Simultaneity of Relativity
in [Math]
|
Prev: chrouc
Next: Synergetics coordinates and Wikipedia
From: doug on 13 Oct 2009 17:52 mpc755 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. Wrong again. You are not having much luck with science. You need a new hobby where you do not look stupid so much. > > 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: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 16:56 On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > I understand Einstein's train thought experiment. I am discussing my train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts. > 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. > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer between A and A' simultaneously. The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes occurred simultaneously. What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes as determined by the Observers at M and M' is.
From: PD on 13 Oct 2009 17:08 On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I understand Einstein's train thought experiment. That's doubtful. You seemed to get a number of things about it wrong right away. > I am discussing my > train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts. There's no real value in it. If you're looking for what's logically wrong between your presumptions and your animation, I don't know that there's anything wrong there. But the predictions you make do not match what is seen in experiment, and the other predictions that would necessarily follow from your model are ALSO not seen in experiment, as I've indicated. > > > 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. > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > between A and A' simultaneously. > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > occurred simultaneously. > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing happens. Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible idea to you must be right. PD
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 17:17 On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I understand Einstein's train thought experiment. > > That's doubtful. You seemed to get a number of things about it wrong > right away. > > > I am discussing my > > train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts. > > There's no real value in it. If you're looking for what's logically > wrong between your presumptions and your animation, I don't know that > there's anything wrong there. > > But the predictions you make do not match what is seen in experiment, > and the other predictions that would necessarily follow from your > model are ALSO not seen in experiment, as I've indicated. > > > > > > > > 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. > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > occurred simultaneously. > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > happens. > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really happen in nature? > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > idea to you must be right. > > PD Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously?
From: mpc755 on 13 Oct 2009 17:27
On Oct 13, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 3:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes > > a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as > > close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer > > between A and A' simultaneously. > > > The same is true for an Observer between B and B'. > > > If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light > > from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously? > > > When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are > > they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously? > > > In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the > > light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M' > > note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively, > > at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the > > flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the > > flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M' > > note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where > > the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes > > occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light > > from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M > > and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A, > > respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred. > > > The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes > > occurred simultaneously. > > > What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of > > Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes > > as determined by the Observers at M and M' is. > > I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in > reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not > describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say > one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing > happens. > Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A' simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B' simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really happen in nature? > Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what > really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even > though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you > as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to > dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible > idea to you must be right. > > PD Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously? Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the light traveled from that point to where they are? The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B' travels from B' to M'. But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A' *was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously. All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is* when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason they are not allowed to do this. They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the light waves interaction with the aether. |