Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
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.
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?? |