Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 11:53 On Dec 17, 11:45 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 dic, 13:03, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 17, 10:57 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative > > to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ > > B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', > > does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? > > > The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the > > lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. > > > The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how > > far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through > > water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect. > > We are still waiting for you to fully understand and explain Einstein > original gedanken and even point out errors or inconsistencies in his > presentation, which in the relevant pharagraph says: > > "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." > > Remember there are only TWO lightning strikes and the train and the > embankment are located in the vacuum of deep space (away from > gravitational effects and, of course without any water). > > Can you explain us why Special Relativity (starting from its two > postulates) implies the relativity of simultaneity, described by this > thought experiment? > > Miguel Rios Your avoidance of answering my very simple question below is evidence I am correct. If the water is at rest relative to the embankment and there is a single lightning strike at A/A' and there is a single lightning strike at B/B', does the Observer at M' measure to A and B or to A' and B' in order to determine how far the light traveled to M'? Since you are unable to answer such a simple question, I will answer it for you: Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect.
From: paparios on 17 Dec 2009 12:21 On 17 dic, 13:53, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 11:45 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 17 dic, 13:03, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 10:57 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative > > > to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ > > > B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', > > > does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? > > > > The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the > > > lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. > > > > The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how > > > far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through > > > water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect. > > > We are still waiting for you to fully understand and explain Einstein > > original gedanken and even point out errors or inconsistencies in his > > presentation, which in the relevant pharagraph says: > > > "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." > > > Remember there are only TWO lightning strikes and the train and the > > embankment are located in the vacuum of deep space (away from > > gravitational effects and, of course without any water). > > > Can you explain us why Special Relativity (starting from its two > > postulates) implies the relativity of simultaneity, described by this > > thought experiment? > > > Miguel Rios > > Your avoidance of answering my very simple question below is evidence > I am correct. > > If the water is at rest relative to the embankment and there is a > single lightning strike at A/A' and there is a single lightning strike > at B/B', does the Observer at M' measure to A and B or to A' and B' in > order to determine how far the light traveled to M'? > > Since you are unable to answer such a simple question, I will answer > it for you: > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative > to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ > B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', > does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? > > The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the > lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. > > The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how > far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through > water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect Well mpc755, several people, including me, have answered your "gedanken" with or without water several times. That you are unable to read, what it is written and explained to you, is your problem and not ours. I even put some math explaining the subject, but you are clearly unable to understand basic arithmetic or geometry and much less physics, so the exercise is pointless. Once again, your simulation video is wrong on multiple counts, but you are totally blind to the reasons given to you. That is your loss!!! Just continue writing "book worthy" pointless and nonsensical "theories" of nothingness! Miguel Rios
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Dec 2009 12:25 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 17, 10:42=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >I knew you would not be able to understand this. >> >> I understand fine. It is you who doesn't understand that your >> theory doesn't make predictions consistent with existing measurements, >> and therefore is automatically wrong. >My theory does make predictions consistent with existing measurements. Which measurement has light travelling from A to B at 1.25 * c by "riding" an object moving at 0.25 * c in that frame of reference? >What you are doing which is incorrect is you are tying the lightning >strike to a point in three dimensional space which is meaningless. That's how Einstein laid out his thought experiment! Go back and read it if you don't understand it. >Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative >to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ >B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', >does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? A and A' are the same point when the lightning strikes. B and B' are the same point. The prime just determines which reference frame it is. >The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the >lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. Experiments contradict this. Which part of "Automatically Wrong" don't you understand? >The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how >far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through >water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect. What's this fascination with water? We're talking about electromagnetic radiation, not water waves or even sound.
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 12:30 On Dec 17, 12:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 17, 10:42=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >I knew you would not be able to understand this. > > >> I understand fine. It is you who doesn't understand that your > >> theory doesn't make predictions consistent with existing measurements, > >> and therefore is automatically wrong. > >My theory does make predictions consistent with existing measurements. > > Which measurement has light travelling from A to B at 1.25 * c by "riding" > an object moving at 0.25 * c in that frame of reference? > > >What you are doing which is incorrect is you are tying the lightning > >strike to a point in three dimensional space which is meaningless. > > That's how Einstein laid out his thought experiment! Go back and read > it if you don't understand it. > > >Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative > >to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ > >B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', > >does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? > > A and A' are the same point when the lightning strikes. B and B' are the > same point. The prime just determines which reference frame it is. > > >The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the > >lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. > > Experiments contradict this. Which part of "Automatically Wrong" don't > you understand? > > >The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how > >far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through > >water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect. > > What's this fascination with water? We're talking about electromagnetic > radiation, not water waves or even sound. I'm talking about light waves traveling though water. There is a single LIGHTNING STRIKE at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE at B/B'. The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order to determine how far the LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B', or does the Observer at M' measure to A and B in order to determine how far the LIGHT travels to M'?
From: paparios on 17 Dec 2009 12:54
On 17 dic, 14:30, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 12:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 17, 10:42=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >> >I knew you would not be able to understand this. > > > >> I understand fine. It is you who doesn't understand that your > > >> theory doesn't make predictions consistent with existing measurements, > > >> and therefore is automatically wrong. > > >My theory does make predictions consistent with existing measurements. > > > Which measurement has light travelling from A to B at 1.25 * c by "riding" > > an object moving at 0.25 * c in that frame of reference? > > > >What you are doing which is incorrect is you are tying the lightning > > >strike to a point in three dimensional space which is meaningless. > > > That's how Einstein laid out his thought experiment! Go back and read > > it if you don't understand it. > > > >Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the water is at rest relative > > >to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and B/ > > >B'. When determining how far the light travels to the Observer at M', > > >does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B' or to A and B? > > > A and A' are the same point when the lightning strikes. B and B' are the > > same point. The prime just determines which reference frame it is. > > > >The Observer at M' on the train measures to A and B and determines the > > >lightning strikes were simultaneous just like the Observer at M does. > > > Experiments contradict this. Which part of "Automatically Wrong" don't > > you understand? > > > >The Observer at M' measuring to A' and B' in order to determine how > > >far the light traveled to reach M' when the light is traveling through > > >water which is at rest relative to the embankment is incorrect. > > > What's this fascination with water? We're talking about electromagnetic > > radiation, not water waves or even sound. > > I'm talking about light waves traveling though water. > > There is a single LIGHTNING STRIKE at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING > STRIKE at B/B'. The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Where > does the Observer at M' measure to in order to determine how far the > LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' measure to A' and B', or does > the Observer at M' measure to A and B in order to determine how far > the LIGHT travels to M'? Observer M' is passing by the location of observer M, at time t0. M' is moving at a speed v, relative to observer M, on the direction of x. All this is happening in deep space, without an gravitational mass (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along x. Question: a) Since observer M', in the interval of time (t1-t0) has already moved towards the source of the light signal B, did he observe the light signal coming from B before observer M, or did he not? b) Since at time t1, the ligth signal coming from point A is at the location of observer M, is it true that the light signal coming from point A has some travel to do to arrive to the location of observer M', or is it not true? c) From (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will declare that he received two non simultaneous light signals (first the ligt signal from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is it not true? Miguel Rios |