Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: glird on 18 Dec 2009 22:24 On Dec 18, 5:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 18, 3:20 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > Yes, for everything except possibly the t' stuff. I think there is > definitely something going on with the rate at which clocks 'tick' and > their interaction with the aether, but it is a physical interaction. > Clocks 'tick' at different rates due to their respective interaction > with the aether. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do > with time. Time is a concept. > > > 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. > > Why is my animation correct for every medium in terms of the light from A and B reaching M and for the light from A' and B' reaching M' when the medium is at rest with respect to A, B, and M and the medium is at rest with respect to A', B', and M' and why is my animation considered to be incorrect only when there is no medium? > Because it portrays two cases; the top one has light starting at the middle of a vehicle and reaching its two ends simultaneously and so does the bottom one. The reason that it is two cases is that the top vehicle is moving wrt the bottom one. If, as you stipulated, each vehicle is filled with a luminiferous medium at rest therein, then your animation is correct. However, if there is no medium, wherefore -- as present theory opines -- light travels in empty space, then either one or both of your vehicles has to be moving through it. In that case, though, if light initiates at the middle of the moving vehicle there is no way that it could reach both ends simultaneously; and your animation would be wrong. glird
From: Jack on 18 Dec 2009 22:43 If those who insist it is physically possible can generate experimental data substantiating that white light can travel at speed c ±25% outside of a refractory medium, then they will change the scope of modern physics as we know it. But good luck with that.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 22:44 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. This is what I have found incorrect with 42. The Lorentz Transformation video: * The flashes of light with Lorentz and Einstein moving relative to one another. Have the flash of light occur in any medium at rest with respect to Einstein and have the flash of light occur in the same medium at rest with respect to Lorentz. This is what you get: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0HpVcVs1DM If the aether were at rest with respect to Lorentz and if the aether were at rest with respect to Einstein, the above video would correctly reflect the light waves. The sequence of events in the above video with the aether being at rest with respect to M is exactly as described in the Lorentz Transformation video and the sequence of events with the aether being at rest with respect to M' is also exactly as described in the Lorentz Transformation video. The difference between Aether Displacement and the Lorentz Transformation video is the Lorentz Transformation video does not discuss the state of the aether. The Lorentz Transformation video assumes the Lorentz frame of reference and the Einstein frame of reference are equal in all respects. The frames of reference are equal in all respects only if the aether is at rest with respect to Einstein and the aether is at rest with respect to Lorentz. Saying the speed of light is the same for all Observers is not good enough. The speed of light is the same for all Observers with respect to the aether. * You do not 'see' light propagate. If you start the video at 12:00 and stop it at 12:25 you can see one of the biggest misconceptions of light. Einstein does not 'see' the photon associated with Lorentz's clock traveling from one mirror to the next. Einstein does not 'see the light beam traveling a diagonal path.' Albert cannot conclude 'the moving clock runs slow' because he 'sees the light beam traveling a diagonal path', because Albert does not 'see the light beam traveling a diagonal path'. * The reason the Michelson-Morley Experiments 'failed' to detect the aether is because the aether is entrained by the Earth. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "that the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 23:01 On Dec 18, 10:24 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 18, 5:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 18, 3:20 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > Yes, for everything except possibly the t' stuff. I think there is > > definitely something going on with the rate at which clocks 'tick' and > > their interaction with the aether, but it is a physical interaction. > > Clocks 'tick' at different rates due to their respective interaction > > with the aether. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do > > with time. Time is a concept. > > > > 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. > > > Why is my animation correct for every medium in terms of the light from A and B reaching M and for the light from A' and B' reaching M' when the medium is at rest with respect to A, B, and M and the medium > > is at rest with respect to A', B', and M' and why is my animation > considered to be incorrect only when there is no medium? > > > Because it portrays two cases; the top one has light starting at the > middle of a vehicle and reaching its two ends simultaneously and so > does the bottom one. The reason that it is two cases is that the top > vehicle is moving wrt the bottom one. > If, as you stipulated, each vehicle is filled with a luminiferous > medium at rest therein, then your animation is correct. However, if > there is no medium, wherefore -- as present theory opines -- light > travels in empty space, then either one or both of your vehicles has > to be moving through it. In that case, though, if light initiates at > the middle of the moving vehicle there is no way that it could reach > both ends simultaneously; and your animation would be wrong. > > glird Correct. In Einstein's train gedanken, you need to know the state of the aether in order to determine how far the light travels to M and M'. If Einstein's train gedanken is modified to have water at rest with regards to the embankment everything discussed in terms of who sees the light from the lightning strikes when stays the same as from the perspective of the embankment. The only thing which changes is due to knowing the state of the medium in which the light propagates, you know the light travels from A and B to M and the light travels from A and B to M'. If you know the medium is in a state of rest with respect to the embankment you do not measure to A' and B'. You know A' and B' are meaningless in terms of how far the light travels to M'.
From: Sam Wormley on 18 Dec 2009 23:03
On 12/18/09 9:44 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > Saying the speed of light is the same for all Observers is not good > enough. The speed of light is the same for all Observers with respect > to the aether. > You say that "The speed of light is the same for all Observers with respect to the aether". Since is is an observable fact that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. Therefore you are implying that the observer can have no speed with respect to the aether and therefore your aether doesn't have any of the properties you have be going on about for the better part of a year! In fact, most of your postings about aether contradict themselves. It is as though you make this stuff up, but are not smart enough to have any consistency whatsoever. |