Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 16:50 On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, "mcmvar...(a)gmail.com" <mcmvar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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* I am not anti-relativity. Einstein's train gadenken is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. I realize you are like the fish in the lake who doesn't realize it exists in water.
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Dec 2009 17:46 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 17, 3:06=A0pm, 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? Frame jumping because you have M' referring to A and B. There is the unprimed frame (the embankment) with A B and M, and the primed frame (the train) with A' B' and M'. The letters with and without the primes are the same point (re M and M' we can ignore the small right angle distance between the platform and train that would exist in a real train, but real trains don't go at 0.25 c...) M sees A and B. M' sees A' and B'. M' can't see A and B, it's in a different frame. He could figure out what he would have seen, by seeing A' and B'. Frame jumping is a common problem when trying to figure out relativity gedanken experiments. And get rid of the stupid water. >'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." He's wrestling with the idea that the aether doesn't exist.
From: Androcles on 17 Dec 2009 17:53 <mcmvarney(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:18b565ca-6e86-4003-ad85-70a39ef78681(a)q18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... 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* =============================================== When did you ever leave, dumbfuck? Aren't you clones of "Nobody", "Inertial" and all things putrid, "physicist" Varney?
From: mpc755 on 17 Dec 2009 18:00 On Dec 17, 5:46 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 17, 3:06=A0pm, 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? > > Frame jumping because you have M' referring to A and B. There is > the unprimed frame (the embankment) with A B and M, and the primed > frame (the train) with A' B' and M'. The letters with and without > the primes are the same point (re M and M' we can ignore the small right > angle distance between the platform and train that would exist in a > real train, but real trains don't go at 0.25 c...) > > M sees A and B. M' sees A' and B'. M' can't see A and B, it's in a > different frame. He could figure out what he would have seen, by seeing > A' and B'. > > Frame jumping is a common problem when trying to figure out relativity > gedanken experiments. > > And get rid of the stupid water. > The whole point I am trying to make is due to the water. Einstein on Fizeau's Experiment http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonFizeau.html "Einstein, in his popular book on relativity (Relativity: the special and the general theory, 1st ed., 1916; English translation, Three Rivers Press, 1961), refers to this experiment, and analyzes its results as follows: In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. " The water is at rest relative to the embankment. The lightning strikes are at A/A' and at B/B' in the water. Since the water is at rest relative to the embankment, the marks at A' and B' are meaningless when discussing where the light travels from to M'. BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER WHICH IS AT REST RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT THE LIGHT TRAVELS FROM A AND B 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." > > He's wrestling with the idea that the aether doesn't exist. No, he is struggling with the idea that he really can't have K and K' be physically equal, so he punts and say motion cannot be applied to the aether. Now, I know you are struggling with this, but the whole point I am trying to make right now is due to the light wave TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER. 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. So, the water is at rest relative to the embankment. The light is traveling through the water which is at rest relative to the embankment and you are still insisting the light WHICH IS TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER travels from A' and B' to M'. That is incorrect. Since the water is at rest relative to the embankment, the light waves WHICH ARE TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER, travel from A and B to M'.
From: Michael Moroney on 17 Dec 2009 18:23
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >> And get rid of the stupid water. >The whole point I am trying to make is due to the water. >Einstein on Fizeau's Experiment >http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonFizeau.html .... >BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS TRAVELING THROUGH THE WATER WHICH IS AT REST >RELATIVE TO THE EMBANKMENT THE LIGHT TRAVELS FROM A AND B TO M'. Note that Einstein here REFUTES what you claim, W = w + v (W = total speed of light in moving water, w = speed of light in water [less than c due to optical properties of water] and v = velocity of water) and Fizeau's Experiment agrees with an approximation of the Lorenz Transform W = (w + v) / (1 + wv/cc). If you plug in c for w, you'll get W=c, meaning the speed of light is constant no matter what speed v you compare it to. (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when it actually refutes it!) |