Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

@layman,

Quote:

Both agreed that every observer in every inertial frame would "observe" the speed of light be constant.

No, no, no.......

You clearly don't understand Einstein's departure from Lorentz on the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment and the demise of "the aether". Of the two, only Einstein proposed getting rid of "the aether" and that the speed of light was a constant c for all observers. That was the theoretical leap from which all else followed. The fact that he agreed with some of Lorentz;s mathematics does not mean he agreed with Lorentz's axioms anymore than his partial use of Newtonian mechanics meant he agreed with those axioms,

BTW Of course it would be "a wild goose chase" because he never said it and you are inventing rubbish. You will get no more clarification from me. Its all there on numerous websites providing you have the ability to follow it. Not everybody does.

3 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
Your link, Barm, seems to indicate, contrary to Lay's position, that it's the acceleration that makes the traveler's clock slow

That's not really "my" position, Dale, which I think you'll see if you read my post(s) on the topic.

Lay you misread my quote

3 Replies

@dalehileman,

"Misreading" seems to be his forte'. Physics of time certainly ain't !

0 Replies

@barmpot,

Quote:

You will get no more clarification from me.

Can't answer a simple question about clocks, eh?

Figures.

Yet another know it all who wants to scoff, but can't articulate an argument.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

Lay you misread my quote

Sorry, Dale. How did I misread it?

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

How did I misread it?

You doubtless hurriedly read, "...Lay's position, that it's the acceleration..." as if the comma were absent. So let me rephrase:

Your link, Barm, seems to indicate that it's the acceleration that makes the traveler's clock slow, contrary to Lay's position that it is not the acceleration but the resulting velocity

1 Reply

@layman,

Oh come off it! Any first year student on "Relativity 101" could have you for breakfast.Why not just admit you are talking idiosyncratic bullshit because you don't understand Einstein? Better still, go and talk to that anti-Einstein loony Quehoniaomath. You might have fun together (or kill each other) Who knows ?

2 Replies

@barmpot,

For the record:

From his seminal paper, "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies," section 5, entitled "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks;" (1905)

Quote:

If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind... It is at once apparent that this result still holds good if the clock moves from A to B in any polygonal line, and also when the points A and B coincide.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Again, my apologies, Dale. The way you have re-worded is exactly what I intended to say, sure enough.

0 Replies

@barmpot,

Rave on, Barm.

0 Replies

@layman,

Same source:

Quote:

Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.

Why? Because the clock at the equator is rotating, i.e., moving.

0 Replies

@barmpot,

Quote:

Who knows ?

Barm I'm still not quite sure what the q is. As I understand it if A and B pass at nearly c, for all practical purposes the other's clock has actually stopped

What has me going however, is whether or not it matters which one of 'em had accelerated, i.e., after circumnavigating the Universe when they meet again coming from the other direction whether they find each other the same age

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Quote:

What has me going however, is whether or not it matters which one of 'em had accelerated, i.e., after circumnavigating the Universe when they meet again coming from the other direction whether they find each other the same age

Dale, as you can see from the quote from Einstein that I provided (or from any one of dozens, if not hundreds, of summaries of SR made by reputable physicists online): As between the two, SR says it is the clock that is moving that runs slower. The other clock does NOT run slower, irrespective of what the moving party might be alleged to "see" about the non-moving clock.

2 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

As between the two, SR says it is the clock that is moving that runs slower.

No, READ THE DAMN THING ! It says "doesn't synchronize" and arrives "lagging behind". You just flunked "Relativity 101". (again) by misinterpreting what is written.

1 Reply

@barmpot,

Quote:

No, READ THE DAMN THING ! It says "doesn't synchronize" and arrives "lagging behind". You just flunked "Relativity 101". (again) by misinterpreting what is written.

Heh, say what? Yes, that's exactly what it says, and, saying what it says, it clearly contradicts your claim, which was:

Quote:

Al has settled the matter or we can all throw away our satnavs ! The travelers clock has NOT "gone slow".

And YOU want to accuse someone else of "misreading?" Astounding.

I must admit, though, that when you put words in ALL CAPS, I was (almost) immediately persuaded that what you said had to be right. Such a powerful rhetorical device, ya know?

1 Reply

@layman,

You think that means "goes slower" ? It does not! It is about readings transmitted by light at two points subject to Einstein's constant speed of light axiom. Unless you can get the importance of that axiom into your head you will continue to talk rubbish.

2 Replies

@barmpot,

Quote:

You think that means "goes slower" ? It does not! It is about readings transmitted by light

Really? I could have sworn that he was talking about clocks, not light, per se. The section it comes from was, after all, entitled: "Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to...Moving Clocks;"

Do you know what "physical meaning" means, by any chance?

1 Reply

@barmpot,

Barm, sorry to say that it seems to me that you're just embarrassing yourself at this point with your cocksure assertions of things that are obviously mistaken. Here's a suggestion:

Google this: "moving clocks in special relativity." You will get over 200,000 links. Read a few of them, then come back.

0 Replies

@layman,

Here's just one example of a summary that can be found online. This comes from Dr. John Simonetti of the Department of Physics at Virginia Tech, and was given in the context of an answer to a question about the twin paradox:

Quote:

Conclusion: Thus both observers agree, based on their own observations, that Unprime's watch reads 2.5 years for the duration of their separation, and Prime's watch reads 1.5 years. Both observers also understand why there is such a difference. Prime is now younger than his twin!

Source: http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/twins.html

The same thing has been said in hundreds of places. Note that the travelling twin's watch REALLY DOES slow down.

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

For Dale:

Dale, there is a section in the cite I just gave (from Virginia Tech) entitled "Twin Paradox Without Accelerations"

It says:

Quote:

Just in case the reader might decide that it must be the accelerations that cause the difference in duration for the twins, this section describes how it is possible to explain the paradox entirely without accelerations. ...The resulting difference between the reading on Unprime's watch and that on Doubleprime's watch is not the result of any accelerations experienced by anyone (nobody experienced any accelerations).

This section is also relevant to the discussion we had with Fresco on the topic of the role of acceleration in time dilation. As I told him at the time: "Many examples of the "twin paradox" have been expounded upon which do NOT involve any acceleration or return to earth. That doesn't change the predictions of SR one iota."

0 Replies

Why in the world would Einstein suggest....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know