Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 14:12 On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > lightning flash A..." > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > room. > > > Miguel Rios > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > boat. > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > blocks entering the water? > > You're joking, right? If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand the experiment. What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence of the two SR postulates. "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative..." Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know what he is talking about!! Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses that have been given to you by several people in this and other threads. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:17 On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > > lightning flash A..." > > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > > room. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > > boat. > > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > > blocks entering the water? > > > You're joking, right? > > If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able > to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked > women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific > about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand > the experiment. > > What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence > of the two SR postulates. > > "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which > are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also > simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the > answer must be in the negative..." > > Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know > what he is talking about!! > Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses > that have been given to you by several people in this and other > threads. > > Miguel Rios The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the boat. The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front of the boat and then the back of the boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the waves enter the water simultaneously. Are saying, even though the Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same time interval apart as the first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the blocks entering the water?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:20 On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > > lightning flash A..." > > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > > room. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > > boat. > > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > > blocks entering the water? > > > You're joking, right? > > If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able > to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked > women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific > about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand > the experiment. > > What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence > of the two SR postulates. > > "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which > are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also > simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the > answer must be in the negative..." > > Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know > what he is talking about!! > Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses > that have been given to you by several people in this and other > threads. > > Miguel Rios 604. mpc755 View profile More options Jan 5, 2:17 pm Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math, sci.physics.relativity From: mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 11:17:31 -0800 (PST) Local: Tues, Jan 5 2010 2:17 pm Subject: Re: Wonderful! Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > > lightning flash A..." > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > > room. > > > Miguel Rios > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > > boat. > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > > blocks entering the water? > > You're joking, right? > If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able > to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked > women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific > about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand > the experiment. > What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence > of the two SR postulates. > "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which > are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also > simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the > answer must be in the negative..." > Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know > what he is talking about!! > Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses > that have been given to you by several people in this and other > threads. > Miguel Rios The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the boat. The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front of the boat and then the back of the boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the waves enter the water simultaneously. Are you saying, even though the Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same time interval apart as the first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the blocks entering the water?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:22 On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > > lightning flash A..." > > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > > room. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > > boat. > > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > > blocks entering the water? > > > You're joking, right? > > If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able > to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked > women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific > about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand > the experiment. > > What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence > of the two SR postulates. > > "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which > are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also > simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the > answer must be in the negative..." > > Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know > what he is talking about!! > Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses > that have been given to you by several people in this and other > threads. > > Miguel Rios The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the boat. The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front of the boat and then the back of the boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the waves enter the water simultaneously. Are you saying, even though the Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same time interval apart as the first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the blocks entering the water?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:24
On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 15:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 1:33 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > More new additions to your gedanken assumptions? > > > > The point is your poor gedanken proofs nothing and, furthermore, it is > > > useless to determine the relativity of simultaneity, while Einstein's > > > single pharagraph does it quite fast and clear: > > > > "...When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous > > > with respect to the embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at > > > the places A and B, where the lightning occurs, meet each other at the > > > mid-point M of the length A > B of the embankment. But the events A > > > and B also correspond to positions A and B on the train. Let M' be the > > > mid-point of the distance A > B on the travelling train. Just when > > > the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with > > > the point M, but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the > > > velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M in > > > the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain > > > permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of > > > lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet > > > just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference > > > to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light > > > coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light > > > coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted > > > from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who > > > take the railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to > > > the conclusion that the lightning flash B took place earlier than the > > > lightning flash A..." > > > > I'm afraid you will have to go back to the thought experiment design > > > room. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the > > water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave > > hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the > > boat. > > > The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The > > Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front and back of the > > boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the > > waves enter the water simultaneously. You are saying, even though the > > Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same interval apart as the > > first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her > > eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the > > blocks entering the water? > > > You're joking, right? > > If you are referring to Einstein pharagraph, then you should be able > to use the same language and not your poor boat/water/shore/naked > women/drunk captain nonsense. Einstein is quite clear and specific > about the terms he used and nothing additional is needed to understand > the experiment. > > What Einstein shows with his train gedanken is a natural consequence > of the two SR postulates. > > "...Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which > are simultaneous with reference to the railway embankment also > simultaneous relatively to the train? We shall show directly that the > answer must be in the negative..." > > Now it has been clear every day, for a year now, that you don't know > what he is talking about!! > Do you need some help to understand? Just review all the responses > that have been given to you by several people in this and other > threads. > > Miguel Rios The Captain pulls the lever and watches the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously and notes the time difference between the wave hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the boat. The next time the Captain pulls the lever and closes her eyes. The Captain opens her eyes to see the waves hit the front of the boat and then the back of the boat the same time interval apart as when the Captain watched the blocks enter the water simultaneously. Are you saying, even though the Captain knows the waves hit the boat the same time interval apart as the first time the experiment was executed, since the Captain closed her eyes, the Captain is unable to determine the simultaneity of the blocks entering the water? |