Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 19:08 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 A with the Observer's clock. 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 clock at A reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the clock at B reads 12:00:00. Since the light from the lightning strike at B is traveling with the flow of water and the light from the lightning strike at A is traveling against the flow of water, the light from the lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous?
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 19:38 On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 A with the Observer's clock. 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 clock at A reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside > observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the > clock at B reads 12:00:00. Since the light from the lightning strike > at B is traveling with the flow of water and the light from the > lightning strike at A is traveling against the flow of water, the > light from the lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. Is > the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were > simultaneous? Now remove the water and perform the same experiment as described above with atomic clocks. Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous or does the Observer at M need to know the state of the aether in order to determine the simultaneity of any lightning strikes. Since the state of everything is determined by its state with respect to the state of the aether, including the 'synchronicity' of atomic clocks, no events can be determined to be synchronous or not without knowing the state of the aether, even lightning strikes equi-distant from an Observer in the same frame of reference as the Observer where the light from the lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously.
From: glird on 20 Dec 2009 19:49 On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ><The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest with respect to the embankment or not. > Case 1: >< 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? > Of course he is. >< 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. > Case 2: >< 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 A with the Observer's clock. An outside observer is watching all this and notes that the time on the clocks at A and B differs by one second; with the clock at B being behind the clock at A by one second. As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs at A when the clock at A reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the clock at B reads 12:00:00. Since the light from the lightning strike at B is traveling with the flow of water and the light from the lightning strike at A is traveling against the flow of water, the light from the lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous? Yes, as viewed by HIM. No, as viewed by the outside observer. Hence "the relativity of simultaneity". Now remove the water. Yes, simultaneity remains relative to the states of motion of the observers, but WHY? {The answer is given in Einstein's second postulate, :-} glird
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 20:15 On Dec 20, 7:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ><The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest with respect to the embankment or not. > > > Case 1: > > >< 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? > > > Of course he is. > Of course not. The light from the lightning strikes will travel with respect to the water. If the water is flowing from B towards A, the marks left at A and B are meaningless in terms of the distance the light travels. > >< 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. > > > Case 2:>< 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 A with the Observer's clock. An outside observer is watching > all this and notes that the time on the clocks at A and B differs by > one second; with the clock at B being behind the clock at A by one > second. > As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs at A > when the clock at A reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside > observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the > clock at B reads 12:00:00. Since the light from the lightning strike > at B is traveling with the flow of water and the light from the > lightning strike at A is traveling against the flow of water, the > light from the lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. > Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were > simultaneous? > > Yes, as viewed by HIM. No, as viewed by the outside observer. Hence > "the relativity of simultaneity". > You completely missed the point on this one. The lightning strikes are not simultaneous in nature. They might appear to be simultaneous to the Observer because of the information the Observer has. The point of this gedanken is to show the Observer does not have the most important piece of information, the Observers state with respect to the water. The point of this gadenken is to show a lightning strike occurs at a particular point in time and all Observers will be able to determine when that point in time is and it will be the same time for all Observers if the Observers know their state with respect to the state of the water. > Now remove the water. Yes, simultaneity remains relative to the > states of motion of the observers, but WHY? > > {The answer is given in Einstein's second postulate, :-} > glird Incorrect. If we go back to Einstein's train gedanken where the Observer at M and the Observer at M' know the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strike at B/ B' reaches M' and then the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' reaches M and finally the light from the lightning strike at A/A' reaches M' both Observers will determine the lighting strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 20 Dec 2009 21:38
On Dec 20, 8:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 7:49 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 20, 7:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ><The Observer at M does not know if the water is at rest with respect to the embankment or not. > > > > Case 1: > > > >< 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? > > > > Of course he is. > > Of course not. The light from the lightning strikes will travel with > respect to the water. If the water is flowing from B towards A, the > marks left at A and B are meaningless in terms of the distance the > light travels. > > > > > >< 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. > > > > Case 2:>< 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 A with the Observer's clock. An outside observer is watching > > all this and notes that the time on the clocks at A and B differs by > > one second; with the clock at B being behind the clock at A by one > > second. > > As observed by the outside observer a lightning strike occurs at A > > when the clock at A reads 12:00:00. As observed by the outside > > observer a lightning strike occurs one second later at B when the > > clock at B reads 12:00:00. Since the light from the lightning strike > > at B is traveling with the flow of water and the light from the > > lightning strike at A is traveling against the flow of water, the > > light from the lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously. > > Is the Observer at M correct to conclude the lightning strikes were > > simultaneous? > > > Yes, as viewed by HIM. No, as viewed by the outside observer. Hence > > "the relativity of simultaneity". > > You completely missed the point on this one. The lightning strikes are > not simultaneous in nature. They might appear to be simultaneous to > the Observer because of the information the Observer has. The point of > this gedanken is to show the Observer does not have the most important > piece of information, the Observers state with respect to the water. > > The point of this gadenken is to show a lightning strike occurs at a > particular point in time and all Observers will be able to determine > when that point in time is and it will be the same time for all > Observers if the Observers know their state with respect to the state > of the water. > > > Now remove the water. Yes, simultaneity remains relative to the > > states of motion of the observers, but WHY? > > > {The answer is given in Einstein's second postulate, :-} > > glird > > Incorrect. If we go back to Einstein's train gedanken where the > Observer at M and the Observer at M' know the aether is at rest with > respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strike at B/ > B' reaches M' and then the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' > and B/B' reaches M and finally the light from the lightning strike at > A/A' reaches M' both Observers will determine the lighting strikes at > A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous. The reason for this is easier to explain with the water at rest with respect to the embankment. Both the Observer at M and the Observer at M' know the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' determines the trains speed relative to the embankment. This determines the speed of the train relative to the water. The Observer at M' knows the distance A' and B' are from M' and also knows when the light from B' and A' reached M'. When the Observer at M' factors in speed of the train with respect to the water with when the light from B' and A' reached M', the Observer at M' determines the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Now, replace the water above with aether at rest with respect to the embankment and the Observer at M' determines the lightnings strikes at A' and B' were simultaneous. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. |