and dt'=g(dt-vdx), from which it follows that the velocity of an object at rest in S in terms of the S' measurements is just -v.
coordinate systems like that, but you must not mistake those for standard inertial coordinate systems, i.e., you must realize that the laws of physics are not homogeneous and isotropic in terms of those implicit coordinates. All the propositions that you'...if you want to find out the velocity of your car over the measured mile, all you need do is subtract the time on your wristwatch...
That gives you the velocity in terms of a system of coordinates that is not a standard inertial coordinate system, it consist of mixing the space coordinate of one with the time coordinate of another. There's nothing wrong with using arbitrary
process, such as (say) shooting identical bullets from identical guns at rest at the midpoint between two clocks, and setting the clocks to equal times when the bullets arrive. This is the necessary synchronization in order for inertia to be isotropic in... multiple clock requirements assume the conclusion that all clocks de-synchronize with relative movement.
No, not at all. Clocks don't automatically adapt their synchronizations to the inertial synchronization based on their states of motion. Duh. For example, when you construct a grid of rulers and clocks you must inertially sunchronize them by some
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
Am 13.04.2023 um 12:23 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
On Friday, April 14, 2023 at 8:40:00 PM UTC+5, Jack Liu wrote:are two systems moving towards each other, what about systems moving apart?
This is indeed curious, because, I have a printout of Einstein's 1905 paper in front of me, he writes about a ray of light emitted in the direction of increasing E (Epsilon, which is the x - axis in the moving system) . Is that what you mean? These
please analyze the mathematics, you will reach other set of Lorenz transformation for approaching object , and you would find time contraction ----negative effect of time dilation. looking forward to your result. have good weekend
I have not analyzed the mathematics yet, hopefully I will be able to without time dilation.
Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct. ?
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:06:19 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/15/23 11:44 AM, patdolan wrote:
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) theSuch nonsense you write. There is only one relative velocity for a given
proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ by
a factor gamma^2.
object and coordinate system. Moreover, the "proper velocity" of any
object is identically zero, because "proper" means "in the object's rest
frame".
[This is not astronomy, in which "proper velocity" has
a completely different meaning.]
Tom Roberts
I think I understand proper time now as 'self-experienced' time. That may be a better word for it?
On 16-Apr-23 9:52 am, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 16, 2023 at 12:06:19 AM UTC+5, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 4/15/23 11:44 AM, patdolan wrote:
3) Out of the LTs comes not one, but TWO relative velocities: a) theSuch nonsense you write. There is only one relative velocity for a given >> object and coordinate system. Moreover, the "proper velocity" of any
proper velocity v, and b) the coordinate velocity v' which differ by
a factor gamma^2.
object is identically zero, because "proper" means "in the object's rest >> frame".
[This is not astronomy, in which "proper velocity" has
a completely different meaning.]
Tom Roberts
I think I understand proper time now as 'self-experienced' time. That may be a better word for it?Best to stick to the accepted terminology.
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:20:01 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.04.2023 um 12:23 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will convince everyone.
Am 17.04.2023 um 12:26 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:20:01 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.04.2023 um 12:23 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you
don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will convince
everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite all
of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
I'm already writing on an updated version and possibly that will
convince more readers.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 17.04.2023 um 12:26 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:20:01 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.04.2023 um 12:23 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you
don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will convince
everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite all of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.Your annotations are 100% made of errors on your part.
Is the idea of time dilation on the outward journey and the reverse on the inward journey
an elegant solution to the Twin Paradox if it is correct ?
inward time contraction will offset outward time dilation, which result in same age of twins after travel twin return.
Yes. This is confirmed by the Hafele-Keating experiment, where theThanks .
twin clocks showed identical readings, after circling the globe in opposite directions.
--
Rich
Einstein's ancient. But he won over QM in history.
His space curve does not always apply. Look at
Sun space curve meeting the Moon's center...
but the Moon doesn't get motion curved
by it there. Orbits are in orbit.
Mitchell RaemschCould you explain this?
I'm already writing on an updated version and possibly that will
convince more readers.
Am 17.04.2023 um 12:26 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
On Monday, April 17, 2023 at 1:20:01 PM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.04.2023 um 12:23 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
If you pass this course, no-one will be able to tell you that you
don't understand.
https://www.coursera.org/learn/einstein-relativity/lecture/XoNqA/course-overview
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will convince
everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite all
of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
I'm already writing on an updated version and possibly that will
convince more readers.
Not, I suspect, that there is anything wrong with special relativity.
Sylvia
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will
convince everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite
all of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
Your annotations are 100% made of errors on your part.
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being for
more than a century, it is still a half-baked theory.
Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra are
sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock
running faster,
Lorentz factor and Lorentz transform are different. Lorentz factor
could be larger or less than 1, Lorentz transform not possible
On 4/18/23 4:12 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being forNope. As I said before, it is your PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDING that hs "half-baked".
more than a century, it is still a half-baked theory.
Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra areThis is just plain wrong, and shows you have a fundamental
sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock
running faster,
misunderstanding of SR.
Lorentz factor and Lorentz transform are different. Lorentz factorWhile some people and Wikipedia talk about a "Lorentz factor", it does
could be larger or less than 1, Lorentz transform not possible
not really have an independent use, it is merely a factor that appears
in the Lorentz Transform. The latter, of course, most certainly is "possible" (though that's a strange choice of word for you to make).
Tom Roberts
Am 17.04.2023 um 15:58 schrieb Python:
...
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will
convince everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite
all of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
Your annotations are 100% made of errors on your part.
In case you think so, than please show (and prove) at least one.
I used four different methods to get same result.
On 4/18/23 4:12 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being forNope. As I said before, it is your PERSONAL MISUNDERSTANDING that hs "half-baked".
more than a century, it is still a half-baked theory.
Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra areThis is just plain wrong, and shows you have a fundamental
sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock
running faster,
misunderstanding of SR.
Lorentz factor and Lorentz transform are different. Lorentz factorWhile some people and Wikipedia talk about a "Lorentz factor", it does
could be larger or less than 1, Lorentz transform not possible
not really have an independent use, it is merely a factor that appears
in the Lorentz Transform. The latter, of course, most certainly is "possible" (though that's a strange choice of word for you to make).
Tom Roberts
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 17.04.2023 um 15:58 schrieb Python:
...
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will
convince everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite
all of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
Your annotations are 100% made of errors on your part.
In case you think so, than please show (and prove) at least one.I've shown you, with full details, that your claim about not taking
In his famous relativity essay in 1905, Einstein consider only outgoing motion
to conclude the moving clock running slower. Calculations using simple
high school level algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster, as demonstrated in this book. In other words, in the second half of the special relativity that should be developed, the time effect of motion is opposite to the first half of the theory.
On April 18, Jack Liu wrote:
In his famous relativity essay in 1905, Einstein consider only outgoing motionLet's see if I have this straight.
to conclude the moving clock running slower. Calculations using simple
high school level algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster, as demonstrated in this book. In other
words, in the second half of the special relativity that should be developed,
the time effect of motion is opposite to the first half of the theory.
West Will resides in SF, East Ed in NY, they are stationary,
with synchronized clocks.
Tom Traveler sets out from NY on Route 80, in his McLaren, with
an identical clock. Ed sees him outbound, therefore Tom's clock is
dilated, i.e. it runs slower. Will sees him incoming, therefore Tom's
clock is contracted, i.e. it runs faster.
Hence we have: Tom's clock runs slower than Ed's, and
Tom's clock runs faster than Will's --> Will's clock runs slower than Tom's Hence, Will < Tom < Ed, AND Will = Ed
A breakthrough, fer shure. Has the Nobel committee been informed
of this? Kurt Godel might also be interested -
--
Rich
Let's see if I have this straight.
West Will resides in SF, East Ed in NY, they are stationary,
with synchronized clocks.
Tom Traveler sets out from NY on Route 80, in his McLaren, with
an identical clock. Ed sees him outbound, therefore Tom's clock is
dilated, i.e. it runs slower. Will sees him incoming, therefore Tom's
clock is contracted, i.e. it runs faster.
Hence we have: Tom's clock runs slower than Ed's, and
Tom's clock runs faster than Will's --> Will's clock runs slower than Tom's Hence, Will < Tom < Ed, AND Will = Ed
A breakthrough, fer shure. Has the Nobel committee been informed
of this? Kurt Godel might also be interested -
--
Rich
Let's see if I have this straight.
West Will resides in SF, East Ed in NY, they are stationary,
with synchronized clocks.
Tom Traveler sets out from NY on Route 80, in his McLaren, with
an identical clock. Ed sees him outbound, therefore Tom's clock is
dilated, i.e. it runs slower. Will sees him incoming, therefore Tom's
clock is contracted, i.e. it runs faster.
Hence we have: Tom's clock runs slower than Ed's, and
Tom's clock runs faster than Will's --> Will's clock runs slower than Tom's Hence, Will < Tom < Ed, AND Will = Ed
A breakthrough, fer shure. Has the Nobel committee been informed
of this? Kurt Godel might also be interested -
--
Rich
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 17.04.2023 um 15:58 schrieb Python:
...
Also: Download a hard copy and go through line by line:
https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
good idea!
My result:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
TH
I have printed out the 1905 paper and am going through it.
In any case, I went thought your notes, I don't think it will
convince everyone.
It took me quite a while to write all these annotations. And despite
all of my efforts, my annotations still contain errors.
Your annotations are 100% made of errors on your part.
In case you think so, than please show (and prove) at least one.
I've shown you, with full details, that your claim about not taking
light propagation delays into account when synchronizing clock in
Einstein's paper is WRONG.
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong.
I have asked you, to show me at least one error (in any of these 400+ annotations, of course), but you didn't mention any annotation, but a
chat we had some time ago.
So, please, show at least one error in any of my annotations!
You need to quote my comment and mention the text, to which my comment belongs.
Than you need to show, what's wrong with my arguments.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong.The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong.
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
would solve this problem."
You are the one mixing up your annotations with your other demented
made-up ideas... I only reacted to your annotations, *you* brought in non-sense about time units on Mars or Alpha Centauri that are irrelevant
to Einstein's article...
I have asked you [Python], to show me at least one error (in any of
these 400+ annotations, of course), but you didn't mention any
annotation, but a chat we had some time ago.
Not, I suspect, that there is anything wrong with special relativity. Sylvia
As of Special Relativity, although it has been coming into being for more than a century, it is still a half-baked theory. In his famous relativity essay in 1905,
Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock running slower.
Calculations using simple junior high school level algebra are sufficient to show that upcoming motion can lead to moving clock running faster,
as demonstrated in this book.
In other words, in the second half of the special relativity that should be developed, the time effect of motion is opposite to the first half of the theory.
No clock physically goes slower or faster.
In special relativity, the time dilation along with time contraction (that should be added)
are not objective physical permanent changes, but only temporary changes in other observer's psychological perspective. That is theory of perspective rather of physics.
On 2023-04-19 09:14:38 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
I have asked you [Python], to show me at least one error (in any of
these 400+ annotations, of course), but you didn't mention any
annotation, but a chat we had some time ago.
Another example of errors in the annotations is in the annotation at the beginning of the aticle, which ends:
"For a wider audience a brief introduction of the problem
would be a good idea."
The word "would" claims that there is no such introduction in the article. But the rest of the first paragraph is that brief introduction.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong.
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
would solve this problem."
You are the one mixing up your annotations with your other demented
made-up ideas... I only reacted to your annotations, *you* brought in non-sense about time units on Mars or Alpha Centauri that are irrelevant
to Einstein's article...
Am 19.04.2023 um 23:56 schrieb Python:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
Your rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking
this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong.
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
would solve this problem."
Your claim was, that all of my annotations contain errors.
I gave you the opportiniity to prove this by a single example.
Am 19.04.2023 um 23:56 schrieb Python:...
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add >> the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that >> would solve this problem."
You are the one mixing up your annotations with your other demented
made-up ideas... I only reacted to your annotations, *you* brought in
non-sense about time units on Mars or Alpha Centauri that are irrelevant
to Einstein's article...
I have actually introduced Alpha Centaury as an example, because I
wanted to illustrate the problem in a somehow understandable manner.
Alpha Centaury is almost the closest star to our 'home star' called 'Sun'.
Now it is the most simple case of a distant star I could think of.
But in case you dislake Alpha Centaury, any other star is also possible.
The star should be relatively close, so that a two way communication
would be possible within a human lifetime. But otherwise feel free to
chose any other star.
Cosmology is not really the topic of SRT, but somehow simple cases like two-way communication with distant star systems should be possible
within that realm.
Lab-bench sized scenarios are actually also possible, but much less intuitive, because if we have delays in the range of nanoseconds. But
usual humans have much less 'grip' on such time intervals than upon years.
The question of delay was not really covered by Einstein.
Only once 'x/c' occurs in an equation and never the word 'delay'.
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
imply:
t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
Einstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations,
of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of
the asymmetries within them.
Le 21/04/2023 à 17:54, Python a écrit :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
t_B - t_A = 2AB/c
t'_A-t_B = 0
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
Yes.
imply:
t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
No.
Try again.
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
[... thought experiment involving cars]Yours is excellent thought experiment. [...] No body's clock would
run slower or faster. Physically, three clocks will forever show same reading, as UTC.
1. When I said "SR half-baked", I mean that In his famous relativity
essay in 1905, Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the
moving clock running slower.
[I told him that he has have a fundamental misunderstanding of SR.] I used four different methods to get same result.
My point is SR could not claim motion ONLY cause time dilation.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
Richard, the question at stake in this thread is not your own
personal idiotic views but about what Einstein actually wrote
and what it implies.
For some reason Thomas pretends that what Einstein did in this
article is following your idea of "direct live", I don't think
that, even as stupid as you are, you would support this claim,
do you?
t_B - t_A = 2AB/c
t'_A-t_B = 0
2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
Yes.
imply:
t_B = t_A + (AB)/c
No.
Try again.
Are you pretending that t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B and 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c
does not imply t_B = t_A + (AB)/c ? This is elementary algebra Richard.
By the way, Einstein is presenting a synchronization procedure that is equivalent to the one Poincaré described before. So you cannot praise Poincaré's work and deny the validity of this procedure. Moreover, under
the assumption 2AB/(t'_A - t_A) = c (i.e. round-trip speed of light is invariant), it can be *mathematically* proven that the procedure is consistent.
As you've been told for ages in fr.sci. picking another convention than
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B wouldn't change *anything* of the prediction
of the theory, contrary to your unfounded beliefs, it would only make everything atrociously complicated (even Newton's first law would be
violated !)
On 4/18/23 2:11 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:13:19?PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
[... thought experiment involving cars]Yours is excellent thought experiment. [...] No body's clock would
run slower or faster. Physically, three clocks will forever show same reading, as UTC.
This is just plain false. Modern atomic clocks carried in cars traveling
for a few hours at highway speeds show a significant difference when
compared to identical clocks that remain at the cars' starting and
ending point.
Standard atomic clocks carried in GPS satellites gain 38 microseconds
per day compared to UTC. (For them, "gravitational time dilation" is
larger than the "time dilation" due to relative motion.)
On 4/18/23 2:11 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
[... thought experiment involving cars]Yours is excellent thought experiment. [...] No body's clock would
run slower or faster. Physically, three clocks will forever show same reading, as UTC.
This is just plain false. Modern atomic clocks carried in cars traveling
for a few hours at highway speeds show a significant difference when compared to identical clocks that remain at the cars' starting and
ending point.
Standard atomic clocks carried in GPS satellites gain 38 microseconds
per day compared to UTC. (For them, "gravitational time dilation" is
larger than the "time dilation" due to relative motion.)
Tom Roberts
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 21/04/2023 à 17:54, Python a écrit :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
On 4/18/23 10:54 AM, Jack Liu wrote:
1. When I said "SR half-baked", I mean that In his famous relativity
essay in 1905, Einstein consider only outgoing motion to conclude the moving clock running slower.
This is just plain false as any reading of his 1905 paper shows. You
REALLY need to improve your reading skills.
Or, just look at the math: the "time dilation" equation depends on the
SQUARE of the relative velocity, so its sign does not matter.
[I told him that he has have a fundamental misunderstanding of SR.] I used four different methods to get same result.
So you applied the same misunderstanding four times.
My point is SR could not claim motion ONLY cause time dilation.
Your point is just plain wrong -- in the physical situation(s) in which
"time dilation" applies, its value depends ONLY on the relative speed
between the inertial frame being used and the moving clock.
On Thursday, April 20, 2023 at 11:22:46 AM UTC+5, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.04.2023 um 23:56 schrieb Python:
Thomas Heger wrote:Your claim was, that all of my annotations contain errors.
Am 18.04.2023 um 17:18 schrieb Python:....
Thomas Heger wrote:
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there forYour rebuttal about Einstein not using explicitly the word "delay"
while the two formulas he wrote in part I.1. *directly* imply taking >>>>> this delay into account (a quite trivial point btw) is ridiculous.
you mix two different things:
my annotation
my random chats with e.g. you
Your claim was, that my 'annotated version of SRT'
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D2m4RV7StviWik2JiB1_Huk_7PR5Sxvi/view?usp=sharing
(which contains about 428 annotations) would be all, totally, 100% wrong. >>>
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add
the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
would solve this problem."
I gave you the opportiniity to prove this by a single example.
I am going through your annotated paper. The comment you made about two moving clocks synchronized with the stationary clock seems to be valid.
"We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say
that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the stationary
system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore “synchronous in the stationary system.”
Strange that a 100 year old paper is being promoted as truth based on its age.
On 2023-04-21 06:18:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Einstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief
introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations,
of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of
the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations.
An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
Am 21.04.2023 um 19:13 schrieb Mikko:
On 2023-04-21 06:18:32 +0000, Thomas Heger said:My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem with asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Einstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief
introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations,
of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of
the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations.
An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in particular.
Am 21.04.2023 um 20:01 schrieb Python:
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 21/04/2023 à 17:54, Python a écrit :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
Einstein had actually written that equation on page 3.
With some simple algebra we get
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
Now, this means:
the signal arrives at point B in the middle between start of the signal
at time t_A and return of that signal (after reflection) at time t'_A.
Now 't_B' is measured in 'A-time', which is the local time-measure of
point A and not with 'B-time' of location B.
Also important: A and B cannot move in respect to each other, because otherwise the equation is not valid.
Now Einstein wrote:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ..."
What is nonsense, because no clock at B is required to measure t_A or t'_A.
IoW: t_B is not measured in B, but not at all, because only t_A and t'_A
are commonly avalable (at A).
But we are generous and allow clock synchronization by comparison of
clocks at B with that signal, anyhow.
Now this synch-signal should contain t_B in encoded form, because
otherwise no comparison is possible.
The timing signal sent from A to B should therefore contain a usuable timevalue t_B, which observers at B could eventually compare to their
own clocks.
To figure out the estimated time of arrival at B the emitter at A needs
to know the delay and needs to add that to the local time in A, once the signal ist sent.
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?Because this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail toLet's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completely
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?Because this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail to
understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completely
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
Le 22/04/2023 à 15:39, Python a écrit :
Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
Il y a un truc que j'aime bien.
Je ne suis pas sûr que Poicaré ait réellement voulu imposer la synchronisation d'Einstein.
Mais on dit " Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure".
Par contre c'est Poicaré qui a donné les transformations mathématiques relativistes correctes.
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 22/04/2023 à 15:39, Python a écrit :
Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
Il y a un truc que j'aime bien.Posting in French in an English-speaking group is abuse, and
(worse) a complete lack of respect for people.
Je ne suis pas sûr que Poicaré ait réellement voulu imposer la synchronisation d'Einstein.
Mais on dit " Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure".If you don't know, learn, instead of spouting nonsense:
Par contre c'est Poicaré qui a donné les transformations mathématiques relativistes correctes.
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.04.2023 um 23:56 schrieb Python:...
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add >>> the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that >>> would solve this problem."
You are the one mixing up your annotations with your other demented
made-up ideas... I only reacted to your annotations, *you* brought in
non-sense about time units on Mars or Alpha Centauri that are irrelevant >>> to Einstein's article...
I have actually introduced Alpha Centaury as an example, because I
wanted to illustrate the problem in a somehow understandable manner.
This is dementia, Thomas. Einstein wrote about identical clocks
(including precision, unit of time, etc.) in relative rest and
this makes you think it may realistically be a clock on Earth and
another one on Alpha Centuri!!!
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief
introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations,
of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of
the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations.
An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in
particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
what do we mean with 't_B'?
The equation defines actually t_B and we only need to measure t_A and t'_A.
Somehow we need to tell them our present time and add the delay (which
is half of the time for a round trip).
Am 21.04.2023 um 17:54 schrieb Python:
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 19.04.2023 um 23:56 schrieb Python:...
The error I've pointed out is part of these annotations, there for
instance:
"It is actually difficult to find out, whether Einstein wanted to add >>> the delay or not, because no statement about that can be found in
this text.
But it would have been better to add the delay, anyhow, because that
would solve this problem."
You are the one mixing up your annotations with your other demented
made-up ideas... I only reacted to your annotations, *you* brought in >>> non-sense about time units on Mars or Alpha Centauri that are irrelevant >>> to Einstein's article...
I have actually introduced Alpha Centaury as an example, because I
wanted to illustrate the problem in a somehow understandable manner.
This is dementia, Thomas. Einstein wrote about identical clocksActually the Moon would be far enough away.
(including precision, unit of time, etc.) in relative rest and
this makes you think it may realistically be a clock on Earth and
another one on Alpha Centuri!!!
So, lets take the Nasa owned laser reflector there and sent a laser beam
to the Moon, which gets reflected there back to our home station.
Now we face the same problem:
what do we mean with 't_B'?
The equation defines actually t_B and we only need to measure t_A and t'_A.
To measure t_B would be difficult anyhow, because currently the Moon
station is out of function.
But we could hypothezise 'Moon Men' with clocks and to communicate with them.
We could simply send a signal there. This arrives there after roughly a second and makes a 'beep'.
So, these Moon Men ask the question: to what time shall we dial our clocks?
Somehow we need to tell them our present time and add the delay (which
is half of the time for a round trip).
...
THAre you assuming the Moon is at a fixed distance (not displacement) from the Earth and that this does not matter for the experiment?
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief
introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in
particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation
where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains no reference to Maxwells equations.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how asymmetries arrive from there.
But in case he didn't like my hint, then ignoring my advice would also
be an option (though not a good idea).
Le 22/04/2023 à 19:10, Thomas Heger a écrit :
what do we mean with 't_B'?
The equation defines actually t_B and we only need to measure t_A and
t'_A.
Somehow we need to tell them our present time and add the delay (which
is half of the time for a round trip).
This notion includes the religious belief in an absolute and reciprocal "present time plan".
We will then say that the light takes half the time to make the outward journey, and the other half of the time to make the return.
It looks very obvious and very pretty.
Einstein then became a God for having "perceived" this evidence.
This is of course completely false.
This is not at all how it happens in reality.
On 4/18/23 2:11 PM, Jack Liu wrote:
On Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 1:13:19 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:
[... thought experiment involving cars]Yours is excellent thought experiment. [...] No body's clock would
run slower or faster. Physically, three clocks will forever show same reading, as UTC.
This is just plain false. Modern atomic clocks carried in cars traveling
for a few hours at highway speeds show a significant difference when compared to identical clocks that remain at the cars' starting and
ending point.
Standard atomic clocks carried in GPS satellites gain 38 microseconds
per day compared to UTC. (For them, "gravitational time dilation" is
larger than the "time dilation" due to relative motion.)
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?Because this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail toLet's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completely
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
Am 21.04.2023 um 20:01 schrieb Python:
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 21/04/2023 à 17:54, Python a écrit :
t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905Einstein had actually written that equation on page 3.
article.
With some simple algebra we get
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
Now, this means:
the signal arrives at point B in the middle between start of the signal
at time t_A and return of that signal (after reflection) at time t'_A.
Now 't_B' is measured in 'A-time', which is the local time-measure of
point A and not with 'B-time' of location B.
Also important: A and B cannot move in respect to each other, because otherwise the equation is not valid.
Now Einstein wrote:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B ..."
What is nonsense, because no clock at B is required to measure t_A or t'_A.
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief
introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a
brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in
particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation
where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains
no reference to Maxwells equations.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how asymmetries arrive from there.
I would personally say, that t_B =(t'_A - t_A)/2 sounds quite plausible (supposed that A and B would not move),
but would accept evidence of
other behaviour.
TH
Einstein had actually written that equation on page 3.t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
With some simple algebra we get
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
Now, this means:
the signal arrives at point B in the middle between start of the signal
at time t_A and return of that signal (after reflection) at time t'_A.
Now 't_B' is measured in 'A-time', which is the local time-measure of
point A and not with 'B-time' of location B.
Also important: A and B cannot move in respect to each other, because
otherwise the equation is not valid.
Now Einstein wrote:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B - t_A =
t'_A - t_B ..."
What is nonsense, because no clock at B is required to measure t_A or t'_A.
Is something wrong with you? Your inability to understand basic
logic is truly bizarre.
On 2023-04-22 17:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief >>>>>> introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a >>>>>> brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>>>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in >>>> particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation >>> where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains
no reference to Maxwells equations.
There is no errors in the description of induction. That Maxwell's
equantions are explicitly mentioned is a sufficient reference to
Maxwell's equations. At the time they and they were described in
books.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how
asymmetries arrive from there.
He meant the four equations that are usually called "Maxwell's equations". How anything arrives from there was already in books so no point to
repeat (and a book would not be a brief introduction anyway).
Il y a bien des millénaires, on enseignait que la terre était plate, et probablement supportée par un énorme éléphant, lui-même monté sur une tortue géante.
Cela semblait une évidence indiscutable.
1. Si la terre était ronde comme certains le disaient en voyant l'ombre
de la terre se profiler sur la lune, même au couchant, l'eau des mers tomberaient dans le vide, et il n'y aurait plus d'eau dans les océans.
2. Si l'éléphant n'existait pas, qu'est-ce qui pourrait soutenir un
énorme poids comme la terre?
3. Si la tortue n'existait pas, qu'est ce qui pourrait expliquer les tremblements de terre lorsqu'elle bouge?
4. Il était aussi évident que si l'on tombait du ciel, on tombait plus
vite qu'une pierre et qu'on parcourait huit kilomètres en une seule
seconde (mon grand-père pensait encore comme ça, il n'avait pas vu les figures imposées de parachutistes à la télé)
5. Il était évident que le temps était absolu, et que si un jumeau nouveau-né partait à 0.8c dans l'espace, il reviendrait âgé de 30 ans pendant que sur la terre, il se passait 30 ans.
Or, ces questions ne se pose plus.
Mais d'autres se posent encore.
Dont l'une qui est la plus immense, et la plus incomprise aujourd'hui,
d'où toute cette haine, toutes ces gesticulations, toute cette
arrogance, toute cette incroyable religiosité.
Cette question incroyable, cette question gigantesque, d'autant plus difficile à admettre qu'elle semble un "a priori terrible", et, aux
adeptes, une "évidence monstre", c'est :
"Est-on absolument certain qu'il existe une simultanéité absolue locale entre deux observateurs différents?"
Bref, un rayon lumineux qui va de A à B, puis revient de B à A, et qui parcourt donc la même distance va-t-il mettre un temps différent pour A dans chaque étape, et un temps différent pour B dans chaque étape?
C'est évident pour un observateur placé loin, et transversalement.
Bien sûr que oui, le rayon va mettre le même temps. Il se déplacera de A à B à la vitesse c, et au retour de B à A à la vitesse c.
Bien sûr que oui, là encore c'est évident.
Mais cela, c'est dans l'univers propre de cet observateur placé loin et transversalement.
Ce n'est PAS l'univers de A, ce n'est PAS l'univers de B.
Bref, la notion de référentiel inertiel n'est valable, que pour un observateur placé (loin et transversalement) dans une sorte de quatrième dimension spatiale hypothétique et abstraite.
Elle n'existe pas "en soi".
Repère inertiel global : je comprends.
Référentiel inertiel global (en 4D spatio-temporelle) : je ne comprends pas.
Nous sommes tous dans le même repère inertiel quand nous sommes fixes
entre nous, c'est vrai. C'est une évidence.
Mais chacun y construit son propre référentiel spatio-temporel.
Sylvia Else placée sur ce banc, dans cette cour de récréation, et Paul B.Andersen placé sur cet autre banc n'ont pas de "plan du temps présent" absolu entre eux, bien qu'ils en soient intimement convaincus.
Cette notion, qui colle à l'esprit humain est la plus grande erreur de croyance de l'histoire de l'humanité.
D'où le fait qu'elle persiste encore aujourd'hui dans toutes les têtes, alors que l'a priori de la terre plate ou de la chronotropie absolue par changement de référentiel inertiel a, heureusement, disparu depuis longtemps.
Mais posez cette question va entrainer, aujourd'hui encore, bien des problèmes à celui qui la posera.
Am 23.04.2023 um 11:55 schrieb Mikko:
On 2023-04-22 17:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief >>>>>>> introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>>>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a >>>>>>> brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>>>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>>>>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in >>>>> particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation >>>> where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains
no reference to Maxwells equations.
There is no errors in the description of induction. That Maxwell's
equantions are explicitly mentioned is a sufficient reference to
Maxwell's equations. At the time they and they were described in
books.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how
asymmetries arrive from there.
He meant the four equations that are usually called "Maxwell's equations". >> How anything arrives from there was already in books so no point to
repeat (and a book would not be a brief introduction anyway).
Maxwell was a historic person, who wrote about electromagnetic fields in 1873.
But Maxwell wrote twenty Quaternion equations (not the current four,
which stem from Heaviside).
Einstein quoted actually Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of Maxwell.
Unfortunately Hertz was much less known then Maxwell.
So, a quote from Hertz would be required and some sort of derivation of
the meant asymmetries.
Let's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?It is sufficient. If it hadn't the paper would not have been published.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?Because this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
It is sufficient. If it hadn't the paper would not have been published.This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail to understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completelyLet's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
--
Jan
Am 23.04.2023 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB:
Einstein had actually written that equation on page 3.t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
With some simple algebra we get
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
Now, this means:
the signal arrives at point B in the middle between start of the signal
at time t_A and return of that signal (after reflection) at time t'_A.
Now 't_B' is measured in 'A-time', which is the local time-measure of
point A and not with 'B-time' of location B.
Also important: A and B cannot move in respect to each other, because
otherwise the equation is not valid.
Now Einstein wrote:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B - t_A = >>> t'_A - t_B ..."
What is nonsense, because no clock at B is required to measure t_A or
t'_A.
Is something wrong with you? Your inability to understand basic
logic is truly bizarre.
I could ask you the same.
So, please, tell me, how you would measure t_B, if the point B is on the
Moon and you are on Earth (at point A).
Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.04.2023 um 08:23 schrieb JanPB:
Einstein had actually written that equation on page 3.t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B
No.
Yes, this is what Einstein actually wrote in part I.1 of 1905
article.
With some simple algebra we get
t_B = (t'_A - t_A)/2
Now, this means:
the signal arrives at point B in the middle between start of the signal >>> at time t_A and return of that signal (after reflection) at time t'_A. >>>
Now 't_B' is measured in 'A-time', which is the local time-measure of >>> point A and not with 'B-time' of location B.
Also important: A and B cannot move in respect to each other, because >>> otherwise the equation is not valid.
Now Einstein wrote:
"In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B - t_A =
t'_A - t_B ..."
What is nonsense, because no clock at B is required to measure t_A or >>> t'_A.
Is something wrong with you? Your inability to understand basic
logic is truly bizarre.
I could ask you the same.
So, please, tell me, how you would measure t_B, if the point B is on the Moon and you are on Earth (at point A).It is measured at B, then it can be communicated to anyone, including
For most people this goes without saying.
Am 23.04.2023 um 11:55 schrieb Mikko:
On 2023-04-22 17:15:05 +0000, Thomas Heger said:
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem with >>>> asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.Einstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as >>>>>> homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief >>>>>> introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a >>>>>> brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>>>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in >>>> particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation >>> where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains
no reference to Maxwells equations.
There is no errors in the description of induction. That Maxwell's equantions are explicitly mentioned is a sufficient reference to
Maxwell's equations. At the time they and they were described in
books.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how
asymmetries arrive from there.
He meant the four equations that are usually called "Maxwell's equations". How anything arrives from there was already in books so no point toMaxwell was a historic person, who wrote about electromagnetic fields in 1873.
repeat (and a book would not be a brief introduction anyway).
But Maxwell wrote twenty Quaternion equations (not the current four,
which stem from Heaviside).
Einstein quoted actually Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of Maxwell.
Hertz was a German physicist with enormous reputation, who invented,
among other things, radio waves.
So, we have the meant source, which was not the current version of
Maxwell's equation, but the 'Maxwell-Hertz' equations.
Unfortunately Hertz was much less known then Maxwell.
So, a quote from Hertz would be required and some sort of derivation of
the meant asymmetries.
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief >>>> introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a >>>> brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in
particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains no reference to Maxwells equations.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how asymmetries arrive from there.
Le 24/04/2023 à 17:19, Python a écrit :
For most people this goes without saying.
Le problème est justement là.
[snip irrelevant babbling in French]
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 24/04/2023 à 17:19, Python a écrit :
For most people this goes without saying.
Le problème est justement là.
[snip irrelevant babbling in French]
You don't really follow the discussion, do you? I mean what
t_B can be
transmitted to A at any time by any mean,
Le 24/04/2023 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
t_B can be
transmitted to A at any time by any mean,
If it's to tell me such crap, it's frankly not worth posting.
M.D. Richard "Hachel" Lengrand wrote:
Le 24/04/2023 à 21:06, Python a écrit :
t_B can be
transmitted to A at any time by any mean,
If it's to tell *me* such crap, it's frankly not worth posting.
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 10:15:07 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 22.04.2023 um 11:26 schrieb Mikko:
My annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem withEinstein mentionend asymmetries in Maxwells equations.
And I wrote (as fictional professor, who treated the article as
homework of a student) that it would be a good idea to give a brief >>>> introduction into the problem (of asymmetries in Maxwell's equations, >>>> of course).
Now the part you mentioned didn't contain any equation, let alone a >>>> brief introduction into Maxwell's equation and/or an introduction of >>>> the asymmetries within them.
The annotation did not request an introduction to Maxwell's equations. >>> An introduction to the asymmetries is the paragraph.
asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in >> particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains no reference to Maxwells equations.It does. The magnet-and-coil assymetry is based on the induction of E
from the changing B which is Maxwell's equations.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how asymmetries arrive from there.Research papers are not textbooks. The magnet-and-coil thingy is a well-known
classroom chestnut.
--
Jan
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 10:36:51 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 23.04.2023 um 11:55 schrieb Mikko:
Maxwell was a historic person, who wrote about electromagnetic fields inMy annotation gave Einstein the hint, to introduce the problem with >>>>>> asymmetries in Maxwell's equations briefly.
Which Einsteind did.
This would require some sort of quote or reference to Maxwell's
equations in general and to the parts, where such asymmetries occur in >>>>>> particular.
No, it does not. Instead, a good way is to describe a physical situation >>>>> where such asymmetry can be seen and to point out the asymmtry.
Besides of errors in the description of induction, this part contains
no reference to Maxwells equations.
There is no errors in the description of induction. That Maxwell's
equantions are explicitly mentioned is a sufficient reference to
Maxwell's equations. At the time they and they were described in
books.
I wanted a statement, which equation he had in mind and how
asymmetries arrive from there.
He meant the four equations that are usually called "Maxwell's equations". >>> How anything arrives from there was already in books so no point to
repeat (and a book would not be a brief introduction anyway).
1873.
But Maxwell wrote twenty Quaternion equations (not the current four,
which stem from Heaviside).
Einstein quoted actually Heinrich Hertz and his adaptation of Maxwell.
Hertz was a German physicist with enormous reputation, who invented,
among other things, radio waves.
So, we have the meant source, which was not the current version of
Maxwell's equation, but the 'Maxwell-Hertz' equations.
Unfortunately Hertz was much less known then Maxwell.
So, a quote from Hertz would be required and some sort of derivation of
the meant asymmetries.
No. That's not how it works.
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 11:25:50 AM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-7, gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is sufficient. If it hadn't the paper would not have been published.Let's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?Because this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in Einstein's text?
Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail to
understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completely
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
--
Jan
I ask Thomas, again, Are you saying that the method given by Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
At least Einstein should have quoted Heinrich Hertz correctly.
But what Einstein called 'Maxwell-Hertz equations' differed from what
Hertz had actually written in (at least) two points:
Hertz used total derivatives and Einstein partial derivatives.
Hertz used a factor 'A' for 1/c.
But even this is uncertain, because Einstein didn't tell the reader,
what exactly he meant with 'Maxwell-Hertz equations'.
So, I had to guess and assumed, that something Hertz had written was meant.
As I can read German I could read the origional works of Hertz. This is
what I did to some extent and found, there were differences.
Am 24.04.2023 um 13:54 schrieb gehan.am...@gmail.com:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 11:25:50 AM UTC+5, JanPB wrote:
On Saturday, April 22, 2023 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-7,
gehan.am...@gmail.com wrote:
It is sufficient. If it hadn't the paper would not have been published.Let's simplify this. Are you saying that the method given byBecause this is something you made up completely and is unrelated to >>>>> Einstein-Poicaré synchronization procedure.
BUT: where did you find any hints about this procedure in
Einstein's text?
This is a good sample of your (demented) "method" : you fail to
understand a point (amongst many, many, many) so you completely
discard it, then you make up some nonsensical scenario that *you*
think should have been mentioned and, finally, complain that it
hasn't.
Einstein is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
--
Jan
I ask Thomas, again, Are you saying that the method given by Einstein
is not sufficient to synchronize clocks?
It is sufficiant under certain conditions:
the observer and the remote station must not move in respect to each other
the speed of light is always the same along the path and on both ways.
Under these conditions Einstein's method could be used, but should be enhanced by a compensation of the signal delay.
Unfortunately, none of these requirements were mentioned by Einstein.
Possibly he had them in kind and didn't mention them, because he thought
they were obvious.
But possibly he didn't want to compensate the delay (which is what I
actually think).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 28:52:47 |
| Calls: | 6,707 |
| Files: | 12,239 |
| Messages: | 5,352,818 |