Silly Einstein

[nick c]

My point in the post is "Their presumptions are so <moderator edit> that they cannot think in terms that do not use those presumptions,"

In some aspect I wish I had chosen psychology as my major discipline... roll:

[nick c]

In some aspect I wish I had chosen psychology as my major discipline... roll:

If you wish to study <moderator edit> presumptions, psychology and psychiatry would be additional fields to find and study plenty of <moderator edit> presumptions!

If you wish to become a facilitator, and promote these <moderator edit> presumptions; study the "Delphi technique."

Not only are Physics and Astronomy built upon imagination, it's now in our food supply: http://www.naturalnews.com/031225_Gener ... ereal.html

"As is well known, Einstein's special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1) the postulate of relativity; (2) the postulate of constant light velocity, which says "that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". For the first postulate there is much experimental support; for the second, none."

The fact that the "at rest system" is the only system where there is no distortion of light by Doppler shift or aberration dispels the second postulate! The aether is responsible for "Newton's" inertia, and is responsible for the speed of light as is commonly measured with the source at rest with the detector. The "expanding light sphere" is always centered upon the position of the source when it initially radiated the "expanding light sphere," thanks also to the aether.

The finite speed of light is responsible for Einstein's confusion, since after the light waves are emitted, the fate of the source is unknown to the distant observer until the wave front from the source arrives at the observer! Einstein knows about the delay but ignores it when postulating.

.

[Goldminer]

Relativity of simultaneity

See the link for images

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame.

The author here is writing as if the events actually occur in different order just because some observer or other is moving in relation to the events. The truth is that observers stationary to the events will observe events in different order. The order of events does not depend on motion, at all. It depends on the position of the observer in relation to the two or more events. In fact the observer at A will observe the event at A before the event at B, and the observer at B will observe the event at B before the event at A. So0 much BS here!

Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future.

The author is BSing again: The order of events does not depend on motion, it only depends upon the position of the observer when the wave fronts meet the observer's eyes.

In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity—whether two events occur at the same time—is not absolute, but depends on the observer's reference frame.

Wrong-O; If a moving observer” and a “stationary observer” are at the “event” at the same time, they will both “see” the event happen at the same time!

According to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense whether two events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space.

Not true! If one is known to be located half way between two locations and sees that both events happen at the same time,they did absolutely happen at the same time!

Where an event occurs in a single place—for example, a car crash—all observers will agree that both cars arrived at the point of impact at the same time. But where the events are separated in space, such as one car crash in London and another in New Delhi, the question of whether the events are simultaneous is relative: in some reference frames the two accidents may happen at the same time, in others (in a different state of motion relative to the events) the crash in London may occur first, and in still others the New Delhi crash may occur first.

Not true either, see above comment.

If we imagine one reference frame assigns precisely the same time to two events that are at different points in space, a reference frame that is moving relative to the first will generally assign different times to the two events. This is illustrated in the ladder paradox, a thought experiment which uses the example of a ladder moving at high speed through a garage.

In reality, the “shrunken ladder/ garage is fiction. Einstein arrived at the idea of matter shrinking wrt observers in relative motion to objects through a “Train Gedanken:” For instants: the "measure the moving train gedanken:" As the front of the train passes the signalman at the far end of the platform, he simultaneously marks the platform and signals the rear signalman to mark the platform at the rear of the train. Einstein claims that due to the finite speed of light, the train will be measured shorter than it is, since the train moved while the signal traveled back to the rear signalman.

Now, stop and think: If the rear signalman sends the signal to the front of the train, while the train is moving, the same train will measure longer! Duh!

A mathematical form of the relativity of simultaneity ("local time") was introduced by Hendrik Lorentz in 1892, and physically interpreted (to first order in v/c) as the result of a synchronization using light signals by Henri Poincaré in 1900. However, both Lorentz and Poincaré based their conceptions on the aether as a preferred but undetectable frame of reference, and continued to distinguish between "true time" (in the aether) and "apparent" times for moving observers. It was Albert Einstein in 1905 who abandoned the (classical) aether and emphasized the significance of relativity of simultaneity to our understanding of space and time. He deduced the failure of absolute simultaneity from two stated assumptions:
the principle of relativity—the equivalence of inertial frames, such that the laws of physics apply equally in all inertial coordinate systems;
the constancy of the speed of light detected in empty space, independent of the relative motion of its source.

This second postulate is bogus! Most people acknowledge that light propagates away from a source in an expanding sphere, centered upon where the source was when the wavefront was emitted. All other observers in relative motion to the source, when the wave front was emitted, will see either aberration or Doppler shift. Do you need to consult Sherlock to see the fantasy?

.

[Aardwolf]

If you read carefully Einstein is always refering to the observers interpretation of events, which when introducing a light signal delay can obviously cause observers to interpret events in a different order. Nothing unusual about that. He even states in the summary 1920 paper;

"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A."

How can it be possible under the second postulate to ride ahead of the light from B towards the light from A?

[D_Archer]

Isnt "Relativity of simultaneity" a contradictio in terminis?

How can it be possible under the second postulate to ride ahead of the light from B towards the light from A?

Maybe this will help: http://milesmathis.com/rel222.html

Regards,
Daniel

[Goldminer]

If you read carefully Einstein is always refering to the observers interpretation of events, which when introducing a light signal delay can obviously cause observers to interpret events in a different order. Nothing unusual about that. He even states in the summary 1920 paper;

"Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A."

How can it be possible under the second postulate to ride ahead of the light from B towards the light from A?

Do you see that motion is not the cause of "relativity of simultaneity?" Motion is just a change in location. How an observer "sees the order of events" has no effect upon the actual order of events. If two events, located ether side of the x axis of a coordinate system, happen at the same time; any observer located in the plane of the y-z axes will "see" both events happen at the same time, whether the "observer" is in motion in the plane, or stationary with the origin in that plane. All other observers not in the plane will "see" the events serially, i.e. one before the other, the order depending upon which side of the plane the observer is located. A moving observer traveling parallel to the x-axis will see the the order of simultaneous events change from one leading the other to the opposite order as the observer crosses the y-z plane. The same order of events situation exists for a line of multiple stationary observers parallel with the x=axes, and situated either side of the y-z plane.

"Relativity of simultaneity" has nothing to do with the actual and absolute instance of events happening at the same time in different places. It only deals with what observers "see." Neither does motion have anything to do with the order of events, other than changing location. This subject is another A.E. rabbit trail.

.

[Sparky]

Though i read this with interest, it is a bit over my head. So, i brought my friend Al with me who will comment on this thread...

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
Albert Einstein

[Aardwolf]

"Relativity of simultaneity" has nothing to do with the actual and absolute instance of events happening at the same time in different places. It only deals with what observers "see."

Absolutely. And Einstein was aware of this also. It always amazes me when relativitists just fail to see this obvious fact.

[Goldminer]

Though i read this with interest, it is a bit over my head. So, i brought my friend Al with me who will comment on this thread...

To raise new questions, new possibilities, to regard old problems from a new angle, requires creative imagination and marks real advance in science.
Albert Einstein

Here are the images that I couldn't figure out how to insert into my post "by Goldminer » Fri Mar 04, 2011 3:43 am," along with the captions from the wiki site:


"Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame, but it occurred before in the blue frame, and will occur later in the red frame."


"Events A, B, and C occur in different order depending on the motion of the observer. The white line represents a plane of simultaneity being moved from the past to the future."

(If you go to the site and click on the animation, you can become even more confused!)

Please let me know if they (the diagrams at wiki) make any sense to you. They defy logic to me! I'll try to diagram the word picture I wrote about in my post "by Goldminer » Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:44 am."

The "plane of simultaneity" which I refer in this post has nothing to do with the imaginary ramblings of those who put together the Wikipedia page. Their "plane of simultaneity" moving from "past" to "future" demonstrates their entire lack of ability to understand physical reality. Their space is skew-able, and in their minds, this allows their imaginary travelers to defy logic!

.

[Aardwolf]

You can see the faults in the logic of these diagrams and the source of the problems.

"Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame"

What they really mean is;

"Event B is observed from A to be simultaneous with A in the green reference frame"

It's errors like this that lead to these diagrams being used to "prove" that if you travel faster than c you must go back in time. Nonsense.

[Goldminer]

You can see the faults in the logic of these diagrams and the source of the problems.
"Event B is simultaneous with A in the green reference frame"
What they really mean is;"Event B is observed from A to be simultaneous with A in the green reference frame."
It's errors like this that lead to these diagrams being used to "prove" that if you travel faster than c you must go back in time. Nonsense.

"What they really mean is;" . . . Yes they probably intend such. We have shown above that unless "B" and "A" are at the same place at the same time, "A" will still "see" its event before "B," and "B" will still "see" its event before "A." Only observers in the perpendicular plane half way between (The real "Plane of Simultaneity") will "see" the two events as being simultaneous, provided of course, that they are indeed absolutely simultaneous.

I betcha editing the Wiki on "relativity of simultaneity" would stay up for at least 10 minutes! I'll ante up my worst pair of "gold toes" for the bet!

Please imagine several concentric spheres. Imagine an event at the center. Can you see that all observers on the surface of any one sphere will see the event simultaneously? (after the event, because of the distance and time delay.) Each set of observers on each sphere see the event simultaneously for their sphere.

Seems trivial eh? If you answered the question in the above paragraph in the affirmative, stay tuned.

.

[Goldminer]

Frankly, fellow T-bolters, I was hoping for a little more feedback on this here thread. Oh, well; how about a diversion? The subject of the homopolar generator has been mentioned in the past apparently, here on the forum. Possibly, our silly friend Albert had a hand in suppressing reference to it, since its operation seems to contradict Maxwell's and Faraday's ideas on how reality should be represented.

Laurence Hecht has done a lot of historical research on the developments in electrodynamics by Ampère, and his successors, Carl Friedrich Gauss, Wilhelm Weber, and Bernhard Riemann. "There is no magnetic field in any of their writings; Magnetism, for them, is considered an epiphenomenon of electricity; it is the force of electrodynamic attraction or repulsion acting between circuits of electricity, called magnetic molecules (and which came to be known later as electrons.)" These early descriptions of the dynamics of EM phenomena, I think, make the currents in plasma filaments much easier to understand.

Anyway, take time to study and possibly download the article at Science: To Be, or Not to Be: Or, How I Discovered the Swindle of Special Relativity. I am sure you will be rewarded.

.

[substance]

I haven't still read this whole thread but it seemed like the most appropriate place to post this as I didn't want to create a new thread:

Gravity Probe B confirms two of Einstein theories

What do you guys make of this? To me it wasn't at all clear how those ultra-sensitive gyroscopes proved anything. It actually sounded like they were supposedly quite faulty.

[Aardwolf]

I haven't still read this whole thread but it seemed like the most appropriate place to post this as I didn't want to create a new thread:

Gravity Probe B confirms two of Einstein theories

What do you guys make of this? To me it wasn't at all clear how those ultra-sensitive gyroscopes proved anything. It actually sounded like they were supposedly quite faulty.

They found exactly what they were looking for; which is the aim of most of these type of experiments.

You can find anything you want to if you look into what is essentially data noise.

[substance]

Well, that isn't the most convincing argument as one of the major features of science is supposed to be the ability to predict. Any experimental results without a theoretical model to compare them with are almost useless.
There is something else about this experiment that bothers me. According to this report from December 2008 the frame dragging effect was supposed to be observed with a 15% statistical uncertainty and 0.5% for the geodetic effect. The recent news release doesn't say anything about the uncertainties but if those remained 0.5% and 15% respectfully, then I'd say this experiment is pretty inaccurate. 15% can never be taken seriously by any self respecting scientist and 0.5% are, too, way off.