G
Posts:
50
Registered:
4/30/09
|
|
Re: How would we know Herbert Dingle was right or wrong?
Posted:
Feb 16, 2012 8:12 PM
|
|
On Feb 15, 9:17 am, "Androcles" <H...@Hgwrts.phscs.Feb.2012> wrote:
> "Thomas Heger" <ttt_...@web.de> wrote in message
>
> news:9q0mmeFk24U1@mid.individual.net...
> | Am 15.02.2012 04:00, schrieb Thomas Heger:
> | > Am 14.02.2012 21:19, schrieb Androcles:
> | >> "Thomas Heger"<ttt_...@web.de> wrote in message
> | >>news:9pvt3pFi6U1@mid.individual.net...
> | >> | It seems you don't like philosophy. Well, your choice, but actually I
> | >> | didn't write about philosophy, but about a physical concept.
> | >> |
> | >> | That is my own invention, hence not easy to understand - sorry for
> | >> that.
> | >> | But I can actually explain it better - or at least try.
> | >> |
> | >> | The idea of relativity is the equivalence of inertial frames of
> | >> | references.
> | >>
> | >> You are a liar and an idiot, Heger. Einstein wrote his relativistic
> shit
> | >> and never said "inertial" once, you mad imbecile.
> | >>
> | > Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Einstein has written.
>
> Well, it doesn't matter at all, what Heger has written. Heger is a LIAR.
> Einstein wrote
> 1/2[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c+v)+x'/(c-v))]=tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif>and he wrote:
>
> "indem man durch Definition festsetzt, daß die "Zeit", welche das
> Licht braucht, um von A nach B zu gelangen, gleich ist der "Zeit",
> welche es braucht, um von B nach A zu gelangen." -- Einstein
> (translation:
> "we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
> from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A.")
> <http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/>
> (§ 1. Definition of Simultaneity)
>
> What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
> the speed of light from A=(0,0,0) to B=(x',0,0) is c-v,
> the speed of light from B=(x',0,0) to A=(0,0,0) is c+v,
> the "time" each way is the same and invent time dilation?
If A and B are stationary, it seems reasonable - actually, it is,
reasonable.
A and B are points on a moving rod. To use the equation above some
assumptions have been made, no doubt. The first is there is no ether.
The second is that light propagates between two points A and B, it
does not travel at c, but at c-v.
The length of the rod is assumed to be AB and also AB' where AB" = ct
+vt. Or is it ct?
|
|
