Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: A clock second is not a universal interval of time.
Next: Relativity ring problem - what shape is this?
From: Geordie La Forge on 10 Oct 2009 18:27 http://meami.org writes: Bruce Richmond wrote:> On Oct 10, 11:58Â am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> > On Oct 10, 10:48Â am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote:> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 9:52Â am, PD wrote:> >> > > > mpc755 wrote:> > >>> I understand exactly what is> > > > > occurring in Einstein's Train>>>>> Thought experiment.> >> > >> Not as Einstein explained it, no you> don't.> >> > >> You understand the MPC Train Thought>>>> Experiment, which is something> > > > completely different than the> > > > Einstein Train Thought Experiment.>>> > > Â Yes.> >> > > > << Lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' behave exactly like the waves of> >> > > pebbles dropped into stationary pools of water on the train and> > > stationary pools of water on the embankment.> > > Â If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the> > > waves the pebbles create from A and B reaches M and the light from A'> > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously.> > > Â If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the> > > light waves from A and B reach M and the light wave from A' and B'> > > reach M' simultaneously.>>>>> See? That's the MPC Train Thought> > > > Experiment, not the Einstein one.> >> >> Â PD is right. In Einstein's, A and A' coincide when a given ray hits> > > point AA', and B and B' coincide when ray 2 hits BB'. In MPC's, A and> > > A' are different points than each other in 3-d space and so are b and> > > B'.> > > Â In Einstein, the space between AA' and BB' is empty and light moves> > > at c wrt to it while the train - thus points A', B' and midpoint M' -> > > moves to the right at v. in mpc, a luminiferous aether is trapped> > > within the moving train and is therefore moving wrt to the outside> > > aether taken as at rest wrt the embankment.> > > Â Therefore, as PD said, mpc's conclusions are unrelated to> > > Einstein's.> >> > > Â BTW, this gedanken experiment by Einstein is to the layman, and> > > doesn't explain why simultaneity is relative to the states of motion> >> of different observers' clocks.>>> > > glird> >> > > Â them ir point> >> > It makes no difference if the points A and A' coincide side-by-side or> > not in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment.>>> > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is> > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light>> at B/B' occurring in a single instant and for A and B to be equi-> > distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for> > the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance> > from A' to M' and B' to M'.> > You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can> only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one> point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so> he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the> flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal> distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times.> > In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first,> M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen.> By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had> moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and> B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they> are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the> same time. E = MC In 1949 Godel wrote a paper showing in the theory of relativity time as we see it does not exist. Einstein recognizes Godel's paper is âan important contribution to the general theory of relativity.â To date physicists have not been able to find logical shortcomings in Godel's work, and none has been able to account the existence of time, nor divorce relativity from the block universe. The current model accounts for time in both GR and QM. It shows it is not the fourth dimension, but an emergent property of underlying dimension's intrinsic relative movement. We lose the eternal recurrence of frozen past and future, we gain free will--a physical model supporting both GR and QM, and perceived time in this universe. It is true âthere is an inseparable connectionâ between time and light, as time naturally emerges from the physical expansion of the fourth dimension relative to the three spatial dimensions, and by light, we measure time and distance, but matter is caught in a fourth expanding dimension. Moving away from Godel's block universe sheds light. Well-rounded understanding of the otherwise absurd and inexplicable conflations of paradox prevalent in the inherent understanding of fundamental advances in Special Relativity must give way to well-versed reasons as paradox flee. Einstein did not write time is the fourth dimension, but he wrote x4 = ict. The fourth dimension is not time; instead it is 'ict'. Prominent physicists have oft equated time the fourth dimension, leading to un- resolvable paradox, confusion regarding the physical nature of time as physicists project properties of three spatial dimensions onto a time dimension, in curious concepts to include frozen time and s block universe in the past and future are omni-present, thusly denying free will, while it implies the possibility of time travel to the past-- future visitors have yet to verify. dx 4 = ic dt uu dx 4 dx=icdx 44 â«â« dt aa u dx 4 dx = x (u ) â x (a ) 4 4 4 â« dt a u icdx= icu â ica 4 â« a x (u ) â x (a ) = icu â ica 4 4 x (u ) = icu â ica + x (a ) 4 4 Let D be the constant -ica+x4(a) and re-label u with t. Then we have x (t ) = ict + D 4 Dropping the arbitrary constant, we get: x (t ) = ict 4 Or x4 = ict http://meami.org 'Search the speed of light!" Support a cure for childhood cancer: http://alexslemonade.org
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 18:43 On Oct 10, 3:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 2:49 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 9, 11:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:50 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've fouled this up. > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the light from A and B reaches M' at different times, but the > > > > > > > > > > light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > A and A' are a single strike. B and B' are a single strike. > > > > > > > > > Yes, A and A' are a single strike but A and A' are two different > > > > > > > > locations in three dimensional space. A in on the embankment and A' is > > > > > > > > on the train. > > > > > > > > No, they are not. You have not read the gedanken carefully. A lighting > > > > > > > strike hits in ONE place, not two. A and A' are two labels for the > > > > > > > same point. In the original gedanken, A and A' label the point where > > > > > > > the train meets the track at one end of the train. That is ONE POINT. > > > > > > > > Please reread it and pay more attention than what you have been doing > > > > > > > so far. > > > > > > > The lightning strike leaves marks at A, A', B, and B'. This is four > > > > > > different locations in three dimensional space. A and A' and B and B' > > > > > > were co-located at the time of the strikes, but they are four > > > > > > different locations. > > > > > > > If A and A' are two labels for the same point, why does the Observer > > > > > > at M measure to A and B and the Observer at M' measure to A' and B'? > > > > > > The measure to the appropriate marks because there are four marks. > > > > > > > Please try and understand if you have four marks at four locations > > > > > > that is four points. > > > > > > The mark at A on the tracks and the mark at A' on the train were made > > > > > when the two points were together. > > > > > > M considers the strike to have happen at A. There are scorch marks on > > > > > the tracks marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > train, but the train is moving relative to the tracks, so the marks on > > > > > the train are not where the strike took place in the track frame. > > > > > > M' considers the strike to have happen at A'. There are scorch marks > > > > > on the train marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > tracks, but the tracks are moving relative to the train, so the marks > > > > > on the tracks are not where the strike took place in the train frame. > > > > > > > > > > The light from A/A' travels through the *same medium* that the > > > > > > > > > embankment and the open flatbed train cars are immersed in. The light > > > > > > > > > from B/B' does the same thing. > > > > > > > > > So how does the light, coming from a single lightning strike (A/A'), > > > > > > > > > traveling through a common medium, arrive at the same observer M' both > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and not simultaneously as the light from B/B'? > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. If the train contains open flatbed cars, then you are > > > > > > > > implying the medium is stationary relative to the embankment. > > > > > > > > No, I'm not. There's no such implication at all. What you know is true > > > > > > > is that there is ONE medium, not two. > > > > > > > If there is one medium that is stationary relative to one of the > > > > > > frames of reference in Einstein's train thought experiment then that > > > > > > means it is moving relative to the other frame of reference which > > > > > > means there is a preferred frame of reference. > > > > > > There is only one medium and it is not stationary relative to either > > > > > frame, so neither one is preferred. > > > > > What if there is water that is stationary on the train and water that > > > > is stationary on the embankment and a lightning strike occur > > > > simultaneously at A' on the train and A on the embankment and another > > > > lightning strike occurs simultaneously at B' on the train and B on the > > > > embankment. If the light from the lightning strikes at A and B travels > > > > through the stationary water on the embankment and reaches M > > > > simultaneously, does the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B' > > > > travel through the stationary water in the train and reach M' > > > > simultaneously?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Because Relativity refers to "empty space". If you look out at the > > > stars there is empty space between us and them. If there is an aether > > > out there, there is only one aether between the stars and anything > > > moving relative to them. So you need to make your theory work with > > > just one aether. > > > That is where Relativity is incorrect. The aether is more like water > > than you give it credit for. > > > We could say there is one water, > > Then do so. > > > but the water on the embankment is > > stationary relative to the embankment and the water on the train is > > stationary relative to the train. > > > The same is correct for aether. > > > For everything to be truly relative in Einstein's Train Thought > > Experiment the aether needs to be relative in the embankment frame of > > reference and the train frame of reference which means the aether is > > stationary relative to both frames of reference.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Relativity doesn't care about the aether, it cares only that all rays > of light travel at the measured speed of c. It is physically > imposible for one aether to be at rest WRT two frames that are moving > WRT each other. But it is possible for both frames to be moving WRT > the aether, so neither one is favored. Rays of light travel at 'c' relative to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 18:44 On Oct 10, 3:19 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:38 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 9:50 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 9, 10:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 9, 11:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've fouled this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What Einstein's gedanken says is that the light from A/A' and the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > light from B/B' arrive simultaneously at M and NOT simultaneously at > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > M'. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And if this were viewed from M', because the propagation toward M' is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > c from either A/A' or B/B', then it would be clear that events at A > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and B were not simultaneous. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > PD > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, at least you now understand Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, both frames are equal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's all well and good, but experiment agrees with Einstein, not > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > with your picture. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you know? You just figured out what Relativity of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity is two minutes ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :>) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, I certainly did have difficulty explaining it right at first. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But the experimental stuff has been figured out a long time ago. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Consider the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether to be 'entrained' by the embankment in the embankment frame of > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reference and for the aether to be 'entrained' by the train in the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > train frame of reference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > OK, but the train observer could well be sitting on top of the train > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out in the open air, right along with the air that is surrounding the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > embankment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So unless you've got overlapping aethers, one passing through the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > other, then there would have to be a boundary between the two moving > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > masses of aether, where they are rubbing up against each other. And in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that case, there would be a region of aether in between where it is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > moving somewhat in between what the two entrained aethers are moving. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And then just by moving, say, the embankment observer a little closer > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the train, or the train observer a little to one side, then you'd > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > start seeing the effect of the aether moving at a speed somewhat in > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > between. However, this is not observed in equivalent experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Post a link to the experiments you are referring to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Google "experimental basis for relativity" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you say this is not observed in equivalent experiments, you should > > > > > > > > > > > > > > be willing and able to backup up such a statement with specifics. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, since you just figured out what Relativity of Simultaneity is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > five minutes ago, its understandable you can't backup the claims you > > > > > > > > > > > > > > make. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Such cheesy baiting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you actually do the search I recommended, and you click on the > > > > > > > > > > > > > FIRST link it returns, you'll have a lovely list of experiments. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you cannot do even this without whining, is it an indicator that > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are hopelessly lazy or hopelessly incompetent? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is what I mean by following the implications of an idea all the > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > way through to look for *uniquely distinguishing* predictions. I've > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > just given an example of a clear implication of AD, one that would be > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > testable. And unfortunately, it doesn't match experiment. So it's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > gotta be wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Experiments like de Sitter and the double star? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. That has to do with something else entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That has to do with a test that distinguishes ballistic emission > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > theory and relativity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nothing to do with simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity is emission theory in an entrained aether. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, it's not. In your theory the speed of light is relative to the > > > > > > > > > > > > > aether. In ballistic theory it is relative to the source. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the train is half full of water and the water is stationary in the > > > > > > > > > > > > train and you drop pebbles at A' and B', the waves from A' and B' will > > > > > > > > > > > > reach M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the embankment is half full of water and the water is stationary > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and you drop pebbles into the water at A > > > > > > > > > > > > and B, the waves from A and B will reach M simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you drop pebbles into the water at A and A' simultaneously and drop > > > > > > > > > > > > pebbles into B and B' simultaneously, if the waves from A and B reach > > > > > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, the waves from A' and B' will reach M' > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > If it helps, MPC, Einstein's train gedanken can just as well take > > > > > > > > > > > place on open, flat-bed cars. > > > > > > > > > > > The water is stationary relative to the embankment and the train is > > > > > > > > > > moving along under the water and not affecting the water. Pebbles are > > > > > > > > > > dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from B/B' travels from B to M'. The > > > > > > > > > > waves from A and B and reach M simultaneously. The wave from A reaches > > > > > > > > > > M'. > > > > > > > > > > And notice that the waves from A and B do not arrive at M' at the same > > > > > > > > > time. > > > > > > > > > Yes, because the water is stationary relative to the embankment. In > > > > > > > > this scenario, the embankment is the preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > For Einstein's train thought experiment to be truly relative, there > > > > > > > > can be no preferred frame. > > > > > > > > > Therefore, the water must be stationary relative to the embankment in > > > > > > > > the embankment frame of reference and stationary relative to the train > > > > > > > > in the train reference frame. > > > > > > > > Yes! And notice that, because the train cars are open, flatbed cars, > > > > > > > you have to satisfy both criteria at the same time! > > > > > > > > Here's where the fun starts. So if there is an aether (or water as you > > > > > > > want to analogize), it has to be stationary with respect to the > > > > > > > embankment AND to the train, at the same time. Not different > > > > > > > scenarios. At the same time. > > > > > > > > > In this scenario, my animation holds in the light from A and B reaches > > > > > > > > M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > No, certainly not. Because it's the same medium. > > > > > > > The embankment observer notes that the light from A and B reaches M' > > > > > > > at different times. > > > > > > > Yes, the light from A and B reaches M' at different times, but the > > > > > > light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > There is only one wave front emitted at A/A' and one at B/B'. Your > > > > > inimation is wrong.> > The train observer has to agree with that. > > > > > Why is everyone afraid to answer my thought experiment with pebbles > > > > and the waves they create and stationary water on the train and > > > > stationary water on the embankment? > > > > > If pebbles are dropped simultaneously at A and A' and pebbles are > > > > dropped simultaneously at B and B', if the waves from A and B reach M > > > > simultaneously do the waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > > Answer in what way? > > > It doesn't pertain to the Einstein gedanken, which is done out in the > > > open so that at best there is ONE medium. > > > If Einstein's Train Thought Experiment was done 'out in the open' then > > you are tying the stationary aether to one of the frames of reference, > > which is a different thought experiment than the one Einstein > > proposes. > > Einstein did not have an aether in his experiment. The observer at M > declared that the speed of light was c, relative to him, in both > directions to provide him with a definition of simultanity. The > observer M' on the train is allowed to do the same. But since they > are moving relative to each other they come up with conflicting > calculations of when the strike at A/A' happen. The LT allows them to > resolve the differences. Einstein believed the propagation of light required an aether.
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Oct 2009 18:58 On Oct 10, 6:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 3:04 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 10, 11:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 2:49 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 9, 11:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 9, 7:50 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 1:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 12:30 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:06 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 10:52 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry, I've fouled this up. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, the light from A and B reaches M' at different times, but the > > > > > > > > > > > light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' are a single strike. B and B' are a single strike. > > > > > > > > > > Yes, A and A' are a single strike but A and A' are two different > > > > > > > > > locations in three dimensional space. A in on the embankment and A' is > > > > > > > > > on the train. > > > > > > > > > No, they are not. You have not read the gedanken carefully. A lighting > > > > > > > > strike hits in ONE place, not two. A and A' are two labels for the > > > > > > > > same point. In the original gedanken, A and A' label the point where > > > > > > > > the train meets the track at one end of the train. That is ONE POINT. > > > > > > > > > Please reread it and pay more attention than what you have been doing > > > > > > > > so far. > > > > > > > > The lightning strike leaves marks at A, A', B, and B'. This is four > > > > > > > different locations in three dimensional space. A and A' and B and B' > > > > > > > were co-located at the time of the strikes, but they are four > > > > > > > different locations. > > > > > > > > If A and A' are two labels for the same point, why does the Observer > > > > > > > at M measure to A and B and the Observer at M' measure to A' and B'? > > > > > > > The measure to the appropriate marks because there are four marks. > > > > > > > > Please try and understand if you have four marks at four locations > > > > > > > that is four points. > > > > > > > The mark at A on the tracks and the mark at A' on the train were made > > > > > > when the two points were together. > > > > > > > M considers the strike to have happen at A. There are scorch marks on > > > > > > the tracks marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > > train, but the train is moving relative to the tracks, so the marks on > > > > > > the train are not where the strike took place in the track frame. > > > > > > > M' considers the strike to have happen at A'. There are scorch marks > > > > > > on the train marking the spot. There are also scorch marks on the > > > > > > tracks, but the tracks are moving relative to the train, so the marks > > > > > > on the tracks are not where the strike took place in the train frame. > > > > > > > > > > > The light from A/A' travels through the *same medium* that the > > > > > > > > > > embankment and the open flatbed train cars are immersed in. The light > > > > > > > > > > from B/B' does the same thing. > > > > > > > > > > So how does the light, coming from a single lightning strike (A/A'), > > > > > > > > > > traveling through a common medium, arrive at the same observer M' both > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously and not simultaneously as the light from B/B'? > > > > > > > > > > It doesn't. If the train contains open flatbed cars, then you are > > > > > > > > > implying the medium is stationary relative to the embankment. > > > > > > > > > No, I'm not. There's no such implication at all. What you know is true > > > > > > > > is that there is ONE medium, not two. > > > > > > > > If there is one medium that is stationary relative to one of the > > > > > > > frames of reference in Einstein's train thought experiment then that > > > > > > > means it is moving relative to the other frame of reference which > > > > > > > means there is a preferred frame of reference. > > > > > > > There is only one medium and it is not stationary relative to either > > > > > > frame, so neither one is preferred. > > > > > > What if there is water that is stationary on the train and water that > > > > > is stationary on the embankment and a lightning strike occur > > > > > simultaneously at A' on the train and A on the embankment and another > > > > > lightning strike occurs simultaneously at B' on the train and B on the > > > > > embankment. If the light from the lightning strikes at A and B travels > > > > > through the stationary water on the embankment and reaches M > > > > > simultaneously, does the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B' > > > > > travel through the stationary water in the train and reach M' > > > > > simultaneously?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Because Relativity refers to "empty space". If you look out at the > > > > stars there is empty space between us and them. If there is an aether > > > > out there, there is only one aether between the stars and anything > > > > moving relative to them. So you need to make your theory work with > > > > just one aether. > > > > That is where Relativity is incorrect. The aether is more like water > > > than you give it credit for. > > > > We could say there is one water, > > > Then do so. > > > > but the water on the embankment is > > > stationary relative to the embankment and the water on the train is > > > stationary relative to the train. > > > > The same is correct for aether. > > > > For everything to be truly relative in Einstein's Train Thought > > > Experiment the aether needs to be relative in the embankment frame of > > > reference and the train frame of reference which means the aether is > > > stationary relative to both frames of reference.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Relativity doesn't care about the aether, it cares only that all rays > > of light travel at the measured speed of c. It is physically > > imposible for one aether to be at rest WRT two frames that are moving > > WRT each other. But it is possible for both frames to be moving WRT > > the aether, so neither one is favored. > > Rays of light travel at 'c' relative to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - In Einstein's relativity light travels at c relative to the observer. If you want to talk aether, LET gets the same answers as SR, and it has only one aether. In LET light travels at c relative to the aether and is measured to travel at c in the rest frame of the observer doing the measuring.
From: mpc755 on 10 Oct 2009 19:02
On Oct 10, 3:39 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Oct 10, 11:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 10, 10:48 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 10, 9:52 am, PD wrote: > > > > > mpc755 wrote: > > > > > I understand exactly what is > > > > > occurring in Einstein's Train > > > > > Thought experiment. > > > > > Not as Einstein explained it, no you > don't. > > > > > You understand the MPC Train Thought > > > > Experiment, which is something > > > > completely different than the > > > > Einstein Train Thought Experiment. > > > > Yes. > > > > > << Lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' behave exactly like the waves of > > > > pebbles dropped into stationary pools of water on the train and > > > stationary pools of water on the embankment. > > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > > waves the pebbles create from A and B reaches M and the light from A' > > > and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the > > > light waves from A and B reach M and the light wave from A' and B' > > > reach M' simultaneously. >> > > > > > See? That's the MPC Train Thought > > > > Experiment, not the Einstein one. > > > > PD is right. In Einstein's, A and A' coincide when a given ray hits > > > point AA', and B and B' coincide when ray 2 hits BB'. In MPC's, A and > > > A' are different points than each other in 3-d space and so are b and > > > B'. > > > In Einstein, the space between AA' and BB' is empty and light moves > > > at c wrt to it while the train - thus points A', B' and midpoint M' - > > > moves to the right at v. in mpc, a luminiferous aether is trapped > > > within the moving train and is therefore moving wrt to the outside > > > aether taken as at rest wrt the embankment. > > > Therefore, as PD said, mpc's conclusions are unrelated to > > > Einstein's. > > > > BTW, this gedanken experiment by Einstein is to the layman, and > > > doesn't explain why simultaneity is relative to the states of motion > > > of different observers' clocks. > > > > glird > > > > them ir point > > > It makes no difference if the points A and A' coincide side-by-side or > > not in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment. > > > The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is > > the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light > > at B/B' occurring in a single instant and for A and B to be equi- > > distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for > > the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance > > from A' to M' and B' to M'. > > You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can > only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one > point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so > he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the > flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal > distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times. > > In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first, > M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen. > By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had > moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and > B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they > are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the > same time. My thought experiment: Embankment water stationary relative to the embankment. Train water stationary relative to the train. Pebbles dropped simultaneously at A on the embankment and A' on the train. Pebbles dropped simultaneously at B on the embankment and B' on the train. If the waves created by the pebbles at A and B reach M simultaneously, do the waves created by the pebbles at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? Yes. Replace the pebbles with flashes of light. If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? Yes. Replace the water with aether, ice, air, or glass. If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? Yes. If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light travels through? |