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: paparios on 8 Oct 2009 20:51 On 8 oct, 17:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 5:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You do not understand Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' > > > is a single event and all of the light from A/A' will reach M > > > simultaneously. > > > > This is not what is occurring in Simultaneity of Relativity. In > > > Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from the lightning strike at A' > > > reaches M prior to the light from A reaching M > > > No it is you who, clearly, does not understand any physics. > > If you now are asserting that the strikes are simultaneous at points A > > and A', then your video is totally bogus since you are clearly showing > > two circles growing one from point A and the other from point A' and > > hence they are not moving at the same speed. > > > Miguel Rios > > Yes, the lightning strike at A/A' occurs simultaneously because it is > a single lightning strike that just happens to hit at A and A' > simultaneously. > > The light from the lightning strike at A is moving through the aether > which is stationary relative to the embankment and the light from the > lightning strike at A' is moving through the aether which is > stationary relative to the train. Again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. What Einstein gedanken says is quite clear: observer M on the embankment is right on the midle of the distance between points A and B and when the strikes hit both A and B he will later receive both light signals simultaneously. Then he ask the readers if observer M' on the train will observe the same and he proved that he will not. When the strikes happened, M' (moving at a speed v=0.6c let us say) was passing just in front of M. So the spacetime coordinates of the same event are given by the Lorentz transformation equations: x' = gamma (x - vt) ; t = gamma (t - vx/c^2) where gamma=1/ (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2))=1.25 since v=0.6c So in the embankment frame, the two strikes were at t=0 and x_A=-100000km, x_B=+100000km, so it is quite evident that: x_A'=-125000km, t_A'=+0.25sec are the coordinates of point A' on the train x_B'=+125000km, t_B'=-0.25sec are the coordinates of point B' on the train So as the observer M received both light signals at the same time, meaning the strikes hit at the same time on the embankment frame, the same event were not at the same time on the train frame and that is all to this gedanken. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 8 Oct 2009 21:34 On Oct 8, 7:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > The water is stationary relative to the embankment and the train is moving along under the water and not affecting the water. Pebbles are dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from B/B' travels from B to M'. The waves from A and B and reach M simultaneously. The wave from A reaches M'. A' and B' are irrelevant in this scenario. The water is stationary relative to the train. Pebbles are dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from A' reaches M. The waves from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously. The wave from B' reaches M. A and B are irrelevant in this scenario. 'Fizeau experiment' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > > > > > 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 21:38 On Oct 8, 8:51 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8 oct, 17:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 8, 5:06 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You do not understand Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > In Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' > > > > is a single event and all of the light from A/A' will reach M > > > > simultaneously. > > > > > This is not what is occurring in Simultaneity of Relativity. In > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from the lightning strike at A' > > > > reaches M prior to the light from A reaching M > > > > No it is you who, clearly, does not understand any physics. > > > If you now are asserting that the strikes are simultaneous at points A > > > and A', then your video is totally bogus since you are clearly showing > > > two circles growing one from point A and the other from point A' and > > > hence they are not moving at the same speed. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > Yes, the lightning strike at A/A' occurs simultaneously because it is > > a single lightning strike that just happens to hit at A and A' > > simultaneously. > > > The light from the lightning strike at A is moving through the aether > > which is stationary relative to the embankment and the light from the > > lightning strike at A' is moving through the aether which is > > stationary relative to the train. > > Again, you have not the slightest idea of what you are talking about. > > What Einstein gedanken says is quite clear: observer M on the > embankment is right on the midle of the distance between points A and > B and when the strikes hit both A and B he will later receive both > light signals simultaneously. Then he ask the readers if observer M' > on the train will observe the same and he proved that he will not. > > When the strikes happened, M' (moving at a speed v=0.6c let us say) > was passing just in front of M. So the spacetime coordinates of the > same event are given by the Lorentz transformation equations: > > x' = gamma (x - vt) ; t = gamma (t - vx/c^2) > where gamma=1/ (sqrt(1- v^2/c^2))=1.25 since v=0.6c > > So in the embankment frame, the two strikes were at t=0 and > x_A=-100000km, x_B=+100000km, so it is quite evident that: > > x_A'=-125000km, t_A'=+0.25sec are the coordinates of point A' on the > train > > x_B'=+125000km, t_B'=-0.25sec are the coordinates of point B' on the > train > > So as the observer M received both light signals at the same time, > meaning the strikes hit at the same time on the embankment frame, the > same event were not at the same time on the train frame and that is > all to this gedanken. > > Miguel Rios Yes, in Relativity of Simultaneity the lightning strike at A/A' occurs at a different time in the embankment frame of reference than it does in the train frame of reference. Same with the lightning strike at B/ B'. But in each frame of reference, in Relativity of Simultaneity, there are still only two lightning strikes, one at A/A' and one at B/ B'. In Simultaneity of Relativity, even though there are two lightning strikes, one at A/A' and one at B/B', the light from the lightning strike at A travels from A to the destinations. Same for the lightning strikes at A', B, and B'. The light from each lightning strike is effected by the aether that is stationary in each reference frame and travels different distances to the destinations.
From: PD on 9 Oct 2009 08:57 On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 7:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > The water is stationary relative to the embankment and the train is > moving along under the water and not affecting the water. Pebbles are > dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from B/B' travels from B to M'. The > waves from A and B and reach M simultaneously. The wave from A reaches > M'. And notice that the waves from A and B do not arrive at M' at the same time. > A' and B' are irrelevant in this scenario. Well, strictly speaking they are in the Einstein gedanken too, because there really are only two lightning strikes. It would be really great if you could learn a bit more about what the Einstein gedanken really says before you waste a lot of time creating animations about something completely irrelevant and then demonstrate that you really didn't understand the Einstein gedanken in the first place. > > The water is stationary relative to the train. Pebbles are dropped at > A/A' and B/B'. The wave from A' reaches M. The waves from A' and B' > reach M' simultaneously. The wave from B' reaches M. A and B are > irrelevant in this scenario. OK, but there are really only two lightning strikes, and the water doesn't really have time to switch from being stationary relative to the embankment to being stationary relative to the train. Einstein's gedanken is about ONE pair of events (the lightning strikes) and what happens to the light as observed by M and M' for that ONE case, not two cases. > > 'Fizeau experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > read more »
From: mpc755 on 9 Oct 2009 09:53
On Oct 9, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 8, 8:34 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > The water is stationary relative to the embankment and the train is > > moving along under the water and not affecting the water. Pebbles are > > dropped at A/A' and B/B'. The wave from B/B' travels from B to M'. The > > waves from A and B and reach M simultaneously. The wave from A reaches > > M'. > > And notice that the waves from A and B do not arrive at M' at the same > time. > Yes, because the water is stationary relative to the embankment. In this scenario, the embankment is the preferred frame. For Einstein's train thought experiment to be truly relative, there can be no preferred frame. Therefore, the water must be stationary relative to the embankment in the embankment frame of reference and stationary relative to the train in the train reference frame. In this scenario, my animation holds in the light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > The water is stationary relative to the train. Pebbles are dropped at > > A/A' and B/B'. The wave from A' reaches M. The waves from A' and B' > > reach M' simultaneously. The wave from B' reaches M. A and B are > > irrelevant in this scenario. > > OK, but there are really only two lightning strikes, and the water > doesn't really have time to switch from being stationary relative to > the embankment to being stationary relative to the train. > The water doesn't have to switch. The water is stationary relative to the embankment in the embankment frame of reference and the water is stationary relative to the train in the train frame of reference. There is a single lightning strike at A/A' but A in on the embankment and A' is on the train. Likewise with the lightning strike at B/B'. > Einstein's gedanken is about ONE pair of events (the lightning > strikes) and what happens to the light as observed by M and M' for > that ONE case, not two cases. > That is why I am saying Einstein is incorrect. He is trying to have it both ways. He wants to have a single lightning strike in two reference frames where the reference frames are not equal. If his train thought experiment was correct with equal reference frames, the light from the lightning strikes at A and B would reach M and the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > 'Fizeau experiment'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment > |