Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 20 Dec 2009 17:14 On Dec 18, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. That's true, but that is not how light behaves. > > 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. But that is counter to what is actually observed in nature. The fact that you think it SHOULD because that's what happens with water and then think it should still happen that way when the water is removed, is beside the point. It just DOESN'T behave that way, as shown in experiment.
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 17:38 On Dec 20, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 18, 10:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > That's true, but that is not how light behaves. > Yes, that is how light behaves when the light waves travel through water at rest with respect to the embankment and the light waves travel through water at rest with respect to the train, in nature. > > > > 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. > > But that is counter to what is actually observed in nature. > If that is not what is observed in nature it is because the aether is not at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to the train which means concluding the light travels from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. > The fact that you think it SHOULD because that's what happens with > water and then think it should still happen that way when the water is > removed, is beside the point. It just DOESN'T behave that way, as > shown in experiment. Which means the aether is not at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to the train which means concluding the light travels from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. You need to know the state of the aether in which the light waves travels in order to determine where the light travels from. For the frames of reference to be equal in all respects, the light from A and B must reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' must reach M' simultaneously. This is what the experimental evidence is when Einstein's train gedanken is performed with any medium which is at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to the train. Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. It is definitely a pattern now. Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' occur in water at rest with respect to the embankment. Do the light waves travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 18:14 On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > That's true, but that is not how light behaves. > > Yes, that is how light behaves when the light waves travel through > water at rest with respect to the embankment and the light waves > travel through water at rest with respect to the train, in nature. > > > > > > 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. > > > But that is counter to what is actually observed in nature. > > If that is not what is observed in nature it is because the aether is > not at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > the train which means concluding the light travels from A and B to M > and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. > > > The fact that you think it SHOULD because that's what happens with > > water and then think it should still happen that way when the water is > > removed, is beside the point. It just DOESN'T behave that way, as > > shown in experiment. > > Which means the aether is not at rest with respect to the embankment > and at rest with respect to the train which means concluding the light > travels from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. You > need to know the state of the aether in which the light waves travels > in order to determine where the light travels from. > > For the frames of reference to be equal in all respects, the light > from A and B must reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' > must reach M' simultaneously. This is what the experimental evidence > is when Einstein's train gedanken is performed with any medium which > is at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > the train. > > Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. > It is definitely a pattern now. > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the lightning strikes at A/A' > and B/B' occur in water at rest with respect to the embankment. Do the > light waves travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'? So far, since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different approach. The Observer at M knows he exists in water but he does not know the state of the water. The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest with respect to the embankment or not. Light from lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. Is the Observer at M able to measure to A and B in order to determine how far the light traveled to reach M? When the Observer measures to A and B and determines A and B are equi-distant from M, can the Observer at M conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously? Of course not. The Observer at M must know the state of the water in which the embankment exists in order to determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. Now remove the water. None of the above changes.
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 18:23 On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > You said, "This does not happen in nature, experimentally." > > > > 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. > > > That's true, but that is not how light behaves. > > Yes, that is how light behaves when the light waves travel through > water at rest with respect to the embankment and the light waves > travel through water at rest with respect to the train, in nature. > > > > > 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. > > > But that is counter to what is actually observed in nature. > > If that is not what is observed in nature it is because the aether is > not at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > the train which means concluding the light travels from A and B to M > and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. > > > The fact that you think it SHOULD because that's what happens with > > water and then think it should still happen that way when the water is > > removed, is beside the point. It just DOESN'T behave that way, as > > shown in experiment. > > Which means the aether is not at rest with respect to the embankment > and at rest with respect to the train which means concluding the light > travels from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. You > need to know the state of the aether in which the light waves travels > in order to determine where the light travels from. > > For the frames of reference to be equal in all respects, the light > from A and B must reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' > must reach M' simultaneously. This is what the experimental evidence > is when Einstein's train gedanken is performed with any medium which > is at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > the train. > > Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. > It is definitely a pattern now. > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the lightning strikes at A/A' > and B/B' occur in water at rest with respect to the embankment. Do the > light waves travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'? Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different approach. The Observer at M knows the embankment exists in water but the Observer does not know the state of the water with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest with respect to the embankment or not. Light from lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. Is the Observer at M able to measure to A and B in order to determine how far the light traveled to reach M? When the Observer measures to A and B and determines A and B are equi-distant from M, can the Observer at M conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously? Of course not. The Observer at M must know the state of the water in which the embankment exists in order to determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. Now remove the water. None of the above changes.
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 18:54
On Dec 20, 6:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 20, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > You said, "This does not happen in nature, experimentally." > > > > > 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. > > > > That's true, but that is not how light behaves. > > > Yes, that is how light behaves when the light waves travel through > > water at rest with respect to the embankment and the light waves > > travel through water at rest with respect to the train, in nature. > > > > > 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. > > > > But that is counter to what is actually observed in nature. > > > If that is not what is observed in nature it is because the aether is > > not at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > > the train which means concluding the light travels from A and B to M > > and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. > > > > The fact that you think it SHOULD because that's what happens with > > > water and then think it should still happen that way when the water is > > > removed, is beside the point. It just DOESN'T behave that way, as > > > shown in experiment. > > > Which means the aether is not at rest with respect to the embankment > > and at rest with respect to the train which means concluding the light > > travels from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' is incorrect. You > > need to know the state of the aether in which the light waves travels > > in order to determine where the light travels from. > > > For the frames of reference to be equal in all respects, the light > > from A and B must reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' > > must reach M' simultaneously. This is what the experimental evidence > > is when Einstein's train gedanken is performed with any medium which > > is at rest with respect to the embankment and at rest with respect to > > the train. > > > Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. > > It is definitely a pattern now. > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified so the lightning strikes at A/A' > > and B/B' occur in water at rest with respect to the embankment. Do the > > light waves travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'? > > Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid > to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different > approach. > > The Observer at M knows the embankment exists in water but the > Observer does not know the state of the water with respect to the > embankment. The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest > with respect to the embankment or not. > > Light from lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. > > Is the Observer at M able to measure to A and B in order to determine > how far the light traveled to reach M? When the Observer measures to A > and B and determines A and B are equi-distant from M, can the Observer > at M conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously? > > Of course not. The Observer at M must know the state of the water in > which the embankment exists in order to determine the simultaneity of > the lightning strikes. > > Now remove the water. None of the above changes. The Observer at M will synchronize clocks at A and B in order to determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. What the Observer at M does not know is the water the embankment exists in is flowing from B towards A. The clock the Observer holds is a spinning wheel. One revolution of the spinning wheel is a second. The pressure exerted by the flowing water against the spinning wheel as the Observer walks towards B causes the rate of rotation to slow down. The Observer gets to B and synchronizes the clock at B with the Observer's clock. The Observer now walks towards A. The Observer is walking with the flow of water, so the pressure exerted by the water against the wheel decreases and the wheel's rate of spin increases. The Observer synchronizes the clock at Observer's clock with the clock at A. An outside observer is watching all this and notes the time on the two clocks at A and B differs by one second with the clock at B being behind of the clock at A by one second. As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs at A when the Observer at A clock reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the Observer at B clock reads 12:00:00. The light from the lightning strikes reach M simultaneously. Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous? |