Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: jem <xxx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 09:13:41 -0400
On Jun 24, 9:38 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:b044dd85-4e58-44f2-a2ba-f20bb13d94b6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 24, 1:20 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Well .. LET always says two things. What we measure and observe as"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageThe plane sounds like the best idea so far. It could be done. And
news:dcf2a5b6-21b5-4d0f-bd5b-0ff69cf82776@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 23, 10:54 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:That's ok .. glad we cleared that up"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messageOk, I'll grant you that. I misinterperted what you were saying.
news:2939b7dd-20fb-43d8-9210-3f346f67e78f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For starters what you proposed and what you described were not theYes .. they are
same thing.
Your discription still had the clock(s) moving on theNo .. it clearly didn't. Only one of them.
earth's surface.
Yeup .. this would be one way to do it .. moving one way westward with==>> >> So .. what would happen if we moved the clocks apart at theI thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in sync
same
speed
==according to the (almost) inertial frame of the center of the
earth.
So
(for example) the one moving with the earth would stay 'still'
(relative
to
the earth) and the other one move away at twice the speed of
earth's
rotation in the opposite direction.
See there "the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' (relative
to
the
earth) "
So they are still moving along curved paths in theYes they are
ECI system.
Combine that with the fact that even the ECI system isGrr ... Picky .. so the only affect is due to the movement of the
not truly inertial and it becomes very unlikely that the effects
will
cancel out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Centered_Inertial
"It should be noted that ECI frames are not truly inertial since the
Earth itself is accelerating as it travels in its orbit about the
Sun."
earth
around the sun and the sun around galactic core, and whatever
non-inertial
movement the galaxy may have.
So .. ignoring those effects .. treating the ECI as inertial for the
sake
of
this thought experiment .. (which seemed to be obvious from context,
but
I
see we need to make it explicit) what do you claim about the clocks as
described?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
without using light signals so that a real world experiment could be
done to measure one way light speed isotropy.
the
appropriate speed would keep it in sync.
Or ... put both clocks on a train heading west at the appropriate speed ,
and do mutual clock transport there and they'd be in sync and the train
frame would then be (close to) inertial. Again, we're ignoring here the
orbit of the earth, perturbations from other bodies, movement of sun
around
galaxy etc. its pretty much impossible to get a perfectly inertial frame
..
and that a suitable train and track (or plane) would be very impractical
:)
according to SR the clocks should stay in sync as they are moved
apart, and when moved slowly still be in sync when brought back
together.
But once again we are using an assumption of SR to come to that
conclusion. LET says that the clocks go out of sync when apart but
return to being in sync when brought back together.
happening (which is reality as far as we are concerned) and what REALLY
really is happening in the ether frame (which is not reality as far as we
are concerned).
LET does say that we need clocks synced as per SR to make a measurement that
is valid for our frame of reference. BUT it also says that any measurement
we make that is valid in our frame of reference is REALLY not valid at all
because REALLY everything has contracted and slowed down due to movement
through the aether .. which of course, we cannot detect or determine. One
thing about LET, it REALLY just makes things unnecessarily confusing.
As opposed to SR which also uses different coordinate systems for each
frame, which do not agree with each other. Which is why you get
relative simultanity and have to use the LT when comparing coordinates
from the two frames. For many that is confusing.
What's more, ifLET says we will measure what SR says we will measure. LET just adds to
you check them using light signals when they are apart you will
measure them to be in sync, if you assume that light travels at c
relative to your central master clock. But since it is highly
unlikely that the master clock is at rest in the ether frame that is
not a valid assumption.
what SR says by claiming that everything we observe and measure is an
illusion and wrong :):)
Do you think the fact that thermometers don't measure IQ makes their measurements "illusion and wrong"? In LET, clocks and rulers don't measure time and distance (nor are they meant to).
I can only imagine that LET followers end up
needing psychological help knowing that everything they see is an illusion
:):)
There are no illusions in models.
.
But yes .. the whole point about measuring a OWLS (or any
one-way-measurement of speed, not just light) is it requires SOME sort of
consistent assumption about what 'now' means for two separated stationary
clocks relative to a given frame of reference.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- References:
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Dono.
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Whoever
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- From: Bruce Richmond
- Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Prev by Date: Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Next by Date: Re: How to calculate this?
- Previous by thread: Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Next by thread: Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|