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 26 Oct 2009 20:30 Correct, MMX was not a null result. However, the results were not what M&M expected for an absolutely stationary space. The result did not support an absolutely stationary space. The non-null result is more supportive of aether entrainment. > holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although > the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough. > > Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought > to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was > at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according > to I. 4 Gott). > > and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results > "proving relativity & so on." > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > and countless others looked for and did not find? >
From: mpc755 on 26 Oct 2009 20:41 Correct, MMX was not a null result. However, the results were not what M&M expected for an absolutely stationary space. The result did not support an absolutely stationary aether. The non-null result is more supportive of aether entrainment. > holy grapes; M&M's experiment was *not* a null; although > the annual anomaly was rather small, it was regular enough. > > Miller's result confirmed this. the write-up was brought > to Einstein, at one of hte few times that he was > at his office at Caltech, and he poo-pooed it (according > to I. 4 Gott). > > and one *still* has to account for all of the actual results > "proving relativity & so on." > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > and countless others looked for and did not find? >
From: kenseto on 27 Oct 2009 10:31 On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > motion of the ruler. > > > Ken Seto > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > and countless others looked for and did not find? That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > support if you so choose. It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of light is isotropic horizontally. Ken seto > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > relative to the K' system. > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers. > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > from to ANY observer. > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: kenseto on 27 Oct 2009 10:40 On Oct 26, 7:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message > > news:4034fd69-6a12-4fff-b772-aa1b9c66ea61(a)d34g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > > > On Oct 25, 3:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Oct 25, 10:16 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > >> > The aether is the only thing that is stationary and all material > >> > objects are moving within it. > > >> Every aether experiment ever performed has shown the aether is not > >> stationary. > > > Istropy of the speed of light in all inertial frames shows that the > > aether is stationary. > > Explain the math behind that assertion. That should be good for a laugh. The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all inertial frames as follows: Assumed light path length of the observer's ruler is its physical length of 299,792,458 meters long/over the the absolute time content for one of observer's clock second.
From: mpc755 on 27 Oct 2009 11:16
On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a > > > > "absolutely stationary space". > > > > > The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is > > > > entrained by the Earth. > > > > No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every > > > object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The > > > rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The > > > light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute > > > motion of the ruler. > > > > Ken Seto > > > You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller, > > and countless others looked for and did not find? > > That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to > realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the > vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka > experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion > in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf > > > > > You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental > > support if you so choose. > > It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show > that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of > light is isotropic horizontally. > > Ken seto > The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They found a gravitational redshift. This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B' are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > > I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I > > am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums, > > waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium. > > > In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble > > into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same > > speed in all directions relative to the point on the train. > > > If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the > > center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in > > all directions relative to the point on the embankment. > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest > > relative to the K' system. > > > In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the > > aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest > > relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike > > occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at > > 'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave > > propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers. > > A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels > > from to ANY observer. > > > If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest > > relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/ > > A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward > > from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A > > and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the > > aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |