Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: YBM on 13 Oct 2009 16:00 mpc755 a �crit : > What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train > and stationary relative to the embankment". Do you know that, logically, False => P, whatever proposition P could be?
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 16:07 On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(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. > Like filling a telescope with water to 'prove' aether is not entrained by the Earth because the assumption is aether 'sticks' to water but not to air? > > 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 16:12 On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(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. You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of the theories being tested. What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think. > > > > > 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. > > Like filling a telescope with water to 'prove' aether is not entrained > by the Earth because the assumption is aether 'sticks' to water but > not to air? No, sir. Please try again. > > > > 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 16:20 On Oct 13, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(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. > > You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of > the theories being tested. > > What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number > of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think. > Mass-less particle require a medium in order to propagate. The Emitter Theory I am proposing in Simultaneity of Relativity has to do with the light waves interaction with the aether. Aether is entrained by massive objects and therefore the light wave propagates outward at 'c' relative to the massive object. But it is a light wave. As the light wave moves further past the binary star which emitted the light wave, it travels at 'c' relative to the entrained aether surrounding both stars. My thought experiment explains how four wave fronts are determined by both the Observers at M and M' to have been emitted by simultaneous flashes. Do you agree the Observers determine the flashes of light occurred simultaneously? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not. > > > > 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. > > > Like filling a telescope with water to 'prove' aether is not entrained > > by the Earth because the assumption is aether 'sticks' to water but > > not to air? > > No, sir. Please try again. > > > > > > > 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 16:45
On Oct 13, 3:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(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. > > > You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of > > the theories being tested. > > > What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number > > of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think. > > Mass-less particle require a medium in order to propagate. > > The Emitter Theory I am proposing in Simultaneity of Relativity has to > do with the light waves interaction with the aether. > > Aether is entrained by massive objects and therefore the light wave > propagates outward at 'c' relative to the massive object. But it is a > light wave. > > As the light wave moves further past the binary star which emitted the > light wave, it travels at 'c' relative to the entrained aether > surrounding both stars. > > My thought experiment explains how four wave fronts are determined by > both the Observers at M and M' to have been emitted by simultaneous > flashes. > > Do you agree the Observers determine the flashes of light occurred > simultaneously? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not. I asked you about this earlier, if you want to know how relativity accounts for what goes on, since you obviously do not understand the Einstein gedanken. You suggested that we forget the Einstein gedanken. If you'd like to revisit the Einstein gedanken and actually learn what relativity says, then ask. Keep in mind that throughout any discussion that ensues, we would be talking about RELATIVITY and not your pet aether guess. If you want to know what's wrong with your pet aether guess, I've already pointed you to a listing of dozens of experiments and the documentation about them. > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Like filling a telescope with water to 'prove' aether is not entrained > > > by the Earth because the assumption is aether 'sticks' to water but > > > not to air? > > > No, sir. Please try again. > > > > > > 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. > > |