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: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 14:04 On Oct 24, 1:13 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > mpc755 wrote: > > On Oct 24, 12:02 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >> mpc755 wrote: > >>> On Oct 24, 11:53 am, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > >>>> PD wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 24, 9:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > >>>>>> the Earth. > > >>>>> Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. > > >>>> Also, an entrained layer about the Earth would display > >>>> aberration effects as the medium becomes less "entrained" > >>>> with height. No such aberration is seen. > > >>> There is resistance, but there is no friction. There is no loss of > >>> energy, or the loss is negligible, when a particle or object interacts > >>> with the aether. > > >>> If you fired a bullet from Florida at almost 'c' into a hurricane that > >>> was headed for Louisiana, the effects of the hurricane's winds on the > >>> bullet would be negligible. > > >> Explain resistance without friction. What is your definition > >> of resistance? > > >> If your light 'bullet' does not interact with the medium, > >> what is the point of your aether? Either light is a > >> wave motion carried by an aether or it is not. Make up > >> your mind; you can't have it both ways. > > > Friction is a loss of energy. Resistance is the ability of the Earth > > to displace the aether. The Earth requires energy to displace the > > aether, but the aether returns the energy to the Earth as it 'pushes > > back'. > > > There is no loss of momentum of the Earth in its interaction with the > > aether. > > > The bullet is interacting with the medium but simply because the > > aether becomes less entrained as you move further away from the Earth > > doesn't mean you can detect that on the Earth. You do see the effects > > of the displaced aether when light from distant stars is 'bent' by the > > Sun. > > Nonsense. The difference is relative velocity between > entrained and unentrained would be equal to (at least) > the orbital speed of the Earth, and would occur over a > relatively short distance (on the order of an Earth radius). > > This would produce obvious aberration effects. > Nonsense. The light 'bullet' cuts through the hurricane winds. How do you detect aberration effects on the light 'bullet' if you are in the eye of the hurricane? > As for the Sun, if it's taken to be essentially at rest > in the center of the solar system then there could be > no aberration or deflection effect. If it's taken to > be in motion about the center of the galaxy then it the > aberration should be nonuniform -- stretched out along > the diection of motion. Neither of these situations are > observed. > The Sun entrains the aether to Uranus. The Pioneer effect is due to the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's entrained aether. The effect of light waves within the Sun's entrained aether is going to be uniform and not stretched. > > > > If you are in the eye of a hurricane and detect the light 'bullet', > > even if trajectory of the light 'bullet' is altered slightly by the > > winds of the hurricane, how do you detect that slight change? > > That's what interferometers do -- they measure minute path > length differences via phase shifts. > Yes. And the Miller aether experiments and the MM experiments returned a non-zero result which coincides with an entrained aether. > > > > The point I am trying to make is light is effected by the aether it is > > propagating through. Take for instance the light from binary stars. > > The light is effected by the entrained aether of the star when it is > > emitted but is then effected by the entrained aether surrounding both > > stars. Think of it as a whirlpool of water within a whirlpool of water > > analogy. The ripple created by a pebble dropped into the inner > > whirlpool will be under the influence of the water in the inner > > whirlpool. Once the ripple moves into the outer whirlpool it will be > > under the influence of the water in the outer whirlpool. > > You can't just pick and choose when the aether effects light > and when it doesn't in order to avoid the obvious contradictions > and non-observed effects. I'm not. You are making assumptions in order to dismiss the aether effects of light. You are doing nothing more than pouring water into a telescope to dismiss aether entrainment because you choose to assume aether 'sticks' to water and not to air.
From: Dono. on 24 Oct 2009 14:10 On Oct 24, 7:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > the Earth. > Hammar experiment says that you are an idiot.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 14:17 On Oct 24, 2:10 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 24, 7:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The MM experiment did not find the aether because it is entrained by > > the Earth. > > Hammar experiment says that you are an idiot. Great, instead of filling a telescope with water you place lead blocks near the interferometer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammar_experiment "The study of stellar aberration provides a less ambiguous test of Aether drag and is the most widely accepted evidence against the hypothesis." So, filling a telescope with water because aether 'sticks' to water and not to air is a better test than the Hammar experiment. You're heading in the wrong direction idiot.
From: Greg Neill on 24 Oct 2009 15:38 mpc755 wrote: > On Oct 24, 1:13 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: >> >> Nonsense. The difference is relative velocity between >> entrained and unentrained would be equal to (at least) >> the orbital speed of the Earth, and would occur over a >> relatively short distance (on the order of an Earth radius). >> >> This would produce obvious aberration effects. >> > > Nonsense. The light 'bullet' cuts through the hurricane winds. How do > you detect aberration effects on the light 'bullet' if you are in the > eye of the hurricane? So is light a disturbance in the aether or not? Make up your mind. If it's a particle that 'cuts through' the aether, what's the aether for? If it's a motion of the aether, then anything that results in relative motion of different volumes of the aether must cause obvious aberration effects. > >> As for the Sun, if it's taken to be essentially at rest >> in the center of the solar system then there could be >> no aberration or deflection effect. If it's taken to >> be in motion about the center of the galaxy then it the >> aberration should be nonuniform -- stretched out along >> the diection of motion. Neither of these situations are >> observed. >> > > The Sun entrains the aether to Uranus. The Pioneer effect is due to > the Pioneer satellites 'falling out of' the Sun's entrained aether. > The effect of light waves within the Sun's entrained aether is going > to be uniform and not stretched. Well, that's just crazy talk. Goombye. [rest of lunacy ignored and snipped]
From: kenseto on 24 Oct 2009 16:35
On Oct 24, 11:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 24, 11:18 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 23, 11:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I didn't say you said the observer is at rest in the aether. I said > > > you said no observer is at rest in the aether. No observer at rest in > > > the aether but the aether being at rest in all frames of reference is > > > physically impossible. > > > In didn't say that the aether is at rest in all inertial frames. I > > said that all objects are in a state of absolute motion in the aether. > > If the object is at rest in its frame of reference and the aether is > at rest in the frame of reference, then the object is at rest in the > aether. Sigh....no object is at rest in the aether. > > If the aether is in motion relative to the frames of reference, then > the marks made by the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' are irrelevant > in terms of where the light travels from without knowing how the > aether is in motion relative to the train frame of reference and the > embankment frame of reference. The speed of light is isotropic in all inertial frames. As long as the observer is at equal distance from the strikes when they happened simultaneously then the observer will see the light fronts from the strikes arrive at him simultaneously. M and M' meet these conditions and thus they will see the strikes arrive at each of them simultaneously. The position of M' relative to M is irrelevant after the strikes happened will have no effect on the simultaneity of arrival of the light fronts from the strikes. Ken Seto > > Light propagates outward at 'c' similar to dropping a pebble into a > pool of water. If the pool of water is on the train, then the wave > will ripple outward from the point on the train. If the pool of water > is stationary relative to the embankment, the wave will ripple outward > relative to the point in three dimensional space in the embankment > frame of reference. > > I realize you are going to keep having it both ways, where the aether > is in motion relative to the frame of reference without impacting the > propagation of light, but that is what I am saying is incorrect. > > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. |