![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have archived the latest discussions. Once again, it is requested that future discussion be on the article and not on the theory. If no one other than Cadwgan objects, I propose that it be our policy that blatantly anti-relativity content will be removed from this page in the future. -- EMS | Talk 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Even Jimbo Wales could see the difference, and he's not a serious student of special relativity.
CURRENT VERSION OF WIKI SECOND POSTULATE:
Second postulate - Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c) which is independent of the motion of the light source.
compared with
EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF THE SECOND POSTULATE:
Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence
VELOCITY = LIGHT PATH/TIME INTERVAL
where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1.
EINSTEIN'S DEFINITION FROM § 1:
We have not defined a common "time" for [two clocks at points] A and B [in space], for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from [point] B to [point] A.
EINSTEIN STATED THAT HE DID NOT POSTULATE RE LIGHT'S ROUND-TRIP SPEED:
In agreement with experience [experiment] we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
It is impossible to measure light's one-way speed without two clocks, but Einstein used only one clock (clock A) here, along with the round-trip distance (2AB). We therefore know that he was speaking here of light's round-trip speed.
It is not necessary to use two clocks to measure light's round-trip speed, but Einstein used two clocks in his second postulate, so we know that this postulate pertains solely to light's one-way speed.
Light's round-trip speed and its one-way speed differ fundamentally in that the time of the latter currently depends entirely upon a definition.
In other words, the time in Einstein's second postulate is given by definition, which makes it imperative to mention the word "definition" in any version of the second postulate, just as Einstein did, but as WIKI does not.
It is also imperative to mention the fact that the second postulate pertains only to light's one-way, two-clock speed, and not to light's round-trip speed, but, again, WIKI does not do this, even though Einstein did (by completely separating the two as we saw clearly above). Cadwgan Gedrych 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)) may be helpful to you:
Dear EMS (don't you just love it when I go formal!),
Pardon me for saying so, but you yourself omitted an extremely critical part of the very context that you alluded to, namely, Einstein's phrase "apparently irreconcilable."
There is simply no way that anything saying c-invariance-per-coordinate-measurements could in any way be even apparently irreconcilable with Einstein's PR-in-this-case (which is "Null results always" or "No absolute motion detection by any means, including optics.")
What could be (and certainly is) apparently irreconcilable with Einstein's PR-in-this-case is simply light's natural motion through space, which, as Einstein said, is always at the definite (not coordinate-measured) velocity (or propagational speed, to be precise) c, which is (as Einstein went on to say) really due to light's source independency.
This is all just another way of putting what Einstein stated a little clearer in his book.
It is simply his statement that due to light's constancy of movement through space at the raw speed c, observers using absolutely synchronous clocks must find w = c ± v when using the clocks to measure light's passing speed w.
But why did Einstein say it was only apparently irreconcilable?
Because he saw a loophole.
Actually, the loophole consisted of two separate smaller loopholes, viz.,
(i) no one could absolutely synchronize clocks, and
(ii) clocks can be manually forced to get c one-way, even though such clocks will not be truly or absolutely synchronous.
As any fool can see, if we really cannot synchronize clocks (absolutely), and if we manually set clocks to get c one-way, we can obliterate that (terrible, to Einstein) irreconcilableness. That is, we can obtain our wish-for (baselessly) null result (even though it is not per experiment, but by definition) despite the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space.
In other words, we can get our (baselessly) desired one-way "null result" despite the simple fact that light travels in space exactly as if there were an aether (although no aether is needed for light to propagate through space).
Dear Harald88,
You wrote: "The only time interval that I see above is: (t'A-tA) - the two-way speed."
Your remark is only apparently irreconcilable ;-) with the fact that Einstein's second postulate contained its own cute little time interval, as follows:
VELOCITY = LIGHT PATH/TIME INTERVAL
But this (two-clock) "time" is measured by absolutely asynchronous clocks, so it cannot reflect reality. Reality can be reflected by using synchronous clocks, and, in that case, as Einstein himself admitted mathematically explicitly, light's one-way, two-clock speed would be c ± v. Cadwgan Gedrych 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Harald88, if it has indeed (as you claimed above) "been amply discussed in the literature that no 'physically true' or 'absolute' OWLS measurement can be done," then how could Einstein postulate about such a measurement? (As the 1905 paper stated, the second postulate allegedly pertains to light's one-way speed per two clocks, but if there is no such experiment, then there can be no postulate about it.) Cadwgan Gedrych 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Harald88 claimed above that the "statements are equivalent"; that this is not so is easily seen by the simple facts that even though the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887, no one-way experiment has ever been performed, not even on paper using ideal rulers and clocks. These simple facts tell us that the statements differ fundamentally, in stark contrast with Harald88's claim. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my final remarks at my Talk+ discussion. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the 'Physics in spacetime' section in this article, it's claimed (in fact I think I wrote it) that the Lorentz transformation is a tensor. Does it truly transform as a tensor? (I was hoping someone already knows and so it'd save me from doing a tedious bit of algebra).
-- Masud 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
what are wrong in these 2 situations:
many far away stars are measured to be traveling faster than the speed of light from us
this concept of warp bubbles takes the spaceship inside it faster than light speed by twisting space and so on
both these situation can carry information. wat is wrong? i think it might be something to do with the fact that the objects themselves arent accelerating itself from some experimenter, but rather spacetime is pushing them like a wave. can someone correct me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duel me ( talk • contribs) 13:04 UTC, June 8, 2006.
Survey of edits by the 11 most recent anon editors:
By my count, 4 vandals, 2 anons making dubious edits, and 5 anons making legit edits.
It is certainly unfortunate that this article attracts to much vandalism (too bad we can't easily semiprotect it, with apologies to the anons who made legit edits).
Please help us monitor edits by Der alte Hexenmeister ( talk · contribs), who uses handles such as Hexenmeister, Androcles in UseNet posts which tend toward personal attacks; see Google.--- CH 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Magencalc 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Hi 24.52.254.62
i'm new to using "talk page", so hope this gets to you.
As i understand it you are the anonymous user who has reformated the exernal links list under Special Relativity.
The external link's list that you reformatted 7 June seemed to be a way of 24.52.254.62 placing a new link in at the second top of the link's list.
The movement of the link to the Relativity calculator hosted by magen.co.uk to a lower position in the list resulted in a substantial drop in visitors from Wikipedia.
I reason that your change was to give the new link that you inserted an enhanced hit rate.
There seem's to be no reason for categorising the link's list as it fairly short and links are described well.
Categorising as you have done it, misrepresents not only my site's content but other's too.
My site My web page is a web page. I offer no software. The calculator on the web page is Java based and i give a warning about load times in the link description.
There are no adverts or commercial interest on the site.
The calculator is not a simulator. The geometry displayed contains the geometry of the Lorentz transform. The calculations, are from the pure geometry, the results conform to the Lorentz transform, as they should. That it look's like the Israeli flag, is unfortunate(*1) (do you want to blame Lorentz or Einstein?), which is why i have gone to the trouble of pointing out the difference between it and the Israeli flag elsewhere on the site.
From my stats i can say that very few vistitors from Wikipedia, ever go to those pages. They are visited mainly by people interested in matters relating to their religion.
What use is it? (a)It calculates. (b)The calculator display enables a user to see and examine the geometry behind the Lorentz Transform in the whole.
Future updates planned. For the last 18 months i have done little due to terminal cancer. That was one reason for creating it, also it was Relativities Centenery.
Well i'm still here, and slowly getting some energy back. 0)Right mouse stuff needs revision. 1)There is a need to arrange some way of clarifying (for people who are new to relativity) the relationship between calculated values and the specific related Lorentz Transform. 2)Relative distance. Values not displayed at the moment. 3)Unit conversion. Maybe, but no one has asked for it. 4)Update help pages. Working on that, but they are rarely looked at. 5..n)etc.Fitz Gerald contraction in direction of motion.
Lot's to do, but changes have wiped out visits to my site. Getting visitors is uplifting, and acts as a spur.( gives my life meaning. Sad, i know.)
If you wish to propose a compromise please do so. Regards Magencalc
Vince 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Pjacobi thank you, for your advice and willingness to look at my site yourself. The geometry used, is the geometry i created when i was trying to understand Special Relativity some 25 years ago. I never published then because i had great misgivings about it's similarity to the Israeli flag, and i know how moral relativists vaunt Einsteins work as a validation of their philosophy. I have now, and that is why the web site has the layout it has. I welcome advice and discussion on enhancments. Thank you Vince 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have a whack at rewriting the lead from scratch. I see the following as being problems with the current version: (1) It would be hard for a nonspecialist to understand. (2) It doesn't explain where the word "relativity" comes from, or mention the fundamental idea that all frames of reference are equally valid. (3) It doesn't explain its relation to classical mechanics (the limit of v<<c).-- 24.52.254.62 00:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I made some corrections in the intro, but for the moment I didn't remove the claim that according to SRT "even information" can't travel faster than light. I've read that claim before but SRT states nothing about something as abstract as "information", it's probably a fable; instead SRT states that no matter can travel as fast as radiation (light).
Interestingly, a few days ago it was on the news that Gisin in Geneva now claims to have succeeded a teleportation experiment of "instantaneous" information by means of two distant but coupled photons. True or not, and no matter how mindboggling this is, it doesn't really matter for SRT. Harald88 09:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone rewrote the explanation of why it's called "special," stating it in terms of inertial frames instead of no gravity. The two explanations are equivalent according to the equivalence principle. The general reader knows what gravity is, but doesn't know what an inertial frame is, so it makes more sense to explain it in terms of gravity. I've reverted the edit.-- 24.52.254.62 15:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I have archived the latest discussions. Once again, it is requested that future discussion be on the article and not on the theory. If no one other than Cadwgan objects, I propose that it be our policy that blatantly anti-relativity content will be removed from this page in the future. -- EMS | Talk 21:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Even Jimbo Wales could see the difference, and he's not a serious student of special relativity.
CURRENT VERSION OF WIKI SECOND POSTULATE:
Second postulate - Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant (c) which is independent of the motion of the light source.
compared with
EINSTEIN'S VERSION OF THE SECOND POSTULATE:
Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body. Hence
VELOCITY = LIGHT PATH/TIME INTERVAL
where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § 1.
EINSTEIN'S DEFINITION FROM § 1:
We have not defined a common "time" for [two clocks at points] A and B [in space], for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from [point] B to [point] A.
EINSTEIN STATED THAT HE DID NOT POSTULATE RE LIGHT'S ROUND-TRIP SPEED:
In agreement with experience [experiment] we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space.
It is impossible to measure light's one-way speed without two clocks, but Einstein used only one clock (clock A) here, along with the round-trip distance (2AB). We therefore know that he was speaking here of light's round-trip speed.
It is not necessary to use two clocks to measure light's round-trip speed, but Einstein used two clocks in his second postulate, so we know that this postulate pertains solely to light's one-way speed.
Light's round-trip speed and its one-way speed differ fundamentally in that the time of the latter currently depends entirely upon a definition.
In other words, the time in Einstein's second postulate is given by definition, which makes it imperative to mention the word "definition" in any version of the second postulate, just as Einstein did, but as WIKI does not.
It is also imperative to mention the fact that the second postulate pertains only to light's one-way, two-clock speed, and not to light's round-trip speed, but, again, WIKI does not do this, even though Einstein did (by completely separating the two as we saw clearly above). Cadwgan Gedrych 18:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help)) may be helpful to you:
Dear EMS (don't you just love it when I go formal!),
Pardon me for saying so, but you yourself omitted an extremely critical part of the very context that you alluded to, namely, Einstein's phrase "apparently irreconcilable."
There is simply no way that anything saying c-invariance-per-coordinate-measurements could in any way be even apparently irreconcilable with Einstein's PR-in-this-case (which is "Null results always" or "No absolute motion detection by any means, including optics.")
What could be (and certainly is) apparently irreconcilable with Einstein's PR-in-this-case is simply light's natural motion through space, which, as Einstein said, is always at the definite (not coordinate-measured) velocity (or propagational speed, to be precise) c, which is (as Einstein went on to say) really due to light's source independency.
This is all just another way of putting what Einstein stated a little clearer in his book.
It is simply his statement that due to light's constancy of movement through space at the raw speed c, observers using absolutely synchronous clocks must find w = c ± v when using the clocks to measure light's passing speed w.
But why did Einstein say it was only apparently irreconcilable?
Because he saw a loophole.
Actually, the loophole consisted of two separate smaller loopholes, viz.,
(i) no one could absolutely synchronize clocks, and
(ii) clocks can be manually forced to get c one-way, even though such clocks will not be truly or absolutely synchronous.
As any fool can see, if we really cannot synchronize clocks (absolutely), and if we manually set clocks to get c one-way, we can obliterate that (terrible, to Einstein) irreconcilableness. That is, we can obtain our wish-for (baselessly) null result (even though it is not per experiment, but by definition) despite the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light in empty space.
In other words, we can get our (baselessly) desired one-way "null result" despite the simple fact that light travels in space exactly as if there were an aether (although no aether is needed for light to propagate through space).
Dear Harald88,
You wrote: "The only time interval that I see above is: (t'A-tA) - the two-way speed."
Your remark is only apparently irreconcilable ;-) with the fact that Einstein's second postulate contained its own cute little time interval, as follows:
VELOCITY = LIGHT PATH/TIME INTERVAL
But this (two-clock) "time" is measured by absolutely asynchronous clocks, so it cannot reflect reality. Reality can be reflected by using synchronous clocks, and, in that case, as Einstein himself admitted mathematically explicitly, light's one-way, two-clock speed would be c ± v. Cadwgan Gedrych 17:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Harald88, if it has indeed (as you claimed above) "been amply discussed in the literature that no 'physically true' or 'absolute' OWLS measurement can be done," then how could Einstein postulate about such a measurement? (As the 1905 paper stated, the second postulate allegedly pertains to light's one-way speed per two clocks, but if there is no such experiment, then there can be no postulate about it.) Cadwgan Gedrych 18:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Harald88 claimed above that the "statements are equivalent"; that this is not so is easily seen by the simple facts that even though the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887, no one-way experiment has ever been performed, not even on paper using ideal rulers and clocks. These simple facts tell us that the statements differ fundamentally, in stark contrast with Harald88's claim. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Please see my final remarks at my Talk+ discussion. Cadwgan Gedrych 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
In the 'Physics in spacetime' section in this article, it's claimed (in fact I think I wrote it) that the Lorentz transformation is a tensor. Does it truly transform as a tensor? (I was hoping someone already knows and so it'd save me from doing a tedious bit of algebra).
-- Masud 13:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
what are wrong in these 2 situations:
many far away stars are measured to be traveling faster than the speed of light from us
this concept of warp bubbles takes the spaceship inside it faster than light speed by twisting space and so on
both these situation can carry information. wat is wrong? i think it might be something to do with the fact that the objects themselves arent accelerating itself from some experimenter, but rather spacetime is pushing them like a wave. can someone correct me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duel me ( talk • contribs) 13:04 UTC, June 8, 2006.
Survey of edits by the 11 most recent anon editors:
By my count, 4 vandals, 2 anons making dubious edits, and 5 anons making legit edits.
It is certainly unfortunate that this article attracts to much vandalism (too bad we can't easily semiprotect it, with apologies to the anons who made legit edits).
Please help us monitor edits by Der alte Hexenmeister ( talk · contribs), who uses handles such as Hexenmeister, Androcles in UseNet posts which tend toward personal attacks; see Google.--- CH 03:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Magencalc 22:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Hi 24.52.254.62
i'm new to using "talk page", so hope this gets to you.
As i understand it you are the anonymous user who has reformated the exernal links list under Special Relativity.
The external link's list that you reformatted 7 June seemed to be a way of 24.52.254.62 placing a new link in at the second top of the link's list.
The movement of the link to the Relativity calculator hosted by magen.co.uk to a lower position in the list resulted in a substantial drop in visitors from Wikipedia.
I reason that your change was to give the new link that you inserted an enhanced hit rate.
There seem's to be no reason for categorising the link's list as it fairly short and links are described well.
Categorising as you have done it, misrepresents not only my site's content but other's too.
My site My web page is a web page. I offer no software. The calculator on the web page is Java based and i give a warning about load times in the link description.
There are no adverts or commercial interest on the site.
The calculator is not a simulator. The geometry displayed contains the geometry of the Lorentz transform. The calculations, are from the pure geometry, the results conform to the Lorentz transform, as they should. That it look's like the Israeli flag, is unfortunate(*1) (do you want to blame Lorentz or Einstein?), which is why i have gone to the trouble of pointing out the difference between it and the Israeli flag elsewhere on the site.
From my stats i can say that very few vistitors from Wikipedia, ever go to those pages. They are visited mainly by people interested in matters relating to their religion.
What use is it? (a)It calculates. (b)The calculator display enables a user to see and examine the geometry behind the Lorentz Transform in the whole.
Future updates planned. For the last 18 months i have done little due to terminal cancer. That was one reason for creating it, also it was Relativities Centenery.
Well i'm still here, and slowly getting some energy back. 0)Right mouse stuff needs revision. 1)There is a need to arrange some way of clarifying (for people who are new to relativity) the relationship between calculated values and the specific related Lorentz Transform. 2)Relative distance. Values not displayed at the moment. 3)Unit conversion. Maybe, but no one has asked for it. 4)Update help pages. Working on that, but they are rarely looked at. 5..n)etc.Fitz Gerald contraction in direction of motion.
Lot's to do, but changes have wiped out visits to my site. Getting visitors is uplifting, and acts as a spur.( gives my life meaning. Sad, i know.)
If you wish to propose a compromise please do so. Regards Magencalc
Vince 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Pjacobi thank you, for your advice and willingness to look at my site yourself. The geometry used, is the geometry i created when i was trying to understand Special Relativity some 25 years ago. I never published then because i had great misgivings about it's similarity to the Israeli flag, and i know how moral relativists vaunt Einsteins work as a validation of their philosophy. I have now, and that is why the web site has the layout it has. I welcome advice and discussion on enhancments. Thank you Vince 00:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have a whack at rewriting the lead from scratch. I see the following as being problems with the current version: (1) It would be hard for a nonspecialist to understand. (2) It doesn't explain where the word "relativity" comes from, or mention the fundamental idea that all frames of reference are equally valid. (3) It doesn't explain its relation to classical mechanics (the limit of v<<c).-- 24.52.254.62 00:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I made some corrections in the intro, but for the moment I didn't remove the claim that according to SRT "even information" can't travel faster than light. I've read that claim before but SRT states nothing about something as abstract as "information", it's probably a fable; instead SRT states that no matter can travel as fast as radiation (light).
Interestingly, a few days ago it was on the news that Gisin in Geneva now claims to have succeeded a teleportation experiment of "instantaneous" information by means of two distant but coupled photons. True or not, and no matter how mindboggling this is, it doesn't really matter for SRT. Harald88 09:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone rewrote the explanation of why it's called "special," stating it in terms of inertial frames instead of no gravity. The two explanations are equivalent according to the equivalence principle. The general reader knows what gravity is, but doesn't know what an inertial frame is, so it makes more sense to explain it in terms of gravity. I've reverted the edit.-- 24.52.254.62 15:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)