Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 18 Dec 2009 23:53 > > 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. Experimental measurement shows otherwise. Since your pet theory can't even correctly predict what has been long known beforehand, it is automatically wrong. Automatically Wrong.
From: xxein on 18 Dec 2009 23:56 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. xxein: "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." False analogy. A and B have opposite velocities wrt M and M is stationary with the media. On a flatbed train M', A' and B' all have the same velocity wrt the media. M' does not need to be midway between A' and B' either. Anywhere M' is on the train, he will hear A' as constant and B' as constant but not the same constant. "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." Like Lorentz' velocity addition doesn't work in a vacuum? I only have to remember the physic. You have to find it.
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 00:05 On Dec 18, 11:53 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > > > 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. > > Experimental measurement shows otherwise. Since your pet theory can't > even correctly predict what has been long known beforehand, it is > automatically wrong. Automatically Wrong. If the medium is at rest with respect to the train and the medium is at rest with respect to the embankment, my animation correctly represents what occurs in nature. 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 19 Dec 2009 02:06 On Dec 19, 1:24 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Z4qdneggHrhijbHWnZ2dnUVZ_tNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > > > > > 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. > > Give credit where credit is due Sammy. > > Galileo discovered > that the frequency of oscillators > varied with acceleration, > > and over 200 years ago > England sent ships all over the world with > standard pendulums to count the number of oscillations > from sunrise to sunrise, > > and NEWTON used this data to compute > the shape of the Earth, > the tides in many places, > and to point out where the observations were faulty. > > Will you demonstrate the utility of General Relativity, > and your knowledge of General Relativity, > > by computing the tide at ONE PLACE > to see how you and General Relativity > compare to Newton, > who didn't have a computer to work with. > > No doubt General Relativity is the model of choice > if one wants to use rubber clocks and rulers > to model time travel, dark matter, worm holes, > gravitational lensing, and speculate about > the beginning and end of the universe > and the mind of God, > > but Newton provided the world > with a much better tool, > > a tool that is used by millions of folks every day > to do all kinds of useful things. > > The following URL points to Enistein's most practical invention.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=... > > -- > Tom Potterhttp://tdp1001.spaces.live.comhttp://www.tompotter.us/misc.htmlhttp://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.comhttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com > ----------------------------------------------- I have to disagree with out about Einstein. He laid the foundation for Aether Displacement or Entrainment. It might have been more likely that he know some of his stuff was incorrect. But if you read his words carefully, he really does try and say things as best he can. For example: '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." You can tell from the above quote Einstein was struggling with his own train gedanken. That is why he wound up punting and decided the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" He is practically endorsing aether entrainment with the above statement. If the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is due to its connections with matter, what else could the state of the aether be if not its state of displacement and entrainment? Take Einstein's above quote and apply it to a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. If the state of the aether is based on its connections with matter, what will be its state in respect to a moving C-60 molecule? The state of the aether will be a displacement wave created by its connection to the moving matter C-60 molecule. If Einstein hadn't messed up with his train gedanken, you would have been able to figure out what he knew to be missing from QM. 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory' http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext04/relat10.htm "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." Just think what Einstein would have figured out if he took the above sentence to the next step: 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 c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. Again, the above sentence throws the train gedanken out the window, but with it comes a unified theory.
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 02:14
On Dec 19, 1:24 am, "Tom Potter" <xprivatn...(a)mailinator.com> wrote: > "Sam Wormley" <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:Z4qdneggHrhijbHWnZ2dnUVZ_tNi4p2d(a)mchsi.com... > > > > > 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. > > Give credit where credit is due Sammy. > > Galileo discovered > that the frequency of oscillators > varied with acceleration, > > and over 200 years ago > England sent ships all over the world with > standard pendulums to count the number of oscillations > from sunrise to sunrise, > > and NEWTON used this data to compute > the shape of the Earth, > the tides in many places, > and to point out where the observations were faulty. > > Will you demonstrate the utility of General Relativity, > and your knowledge of General Relativity, > > by computing the tide at ONE PLACE > to see how you and General Relativity > compare to Newton, > who didn't have a computer to work with. > > No doubt General Relativity is the model of choice > if one wants to use rubber clocks and rulers > to model time travel, dark matter, worm holes, > gravitational lensing, and speculate about > the beginning and end of the universe > and the mind of God, > > but Newton provided the world > with a much better tool, > > a tool that is used by millions of folks every day > to do all kinds of useful things. > > The following URL points to Enistein's most practical invention.http://www.google.com/patents?id=zRpsAAAAEBAJ&printsec=abstract&zoom=... > > -- > Tom Potterhttp://tdp1001.spaces.live.comhttp://www.tompotter.us/misc.htmlhttp://webspace.webring.com/people/st/tdp1001http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.comhttp://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com > ----------------------------------------------- I have to disagree with you about Einstein. He laid the foundation for Aether Displacement and Entrainment. It might have known some of his stuff was incorrect. But if you read his words carefully, he really does try and say things as best he can. For example: '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." You can tell from the above quote Einstein was struggling with his own train gedanken. That is why he wound up punting and decided the idea of motion may not be applied to the aether. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" He is practically endorsing aether entrainment with the above statement. If the state of the aether and the state of the neighboring aether is due to its connections with matter, what else could the state of the aether be if not its state of displacement and entrainment? Take Einstein's above quote and apply it to a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule. If the state of the aether is based on its connections with matter, what will be its state in respect to a moving C-60 molecule? The state of the aether will be a displacement wave created by its connection to the moving C-60 molecule. If Einstein hadn't messed up with his train gedanken, he would have been able to figure out what he knew to be missing from QM. 'Relativity: The Special and General Theory' http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext04/relat10.htm "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." Just think what Einstein would have figured out if he took the above sentence to the next step: 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 c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not. Again, the above sentence throws the train gedanken out the window, but with it comes a unified theory. |