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: Tim Little on 13 Oct 2009 04:58 On 2009-10-11, glird <glird(a)aol.com> wrote: > If we used sound waves or water waves to set clocks of a given > system moving wrt air or water, the results WOULD be analogous to > Einstein's The predicted results would be analogous to Einstein's. However, unlike Einstein's predictions, the experimental results would disagree with the predictions. For example, there would be a Glirdian relativity "twin paradox" that would not be observed. The corresponding Einsteinian "twin paradox" is actually observed. - Tim
From: Androcles on 13 Oct 2009 05:11 "Tim Little" <tim(a)little-possums.net> wrote in message news:slrnhd8g8o.7rs.tim(a)soprano.little-possums.net... > For example, there would be a Glirdian relativity "twin paradox" that > would not be observed. The corresponding Einsteinian "twin paradox" > is actually observed. *plonk* Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated; you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive, unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread. Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are left to decide which is most applicable to you. There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill- filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the same spot and repeat the process eternally. This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry or crackpot theories without challenge. You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I purchase a new computer or hard drive. I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you. I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't, damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 10:51 On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > Observer sees the flash. > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > flashes occurred simultaneously. Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. And what is the response? <crickets>
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 11:23 On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > And what is the response? > > <crickets> Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell you something that you should be paying attention to?
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 11:36
On Oct 13, 11:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > And what is the response? > > > <crickets> > > Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell > you something that you should be paying attention to? It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in. I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in nature. How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is* relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether. My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals". There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and travels at 'c' relative to this aether. But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect. Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of comprehension and intuition. |