Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 20:09 On Dec 18, 6:32 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> 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'.. > > >> How does it compare with > > >> The Mechanical Universe series. > >> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > >> 42. The Lorentz Transformation > >> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > >> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > >> depends on who measures it. > > > There is definitely something going on between the rate at which > > clocks 'tick' and the clock's interaction with the aether, and there > > may be some length contraction as stuff moves through varying degrees > > of aether pressure, but my gut tells me length contraction and time > > dilation are cop-outs. > > > An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the > > aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed. > > Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain > compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted > by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. You're correct. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation "Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the lower the gravitational potential (closer to the center of a massive object), the more slowly clocks run." The greater the aether pressure on the atom the closer to the gravitational potential, the slower it oscillates.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Dec 2009 20:24 On 12/18/09 7:09 PM, mpc755 wrote: > On Dec 18, 6:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >>>>> 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'. >> >>>> How does it compare with >> >>>> The Mechanical Universe series. >>>> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html >> >>>> 42. The Lorentz Transformation >>>> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then >>>> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, >>>> depends on who measures it. >> >>> There is definitely something going on between the rate at which >>> clocks 'tick' and the clock's interaction with the aether, and there >>> may be some length contraction as stuff moves through varying degrees >>> of aether pressure, but my gut tells me length contraction and time >>> dilation are cop-outs. >> >>> An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the >>> aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed. >> >> Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain >> compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted >> by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. > > You're correct. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation > > "Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at > different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the > lower the gravitational potential (closer to the center of a massive > object), the more slowly clocks run." > > The greater the aether pressure on the atom the closer to the > gravitational potential, the slower it oscillates. What you said in your provious post was bullshit and now reversing yourself in this post with more bullshit. Did you watch the 30 minute Mechanical Universe video? The Mechanical Universe series. http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html 42. The Lorentz Transformation If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, depends on who measures it.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 20:35 On Dec 18, 8:24 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/18/09 7:09 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 18, 6:32 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> 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'. > > >>>> How does it compare with > > >>>> The Mechanical Universe series. > >>>> http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > >>>> 42. The Lorentz Transformation > >>>> If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > >>>> the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > >>>> depends on who measures it. > > >>> There is definitely something going on between the rate at which > >>> clocks 'tick' and the clock's interaction with the aether, and there > >>> may be some length contraction as stuff moves through varying degrees > >>> of aether pressure, but my gut tells me length contraction and time > >>> dilation are cop-outs. > > >>> An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the > >>> aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed.. > > >> Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain > >> compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted > >> by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. > > > You're correct. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation > > > "Gravitational time dilation is the effect of time passing at > > different rates in regions of different gravitational potential; the > > lower the gravitational potential (closer to the center of a massive > > object), the more slowly clocks run." > > > The greater the aether pressure on the atom the closer to the > > gravitational potential, the slower it oscillates. > > What you said in your provious post was bullshit and now reversing > yourself in this post with more bullshit. > > Did you watch the 30 minute Mechanical Universe video? > > The Mechanical Universe series. > http://www.learner.org/resources/series42.html > > 42. The Lorentz Transformation > If the speed of light is to be the same for all observers, then > the length of a meter stick, or the rate of a ticking clock, > depends on who measures it. I was incorrect about time and gravitational time dilation. No, I have not watch the 30 minute Mechanical Universe video. Have you figured out why my animation is correct when the medium is at rest with regards to the train and when the medium is at rest with regards to the embankment, but for some reason considered to be incorrect by SR when there is no medium besides aether? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk What has changed beside there being no medium besides aether in my animation to cause it to go from being correct to incorrect? What has changed is the state of rest of the medium in the animation, which without any other medium is the state of rest of the aether. My animation, and how the outcome changes due to there being no medium at rest with regards to the train and no medium at rest with regards to the embankment is because light travels at 'c' with regards to the aether.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Dec 2009 21:29 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 18, 6:32=A0pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> > On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> =A0wrote: >> >> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: >> >> > An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the >> > aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed. >> >> Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain >> compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted >> by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. >The greater the aether pressure on the atom the closer to the >gravitational potential, the slower it oscillates. This is full-blown kookiness. You give an explanation based on your pet aether theory (less pressure causes it to tick slower), you get told you have it backwards, then you give an explanation of the corrected effect because you now claim your aether has the exact opposite effect (greater pressure causes it to tick slower). In other words, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about, and are probably just making things up as you go along.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 22:03
On Dec 18, 9:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 18, 6:32=A0pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/18/09 4:37 PM, mpc755 wrote: > >> > On Dec 18, 5:19 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> =A0wrote: > >> >> On 12/18/09 4:03 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >> > An atomic clock on top of a mountain will 'tick' slower because the > >> > aether pressure is less and the oscillation will not be as compressed. > > >> Observations show that clock "tick" faster on the top of a mountain > >> compared to clocks at the bottom of the mountain. This was predicted > >> by general relativity and confirmed experimentally. > >The greater the aether pressure on the atom the closer to the > >gravitational potential, the slower it oscillates. > > This is full-blown kookiness. You give an explanation based on your pet > aether theory (less pressure causes it to tick slower), you get told you > have it backwards, then you give an explanation of the corrected effect > because you now claim your aether has the exact opposite effect (greater > pressure causes it to tick slower). In other words, you obviously have no > idea what you're talking about, and are probably just making things up as > you go along. 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'? |