1. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360
Actually, in his original 1905 paper, Einstein did apply it to a situation where there are accelerations--
No, you are making that up.

Einstein said in his 1905 paper:

"let a constant velocity c be imparted"

"two systems of coordinates in uniform translatory motion"

"and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with velocity v along the axis of x"

"with velocity v relatively to system K"

"moves with velocity - v on the axis of X"

"must depend only on the velocity"

"moving relatively to the system K with velocity v"

"viewed from a system in uniform motion"

"the clock at A is moved with the velocity v"

So, it is obvious to most people that he did not consider any accelerative effects in the 1905 paper, which is also what he stated in several other papers and his 1916 book. No “acceleration” considered in SR theory.

You need it so you just add it.

“If we take the special case where [clock] C2 is moving along the x-axis to point Q and then back again to P, with discontinuous velocity changes at P and Q, then the effect of the acceleration will certainly be independent of t and can easily be eliminated.”

So there is no acceleration or accelerative effects considered in the 1905 paper.

You need it so you just add it.

The 1905 paper seems to be a kind of “do it yourself” paper. Add what you like, remove what you want, glue something to it, chip something off of it, and use it as you wish. It’s sort of like duct tape. It serves a lot of purposes and can be cut and twisted any way you want to twist it.

2. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
The 1905 paper seems to be a kind of “do it yourself” paper. Add what you like, remove what you want, glue something to it, chip something off of it, and use it as you wish. It’s sort of like duct tape. It serves a lot of purposes and can be cut and twisted any way you want to twist it.
And it only appears that way to you as you fail to understand the math.

3. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360
But Einstein only applied it to inertial reference frames--but applied it in sequence. And then speculated that it could be followed to the limit. That's not an unusual method in calculus, but Sam5 does not understand it. :^o &lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;[emoticon added by Sam]

Have I mischaracterized your position at any point, Sam5?

Oh, come on man, we went over that nearly 4 years ago. He didn’t even consider the acceleration of the motion in the curve. He just left it out. He was talking about an infinite number of infinitely short lines and an infinite number of turns, but with the accelerative effects left out. That is another reason his paper was criticized and laughed at so much throughout Europe when it was first published. You can’t move a clock in a “closed curve” and then leave out the accelerative effects on the clock, but Einstein did.

4. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by freddo
The 1905 paper seems to be a kind of “do it yourself” paper. Add what you like, remove what you want, glue something to it, chip something off of it, and use it as you wish. It’s sort of like duct tape. It serves a lot of purposes and can be cut and twisted any way you want to twist it.
And it only appears that way to you as you fail to understand the math.
There are no accelerative or gravitation terms in any of his 1905 math equations. All relative speeds and velocities are “v”.

5. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Sam5
There are no accelerative or gravitation terms in any of his 1905 math equations. All relative speeds and velocities are “v”.
How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?

6. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
There are no accelerative or gravitation terms in any of his 1905 math equations. All relative speeds and velocities are “v”.
How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?
I was talking specifically to freddo, not to you. I was responding to his remark, not yours. Take a number and wait your turn.

7. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
I was talking specifically to freddo, not to you. I was responding to his remark, not yours. Take a number and wait your turn.
I know you're not talking to me right now, but I don't care. This is a public forum - if you wanted no one but me to reply, use a PM. Otherwise, don't cry foul if someone decides to drop a comment on your words. Got it?

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by freddo
I was talking specifically to freddo, not to you. I was responding to his remark, not yours. Take a number and wait your turn.
I know you're not talking to me right now, but I don't care. This is a public forum - if you wanted no one but me to reply, use a PM. Otherwise, don't cry foul if someone decides to drop a comment on your words. Got it?
So you guys like to work in packs?

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
There are no accelerative or gravitation terms in any of his 1905 math equations. All relative speeds and velocities are “v”.
How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?
I was talking specifically to freddo, not to you. I was responding to his remark, not yours. Take a number and wait your turn.
And I was responding to your post.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
So you guys like to work in packs?
Don't be stupid. A discussion board would be a boring place if it were a conversation between two.
Secondly, just because you are confronted with universal dissent does not mean people are conspiring against you. Maybe entertain the possibility that everyone disagrees for their own reasons.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by freddo
So you guys like to work in packs?
Don't be stupid. A discussion board would be a boring place if it were a conversation between two.
Secondly, just because you are confronted with universal dissent does not mean people are conspiring against you. Maybe entertain the possibility that everyone disagrees for their own reasons.
I wouldn’t call the rude remarks of five grumpy and impolite guys, out of 6 1/2 billion earth inhabitants, “universal dissent”. And you 5 guys certainly aren’t “everyone”. But you do have enormous egos. Enough for a few hundred thousand people at least.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by Tensor
And I was responding to your post.
My post referred to Milli’s contention that “acceleration” is considered in SR theory. He is wrong. I'm glad you agree with me.

13. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
I wouldn’t call the rude remarks of five grumpy and impolite guys, out of 6 1/2 billion earth inhabitants, “universal dissent”. And you 5 guys certainly aren’t “everyone”. But you do have enormous egos. Enough for a few hundred thousand people at least.
Universal dissent taken in the context of this board. I haven't seen anyone pipe up here and say "Bravo Sam5, thankyou for tearing down the myth covering Einstein's 1905 sham!" =D>

:roll:

And I don't think it's prudent to get into a discussion on ego size...

Pot this is kettle, come in pot...

14. Kettle this is pot, I read you loud and clear.

15. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by freddo
I wouldn’t call the rude remarks of five grumpy and impolite guys, out of 6 1/2 billion earth inhabitants, “universal dissent”. And you 5 guys certainly aren’t “everyone”. But you do have enormous egos. Enough for a few hundred thousand people at least.
Universal dissent taken in the context of this board. I haven't seen anyone pipe up here and say "Bravo Sam5, thankyou for tearing down the myth covering Einstein's 1905 sham!" =D>
A lot of people don't like to irritate or be attacked by packs. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. And lurkers are learning.

16. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
Originally Posted by Musashi
Kettle this is pot, I read you loud and clear.
Pot, you are black! Kettle out.

17. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
A lot of people don't like to irritate or be attacked by packs. I don't care. It doesn't bother me. And lurkers are learning.
I sure hope they are. As you demonstrate, there are some gross misunderstandings of relativity out there.

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
And I was responding to your post.
My post referred to Milli’s contention that “acceleration” is considered in SR theory. He is wrong. I'm glad you agree with me.
exactly where did I say that acceleration wasn't part of the 1905 paper?

19. Established Member
Join Date
Feb 2003
Posts
1,247
Originally Posted by freddo
Originally Posted by Musashi
Kettle this is pot, I read you loud and clear.
Pot, you are black! Kettle out.
Sink rate! Sink rate! Pull up. Pot, pull up!

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
And I was responding to your post.
My post referred to Milli’s contention that “acceleration” is considered in SR theory. He is wrong. I'm glad you agree with me.
exactly where did I say that acceleration wasn't part of the 1905 paper?
You said, “How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?”

What about the “equivalence principle”? Is that out today? Is it in when you need it to be in and out when you need it to be out?

Anyway, gravity was put in the 1905 theory in 1918.

21. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2002
Posts
6,235
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
And I was responding to your post.
My post referred to Milli’s contention that “acceleration” is considered in SR theory. He is wrong. I'm glad you agree with me.
exactly where did I say that acceleration wasn't part of the 1905 paper?
You said, “How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?”

What about the “equivalence principle”? Is that out today? Is it in when you need it to be in and out when you need it to be out?
Equivalence principle wasn't until 1915. We're talking about the 1905 paper.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by Tensor
And I was responding to your post.
My post referred to Milli’s contention that “acceleration” is considered in SR theory. He is wrong. I'm glad you agree with me.
exactly where did I say that acceleration wasn't part of the 1905 paper?
You said, “How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?”

What about the “equivalence principle”? Is that out today? Is it in when you need it to be in and out when you need it to be out?
Equivalence principle wasn't until 1915. We're talking about the 1905 paper.
Yeah, but you said “gravity” after 1915, so the equivalence principle applies to what you said.

So you think the 1905 theory has "acceleration" but no "gravity", even though Einstein said in 1916 that it contained no gravity or acceleration?

23. Established Member
Join Date
Mar 2003
Posts
2,181
Originally Posted by Sam5
Yeah, but you said “gravity” after 1915, so the equivalence principle applies to what you said.
Don't lie:

Originally Posted by Tensor
How many times have you've been told that SR does not include gravity?
There is no mention of 1915.

24. Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
Actually, in his original 1905 paper, Einstein did apply it to a situation where there are accelerations--
No, you are making that up.
No, I'm not. We've talked about it before, but you disagree, because you cannot understand the math.
So there is no acceleration or accelerative effects considered in the 1905 paper.

You need it so you just add it.
Einstein has a closed path along which the reference frames are fixed in speed and direction--but at the points where they intersect, times can be synchronized, because of the proximity. It's one of his premises. He does exactly that--even though you cannot change inertial reference frames like that without accelerating. It's allowed because of his definitions--so it's not inconsistent. And in doing so he does treat the example which has accelerated movement.

I didn't add that to his paper. The paper was long lost but we found it again--and anybody can read it. Even in German.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
Actually, in his original 1905 paper, Einstein did apply it to a situation where there are accelerations--
No, you are making that up.
No, I'm not. We've talked about it before, but you disagree, because you cannot understand the math.
Lol, that’s funny. The equation he used for the “closed curve” experiment was 1/2tv^2/c^2. Can you point out the term for acceleration?

He said in subsequent papers and his book that he didn’t consider “acceleration” in the 1905 paper, so that means he just didn’t consider the accelerative effects of the motion in the closed curve. There is no term for acceleration in his equation for the motion. In fact, he was using mechanical clocks in that thought experiment, and I don’t think he every produced any equations that were used to calculate the accelerative stress effects on mechanical clocks. He didn’t add the atomic clocks to the 1905 paper until 1918, so there are no accelerative effects considered in 1905. Of course if you are thinking of the revised paper, the non-SR version, the “new and improved” 1918 GR version of the paper, then you need to say the k frame clock is an atomic clock and is resting in a gravity field. But there are no accelerative effects considered in the original paper.

26. Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
Actually, in his original 1905 paper, Einstein did apply it to a situation where there are accelerations--
No, you are making that up.
No, I'm not. We've talked about it before, but you disagree, because you cannot understand the math.
Lol, that’s funny. The equation he used for the “closed curve” experiment was 1/2tv^2/c^2. Can you point out the term for acceleration?
There is none. Never said there was.
He said in subsequent papers and his book that he didn’t consider “acceleration” in the 1905 paper, so that means he just didn’t consider the accelerative effects of the motion in the closed curve.
True, but a closed curve is accelerated. I think we can agree on that.
There is no term for acceleration in his equation for the motion.
Agreed.
In fact, he was using mechanical clocks in that thought experiment, and I don’t think he every produced any equations that were used to calculate the accelerative stress effects on mechanical clocks. He didn’t add the atomic clocks to the 1905 paper until 1918, so there are no accelerative effects considered in 1905.
They weren't part of the equations, yes, but they are definitely there in that peculiar consquence.
Of course if you are thinking of the revised paper, the non-SR version, the “new and improved” 1918 GR version of the paper, then you need to say the k frame clock is an atomic clock and is resting in a gravity field.
I am only thinking of the 1905 paper, and only the first few sections. The ones that you say are in error.
But there are no accelerative effects considered in the original paper.
Of course there are. You just think that he handled them wrongly. You've said that, since every piece of that closed curve is in an inertial reference frame, he must, and should have, reached a conclusion different than the one he reached. I see it differently, because I can understand the math.

That is the basic misunderstanding on your part.

I am not "making up" the fact that he did apply his 1905 theory to a situation which had accelerated elements--motion around a closed curve is accelerated. I don't think anyone, including you, has denied that. You just think he violated his own terms. I do not.

27. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360
True, but a closed curve is accelerated. I think we can agree on that.
Yes, you know that, I know that, and he knew that. But in 1905 he just didn’t consider the accelerative effects on the mechanical clocks. That is allowable in thought experiments, although such experiments sometimes lead to errors in conclusions. So there is no “acceleration” in 1905 SR theory until he added it in 1918.

In the 1905 paper, the German word he used was “Geschwindigkeit", which has been translated as “velocity”, but it also can mean “speed” in German, and I think it should be translated as “speed” in English.

Originally Posted by milli360
They weren't part of the equations, yes, but they are definitely there in that peculiar consquence.
No, not in his thought experiments. They might be there in yours, but they weren't in his.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360
Originally Posted by Sam5
But there are no accelerative effects considered in the original paper.
Of course there are. You just think that he handled them wrongly. You've said that, since every piece of that closed curve is in an inertial reference frame, he must, and should have, reached a conclusion different than the one he reached. I see it differently, because I can understand the math.
I’m really glad you can, since 1/2tv^2/c^2 is not a very difficult equation. I know you’re very proud of being able to understand it.

I’m saying that “relative motion” alone can not influence the tick rate of a relatively moving clock. He later realized his error about that and he added the gravity field and atomic clocks to the k frame in 1918.

One of the problems with understanding this stuff is trying to figure out what the guy was thinking. He often said things that don’t seem to make sense, unless we understand the context and what he was thinking about it. And what he was thinking about in the “closed curve” sentence was just leaving out the out the accelerative effects. I’ve read stuff by professors who claim that “acceleration” is IN the 1905 paper because of his “closed curve” remark, but they don’t realize that he just didn’t count it or calculate the accelerative effects. You might and I might, but in 1905 he didn’t because he was talking about his ideas about “relative motion” only, not about “accelerative effects on mechanical clocks”.

29. Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
True, but a closed curve is accelerated. I think we can agree on that.
Yes, you know that, I know that, and he knew that. But in 1905 he just didn’t consider the accelerative effects on the mechanical clocks. That is allowable in thought experiments, although such experiments sometimes lead to errors in conclusions. So there is no “acceleration” in 1905 SR theory until he added it in 1918.
I didn't say in the theory. I said it was treated, in the paper--you said it wasn't, and I disagreed.
In the 1905 paper, the German word he used was “Geschwindigkeit", which has been translated as “velocity”, but it also can mean “speed” in German, and I think it should be translated as “speed” in English.
LOL. How many emails did we exchange, where I tried to convince you of just that very thing?
Originally Posted by milli360
They weren't part of the equations, yes, but they are definitely there in that peculiar consquence.
No, not in his thought experiments. They might be there in yours, but they weren't in his.
Motion around a closed curve is accelerated. And it's in that thought experiment he called the "peculiar consequence."
Originally Posted by Sam5
Originally Posted by milli360
Originally Posted by Sam5
But there are no accelerative effects considered in the original paper.
Of course there are. You just think that he handled them wrongly. You've said that, since every piece of that closed curve is in an inertial reference frame, he must, and should have, reached a conclusion different than the one he reached. I see it differently, because I can understand the math.
I’m really glad you can, since 1/2tv^2/c^2 is not a very difficult equation. I know you’re very proud of being able to understand it.
Not all the math is in the form of equations.
One of the problems with understanding this stuff is trying to figure out what the guy was thinking. He often said things that don’t seem to make sense, unless we understand the context and what he was thinking about it. And what he was thinking about in the “closed curve” sentence was just leaving out the out the accelerative effects. I’ve read stuff by professors who claim that “acceleration” is IN the 1905 paper because of his “closed curve” remark, but they don’t realize that he just didn’t count it or calculate the accelerative effects. You might and I might, but in 1905 he didn’t because he was talking about his ideas about “relative motion” only, not about “accelerative effects on mechanical clocks”.
Well, his calculations are in the same vein as mine, for the same reasons, so I'm pretty sure that you haven't yet figured out what he was thinking.

I thought you didn't like that sort of thing, when other people did it to you? Let's just take the paper at face value, let it speak for itself.

The conclusion I draw from it is that it is not inconsistent.

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Nov 2003
Posts
6,197
Originally Posted by milli360

Originally Posted by Sam5
So there is no “acceleration” in 1905 SR theory until he added it in 1918.
I didn't say in the theory. I said it was treated, in the paper--you said it wasn't, and I disagreed.
What do you mean "treated"?

Originally Posted by milli360
Originally Posted by Sam5
In the 1905 paper, the German word he used was “Geschwindigkeit", which has been translated as “velocity”, but it also can mean “speed” in German, and I think it should be translated as “speed” in English.

LOL. How many emails did we exchange, where I tried to convince you of just that very thing?
Maybe 100. Maybe 200. I'm glad you were right about something. Why do you suppose the two English versions mistranslate that word?

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•