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 16:42 On Oct 24, 3:38 pm, "Greg Neill" <gneil...(a)MOVEsympatico.ca> wrote: > 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. > It can't be known is a wave in the aether that when it collapses behaves as a particle or a photon is a particle of aether creating a wave in the aether. If it's a particle of aether it is creating an aether displacement wave in the aether just like any particle would. How do you detect the 'obvious' aberration effects and why must they be 'obvious'. In a binary star system the light wave of one star is under the influence of the entrained aether of the star it was emitted from and then the light wave is under the influence of the entrained aether of both stars. When to photon is detected on Earth, how are we to detect the changes the light wave underwent as it transitioned from the entrained aether of the star to the entrained aether of both stars? If we go back to the pebble being dropped into a whirlpool within a whirlpool analogy, if all we detect from the ripple the pebbles makes in the whirlpool is a 'particle' of the ripple when it reaches the Earth, how are we ever going to be able to detect the changes the ripple underwent as it transitioned from the local whirlpool it originated in to the whirlpool it transitioned into? > > > >> 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. > Once the Pioneer satellites pass Uranus, the rate of departure from the solar system unexpectedly slows down. Some refer to this as an acceleration back towards the Sun. What occurs is the entrained aether of the Sun ends just past Uranus and that is why Uranus rotates on its side relative to the plane of the solar system but the magnetic field is still at 60 degrees to the plane of the solar system. It is most likely all of the planets formed and their rotations and magnetic fields were one in the same at the time of their formations. One guess as to why Uranus rotates on its side is the aether wave associated with a body knocked Uranus' matter on its side where its interaction with the Sun's entrained aether rotate Uranus to its present state. Since Uranus' magnetic field is a vortex in the aether, the interaction with the aether wave of the body did interacted with the magnetic field but the interaction was similar to the interaction of two waves, where once the interaction has passed, both waves return to their previous form, keeping Uranus' magnetic field at 60 degrees from the plane of the universe.
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 16:48 On Oct 24, 4:35 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > 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. > Sigh...if no object is at rest in the aether, then the aether is not at rest in any frame of reference, which means the aether is in relative motion to the two frames in Einstein's train thought experiment, meaning the frames are not isotropic. > > > > 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. That is what I am saying is incorrect. Light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of reference. > 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 > Nonsense. I understand what you are saying. I am saying it is incorrect. We can keep going around in circles if you want, but I am stating light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether. If you drop a pebble into a pool of water on a train, the ripple propagates outward relative to the point where the pebble was dropped on the train. If you drop a pebble into a pool of water on the embankment, the ripple propagates outward relative to the point where the pebble was dropped on the embankment. You don't have to agree with this, it is obvious you do not. But this is how I am stating light waves behave. > > > > 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. > >
From: spudnik on 24 Oct 2009 17:37 that is the penintimate waffle. > than it, so the rest mass of a photon as a particle of aether, if a > photon is a particle of aether, would be 'zero', as in nothing has > less mass than the aether itself.- Hide quoted text - thus: distant action by a bunch of British spooks, like Newton, who wouldn't "share" with Hooke, the first head of the Royal Society? this is a groovy thread, although Hawking, MoU, gets it wrong about M&M, even by the usual "null" say-so; the speed of light depends upon the index of refraction, even in a relative vacuum, such as air at sea-level (NB: there is some heighth, where the air is half dihydrogen). Davies is more-correct then Smolin: since stringtheory subsumes most of the math of the older stuff, it really is not controversial; Penrose has yet, AFAIK, to address plasma physics, which is the "9" of Universe beyond the Department of Einsteinmania, the Musical Department.... but, he is so brave, to take the suit to the array of lawyers on the estate of Schroedinger's joke-cat ... even though, as pertains USA academe, the Department may as well be run by the Lucasian Chair-sit! (also note, Smolin is at the "Perimeter Institute," supposedly named after a constant, the ratio of the diameter of the sphere to either its circumference, or its area.) thus: photon hath no restmass, precisely because it is not a coorpuscle -- it am what it am, "least action in least time" a la Fermat! the photon is just a figment of Einstein's photo-electrical effect. Descartes to Fermat Tuesday, July 27, 1638 http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/august08-fermat.pdf http://wlym.com/~animations/fermat/index.html
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 19:29 No, it's the best we can do. Granted, I think it is easier to conceptualize a photon and describe the behaviors of a photon as a directed/pointed wave in the aether that when detected collapses into a particle. The 'particle' for this photon is the 'point' of the wave which travels a single path in the double slit experiment while the photon wave travels available paths in the double slit experiment. Here is an image of a photon as a directed/pointed wave which I like: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif However, there is no way to 'know' if a photon is not a particle of aether creating a displacement wave in the aether, similar to the observed behaviors of a C-60 molecule in the double slit experiment. > that is the penintimate waffle. > > > than it, so the rest mass of a photon as a particle of aether, if a > > photon is a particle of aether, would be 'zero', as in nothing has > > less mass than the aether itself.- Hide quoted text - >
From: Inertial on 24 Oct 2009 20:00
"glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:d9597b05-4573-4198-affa-cd8b2fd2bbbc(a)p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Do you know the definition of simultaneity for >> two spatially separated events? > > An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of > a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"? Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate. If one accepts the light between to places mutually at rest will always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right. Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both directions, you can synchronise clocks with it. > )If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you > don't! If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.) Sounds like a book worth reading. |