View Single Post
  #4  
Old March 11th 11, 11:54 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.math
Darwin123
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default Silly Goose calls Einstein's inequalities **** and Dr. drosencan't read urls! Too funny!

ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING
BODIES by Albert Einstien
“We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks
are
placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system,
that is to say
that their indications correspond at any instant to the “time of the
stationary
system” at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are
therefore
“synchronous” in the stationary system.
Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two
clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system
would
declare the clocks to be synchronous.
So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of
simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system of co-
ordinates,
are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as simultaneous events
when
envisaged from a system which is in motion relatively to that system.”

Plain English.
"So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the
concept of simultaneity."
The definition provided for simultaneous leads to a
contradiction. That is the entire point.
You mixed two different quantities. "t_B-t_A" as measured in the
stationary system is not the same as "t_B-t_A" as measured in the
system moving with the rod. If you paid attention to which observer
was determining which quantity, you would have seen that there were
two different "t_B-t_A".

Okay, I answered it. I don't owe you an understanding.
I want other people to observe that Androcles left out some
important words used by Einstein in his article. It wasn't me
selecting the words. It was Androcles selecting words. Androcles
selected words and definitions that supported his idea that all
observers see the same thing. However, the whole point is that the
observers CAN'T see the same thing.
The rod is standing still in the moving system. The events are
not synchronous in the moving system. Einstein said, for example, that
the two events could "no longer be looked upon as simultaneous".
Androcles insisted on looking at the two events as simultaneous.
Therefore, he didn't understand that the time between events was
different to the two observers.

Two different sets of observers see two different types of time
intervals.
Observers in the stationary system see
t_B-t_A=t’_A-t_B
This is the definition of synchronous. However, this is only in the
stationary system. The rod is moving in the stationary system.
Observers moving with the rod see,
t_B-t_A=r_AB/(c+v)
t’_A-t_B=r_AB/(c-v)

Androcles ripped the equations out of their verbal context. The
entire point of the article is different sets of observers see
different things. Androcles forced a consistency between observers
that had been disproved.
I am not going to analyze his rants for a long while. I tried.
Goodbye.