Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 15:24 On Jan 5, 3:17 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Versions 14.7 and 14.8 are identical, but that's is obvious even to you. But then again, you will do anything and everything to avoid answering a 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. Are you now going to reply that in fact 14.7 and 14.8 are not identical because some of the words are different? What excuse will you use this time not to answer the gedanken?
From: bvcvideo on 5 Jan 2010 17:34 Cahill's article is quite good, completely blows the supposition about Michelson & Morley's resultage, with respect to their *gas-mode* interferometer, I think. I must report that I was a student of Miller, although I did not know anything about his success/or work to M&M (it was just a 2-year course in electronics .-) now, if you would just consider getting rid of the "photon" -- it's not a particle, because it hath no mass -- may be, you'd see some thing. > 'Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space > Flow'http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.5404v2.pdf > "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in > other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley > (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill > (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." > (Note: In this article they distinctly refer to space as not > consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale > is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is > to show how the above two aether experiments are in agreement with one > another). > 'Photoelectric effect'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > "Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the > photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now > called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint > Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper > proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and > showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. > His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of > light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic > frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him > the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921." thus: the usual mathematical term is Universe; contrary to teh extreme exegesis of the Copenhagenskool, there is only one (the rest is Solopsism, per David Deutsch's say-not .-) > I appreciate your help in this matter. thus: strictly untrue; Kepler et al were using the program of [Cardinal] Nicholas of Cusa; of course, since you are apparently British, you've probably been indoctrinated with the secular church of Newton, and/or the Harry Potter PS curriculum of the "Venetian Party" of England. also, I keep on referring to the 2.5-page article in *Math.Mag.* (MAA.org), that proves of the isometry of inductive & deductive proofs, also giving a formula to convert from one to the other. the Royal Society attack on Leibniz was political; he was actively being considered to be the PM, by Queen Anne. (deny that, if you care to .-) > With Gawd getting in the way it's small wonder the Xtian Romans > produced no mathematicians of the earlier Greek calibre. :-) thus: doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. thus: he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up than doctor Minkowski; can you say, Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? however, the real problem is your persistent use -- with whomever else from the past & future -- of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying to read this ****). > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 18:47 On Jan 5, 5:34 pm, "bvcvi...(a)yahoo.com" <bvcvi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Cahill's article is quite good, completely blows > the supposition about Michelson & Morley's resultage, > with respect to their *gas-mode* interferometer, I think. > > I must report that I was a student of Miller, although > I did not know anything about his success/or work > to M&M (it was just a 2-year course in electronics .-) > > now, if you would just consider getting rid > of the "photon" -- it's not a particle, because > it hath no mass -- may be, you'd see some thing. > When a photon is detected, what is being detected is a quantum of aether. > > > > 'Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with > > Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space > > Flow'http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.5404v2.pdf > > "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in > > other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley > > (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill > > (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." > > (Note: In this article they distinctly refer to space as not > > consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale > > is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is > > to show how the above two aether experiments are in agreement with one > > another). > > 'Photoelectric effect'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect > > "Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the > > photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now > > called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint > > Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper > > proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and > > showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. > > His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of > > light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic > > frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him > > the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921." > > thus: > the usual mathematical term is Universe; > contrary to teh extreme exegesis of the Copenhagenskool, > there is only one (the rest is Solopsism, > per David Deutsch's say-not .-) > > > I appreciate your help in this matter. > > thus: > strictly untrue; Kepler et al were using the program > of [Cardinal] Nicholas of Cusa; of course, since > you are apparently British, you've probably been indoctrinated > with the secular church of Newton, and/or the Harry Potter PS > curriculum > of the "Venetian Party" of England. > also, I keep on referring to the 2.5-page article > in *Math.Mag.* (MAA.org), that proves of the isometry > of inductive & deductive proofs, > also giving a formula to convert from one to the other. > the Royal Society attack on Leibniz was political; > he was actively being considered to be the PM, > by Queen Anne. (deny that, if you care to .-) > > > With Gawd getting in the way it's small wonder the Xtian Romans > > produced no mathematicians of the earlier Greek calibre. :-) > > thus: > doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed > about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but > that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts > were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > > thus: > he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may > be more responsible, after all, for the time-space crack-up > than doctor Minkowski; can you say, > Most useless formalism of Century 20.1? > however, the real problem is your persistent use > -- with whomever else from the past & future -- > of the the concept of vacuum, as Pascal first thought of it, > which is really, strictly relative or active (as in, > That giant sucking sound, you hear, when you're trying > to read this ****). > > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html > --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What?http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... > --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where?
From: spudnik on 5 Jan 2010 19:08 even more specifically, the collapse of a wave; why would you predict a quantum of light to behave in exactly the same way, as does a wave at the beach, in all respects? the point I have been making, via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that they are working exclusively with matter (although Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." > When a photon is detected, what is being detected is a quantum of > aether. --l'OEuvre! http://w;ym.com
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 19:24
On Jan 5, 7:08 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > even more specifically, > the collapse of a wave; > why would you predict a quantum of light > to behave in exactly the same way, > as does a wave at the beach, in all respects? > Not in all respects, but the analogy is accurate. A photon is a wave in the aether. As a wave it travels the available paths in a double slit experiment, but the photon 'particle' (i.e. the ability of the photon to collapse and be detected as a particle) travels a single path. Please respond to the bottom of a thread as the other poster requested. > the point I have been making, > via Alfven & Cahill's work, is that > they are working exclusively with matter (although > Cahill's is somewhat couched in "dynamical 3-space." > > > When a photon is detected, what is being detected is a quantum of > > aether. > > --l'OEuvre!http://w;ym.com |