Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 10:54 On Dec 17, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 9:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 17, 6:23=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > > >> (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when = > > >it > > >> actually refutes it!) > > >"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" > > > Note they describe the light as travelling at w, not c, because the speed > > of light in a non-vacuum is not c. Therefore the usual speed comparisons > > apply, you have to compare the speed w to _something_. It certainly > > makes sense to base the speed of light in (constantly moving) water to > > the frame of the water where the water is stationary. > > > Also, Einstein explicitly disproved your claim, W = w + v. I see > > you didn't (couldn't) address that. > > > >The above sentence means says the light is traveling relative to the > > >water. > > > Aha! > > > Well, since your misinterpretation of Fizeau's Experiment is why you > > insist on having all that water around, and the whole basis of Fizeau's > > Experiment is that water (and other substances) slow light, it is relevant > > the speed of light in water is /not/ c, but w (which is equal to c/n, where > > n is ~1.33 for water). > > > So, you have to redo everything in _all_ your posts with the speed of > > light as w (~0.75 c), it'll take light 1.33 years to go from the rear > > to the front of your 1 light year long train, if it's filled with water.. > > Now, let's calculate what happens with our 1 ly long train, travelling at > > 0.25 * c. u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) with v (speed of train) = 0.25 c and > > w (speed of light in water) = 0.75, we get u ~= 0.84 c. (and about 0.61 c > > if the light is going against the motion of the train) The light in the > > train, in this case, does go faster than the light alongside the train, > > but there is no contradiction as it's now Lorenz-transform speed addition, > > and nothing ever exceeds c. Also, if we repeat this with, instead of water, > > a substance with n=1 (such as the vacuum), we get w=c, and the speed of > > light in the train (as seen by the embankment) = u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) = > > (0.25c + *c)/(1+(0.25c * c)/c^2) = 1.25c/1.25 = c. Therefore, the speed > > of light is c in all frames. > > > Maybe tomorrow I'll calculate what the fish in WaterWorld see when > > their WaterTrain passes by at 0.25 c, calculating that their index of > > refraction is 1.33 for water. Or, maybe not. > > > But none of this affects whether train passenger M' in air (vacuum) > > see the strikes A' and B' simultaneously or not, this is no longer > > Einstein's gedanken experiment, not with all that water around. > > > I'm glad we got that cleared up. > > You didn't answer the question. > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes > occur at A/A' and B/B'. > > Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel > from A and B to M'? The light travels from A and B to M'. Why is this not frame jumping? It is not frame jumping because we know the state of the water the light propagates through. If the aether is at rest relative to the embankment, where does the light travel from to M'? The light travels from A and B to M'. Why is this not frame jumping? It is not frame jumping because we know the state of the aether the light propagates through. If we don't know the state of the aether, then does the light travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M'? No, of course not. It just means we do not know the state of the aether. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 11:00 On Dec 17, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 9:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 17, 6:23=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > > >> (it makes me laugh when a crank claims a website supports his claim when = > > >it > > >> actually refutes it!) > > >"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" > > > Note they describe the light as travelling at w, not c, because the speed > > of light in a non-vacuum is not c. Therefore the usual speed comparisons > > apply, you have to compare the speed w to _something_. It certainly > > makes sense to base the speed of light in (constantly moving) water to > > the frame of the water where the water is stationary. > > > Also, Einstein explicitly disproved your claim, W = w + v. I see > > you didn't (couldn't) address that. > > > >The above sentence means says the light is traveling relative to the > > >water. > > > Aha! > > > Well, since your misinterpretation of Fizeau's Experiment is why you > > insist on having all that water around, and the whole basis of Fizeau's > > Experiment is that water (and other substances) slow light, it is relevant > > the speed of light in water is /not/ c, but w (which is equal to c/n, where > > n is ~1.33 for water). > > > So, you have to redo everything in _all_ your posts with the speed of > > light as w (~0.75 c), it'll take light 1.33 years to go from the rear > > to the front of your 1 light year long train, if it's filled with water.. > > Now, let's calculate what happens with our 1 ly long train, travelling at > > 0.25 * c. u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) with v (speed of train) = 0.25 c and > > w (speed of light in water) = 0.75, we get u ~= 0.84 c. (and about 0.61 c > > if the light is going against the motion of the train) The light in the > > train, in this case, does go faster than the light alongside the train, > > but there is no contradiction as it's now Lorenz-transform speed addition, > > and nothing ever exceeds c. Also, if we repeat this with, instead of water, > > a substance with n=1 (such as the vacuum), we get w=c, and the speed of > > light in the train (as seen by the embankment) = u = (v+w)/(1+v*w/c^2) = > > (0.25c + *c)/(1+(0.25c * c)/c^2) = 1.25c/1.25 = c. Therefore, the speed > > of light is c in all frames. > > > Maybe tomorrow I'll calculate what the fish in WaterWorld see when > > their WaterTrain passes by at 0.25 c, calculating that their index of > > refraction is 1.33 for water. Or, maybe not. > > > But none of this affects whether train passenger M' in air (vacuum) > > see the strikes A' and B' simultaneously or not, this is no longer > > Einstein's gedanken experiment, not with all that water around. > > > I'm glad we got that cleared up. > > You didn't answer the question. > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes > occur at A/A' and B/B'. > > Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel > from A and B to M'? The light travels from A and B to M'. Why is this not frame jumping? It is not frame jumping because we know the state of the water the light propagates through. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, where does the light travel from to M'? The light travels from A and B to M'. Why is this not frame jumping? It is not frame jumping because we know the state of the aether the light propagates through. If we don't know the state of the aether, then does the light travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M'? Of course not. It just means we do not know the state of the aether. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Dec 2009 14:00 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >You didn't answer the question. >The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes >occur at A/A' and B/B'. >Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel >from A and B to M'? This is regarding Einstein's original train thought experiment. Your version has mutated into meaninglessness. M sees A and B, since M/A/B are all one reference frame, the embankment. M' sees A' and B' since all of them are another reference frame, the train. Any attempt for M to reference A' or B', or M' to reference A or B is frame jumping. They can deduce what is happening but cannot see it. An audio version makes a good example. If I (M) am waiting at a crossing and the train blows its whistle (A) when approaching, the whistle sound will be heard as increased in frequency due to the doppler effect. After it passes I'll hear it as decreased in frequency since it's now receding. If you wish, imagine a train with whistles at both ends (A and B), and it blows them when the middle of the train passes M. One whistle will be an increased pitch since it approaches, the other a decreased pitch since it recedes. Someone (M') on the train will hear the whistles A' and B' at a constant frequency at all times. He cannot observe the frequency shift of whistles A and B the way M does, A and B are not in his reference frame. Now, your Water World train no longer interests me since it's too far removed from Einstein's gedanken experiment to be useful, as the light in the water has slowed below c, and now subject to Lorenz velocity addition rules. Call them anything you want, perhaps call M the front of the train and M' the penny some kid put on a rail to be flattened by the train.
From: glird on 18 Dec 2009 15:20 > On Dec 17, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 1:03 pm, papar wrote: > > > On 17 dic, 14:59, mpc755 wrote: > > > >On Dec 17, 1:21 pm, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:54 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" wrote: ><<<< The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at B/B'. 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 any 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? {HE DID.} b) Since at time t1, the light 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? {IT'S TRUE.} c) From (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? {AS EINSTEIN SHOWED IN HIS 1905 PAPER, IT'S TRUE.} >>> > ><< The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at B/B'. 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'? > Since there were TWO lightning strikes "in the water"; one at A and another at B, that question is meaningless. >< Since no one is able to answer this question, I {mpc} will have to answer it. 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. > Please pardon me for "correcting" you, mpc, but i think you meant to say something like this: Since the light waves associated with the lightning strikes are traveling relative to the water which is at rest relative to the embankment; in order to determine how far the light traveled from A to M' the Observer at M' measures the distance between him and A when the first ray reaches him at a time t'A, and in order to determine how far the light traveled from B to M', he measures the distance between him and B when the second ray reaches him at the time t'B. Either way, as Einstein showed in his 1905 paper's equations, the two rays would NOT reach the moving observer at the same time, as plotted by synchronous clocks of the stationary system. glird
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 17:03
On Dec 18, 2:00 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >You didn't answer the question. > >The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes > >occur at A/A' and B/B'. > >Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or does the light travel > >from A and B to M'? > > This is regarding Einstein's original train thought experiment. Your > version has mutated into meaninglessness. > > M sees A and B, since M/A/B are all one reference frame, the embankment. > M' sees A' and B' since all of them are another reference frame, the train. > Any attempt for M to reference A' or B', or M' to reference A or B is > frame jumping. They can deduce what is happening but cannot see it. > > An audio version makes a good example. If I (M) am waiting at a crossing > and the train blows its whistle (A) when approaching, the whistle sound > will be heard as increased in frequency due to the doppler effect. After > it passes I'll hear it as decreased in frequency since it's now receding. > > If you wish, imagine a train with whistles at both ends (A and B), and it > blows them when the middle of the train passes M. One whistle will be > an increased pitch since it approaches, the other a decreased pitch since > it recedes. > > Someone (M') on the train will hear the whistles A' and B' at a constant > frequency at all times. He cannot observe the frequency shift of whistles > A and B the way M does, A and B are not in his reference frame. > > Now, your Water World train no longer interests me since it's too far > removed from Einstein's gedanken experiment to be useful, as the > light in the water has slowed below c, and now subject to Lorenz velocity > addition rules. Call them anything you want, perhaps call M the front of > the train and M' the penny some kid put on a rail to be flattened by the > train. My animation is correct for light from A and B reaching M and for light from A' and B' reaching M' when the medium is at rest in regards to A, B, and M and the medium is at rest in regards to A', B', and M'. |