Re: Einstein's simultaneity etc.
Posted: Tue Mar 10, 2020 3:13 am
Einstein meets waterworld.
1. What if Einstein's train etc were underwater, instead of in vacuum?
Einstein's gamma might then have to be based on v/c', where c' is the reduced speed of light in water. Hencely the effect of v on length contraction & ticking dilation would be stronger (compared to v in vacuum).
Einstein's light signal clock synchronisation method would in water give larger apparent delays for clocks along the xx axis in the moving system k'.
2. One concern might be that whereas the v of a body in vacuum cant ever reach c, v (the speed in water) can exceed c' (the speed of light in water)(according to some). However if v exceeded c' then this might involve the square root of a negative number in the equation for gamma (due to 1-vv/c'c' being less than zero).
3. Anyhow, why did Einstein insist on his silly train thought-X being in vacuum?
4. Why should his silly times accord with the silly hands of clocks synchronised using his silly light signal method?
5. A side issue. Why does standard science reckon that the v of a body cant reach c but can exceed c' ?
I agree that v cant reach c, but i say that v cant reach c'. Elementary particles are confined photons. Logically confined photons cant reach a speed of c (c being the speed of free photons). And logically if free photons are slowed to c' in say water then the speed of confined photons (eg electrons) cant reach c' in water. (Actually, re c being a speed limit, i reckon that the limit is c/root2).
6. The same applies to the speed v of confined photons near a massive body where the speed of a free photon is reduced to c" by some unknown effect (Einstein said that it was due to gravitational potential)(which is partly correct). I say that near a massive body v cant reach c".
7. In say water near a massive body v cant reach c'" (where c"' is the combined slowing of c due to the medium & the "gravitational potential").
8. Anyhow the equation for gamma should (to have any hope of being valid) involve vv/c"'c"'.
I say that vv/cc is not correct (unless in empty space & well away from mass)(& i say that vv/c"'c"' aint correct anyhow).
1. What if Einstein's train etc were underwater, instead of in vacuum?
Einstein's gamma might then have to be based on v/c', where c' is the reduced speed of light in water. Hencely the effect of v on length contraction & ticking dilation would be stronger (compared to v in vacuum).
Einstein's light signal clock synchronisation method would in water give larger apparent delays for clocks along the xx axis in the moving system k'.
2. One concern might be that whereas the v of a body in vacuum cant ever reach c, v (the speed in water) can exceed c' (the speed of light in water)(according to some). However if v exceeded c' then this might involve the square root of a negative number in the equation for gamma (due to 1-vv/c'c' being less than zero).
3. Anyhow, why did Einstein insist on his silly train thought-X being in vacuum?
4. Why should his silly times accord with the silly hands of clocks synchronised using his silly light signal method?
5. A side issue. Why does standard science reckon that the v of a body cant reach c but can exceed c' ?
I agree that v cant reach c, but i say that v cant reach c'. Elementary particles are confined photons. Logically confined photons cant reach a speed of c (c being the speed of free photons). And logically if free photons are slowed to c' in say water then the speed of confined photons (eg electrons) cant reach c' in water. (Actually, re c being a speed limit, i reckon that the limit is c/root2).
6. The same applies to the speed v of confined photons near a massive body where the speed of a free photon is reduced to c" by some unknown effect (Einstein said that it was due to gravitational potential)(which is partly correct). I say that near a massive body v cant reach c".
7. In say water near a massive body v cant reach c'" (where c"' is the combined slowing of c due to the medium & the "gravitational potential").
8. Anyhow the equation for gamma should (to have any hope of being valid) involve vv/c"'c"'.
I say that vv/cc is not correct (unless in empty space & well away from mass)(& i say that vv/c"'c"' aint correct anyhow).