A Review of Basic Relativity Claims.

A basic review of Special relativity claims.

Einstein claimed that the demands of relativity justify the postulate that all inertial observers will measure the relative velocity of frame and photon a as c. Using light emitted parallel and anti-parallel with emitted light we have two expressions. Light emitted in the direction of motion of a moving reference (velocity v wrt the embankment, or vacua as Einstein referred it) frame we get v-forward-rel = v + c. For the light emitted to the rearward direction we get v-rearward-rel = c – v. Relativity theory, borrowed by Einstein paraphrased as,

“The laws of motion for light should be the same as when the rails [embankment] are the reference frame as when the train was the reference frame.”

This is a true statement and applies across the board to all objects moving relative to an inertial frame of reference. Using the example of a man walking on the train, the man’s speed seen from the embankment W is,

W = v + w
Where w is the man’s speed relative to the train and v is the train speed relative to the rails. If we then substitute light speed c for the man’s motion as seen from the embankment and keep w the light substituted for the man walking we get, after manipulation,

c- v = w

which, complained Einstein, w, the speed of light was less than c in contradiction to the laws of relativity.

Some problems:

1. Einstein made a frame switch here, claiming that the c – v = w was measured with the train as the reference frame, which it surely was not. This expression merely reflects how much faster is light than the train as seen from the embankment and is in complete agreement with relativity principles.
2. The direct substitution of light for the man is contrary to the postulate light motion is independent from the motion of the source of light. However, he did mention this postulate in the Chapter VII in "Relativity" where he discussed the "laws of motion of light being the same in all inertial frames of reference. Einstein had no concept of relative motion of frame and photon.
Equating the two relatiove motion expressions above, as demanded by relativity theorists, we get, v-forward-rel = v-rearward-rel. or c- v = c + v. This means that 2v = 0, or v = 0 for all measurements of relative motion of frame and photon. This negation of motion is abysmal.
3. In developing the loss of “simultaneity”, Einstein uses the location of a single observer on an extended inertial frame to determine the physics of the inertial frame in its entirety. An observer moves with velocity v wrt the embankment (or vice versa) is collocated with the midpoint of emitters on the embankment just as the lights are emitted simultaneously. The observer, O’, sees the light from the front before the light arriving from the rear. Einstein concludes that, using the equivalence of inertial frames, considers the moving frame, by choice, as stationary. Hence, this observer concludes that the forward light emitted before the rearward light. Lost is the fact that observers located on the moving frame behind O’, observe the lights arriving at the midpoint of the embankment simultaneously. Likewise, assume that collocated with the two emitters were synchronized clocks on the moving frame. Assume further, when the emitted clocks on the moving frame record these times stamped on a piece of paper. Casually, these two pieces of paper, as well as the measured arrival time at the embankment midpoint, using moving frame clocks, are brought to the attention of O’. It is clear that using O’ to determine loss of simultaneity, absolute space and time for the inertial frame is unjustified.
4. Using emitters on a frame of reference moving wrt the embankment the O’ (relativity theorists) observer will always conclude that the lights were not emitted in his frame of reference simultaneously. It should be apparent that using the position of observers on various moving inertial frames of reference as sole judge and jury of the laws of physics on the moving frames requires ignoring events as they occurred.

Geistkiesel ​

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Her

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Somehow, I don't think so. geistkiesel's email starts with 'hernan', a man's name...

 

You are applying phony analysis and making things up here.

James R you fail to grasp the importance. The expression, c – v = w, is the observed relative motion of frame and photon as observed from the embankment as inertial frame of reference. The term w is merely the measured difference in velocity of train and photon. There is nothing relativistic about it. The expression is a corruption by Einstein in his attempt to get the reader to believe that the expression was a measurement with the train as the reference frame of measurement. Hence, there is nothing contrary to the laws of physics justifying Einstein’s complaint.

The thread is a review of Einsteins methods used in developing special relativity theory. Please response to the essence of the thread, if you are able.

Geistkiesel ​

 

I want to hook up with the chick in your avatar.

 

You are certainly telling the truth. It is obvious that we can take it from you.

By the way, what is it specifically that is being pretended to be said that it doesn't? Or is it asking too much of you to hope that you could make a specific statement?

It just seems to me that somebody like you should be able to be specific.

 

If you had actually been specific previously, I would not now have to remind you to do so.

Perhaps you do not really know what the word means.

 

Geist,
Just out of curiosity, assuming classical ether theory, if an observer standing along the tracks measures light to travel at c in the positive direction using rulers laid on the ground along the tracks, and also measures the train to be moving at v, what does an observer riding on the train measure as the speed of the same pulse of light using rulers laid on the floor of the train cars?

 

kevinalm, you can't measure velocity, or speed, with just a ruler.

Please answer these questions for me.
We will assume a train that is measured as 100 feet long in its rest frame. At each end of the train, we will place a sensor, one at the front and one at the rear, located exactly 100 feet apart.
On the ground, we will have a single laser, projecting a beam across the tracks that the train will travel.
One clock located on the ground will start recording time when the sensor on the front of the train breaks the laser beam, then stop when the sensor at the rear of the train breaks the beam the second time.
A second clock located on the train will start recording time when the laser beam hits the sensor at the front of the train, and stop when the laser beam hits the second sensor at the rear of the train.

Assume the clock on the ground records a total time of 101 nanoseconds when the train passes by on the tracks.
(1) What is the speed of the train in the ground frame?
(2) How many nanoseconds will accure on the train's clock?
(3) At what speed does the laser pass by in the train's frame?

Of course, the speed of light is one foot per nanosecond, to make calculations easy.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even though I mentioned kevinalm at the beginning of this post, anyone is welcome to answer.

 

Although he doesn't say so, Geist is refering to Chapter VII of Einstein's lay dissertation book "Relativity" by Einstein. Actually 1-7 but 7 in particular. In the first seven chapter's, Einstein teaches the rudiments of classical physics for those who haven't had any exposure to them. Space is Eclidean and time universal. He also introduces the "Restricted Principle of Relativity". This is not the first postulate of SRT, but the general concept from classical physics of the invariance of the form of physical law between tranformations between inertial frames. For example, F=ma and F'=ma' . Einstein also suggests that this invariance might be expected to take the form x=ct (x'=ct') for light, in other words that all observers measure light to travel at c isotropically wrt their own coordinate systems (inertial reference frames). He also makes the observation that classical velocity addition (c-v=w) is not compatable with the suggested isotropic c measurement, given that a classical ether is assumed.

I am simply trying to determine what part of this Geist has a problem/disagreement with.

 

2inq, you can't measure velocity, or speed, with just a clock.

 

Of course not, Pete. That's why I had a train that was measured to be 100 feet long.

 

of course, the speed of light is not one foot per nanosecond, though it is fairly close to it.

We have been using the lightfoot unit, which is the time it takes for light to travel one foot.

This unit has also been called the tinysecond.

So, light in vacuum will travel 100 feet in 100 lightfoots, or, in 100 tinyseconds exactly.

 

And Einstein later explained that classical physics could, if desired, be understood in terms of Euclidean geometry, for those who have never bothered to study Euclidean geometry but rather dropped out after being baffled by Eclidan geometry.

 

CANGAS,

Yes, you are correct CANGAS. Convention is to use one foot per nanosecond, though. That is why I stated to make calculations easy, light travels one foot in one nanosecond.
The speed of light in a vacuum is .9835584 feet per nanosecond, or 11.8027008 inches per nanosecond, according to my calculations. Do you agree, CANGAS?

 

I'm the first to admit that I can't spell. And I think spell checkers hate me.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm pretty sure it's not Eclidan geometry.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

CANGAS agrees that light does NOT travel one foot in one nanosecond.

CANGAS agrees that light travels one foot in one lightfoot, or, as some prefer, one tinysecond.

For convenience, one tinysecond is written as 1 ts, in correspondence to one second being written as 1 s.