Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 15:20 On Dec 17, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur > at A/A' and B/B' in the water. Since the light waves associated with > the lightning strikes are traveling relative to the water which is at > rest relative to the embankment, the Observer at M' measures to A and > B in order to determine how far the light traveled to M'. > > With the water being at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to > A' and B' is meaningless. Fish live at the bottom of a lake. They either do not realize they exist in water or they are adamant water does not exist. One fish is standing on an embankment. Another fish is standing on a flat bed car of a moving train. A single lightning strike occurs at A/A' and a single lightning strike occurs at B/B' on the train and on the embankment at the bottom of the lake. Because we are smart and open-minded, we know the light from the lightning strike travels relative to the water. We know the light travels from A to both M and M' and we know the light travels from B to both M and M'. We know the marks made at A' and B' are meaningless in terms of how far the light travels to M'. The fish are adamant the light travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A' and B' to M'? Who's right? In SR, the fish are right because all you have to do is not realize you exist in water, or refuse to believe in water and you can measure to whatever you want to. Just because the fish do not realize the light propagates relative to the water, doesn't mean the light does not propagate relative to the water.
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 15:30 On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >Water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur > >at A/A' and B/B' in the water. Since the light waves associated with > >the lightning strikes are traveling relative to the water which is at > >rest relative to the embankment, the Observer at M' measures to A and > >B in order to determine how far the light traveled to M'. > >With the water being at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to > >A' and B' is meaningless. > > Frame jumping. Flunk. Frame jumping, with water? Are you serious? You're trying to tell me, even though the water is at rest relative to the embankment, in the train frame of reference, the light still travels from A' and B' to M'? You're trying to tell me a modified Einstein train gedanken where water is at rest relative to the embankment makes no difference in the outcome of where the light traveled from to M'? 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." If we assume the water to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' is downright incorrect. Flunk.
From: paparios on 17 Dec 2009 15:35 On 17 dic, 17:20, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur > > at A/A' and B/B' in the water. Since the light waves associated with > > the lightning strikes are traveling relative to the water which is at > > rest relative to the embankment, the Observer at M' measures to A and > > B in order to determine how far the light traveled to M'. > > > With the water being at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to > > A' and B' is meaningless. > > Fish live at the bottom of a lake. They either do not realize they > exist in water or they are adamant water does not exist. > > One fish is standing on an embankment. Another fish is standing on a > flat bed car of a moving train. > > A single lightning strike occurs at A/A' and a single lightning strike > occurs at B/B' on the train and on the embankment at the bottom of the > lake. > > Because we are smart and open-minded, we know the light from the > lightning strike travels relative to the water. We know the light > travels from A to both M and M' and we know the light travels from B > to both M and M'. We know the marks made at A' and B' are meaningless > in terms of how far the light travels to M'. > > The fish are adamant the light travels from A and B to M and the light > travels from A' and B' to M'? > > Who's right? In SR, the fish are right because all you have to do is > not realize you exist in water, or refuse to believe in water and you > can measure to whatever you want to. > > Just because the fish do not realize the light propagates relative to > the water, doesn't mean the light does not propagate relative to the > water. Incorrect!!!. What Special Relativity indicates is the following: 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 any gravitational mass (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along the coordinate x. Questions: 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? ANSWER: YES BECAUSE OBSERVER M' IS "hastening towards the beam of light coming from B". 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 yet some travel to do to arrive to the location of observer M', or is it not true? ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE! OBSERVER M' is "riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A". c) From observations (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will declare that he received two non simultaneous light signals (first the light signal from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is it not true? ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE. BOTH OBSERVERs DISAGREE ON THE SIMULTANEITY OF THE STRIKES. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 15:39 On Dec 17, 3:35 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 dic, 17:20, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur > > > at A/A' and B/B' in the water. Since the light waves associated with > > > the lightning strikes are traveling relative to the water which is at > > > rest relative to the embankment, the Observer at M' measures to A and > > > B in order to determine how far the light traveled to M'. > > > > With the water being at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to > > > A' and B' is meaningless. > > > Fish live at the bottom of a lake. They either do not realize they > > exist in water or they are adamant water does not exist. > > > One fish is standing on an embankment. Another fish is standing on a > > flat bed car of a moving train. > > > A single lightning strike occurs at A/A' and a single lightning strike > > occurs at B/B' on the train and on the embankment at the bottom of the > > lake. > > > Because we are smart and open-minded, we know the light from the > > lightning strike travels relative to the water. We know the light > > travels from A to both M and M' and we know the light travels from B > > to both M and M'. We know the marks made at A' and B' are meaningless > > in terms of how far the light travels to M'. > > > The fish are adamant the light travels from A and B to M and the light > > travels from A' and B' to M'? > > > Who's right? In SR, the fish are right because all you have to do is > > not realize you exist in water, or refuse to believe in water and you > > can measure to whatever you want to. > > > Just because the fish do not realize the light propagates relative to > > the water, doesn't mean the light does not propagate relative to the > > water. > > Incorrect!!!. What Special Relativity indicates is the following: > > 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 any gravitational mass > (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous > light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along the > coordinate x. > > Questions: > 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? > ANSWER: YES BECAUSE OBSERVER M' IS "hastening towards the beam of > light coming from B". > > 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 yet some travel to do to arrive to the location of > observer M', or is it not true? > ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE! OBSERVER M' is "riding on ahead of the beam of > light coming from A". > > c) From observations (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will > declare that he received two non simultaneous light signals (first the > light signal from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is > it not true? > ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE. BOTH OBSERVERs DISAGREE ON THE SIMULTANEITY OF > THE STRIKES. > > Miguel Rios Yes, I realize your understanding of nature is on a par with the fish.
From: mcmvarney on 17 Dec 2009 16:36
On Dec 17, 1:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, I realize your understanding of nature is on a par with the fish. Oh... hello little crackpot. My my, you sure are a noisy crank. Are you trying to take up the banner of all the prior anti-relativity cranks before you? It is so wonderful to come back to s.p and see what new crackpots have been spawned. Who is your mommy and daddy little crank? Are you a cross of traveler and Androginies? Or did Hanson spew his seed far and wide, to be carried by the current to the nearest crank egg cluster clinging to the underside of some rock? Well little crank, you are a bit small, so I will practice some catch and release and come back when you are a little bigger. *smirk* |