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: PD on 8 Oct 2009 19:09 On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > > > > > the location of M. > > > > > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions.. > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > > > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > > > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > > > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > > > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > 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. Plus the fact, just renaming AD "Simultaneity of Relativity" doesn't link simultaneity and a test of ballistic emission theory, any more than renaming Newton's 2nd law "Cell Apoptosis" would make Newton's 2nd law about biolgy. > > > > > > > > 'De Sitter double star experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > > 'the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up > > > with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > > > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an > > > image that was scrambled and out of sequence.' > > > > This is an oversimplification of what is occurring. The aether around > > > each star is entrained by the star, so emitter theory is in effect > > > close to the star. > > > > But the aether surrounding both stars acts as a singleton and the > > > aether travels at 'c' through this aether. > > > > That is why the light from double stars is not scrambled. > > > > > > Where the light travels from is dependent on how the frame of > > > > > reference is interacting with the aether. Since the aether is > > > > > stationary in the embankment reference frame the light travels from A > > > > > and B to M and since the aether is stationary in the train reference > > > > > frame the light travels from A' and B' to M' simultaneously. > > > > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > Nope, that doesn't match what happens in related experiments. Sorry..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 8 Oct 2009 19:18 On Oct 8, 7:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > > > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > > > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > > > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > > > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > > > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > > > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > > > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > > > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > > > > > > the location of M. > > > > > > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > > > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. > > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > > > > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > > > > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > > > > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > > > > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > > > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > 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. > Plus the fact, just renaming AD "Simultaneity of Relativity" doesn't > link simultaneity and a test of ballistic emission theory, any more > than renaming Newton's 2nd law "Cell Apoptosis" would make Newton's > 2nd law about biolgy. > > > > > > > 'De Sitter double star experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > > > 'the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up > > > > with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > > > > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an > > > > image that was scrambled and out of sequence.' > > > > > This is an oversimplification of what is occurring. The aether around > > > > each star is entrained by the star, so emitter theory is in effect > > > > close to the star. > > > > > But the aether surrounding both stars acts as a singleton and the > > > > aether travels at 'c' through this aether. > > > > > That is why the light from double stars is not scrambled. > > > > > > > Where the light travels from is dependent on how the frame of > > > > > > reference is interacting with the aether. Since the aether is > > > > > > stationary in the embankment reference frame the light travels from A > > > > > > and B to M and since the aether is stationary in the train reference > > > > > > frame the light travels from A' and B' to M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > Nope, that doesn't match what happens in related experiments. Sorry.
From: doug on 8 Oct 2009 20:23 mpc755 wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>On Oct 8, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>On Oct 8, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>On 8 oct, 12:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary >>>>>>>>>>>relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train >>>>>>>>>>>thought experiment: >> >>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk >> >>>>>>>>>>This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good >>>>>>>>>>proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. >>>>>>>>>>You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. >> >>>>>>>>>>a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light >>>>>>>>>>fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' >>>>>>>>>>simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, >>>>>>>>>>the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well >>>>>>>>>>BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming >>>>>>>>>>from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the >>>>>>>>>>location of M'. Very well done!!! >> >>>>>>>>>>b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of >>>>>>>>>>view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, >>>>>>>>>>the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of >>>>>>>>>>M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by >>>>>>>>>>M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' >>>>>>>>>>well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming >>>>>>>>>>from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through >>>>>>>>>>the location of M. >> >>>>>>>>>>Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of >>>>>>>>>>simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. >> >>>>>>>>>>Miguel Rios >> >>>>>>>>>What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. >> >>>>>>>>>In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the >>>>>>>>>lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light >>>>>>>>>from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of >>>>>>>>>the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and >>>>>>>>>ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' >>>>>>>>>simultaneously. >> >>>>>>>>>This is NOT what I am showing. >> >>>>>>>>>But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>>- Show quoted text - >> >>>>>>>>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? >> We notice that mpc did not even try to do a google search. It looks like he is both lazy and incompetent.
From: PD on 8 Oct 2009 19:42 On Oct 8, 6:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > > > > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > > > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > > > > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > > > > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > > > > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > > > > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > > > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > > > > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > > > > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > > > > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > > > > > > > the location of M. > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > > > > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. > > > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > > > > > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > > > > > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > > > > > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > > > > > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > > > > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > 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. And this goes back to what I was telling you earlier. Suppose the train observer is on top of the train, so that the water that the train observer is immersed in is not separated from the water that the embankment observer is immersed in. Now, where is the boundary between the two batches of water? > > > > > Plus the fact, just renaming AD "Simultaneity of Relativity" doesn't > > link simultaneity and a test of ballistic emission theory, any more > > than renaming Newton's 2nd law "Cell Apoptosis" would make Newton's > > 2nd law about biolgy. > > > > > > 'De Sitter double star experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > > > > 'the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up > > > > > with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > > > > > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an > > > > > image that was scrambled and out of sequence.' > > > > > > This is an oversimplification of what is occurring. The aether around > > > > > each star is entrained by the star, so emitter theory is in effect > > > > > close to the star. > > > > > > But the aether surrounding both stars acts as a singleton and the > > > > > aether travels at 'c' through this aether. > > > > > > That is why the light from double stars is not scrambled. > > > > > > > > Where the light travels from is dependent on how the frame of > > > > > > > reference is interacting with the aether. Since the aether is > > > > > > > stationary in the embankment reference frame the light travels from A > > > > > > > and B to M and since the aether is stationary in the train reference > > > > > > > frame the light travels from A' and B' to M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > Nope, that doesn't match what happens in related experiments. Sorry.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 8 Oct 2009 19:46
On Oct 8, 6:18 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 8, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 8, 6:07 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 3:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 8, 4:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail..com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 8 oct, 12:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and stationary > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the train, this is what will occur in Einstein's train > > > > > > > > > > > thought experiment: > > > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > > > > > This is a very good piece of work of yours, that provides a very good > > > > > > > > > > proof of Einstein's relativity of simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > You describe what happens in both the train and the embankment frames. > > > > > > > > > > > a) Considering the events as observed by M' on the train, the light > > > > > > > > > > fronts coming from points A' and B' arrive to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by M, > > > > > > > > > > the light front coming from point A' gets to the location of M well > > > > > > > > > > BEFORE arriving to the location of M', while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > > from point B' gets to the location of M well AFTER passing through the > > > > > > > > > > location of M'. Very well done!!! > > > > > > > > > > > b) Now, you also nicely show the situation as seen from the point of > > > > > > > > > > view of M. Considering the events as observed by M on the embankment, > > > > > > > > > > the light fronts coming from points A and B arrive to the location of > > > > > > > > > > M simultaneously, while clearly it is also seen that, as observed by > > > > > > > > > > M', the light front coming from point A gets to the location of M' > > > > > > > > > > well AFTER arriving to the location of M, while the light front coming > > > > > > > > > > from point B gets to the location of M' well BEFORE passing through > > > > > > > > > > the location of M. > > > > > > > > > > > Once again, you have proved beyond any doubt the relativity of > > > > > > > > > > simultaneity according to Einstein gedanken. Congratultions. > > > > > > > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > > > > > > > What I am displaying is not Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity ALL of the light from the > > > > > > > > > lightning strike at A/A' reaches M simultaneously and ALL of the light > > > > > > > > > from the lightning strike A/A' reaches M' simultaneously, and ALL of > > > > > > > > > the light from lightning strike at B/B' reaches M simultaneously, and > > > > > > > > > ALL of the light from the lightning strike at B/B' reaches M' > > > > > > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > This is NOT what I am showing. > > > > > > > > > > But thanks for agreeing with Simultaneity of Relativity.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > Plus the fact, just renaming AD "Simultaneity of Relativity" doesn't > > link simultaneity and a test of ballistic emission theory, any more > > than renaming Newton's 2nd law "Cell Apoptosis" would make Newton's > > 2nd law about biolgy. > > > > > > 'De Sitter double star experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment > > > > > > 'the "fast" light given off during approach would be able to catch up > > > > > with and even overtake "slow" light emitted earlier during a > > > > > recessional part of the star's orbit, and the star would present an > > > > > image that was scrambled and out of sequence.' > > > > > > This is an oversimplification of what is occurring. The aether around > > > > > each star is entrained by the star, so emitter theory is in effect > > > > > close to the star. > > > > > > But the aether surrounding both stars acts as a singleton and the > > > > > aether travels at 'c' through this aether. > > > > > > That is why the light from double stars is not scrambled. > > > > > > > > Where the light travels from is dependent on how the frame of > > > > > > > reference is interacting with the aether. Since the aether is > > > > > > > stationary in the embankment reference frame the light travels from A > > > > > > > and B to M and since the aether is stationary in the train reference > > > > > > > frame the light travels from A' and B' to M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches > > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > Nope, that doesn't match what happens in related experiments. Sorry.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |