Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: SolomonW on 16 Dec 2009 03:42 On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:10:09 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote: > On Dec 15, 7:47�pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Dec 15, 7:35�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Dec 15, 7:32�pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > On Dec 15, 7:14�pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> > > On Dec 15, 6:57�pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> > > > Can someone post a link to an article or something that explains SR >>> > > > clearly? >> >>> > > > Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how >>> > > > einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or >>> > > > the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special >>> > > > Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who >>> > > > probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the >>> > > > wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've >>> > > > never seen before. >> >>> > > > thanks. >> >>> > > Here is Einstein's train thought experiment in his own words: >> >>> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html >> >>> > > Here is Einstein's own words on aether. It does relate to SR in that >>> > > Einstein says the aether must exist. >> >>> > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >>> > > Here is a very good animation of Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity >>> > > which is fundamental to SR: >> >>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM >> >>> > > Einstein's train thought experiment is what I am saying does not >>> > > accurately reflect nature, which means SR is incorrect. >> >>> > > And if it appears I am the guy saying Einstein was a phony, that is >>> > > incorrect. I am an Einstein fan. If you read what he says in terms of >>> > > the aether and it connectedness to matter and you read about how he >>> > > knew QM was 'incomplete', the guy really knew what he was talking >>> > > about. However, relativity of simultaneity is incorrect. >> >>> > I thought ether didn't exist. >> >>> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html >> >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is >>> unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation >>> of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space >>> and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time >>> intervals in the physical sense." >> >> But the ether isnt really a real, actual thing is it? we just give >> space numbers and whatnot, but theres not actually a material >> substance there, right? > > I believe there is a substance of space. > > What properties it has is what I like to discuss. > > My theory is Aether Displacement. > > Not sure what your goal is here, but I am not a physicist and Aether > Displacement definitely falls more into the "crank" category at this > time. > > Here is a summary of Aether Displacement: > > Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It > pushes back. When matter displaces the aether, the pressure the aether > exerts back towards the matter is gravity. > > When a C-60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment, the > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > slit. > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > EINSTEIN' > http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > diminishes by L/c2." > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > and matter is energy. In modern physics it is better described as quantum foam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 09:19 On Dec 16, 3:42 am, SolomonW <Solom...(a)nospamMail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:10:09 -0800 (PST), mpc755 wrote: > > On Dec 15, 7:47 pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Dec 15, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> On Dec 15, 7:32 pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> > On Dec 15, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > On Dec 15, 6:57 pm, The Poop-oner <parkers...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >>> > > > Can someone post a link to an article or something that explains SR > >>> > > > clearly? > > >>> > > > Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how > >>> > > > einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or > >>> > > > the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special > >>> > > > Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who > >>> > > > probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the > >>> > > > wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've > >>> > > > never seen before. > > >>> > > > thanks. > > >>> > > Here is Einstein's train thought experiment in his own words: > > >>> > >http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html > > >>> > > Here is Einstein's own words on aether. It does relate to SR in that > >>> > > Einstein says the aether must exist. > > >>> > >http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > >>> > > Here is a very good animation of Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity > >>> > > which is fundamental to SR: > > >>> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM > > >>> > > Einstein's train thought experiment is what I am saying does not > >>> > > accurately reflect nature, which means SR is incorrect. > > >>> > > And if it appears I am the guy saying Einstein was a phony, that is > >>> > > incorrect. I am an Einstein fan. If you read what he says in terms of > >>> > > the aether and it connectedness to matter and you read about how he > >>> > > knew QM was 'incomplete', the guy really knew what he was talking > >>> > > about. However, relativity of simultaneity is incorrect. > > >>> > I thought ether didn't exist. > > >>> 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > >>> "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > >>> unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation > >>> of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space > >>> and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time > >>> intervals in the physical sense." > > >> But the ether isnt really a real, actual thing is it? we just give > >> space numbers and whatnot, but theres not actually a material > >> substance there, right? > > > I believe there is a substance of space. > > > What properties it has is what I like to discuss. > > > My theory is Aether Displacement. > > > Not sure what your goal is here, but I am not a physicist and Aether > > Displacement definitely falls more into the "crank" category at this > > time. > > > Here is a summary of Aether Displacement: > > > Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It > > pushes back. When matter displaces the aether, the pressure the aether > > exerts back towards the matter is gravity. > > > When a C-60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment, the > > displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and > > exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single > > slit. > > > 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. > > EINSTEIN' > >http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf > > > "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass > > diminishes by L/c2." > > > The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer > > exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as > > aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three > > dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether > > and matter is energy. > > In modern physics it is better described as quantum foam. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam "Quantum foam is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy. Virtual particles appear in quantum field theory, where they arise briefly and then annihilate during particle interactions, in such a way that they affect the measured outputs of the interaction even though the virtual particles are themselves never directly observed. They can also appear and annihilate briefly in empty space, and these "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy, a type of zero- point energy (however, physicists are uncertain about the magnitude of this energy [3]). The Casimir effect can also be understood in terms of the behavior of virtual particles in the empty space between two parallel plates. Ordinarily quantum field theory does not deal with virtual particles of sufficient energy to curve spacetime significantly, so quantum foam is a speculative extension of these concepts which imagines the consequences of such high-energy virtual particles at very short distances and times." Quantum Foam Displacement doesn't cut it. Especially because virtual particles do not exist. Virtual particles are made up nonsense to try and explain observed behavior like the Casimir effect. The reason for the Casimir effect isn't due to these magical virtual particles. The Casimir effect is due to the plates displacing the substance of space beyond the other plate. Each plate's displaced substance of space extends past the other plate and the substance of space is not at rest when displaced. The displaced substance of space exerts pressure back towards the matter which is displacing it in an attempt to return to a state of rest. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect "In a simplified view, a "field" in physics may be envisioned as if space were filled with interconnected vibrating balls and springs, and the strength of the field can be visualized as the displacement of a ball from its rest position." In Aether Displacement, a 'field' in physics is space filled with aether and the strength of the field is the displacement of the aether from its rest position.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:11 On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > wrote: > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> ... > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > reference? > > > No. > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > simultaneously? You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the train frame of reference. It does not, according to experiment. According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at M' simultaneously. This is an observational FACT. It makes no difference whether you have an animation that shows light from A' and B' arriving at M' simultaneously. All this demonstrates is that what your animation shows is counter to observational fact. > > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the > > > lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of > > > reference? > > > Yes. > > > > The answer to both of the above is yes. > > > No. > > > You are apparently having difficulty with either what is actually > > observed in experiment, or what the set up of the train and embankment > > scenario is. > > I am talking about my animation. In my animation there are two > separate frames of reference. Frames of reference overlap. You may have a different understanding of what the words "frame of reference" mean. If that is the case, then you are using a different language. > > > > > > If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in > > > their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face. > > > Frames of reference don't live in confined regions of 3-dimensional > > space. They overlap completely. All of 3-dimensional space lives in > > every frame of reference. > > The reason the frames of reference are separated in three dimensional > space in my animation is to make it easier to comprehend the aether > being at rest relative to each frame of reference. But frames of reference (as that term is *defined*) are not separated that way. Frames of reference overlap. You are using words with your own private meaning, and as such you are speaking a foreign language that sounds familiar but makes no sense to your audience. It's as though you were referring to round squares or the corners of circles. > > I know this is pointless in discussing with you, but for others who > may be open minded, the point of the animation is to show the aether > being at rest relative to each frame of reference and how light > travels at 'c' relative to the aether. The question you asked is whether this is an accurate description of nature. The answer is that it is counter to the way that nature works, as exhibited by experiment. You are free to talk about your animation and how it makes an accurate description of some other universe in your imagination, but it has no bearing on reality. It doesn't help that you are using terms "frame of reference" as though you intend them to have the same meaning that scientists understand them to have, but instead have a wholly separate private meaning. > > Once this concept is understood, by those how have an open mind, then > I can move on to discussing Einstein's train thought experiment and > how measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is arbitrary. The measurement of the marks is absolutely straightforward and can be done with a tape measure. I don't know what you find difficult about that. > > > Perhaps you didn't understand what a frame of reference is? > > What is occurring is you don't really pay much attention to these > threads. Just look at your first response in this thread when I made > the joke about the 'President of physics'. You hadn't even looked at > the webcartoon but already had responses. > > For anyone else how has an open mind, here is the deal. In my > animation there are two distinct and separate frames of reference. The > aether is at rest in each frame of reference. That is why the light is > able to travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' and for all > of the light from the four lightning strikes to reach M and M' > simultaneously. Because the light is traveling at 'c' relative to the > aether. This is NOT emission/emitter theory. > > The next step, if I was able to ever get there by having a > conversation with anyone, would be to describe how Einstein's train > thought experiment is inaccurate. Accuracy or inaccuracy is determined by comparison with experiment. Relativity agrees with experiment. Your animation does not agree with experiment. That's it. Done. Finito. > In Einstein's train thought > experiment, the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > reference both occupy the same three dimensional space. That's what a frame of reference MEANS. "Frame of reference" already has a clear and unambiguous definition in physics, and you do not have the freedom to alter that definition. > The aether > cannot be at rest relative to the train AND at rest relative to the > embankment. This means having M measure to A and B and having M' > measure to A' and B' is fundamentally flawed. Measuring to the marks > made by the lightning strikes is an approximation of where the light > travels from. In order to know exactly where the light travels from in > three dimensional space, you have to know how the light travels from > the lightning strike relative to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 10:28 On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > reference? > > > > No. > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > simultaneously? > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the > train frame of reference. > It does not, according to experiment. > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at > M' simultaneously. > This is an observational FACT. > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a discussion. That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention. In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying. Scenario 1: All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously. Scenario 2: All there is is an embankment. That is it. There is no train. Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning strikes reach M simultaneously. Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in nature? Scenario 3: There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact. Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3. If your answer is no, then that is not relativity. In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be in order to maintain relativity.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 10:55
On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right.. The > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > > reference? > > > > > No. > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > > simultaneously? > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the > > train frame of reference. > > It does not, according to experiment. > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at > > M' simultaneously. > > This is an observational FACT. > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a > discussion. > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention. > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality. In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. SR accurately represents reality. Your animation does not accurately represent reality. There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave. > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying. > > Scenario 1: > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes > reaches M' simultaneously. > > Scenario 2: > > All there is is an embankment. That is it. There is no train. > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning > strikes reach M simultaneously. > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in > nature? > > Scenario 3: > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact. > > Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3. > > If your answer is no, then that is not relativity. > > In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the > aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at > rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not > only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be > in order to maintain relativity. |