Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 15 Dec 2009 21:46 On Dec 15, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > reference? > > > No. > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > simultaneously? > > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the > > > lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of > > > reference? > > > Yes. > > > > The answer to both of the above is yes. > > > No. > > > You are apparently having difficulty with either what is actually > > observed in experiment, or what the set up of the train and embankment > > scenario is. > > I am talking about my animation. In my animation there are two > separate frames of reference. > > > > > > If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in > > > their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face. > > > Frames of reference don't live in confined regions of 3-dimensional > > space. They overlap completely. All of 3-dimensional space lives in > > every frame of reference. > > The reason the frames of reference are separated in three dimensional > space in my animation is to make it easier to comprehend the aether > being at rest relative to each frame of reference. > > I know this is pointless in discussing with you, but for others who > may be open minded, the point of the animation is to show the aether > being at rest relative to each frame of reference and how light > travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > Once this concept is understood, by those how have an open mind, then > I can move on to discussing Einstein's train thought experiment and > how measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is arbitrary. > > > Perhaps you didn't understand what a frame of reference is? > > What is occurring is you don't really pay much attention to these > threads. Just look at your first response in this thread when I made > the joke about the 'President of physics'. You hadn't even looked at > the webcartoon but already had responses. > > For anyone else how has an open mind, here is the deal. In my > animation there are two distinct and separate frames of reference. The > aether is at rest in each frame of reference. That is why the light is > able to travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' and for all > of the light from the four lightning strikes to reach M and M' > simultaneously. Because the light is traveling at 'c' relative to the > aether. This is NOT emission/emitter theory. > > The next step, if I was able to ever get there by having a > conversation with anyone, would be to describe how Einstein's train > thought experiment is inaccurate. In Einstein's train thought > experiment, the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > reference both occupy the same three dimensional space. The aether > cannot be at rest relative to the train AND at rest relative to the > embankment. This means having M measure to A and B and having M' > measure to A' and B' is fundamentally flawed. Measuring to the marks > made by the lightning strikes is an approximation of where the light > travels from. In order to know exactly where the light travels from in > three dimensional space, you have to know how the light travels from > the lightning strikes relative to the aether. In other words, in Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether is at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to the marks on the train at A' and B' is incorrect. If the aether is at rest relative to the embankment, the light travels from B to M' and the light travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A to M'. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether is at rest relative to the train, then the marks on the embankment at A and B are meaningless. If the aether is at rest relative to the train, the light travels from A' to M and the light travels from A' and B' to M' and the light travels from B' to M. Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 15 Dec 2009 23:18 On Dec 15, 9:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 6:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > reference? > > > > No. > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > simultaneously? > > > > > If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the > > > > lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of > > > > reference? > > > > Yes. > > > > > The answer to both of the above is yes. > > > > No. > > > > You are apparently having difficulty with either what is actually > > > observed in experiment, or what the set up of the train and embankment > > > scenario is. > > > I am talking about my animation. In my animation there are two > > separate frames of reference. > > > > > If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in > > > > their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face. > > > > Frames of reference don't live in confined regions of 3-dimensional > > > space. They overlap completely. All of 3-dimensional space lives in > > > every frame of reference. > > > The reason the frames of reference are separated in three dimensional > > space in my animation is to make it easier to comprehend the aether > > being at rest relative to each frame of reference. > > > I know this is pointless in discussing with you, but for others who > > may be open minded, the point of the animation is to show the aether > > being at rest relative to each frame of reference and how light > > travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > > Once this concept is understood, by those how have an open mind, then > > I can move on to discussing Einstein's train thought experiment and > > how measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is arbitrary. > > > > Perhaps you didn't understand what a frame of reference is? > > > What is occurring is you don't really pay much attention to these > > threads. Just look at your first response in this thread when I made > > the joke about the 'President of physics'. You hadn't even looked at > > the webcartoon but already had responses. > > > For anyone else how has an open mind, here is the deal. In my > > animation there are two distinct and separate frames of reference. The > > aether is at rest in each frame of reference. That is why the light is > > able to travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' and for all > > of the light from the four lightning strikes to reach M and M' > > simultaneously. Because the light is traveling at 'c' relative to the > > aether. This is NOT emission/emitter theory. > > > The next step, if I was able to ever get there by having a > > conversation with anyone, would be to describe how Einstein's train > > thought experiment is inaccurate. In Einstein's train thought > > experiment, the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > > reference both occupy the same three dimensional space. The aether > > cannot be at rest relative to the train AND at rest relative to the > > embankment. This means having M measure to A and B and having M' > > measure to A' and B' is fundamentally flawed. Measuring to the marks > > made by the lightning strikes is an approximation of where the light > > travels from. In order to know exactly where the light travels from in > > three dimensional space, you have to know how the light travels from > > the lightning strikes relative to the aether. > > In other words, in Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether > is at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to the marks on the > train at A' and B' is incorrect. If the aether is at rest relative to > the embankment, the light travels from B to M' and the light travels > from A and B to M and the light travels from A to M'. > > In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether is at rest > relative to the train, then the marks on the embankment at A and B are > meaningless. If the aether is at rest relative to the train, the light > travels from A' to M and the light travels from A' and B' to M' and > the light travels from B' to M. > > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. Light from lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously as determined by the Observer at M'. Light from lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously as determined by the Observer at M. It just so happens that the lightning strikes occurred as pictured in my animation. Which Observer is incorrect?
From: Michael Moroney on 15 Dec 2009 23:22 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >If we change the image to just consist of A', B' and M', then my >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light >propagating outward from the lightning strikes at A' and B'. The light >from the lightning strikes at A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously. It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike A' and B' in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an observer at M'. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of strikes. >If we change the image to just consist of A, B, and M, then my >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light >propagating outward from the lightnings strikes at A and B. The light >from the lightning strikes at A and B would reach M simultaneously. It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike A and B in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an observer at M. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of strikes. What you _can't_ do is to come up with a set of strikes where the strike at A is the same as the strike at A', AND the strike at B is the same as the strike at B'. Well, you can come up with a set of 3 strikes where A and A' are the same strike, but (for nonzero v), if that happens, B and B' must be different. So the best you can do is come up with a triplet of strikes A/B/C, where M sees A and B as simultaneous and M' sees A and C as simultaneous. The reason your animation doesn't work is you have light travelling simultaneously at c and c+v in one direction (in the A/B/M frame) and simultaneously at c and c-v in the other direction.
From: mpc755 on 15 Dec 2009 23:31 On Dec 15, 11:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >If we change the image to just consist of A', B' and M', then my > >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light > >propagating outward from the lightning strikes at A' and B'. The light > >from the lightning strikes at A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously. > > It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike > A' and B' in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an > observer at M'. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of > strikes. > > >If we change the image to just consist of A, B, and M, then my > >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light > >propagating outward from the lightnings strikes at A and B. The light > >from the lightning strikes at A and B would reach M simultaneously. > > It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike > A and B in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an > observer at M. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of > strikes. > > What you _can't_ do is to come up with a set of strikes where the strike > at A is the same as the strike at A', AND the strike at B is the same as > the strike at B'. Well, you can come up with a set of 3 strikes where > A and A' are the same strike, but (for nonzero v), if that happens, > B and B' must be different. So the best you can do is come up with > a triplet of strikes A/B/C, where M sees A and B as simultaneous and M' > sees A and C as simultaneous. > > The reason your animation doesn't work is you have light travelling > simultaneously at c and c+v in one direction (in the A/B/M frame) > and simultaneously at c and c-v in the other direction. Incorrect. The light in my animation, in terms of the light which 'stays in the frame of reference', is always traveling at 'c' relative to the aether. In my animation, the aether in the train frame of reference is at rest relative to the train. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether on the train from A' and B' to M'. In my animation, the aether in the embankment frame of reference is at rest relative to the embankment. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether on the embankment from A and B to M.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 00:25
On Dec 15, 11:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 11:22 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >If we change the image to just consist of A', B' and M', then my > > >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light > > >propagating outward from the lightning strikes at A' and B'. The light > > >from the lightning strikes at A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously. > > > It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike > > A' and B' in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an > > observer at M'. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of > > strikes. > > > >If we change the image to just consist of A, B, and M, then my > > >animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light > > >propagating outward from the lightnings strikes at A and B. The light > > >from the lightning strikes at A and B would reach M simultaneously. > > > It is true that you can find a pair of lightning strikes that strike > > A and B in such a way that they will appear simultaneous to an > > observer at M. In fact there is an infinite set of such pairs of > > strikes. > > > What you _can't_ do is to come up with a set of strikes where the strike > > at A is the same as the strike at A', AND the strike at B is the same as > > the strike at B'. Well, you can come up with a set of 3 strikes where > > A and A' are the same strike, but (for nonzero v), if that happens, > > B and B' must be different. So the best you can do is come up with > > a triplet of strikes A/B/C, where M sees A and B as simultaneous and M' > > sees A and C as simultaneous. > > > The reason your animation doesn't work is you have light travelling > > simultaneously at c and c+v in one direction (in the A/B/M frame) > > and simultaneously at c and c-v in the other direction. > > Incorrect. The light in my animation, in terms of the light which > 'stays in the frame of reference', is always traveling at 'c' relative > to the aether. > > In my animation, the aether in the train frame of reference is at rest > relative to the train. The light travels at 'c' relative to the aether > on the train from A' and B' to M'. > > In my animation, the aether in the embankment frame of reference is at > rest relative to the embankment. The light travels at 'c' relative to > the aether on the embankment from A and B to M. It's obvious I am not going to convince you my concept of light traveling at 'c' relative to the aether is correct, so I will leave this discussion with this. All there is is a train. Light from A' and B' reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. All there is is an embankment. Light from A and B reaches the Observer at M simultaneously. In relativity, the train frame of reference moving relative to the embankment frame of reference should not change the above outcomes. If something changes in the above outcomes because one frame of reference is moving relative to the other, then something is not relative. |