Re: Einstein's Train Gedanken Re-visited

On Jun 25, 6:48 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"jem" <x...@xxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:eMK0m.1145$dz7.393@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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:
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dcf2a5b6-21b5-4d0f-bd5b-0ff69cf82776@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 23, 10:54 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2939b7dd-20fb-43d8-9210-3f346f67e78f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For starters what you proposed and what you described were not the
same thing.
Yes .. they are
Your discription still had the clock(s) moving on the
earth's surface.
No .. it clearly didn't. Only one of them.
Ok, I'll grant you that. I misinterperted what you were saying.
That's ok .. glad we cleared that up
==>> >> So .. what would happen if we moved the clocks apart at the
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 the
ECI system.
Yes they are
Combine that with the fact that even the ECI system is
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."
Grr ... Picky .. so the only affect is due to the movement of the
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 -
I thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in
sync
without using light signals so that a real world experiment could be
done to measure one way light speed isotropy.
Yeup .. this would be one way to do it .. moving one way westward with
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
:)
The plane sounds like the best idea so far. It could be done. And
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.
Well .. LET always says two things. What we measure and observe as
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, if
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.
LET says we will measure what SR says we will measure. LET just adds to
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).

Yes they do.

No, they don't. And that is a FACT. In LET, time and distance are unmeasurable.

If they don't, it makes them rather pointless then.

Right, just like thermometers are pointless because they don't measure IQ.

LET
claims that the clocks and rulers are distorted by the motion through the
aether, which 'magically' slows down every process and shrinks every length,
and so the measurements they give are wrong.

It's not possible for measurements to be wrong - every measurement is what it is.

They still measure length and
time. They just give distorted answers.

Right, just like thermometers measure IQ but give distorted answers.

Unless of course, the observer
happens to be at rest in the aether. In which case the answer he gets are
correct. Except he doesn't know it because the aether is undetectable (one
of its 'magical' properties. its also a perfectly rigi solid and permeates
all matter .. amazing stuff).

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.

LET claims everything we see is an illusion .. a distortion of the true
reality ..which is the the spheres we see are not spherical, the cubes are
not cubes. A distortion that happens to make things at rest relative to us
look like what they would in true reality if we were all actually at rest in
the aether.


In your last post, you claimed to find LET confusing. In this post, you proved that claim. It's anybody's guess why you'd think you were qualified to explain it to anyone else.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... see we need to make it explicit) what do you claim about the clocks as ... appropriate speed would keep it in sync. ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Kepler ,Newton and orbital geometry
    ... frame any time they need to. ... It is the actual time it takes the Earth ... clocks in sync with the axial cycle are lovely and easy to understand ... Huygens showing how clocks,the axial cycle and terrestrial longitudes ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... I thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in sync ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... the one moving with the earth would stay 'still' ... I thought the whole purpose of this exercise was to get clocks in sync ... frame would then be inertial. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Einsteins Train Gedanken Re-visited
    ... The calculations for it were executed in the frame of reference ... The reason the clocks showed different elapsed times is the same ... on the surface of the earth their settings had changed. ... opposite directions at the same velocity and stop them ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)