Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 22:11 On Dec 19, 9:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/09 7:49 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > On Dec 19, 7:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/19/09 1:33 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> Why is everyone who is adamant in the correctness of SR in so much of > >>> a state of denial as to be unwilling to answer the following question? > > >> Easy answer: Excellent agreement with observations. > > >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > You're saying Einstein's train gedanken performed in water at rest... > > What I'm saying is: there has never been a prediction of special > relativity that's been contradicted by an observation. The same > hold true for general relativity. I think you should go back to > the Mechanical Universe video... and note that they get it right! > > 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. What they get right is if the aether is at rest with respect to Lorentz and the aether is at rest with respect to Einstein, then the lightning strike which occurs when Lorentz and Einstein are as close to one another as possible, the events with respect to Lorentz will occur as in the video and the events with respect to Einstein will occur as in the video. This is exactly what I display in my video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0HpVcVs1DM The only difference between my video and the video in "42. The Lorentz Transformation" is my video realizes in order for the frames of reference to be equal in all respects the aether must be at rest with respect to Lorentz and at rest with respect to Einstein. Why are you in denial about my modified Einstein Train gedanken? Are you afraid of what answering it means? Einstein's train gedanken consists of water at rest with respect 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: glird on 19 Dec 2009 22:24 On Dec 19, 8:53 pm, mpc755 wrote: > On Dec 19, 4:31 pm, glird wrote: >< Contrary to my expectation that nothing would happen to clocks at rest inside a closed chamber in which THE LOCAL MEDIUM (air) WAS AT REST, the clock flown in the same direction as Earth's surface moves ran slowest, the one flown in the opposite direction ran fastest, and the third one's rate was somewhere in between. [snip] So, mpc, how do YOU explain the Pan Am experiment? > > >< The Pan Am flights are flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the Earth. > Slow down, mpc, and think a bit longer before replying. If both Pan Am planes were flying (at identical speeds) through a medium at rest to earth, then how come they didn't both slow down identically relative to a clock that remained stationary on the ground? >< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment "If the Earth is traveling through an ether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of ether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the ether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind." > Right answer; wrong reason. {The downwind time for a ray to travel x = 1 unit of distance would be x/(c+v) and the upwind time would be x/(c-v), so if v = .8c it would take 5/9 second for the downwind time and 5 seconds for the upwind time; so -- because it would take 1 second each way if the medium and Earth co-moved, the time gained from traveling downwind IS less than that lost traveling upwind. That, however, isn't WHY a beam reflecting back and forth would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicularly.) >< When the atomic clock {is} on the Pan Am flight east to west it is flying against the entrained aether and when it is flying west to east it is flying with the entrained aether. > I see you DID slow down and reconsider your reply. Please pardon my prior instantaneous remark after you said, "The Pan Am flights are flying in both directions against the aether which is entrained by the Earth." ><The downwind and upwind effect is going to have a greater effect on the atom's oscillations when flying against the entrained aether. > What's that have to do with the expectation that the total two-way time, downwind + upwind, would take longer than the total two-way time perpendicularly? >< This means the effects of aether, even though being displaced by the plane, must still be going through the plane. The reason momentum can be conserved even with aether flowing through matter is the same as the reason momentum is conserved by the Earth. > I woke up this morning thinking, "Mpc seems to be thinking exactly what I was 55 years ago, when the voice in the middle of my head said, 'Jerry! Let matter be compressible'." (I'd been trying to figure out the mechanism of gravity; and was thinking in terms of a universally stationary ether made of infinitesimally small INcompressible bits through which ponderable atomic matter flew at various velocities. Given the brand new basic premise -- which ultimately canceled the kinetic-atomic-theory that ALL matter is made of ultimate particles seperated by empty spaces -- it took only about another 2 months for me to figure out the mechanism of gravity.) Anyway, this morning's thinking continued thus: "I wonder if mpc's mind, which is human like mine, would process that novel premise in the same or a similar way that mine did. I think i will post this new premise in one of my replies to his messages." So, although i'd posted it before, including where I got this "extraterrestrial" premise, here it is again. MPC! LET THE AETHER BE COMPRESSIBLE. glird > Matter displaces the > aether. The displaced aether pushes back. The interaction of a moving > object with the aether is frictionless, or the friction is negligible. > This occurs for the nuclei of atoms just as it does for the Earth itself.
From: mpc755 on 19 Dec 2009 22:34 On Dec 19, 10:19 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 12/19/09 8:41 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > On Dec 19, 9:29 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 12/19/09 7:49 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>> On Dec 19, 7:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 12/19/09 1:33 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > >>>>> Why is everyone who is adamant in the correctness of SR in so much of > >>>>> a state of denial as to be unwilling to answer the following question? > > >>>> Easy answer: Excellent agreement with observations. > > >>>> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? > >>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > >>> You're saying Einstein's train gedanken performed in water at rest... > > >> What I'm saying is: there has never been a prediction of special > >> relativity that's been contradicted by an observation. The same > >> hold true for general relativity. I think you should go back to > >> the Mechanical Universe video... and note that they get it right! > > >> 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. > > > What they get right is if the aether is at rest with respect to > > Lorentz and the aether is at rest with respect to Einstein, then the > > lightning strike which occurs when Lorentz and Einstein are as close > > to one another as possible, the events with respect to Lorentz will > > occur as in the video and the events with respect to Einstein will > > occur as in the video. > > > This is exactly what I display in my video: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0HpVcVs1DM > > > The only difference between my video and the video in "42. The Lorentz > > Transformation" is my video realizes in order for the frames of > > reference to be equal in all respects the aether must be at rest with > > respect to Lorentz and at rest with respect to Einstein. > > > Why are you in denial about my modified Einstein Train gedanken? Are > > you afraid of what answering it means? > > Special relativity doesn't need an aether. Works just fine without > it. May I remind you that there had never been a prediction of > special relativity that was contradicted by an observation. > "space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein Why are you in such a state of denial? What is it about the modified Einstein thought experiment that has you and other posters like yourself so afraid? There are others like yourself who refuse to answer such a simple question. Why? If SR is correct, there is no reason for you not to answer the question. Einstein's train gedanken consists of water at rest with respect 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 22:36 On Dec 19, 4:31 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Please clarify your answer to my question by explaining HOW it > explains the Pan Am results. > Btw, there were NO measurements taken wrt beams traveling > perpendicular to the line of flight of the planes or to the one at > rest on the ground. Furthermore -- and one of the reasons for these > discussions -- there was and is no aether flowing through the solid > walls of the planes nor any other solid (or liquid) body. > > glird The Pan Am flights are flying in both directions through the aether which is entrained by the Earth. The flight flying east to west is flying against the entrained aether and the flight flying west to east is flying with the entrained aether, but both flights are flying through the aether. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment "If the Earth is traveling through an ether medium, a beam reflecting back and forth parallel to the flow of ether would take longer than a beam reflecting perpendicular to the ether because the time gained from traveling downwind is less than that lost traveling upwind." When the atomic clock is on the Pan Am flight flying east to west it is flying against the entrained aether and when it is flying west to east it is flying with the entrained aether. The downwind and upwind effect is going to have a greater effect on the atom's oscillations when flying against the entrained aether. This means the effects of aether, even though being displaced by the plane, must still be going through the plane. The reason momentum can be conserved even with aether flowing through matter is the same as the reason momentum is conserved by the Earth. Matter displaces the aether. The displaced aether pushes back. The interaction of a moving object with the aether is frictionless, or the friction is negligible. This occurs for nuclei of atoms just as it does for the Earth itself.
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Dec 2009 22:39
On 12/19/09 9:34 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > "space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein > Einstein says, "The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch..." By A. Einstein June 30, 1905 It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space in which electromagnetic processes take place. |