Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 14:31 On 5 ene, 16:24, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > 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? Einstein explained it correctly as follows: "...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..." "...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. We thus arrive at the important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event..." Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:33 On Jan 5, 2:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 16:24, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 2:12 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > Einstein explained it correctly as follows: > > "...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..." > "...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. We thus arrive at the important result: > Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not > simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of > simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own > particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the > statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the > time of an event..." > > Miguel Rios I'm not asking for Einstein's explanation to his train gedanken, I already know he was incorrect on that one. I am asking you the following. Why are you in denial? Why are you unable to answer the simple gedanken I propose? 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?
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 14:49 On 5 ene, 16:33, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not asking for Einstein's explanation to his train gedanken, I > already know he was incorrect on that one. I am asking you the > following. Why are you in denial? Why are you unable to answer the > simple gedanken I propose? > > 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? I'm not saying anything about this version 14.7 of your nonsense (which you change post after post). It is your gedanken. It is up to you to write a mathematical proof of your assertions and explain it to us. I have provided you with the mathematical and graphical explanation of Einstein train gedanken. You clearly had no comments other than your "math is not nature" nonsense. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 14:55 On Jan 5, 2:49 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 16:33, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 2:31 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > I'm not asking for Einstein's explanation to his train gedanken, I > > already know he was incorrect on that one. I am asking you the > > following. Why are you in denial? Why are you unable to answer the > > simple gedanken I propose? > > > 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? > > I'm not saying anything about this version 14.7 of your nonsense > (which you change post after post). It is your gedanken. It is up to > you to write a mathematical proof of your assertions and explain it to > us. > I have provided you with the mathematical and graphical explanation of > Einstein train gedanken. You clearly had no comments other than your > "math is not nature" nonsense. > > Miguel Rios I'm not asking for you to provide the mathematical and graphical explanation of Einstein's train gedanken because I know it is incorrect. I am simply asking you to answer the following very simple gedanken. If the Captain of the boat knows the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously and knows the difference in time from the wave associated with the cement block being dropped into the water in front of the boat hitting the boat and the time from the wave associated with the cement block being dropped into the water in the back of the boat hitting the boat and the identical experiment is performed again but this time all the Captain knows is the difference in time from the front wave hitting the boat and the back wave hitting the boat is identical to the first execution of the experiment, can the Captain still conclude the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously. My answer is, yes, of course. Your answer? Or more denial?
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 15:17
On 5 ene, 16:55, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 2:49 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm not asking for you to provide the mathematical and graphical > explanation of Einstein's train gedanken because I know it is > incorrect. > > I am simply asking you to answer the following very simple gedanken. > > If the Captain of the boat knows the cement blocks entered the water > simultaneously and knows the difference in time from the wave > associated with the cement block being dropped into the water in front > of the boat hitting the boat and the time from the wave associated > with the cement block being dropped into the water in the back of the > boat hitting the boat and the identical experiment is performed again > but this time all the Captain knows is the difference in time from the > front wave hitting the boat and the back wave hitting the boat is > identical to the first execution of the experiment, can the Captain > still conclude the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously. > > My answer is, yes, of course. > > Your answer? Or more denial? What's the point mpc755?. You don't even read the answers provided to you and, besides, change the version of your gedanken post, after post, after post... So you wrote, in version 14.7, the following: "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?" Now that has morphed, once more time, to version 14.8, which reads: "If the Captain of the boat knows the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously and knows the difference in time from the wave associated with the cement block being dropped into the water in front of the boat hitting the boat and the time from the wave associated with the cement block being dropped into the water in the back of the boat hitting the boat and the identical experiment is performed again but this time all the Captain knows is the difference in time from the front wave hitting the boat and the back wave hitting the boat is identical to the first execution of the experiment, can the Captain still conclude the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously." And a few minutes go you were talking about other necessary and available knowledge for this captain, including shore and boat speeds (that was, I guess, in version 12.14), which I commented and now are gone. So make up your mind and design a gedanken which at least is self consistent and that it does not continuously change. Miguel Rios |