Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 14:05 On Oct 13, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 12:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 11:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > > > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > > > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > > > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > > > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > > > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > > > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > > > > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > > > > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > > > > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > > > > > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > > > > > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > > > > > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > > > > > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > > > > > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > > > > > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > > > > > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > > > > > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > > > > > > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > > > > > > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > > > > > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > > > > > > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > > > > > And what is the response? > > > > > > > <crickets> > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell > > > > > you something that you should be paying attention to? > > > > > It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in. > > > > Well, it appears that you are told all sorts of crazy stuff. > > > > > I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in > > > > nature. > > > > Thought experiments show nothing in science. Experiments do. Wherever > > > did you get the RIDICULOUS notion that thought experiments show how > > > nature works? > > > > > How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is* > > > > relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether. > > > > > My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense > > > > about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals". > > > > > There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from > > > > each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is > > > > under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and > > > > travels at 'c' relative to this aether. > > > > > But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what > > > > you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect. > > > > > Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought > > > > experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of > > > > comprehension and intuition. > > > > Actually, if you'll read back over this thread, you'll see plenty that > > > was pointed out about where you were wrong. Of course, if you can't > > > see that, it may be beyond your abilities of comprehension and > > > intuition. But no matter, it's all recorded her for posterity. > > > You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment. > > Look at your original post. You said if the aether was stationary > relative to the embankment and moving relative to the train, then your > animation would be what would happen in such an experiment. However, > that is NOT what happens in real experiments with real light. Since > your premise requires results that are different than is what is > actually observed in real life, then the premises must be wrong. > > Your *logic* is fine (or at least close to fine). But something that > is logically consistent -- that is, the conclusions follow logically > from the premises -- can still be as wrong as eyeglasses on a pig. > Being logically consistent does not mean that it is right or that it > describes reality. What describes reality is what is determined in > experiment. What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary relative to the embankment". And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars where his assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether.
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 15:23 On Oct 13, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 11:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > > > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > > > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > > > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > > > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > > > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > > > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > > > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > > > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > > > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > > > > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > > > > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > > > > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > > > > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > > > > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > > > > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > > > > > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > > > > > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > > > > > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > > > > > > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > > > > > > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > > > > > > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > > > > > > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > > > > > > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > > > > > > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > > > > > > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > > > > > > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > > > > > > > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > > > > > > > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > > > > > > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > > > > > > > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > > > > > > And what is the response? > > > > > > > > <crickets> > > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell > > > > > > you something that you should be paying attention to? > > > > > > It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in. > > > > > Well, it appears that you are told all sorts of crazy stuff. > > > > > > I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in > > > > > nature. > > > > > Thought experiments show nothing in science. Experiments do. Wherever > > > > did you get the RIDICULOUS notion that thought experiments show how > > > > nature works? > > > > > > How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is* > > > > > relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether. > > > > > > My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense > > > > > about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals". > > > > > > There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from > > > > > each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is > > > > > under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and > > > > > travels at 'c' relative to this aether. > > > > > > But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what > > > > > you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect. > > > > > > Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought > > > > > experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of > > > > > comprehension and intuition. > > > > > Actually, if you'll read back over this thread, you'll see plenty that > > > > was pointed out about where you were wrong. Of course, if you can't > > > > see that, it may be beyond your abilities of comprehension and > > > > intuition. But no matter, it's all recorded her for posterity. > > > > You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment. > > > Look at your original post. You said if the aether was stationary > > relative to the embankment and moving relative to the train, then your > > animation would be what would happen in such an experiment. However, > > that is NOT what happens in real experiments with real light. Since > > your premise requires results that are different than is what is > > actually observed in real life, then the premises must be wrong. > > > Your *logic* is fine (or at least close to fine). But something that > > is logically consistent -- that is, the conclusions follow logically > > from the premises -- can still be as wrong as eyeglasses on a pig. > > Being logically consistent does not mean that it is right or that it > > describes reality. What describes reality is what is determined in > > experiment. > > What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train > and stationary relative to the embankment". Yes, sorry, my mistake. As I pointed out, there are numerous implications of two bodies of aether, including transition boundaries, which require further experimental results predicted that are simply not seen. You kinda blew by those without consideration. > > And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including > the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars Sorry, but as I told you earlier, the double star observations don't have anything to do with the experiments used to test relativity of simultaneity. > where his > assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the > source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the > source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether.
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 15:36 On Oct 13, 3:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 12:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 11:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > > > > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > > > > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > > > > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > > > > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > > > > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > > > > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > > > > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > > > > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > > > > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > > > > > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > > > > > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > > > > > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > > > > > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > > > > > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > > > > > > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > > > > > > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > > > > > > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > > > > > > > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > > > > > > > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > > > > > > > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > > > > > > > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > > > > > > > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > > > > > > > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > > > > > > > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > > > > > > > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > > > > > > > > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > > > > > > > > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > > > > > > > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > > > > > > > > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > > > > > > > And what is the response? > > > > > > > > > <crickets> > > > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell > > > > > > > you something that you should be paying attention to? > > > > > > > It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in. > > > > > > Well, it appears that you are told all sorts of crazy stuff. > > > > > > > I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > Thought experiments show nothing in science. Experiments do. Wherever > > > > > did you get the RIDICULOUS notion that thought experiments show how > > > > > nature works? > > > > > > > How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is* > > > > > > relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether. > > > > > > > My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense > > > > > > about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals". > > > > > > > There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from > > > > > > each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is > > > > > > under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and > > > > > > travels at 'c' relative to this aether. > > > > > > > But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what > > > > > > you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect. > > > > > > > Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought > > > > > > experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of > > > > > > comprehension and intuition. > > > > > > Actually, if you'll read back over this thread, you'll see plenty that > > > > > was pointed out about where you were wrong. Of course, if you can't > > > > > see that, it may be beyond your abilities of comprehension and > > > > > intuition. But no matter, it's all recorded her for posterity. > > > > > You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment. > > > > Look at your original post. You said if the aether was stationary > > > relative to the embankment and moving relative to the train, then your > > > animation would be what would happen in such an experiment. However, > > > that is NOT what happens in real experiments with real light. Since > > > your premise requires results that are different than is what is > > > actually observed in real life, then the premises must be wrong. > > > > Your *logic* is fine (or at least close to fine). But something that > > > is logically consistent -- that is, the conclusions follow logically > > > from the premises -- can still be as wrong as eyeglasses on a pig. > > > Being logically consistent does not mean that it is right or that it > > > describes reality. What describes reality is what is determined in > > > experiment. > > > What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train > > and stationary relative to the embankment". > > Yes, sorry, my mistake. > As I pointed out, there are numerous implications of two bodies of > aether, including transition boundaries, which require further > experimental results predicted that are simply not seen. You kinda > blew by those without consideration. > > > > > And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including > > the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars > > Sorry, but as I told you earlier, the double star observations don't > have anything to do with the experiments used to test relativity of > simultaneity. > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories. The double star observations refute ballistic emitter theories where the photon is a particle that is emitted at 'c' relative to the source and travels at 'c' relative to the sources speed relative to us. If one of the stars was approaching the Earth at 'v', a photon emitted by the star travels from its point of emission to us at 'c+v'. If the star is moving away from us at 'v', then the photon is emitted by the star and travels to the Earth at 'c-v'. The 'c+v' photons overtake the 'c-v' photons and the images of the stars is 'scrambled'. This is not how light works. Light is emitted by each star and travels at 'c' through the aether entrained by the individual star. It does not take much time at all of the light wave to interact with the aether which is entrained by both binary stars. Light waves travel at 'c' relative to the aether the wave propagates through. When the light wave gets close to the Earth, it travels at 'c' relative to the Earth's entrained aether. Simultaneity of Relativity explains how the light from a binary star pair is not scrambled. Simultaneity of Relativity explains how light waves travel at 'c' from where the source *is* relative to the waves interaction with the aether. > > where his > > assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the > > source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the > > source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether. > >
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 15:55 On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Oct 13, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 10:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 11:23 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 3:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Oct 12, 2:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > My animation is correct for four wave fronts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary > > > > > > > > > > > > > relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at > > > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the > > > > > > > > > > > > > light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B' > > > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative > > > > > > > > > > > > > to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it > > > > > > > > > > > > > offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the > > > > > > > > > > > > > membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will > > > > > > > > > > > > > reach M and M' as I have stated: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M > > > > > > > > > > > > > simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light > > > > > > > > > > > > > from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A > > > > > > > > > > > > > reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events > > > > > > > > > > > > > to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points > > > > > > > > > > > > > in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M' > > > > > > > > > > > > > exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in > > > > > > > > > > > > > Relativity of Simultaneity. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between > > > > > > > > > > > > A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who > > > > > > > > > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer > > > > > > > > > > > > strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line > > > > > > > > > > > > perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the > > > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the > > > > > > > > > > > > membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and > > > > > > > > > > > > B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the > > > > > > > > > > > > Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B' > > > > > > > > > > > > reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > > > How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It > > > > > > > > > > > travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the > > > > > > > > > > > Observer sees the flash. > > > > > > > > > > > When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > > > where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A' > > > > > > > > > > occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When > > > > > > > > > > the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and > > > > > > > > > > where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the > > > > > > > > > > flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the > > > > > > > > > > flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer > > > > > > > > > > at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then > > > > > > > > > > determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the > > > > > > > > > > same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four > > > > > > > > > > flashes occurred simultaneously. > > > > > > > > > > Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to > > > > > > > > > describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where > > > > > > > > > the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether. > > > > > > > > > > I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical > > > > > > > > > frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity. > > > > > > > > > > And what is the response? > > > > > > > > > > <crickets> > > > > > > > > > Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell > > > > > > > > you something that you should be paying attention to? > > > > > > > > It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in. > > > > > > > Well, it appears that you are told all sorts of crazy stuff. > > > > > > > > I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in > > > > > > > nature. > > > > > > > Thought experiments show nothing in science. Experiments do. Wherever > > > > > > did you get the RIDICULOUS notion that thought experiments show how > > > > > > nature works? > > > > > > > > How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is* > > > > > > > relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether. > > > > > > > > My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense > > > > > > > about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals". > > > > > > > > There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from > > > > > > > each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is > > > > > > > under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and > > > > > > > travels at 'c' relative to this aether. > > > > > > > > But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what > > > > > > > you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect. > > > > > > > > Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought > > > > > > > experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of > > > > > > > comprehension and intuition. > > > > > > > Actually, if you'll read back over this thread, you'll see plenty that > > > > > > was pointed out about where you were wrong. Of course, if you can't > > > > > > see that, it may be beyond your abilities of comprehension and > > > > > > intuition. But no matter, it's all recorded her for posterity. > > > > > > You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment. > > > > > Look at your original post. You said if the aether was stationary > > > > relative to the embankment and moving relative to the train, then your > > > > animation would be what would happen in such an experiment. However, > > > > that is NOT what happens in real experiments with real light. Since > > > > your premise requires results that are different than is what is > > > > actually observed in real life, then the premises must be wrong. > > > > > Your *logic* is fine (or at least close to fine). But something that > > > > is logically consistent -- that is, the conclusions follow logically > > > > from the premises -- can still be as wrong as eyeglasses on a pig. > > > > Being logically consistent does not mean that it is right or that it > > > > describes reality. What describes reality is what is determined in > > > > experiment. > > > > What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train > > > and stationary relative to the embankment". > > > Yes, sorry, my mistake. > > As I pointed out, there are numerous implications of two bodies of > > aether, including transition boundaries, which require further > > experimental results predicted that are simply not seen. You kinda > > blew by those without consideration. > > > > And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including > > > the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars > > > Sorry, but as I told you earlier, the double star observations don't > > have anything to do with the experiments used to test relativity of > > simultaneity. > > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories. Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you looked into the other two dozen experiments? Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations are aetherless. Moreover, the train gedanken doesn't have anything do with emitter theories. It is an explanation of what relativity says, and is not intended in any way as a disproof of any other theory. Gedankens are not disproofs of anything, let alone competing theories. Experiments are the sole arbiter of which theories are correct and which are not correct, and they are usually pretty unambiguous because a given theory will say you will see result X in quantity Q, where another theory will say you will see result Y in quantity R. Then it's a pretty straightforward measurement to see if you see X or Y, and in quantity Q or R. There is no interpretation needed. > The > double star observations refute ballistic emitter theories where the > photon is a particle that is emitted at 'c' relative to the source and > travels at 'c' relative to the sources speed relative to us. If one of > the stars was approaching the Earth at 'v', a photon emitted by the > star travels from its point of emission to us at 'c+v'. If the star is > moving away from us at 'v', then the photon is emitted by the star and > travels to the Earth at 'c-v'. The 'c+v' photons overtake the 'c-v' > photons and the images of the stars is 'scrambled'. > > This is not how light works. Light is emitted by each star and travels > at 'c' through the aether entrained by the individual star. It does > not take much time at all of the light wave to interact with the > aether which is entrained by both binary stars. Light waves travel at > 'c' relative to the aether the wave propagates through. When the light > wave gets close to the Earth, it travels at 'c' relative to the > Earth's entrained aether. This is inconsistent with experimental results. > > Simultaneity of Relativity explains how the light from a binary star > pair is not scrambled. Simultaneity of Relativity explains how light > waves travel at 'c' from where the source *is* relative to the waves > interaction with the aether.> > where his > > > assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the > > > source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the > > > source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether.. > >
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 15:58
On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories. > > Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you > looked into the other two dozen experiments? > Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations > are aetherless. There is no such thing as aetherless. > Moreover, the train gedanken doesn't have anything do with emitter > theories. It is an explanation of what relativity says, and is not > intended in any way as a disproof of any other theory. Gedankens are > not disproofs of anything, let alone competing theories. Experiments > are the sole arbiter of which theories are correct and which are not > correct, and they are usually pretty unambiguous because a given > theory will say you will see result X in quantity Q, where another > theory will say you will see result Y in quantity R. Then it's a > pretty straightforward measurement to see if you see X or Y, and in > quantity Q or R. There is no interpretation needed. > > > The > > double star observations refute ballistic emitter theories where the > > photon is a particle that is emitted at 'c' relative to the source and > > travels at 'c' relative to the sources speed relative to us. If one of > > the stars was approaching the Earth at 'v', a photon emitted by the > > star travels from its point of emission to us at 'c+v'. If the star is > > moving away from us at 'v', then the photon is emitted by the star and > > travels to the Earth at 'c-v'. The 'c+v' photons overtake the 'c-v' > > photons and the images of the stars is 'scrambled'. > > > This is not how light works. Light is emitted by each star and travels > > at 'c' through the aether entrained by the individual star. It does > > not take much time at all of the light wave to interact with the > > aether which is entrained by both binary stars. Light waves travel at > > 'c' relative to the aether the wave propagates through. When the light > > wave gets close to the Earth, it travels at 'c' relative to the > > Earth's entrained aether. > > This is inconsistent with experimental results. > > > Simultaneity of Relativity explains how the light from a binary star > > pair is not scrambled. Simultaneity of Relativity explains how light > > waves travel at 'c' from where the source *is* relative to the waves > > interaction with the aether.> > where his > > > > assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the > > > > source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the > > > > source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether. > > |