Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 23:13 On Dec 18, 11:03 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No, I am not implying the observer can have no speed with respect to the aether. Yes, the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers. The mistake you are making is tying the origination point of the flash of light to a point in three dimensional space relative to the destination. The train if full of water. A flash occurs at the back of the train. An Observer at the front of the train and an Observer on the embankment standing right next to the Observer on the train both see the light from the flash when the two Observers are standing as close to one another as possible. Has the light traveled the same distance to both Observers? Yes, because the light is traveling relative to the water. Where the flash occurred in three dimensional space with respect to the embankment frame of reference is meaningless.
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Dec 2009 23:25 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >> 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. You didn't answer the question. Do you make up your so-called theory as you go along, are you simply clueless or are you just another relativity k00k?
From: PD on 18 Dec 2009 23:26 On Dec 16, 4:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 4:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > > > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > > > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > > > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > > > > > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > > > > > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > > > > > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > > > > > determined by an Observer at M. > > > > > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > > > > > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > > > > > regions of three dimensional space: > > > > > You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario > > > > that Einstein was proposing. > > > > In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. > > > > > And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in > > > > isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression > > > > that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment > > > > frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of > > > > reference is. > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > > > > > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > > > > > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > > > > > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. > > > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning > > > > strikes, not four. > > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario? > > > > You mean in Einstein's train and embankment scenario. > > > > I'm saying the SR interpretation of my animation where there are four > > > lightning strikes. > > > Your animation -- which has the strikes at A' and B' occurring > > simultaneously in the rest frame of A, B, and M -- also has the light > > from those strikes arriving at M' simultaneously. This does not happen > > in nature, experimentally. > > Incorrect. not according to experiment. If you think experiment is incorrect you have another problem. >If you perform the experiment where water is at rest > relative to the embankment and water is at rest relative to the train > and the embankment and the train occupy different regions of three > dimensional space, then my animation is correct. It doesn't matter how > close the train is to the embankment, as long as the water is at rest > relative to both the train and the embankment, the light from A and B > will reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' will reach M' > simultaneously, in nature. > > Now, if you remove the water and the aether were at rest relative to > the train and the aether were at rest relative to the embankment, the > light from A and B will reach M simultaneously and the light from A' > and B' will reach M' simultaneously, in nature.
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 23:28 On Dec 18, 11:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> 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. > > You didn't answer the question. Do you make up your so-called theory as > you go along, are you simply clueless or are you just another relativity > k00k? 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'?
From: mpc755 on 18 Dec 2009 23:35
On Dec 18, 11:26 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 4:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 4:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > > > > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > > > > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > > > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > > > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > > > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > > > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > > > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > > > > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > > > > > > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > > > > > > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > > > > > > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > > > > > > determined by an Observer at M. > > > > > > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > > > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > > > > > > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > > > > > > regions of three dimensional space: > > > > > > You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario > > > > > that Einstein was proposing. > > > > > In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. > > > > > > And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in > > > > > isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression > > > > > that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment > > > > > frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of > > > > > reference is. > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > > > > > > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > > > > > > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > > > > > > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M.. > > > > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning > > > > > strikes, not four. > > > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario? > > > > > You mean in Einstein's train and embankment scenario. > > > > > I'm saying the SR interpretation of my animation where there are four > > > > lightning strikes. > > > > Your animation -- which has the strikes at A' and B' occurring > > > simultaneously in the rest frame of A, B, and M -- also has the light > > > from those strikes arriving at M' simultaneously. This does not happen > > > in nature, experimentally. > > > Incorrect. > > not according to experiment. If you think experiment is incorrect you > have another problem. > You said, "This does not happen in nature, experimentally." My response of incorrect was in response to what you said. My animation correctly represents what occurs experimentally in nature when water is at rest with respect to A', B', and M' and water is at rest with respect to A, B, and M. Now, if you remove the water and the aether were at rest with respect to the train and the aether were at rest with respect to the embankment, the light from A and B will reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' will reach M' simultaneously, in nature. |