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: Inertial on 24 Oct 2009 20:09 "glird" <glird(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:1130955f-c50e-43a9-8f65-72596a422b9b(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: >> >> < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the >> shore. > This is experimentally confirmed. > It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from > where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > > Please provide the name of any experiment that > confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its > arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is > not based on experimental evidence.) AFAIK we have no way of know whether photons exist when undetected. Because to know if they exist, you have to detect them. It could be that what we see as a photon is something that happens when the EM wave interacts with something else .. an artifact of the interaction. Its a bit like trying to work out whether the light goes off when you close the fridge door, when the only way to see if the light is on is opening the door. Of course, we do know that other particles, that we know do exist, exhibit behaviour similar to photons. ie they behave as both waves and particles. eg electrons in double-slit experiments. But I guess again, one could claim that when they aren't interacting, they are no longer particles, but are actually only waves. The other question is .. does it even MATTER if photons exist when they aren't interacting with anything else??
From: mpc755 on 24 Oct 2009 21:08 On Oct 24, 8:09 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "glird" <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > news:1130955f-c50e-43a9-8f65-72596a422b9b(a)33g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 13, 7:58 pm, PD wrote: > > >> < Waves do not come from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the > >> shore. > > This is experimentally confirmed. > > It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from > > where they were generated, not from where the source goes. > > > > Please provide the name of any experiment that > > confirms that photons EXIST between the origin of a light wave and its > > arrival at a reactive target. (If you can't, then your conclusion is > > not based on experimental evidence.) > > AFAIK we have no way of know whether photons exist when undetected. Because > to know if they exist, you have to detect them. > > It could be that what we see as a photon is something that happens when the > EM wave interacts with something else .. an artifact of the interaction. > > Its a bit like trying to work out whether the light goes off when you close > the fridge door, when the only way to see if the light is on is opening the > door. > > Of course, we do know that other particles, that we know do exist, exhibit > behaviour similar to photons. ie they behave as both waves and particles. > eg electrons in double-slit experiments. But I guess again, one could claim > that when they aren't interacting, they are no longer particles, but are > actually only waves. > When you get to larger particles like a C-60 molecule, the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. > The other question is .. does it even MATTER if photons exist when they > aren't interacting with anything else?? Yes. Determinism vs. magic.
From: YBM on 24 Oct 2009 23:59 mpc755 a �crit : > No, it's the best we can do. The best *you* can do, and it is not much. > Granted, I think it is easier to ... What is easier to your illness, idleness and delusions is no help for the rest of us.
From: PD on 25 Oct 2009 04:21 On Oct 24, 10:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> 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. Small problem. No medium that is frictionless can be entrained. > 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. Not if the air got entrained by the bullet. Then the effects would be very observable. (And are.)
From: kenseto on 25 Oct 2009 10:16
On Oct 24, 4:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. The aether is the only thing that is stationary and all material objects are moving within it. Relative motion between two objects moving in the aether is the result of the vector difference of their absolute motion along the line joining them. Isotropy of the speed of light as measured in any inertial frame is due to the structure of the aether. See the following link for demonstration of this concept: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > > 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. Then you are saying that your assertion is more valid than experimental results....In don't think so. > > > 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. Assertion is not a valid arguement. Ken Seto >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..- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |