Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: paparios on 21 Dec 2009 06:27 On 20 dic, 20:23, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid > to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different > approach. > Well mpc755, quite the contrary it is you who is afraid to answer any question put to you. Let us see what is your new made up as you go idea. > 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. > Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!! > 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? > But what is your point? Why does M need or want to know if observations regarded as simultaneous were indeed simultaneous?. The only relevant point is the observation of observer M (do remember that these relativistic effects only are self evident when one object is moving from 0.1c to 0.99c). The same observation is compatible with points A and B not equidistant and the strikes being non simultaneous!! > 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. Bad assumption and bad conclusion equals nonsense. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 09:17 On Dec 21, 6:27 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 20 dic, 20:23, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid > > to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different > > approach. > > Well mpc755, quite the contrary it is you who is afraid to answer any > question put to you. > Let us see what is your new made up as you go idea. > > > 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. > > Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an > embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if > the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!! > > > 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? > > But what is your point? Why does M need or want to know if > observations regarded as simultaneous were indeed simultaneous?. The > only relevant point is the observation of observer M (do remember that > these relativistic effects only are self evident when one object is > moving from 0.1c to 0.99c). The same observation is compatible with > points A and B not equidistant and the strikes being non > simultaneous!! > > > 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. > > Bad assumption and bad conclusion equals nonsense. > > Miguel Rios Another poster who believes in the correctness of Relativity of Simultaneity afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken. More evidence of a pattern. Einstein's train gedanken is modified to consist of water at rest with respect to the embankment. The train is full of flat bed cars which do not disturb the water. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?
From: paparios on 21 Dec 2009 09:32 On 21 dic, 11:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 6:27 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 dic, 20:23, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid > > > to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different > > > approach. > > > Well mpc755, quite the contrary it is you who is afraid to answer any > > question put to you. > > Let us see what is your new made up as you go idea. > > > > 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. > > > Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an > > embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if > > the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!! > > > > 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? > > > But what is your point? Why does M need or want to know if > > observations regarded as simultaneous were indeed simultaneous?. The > > only relevant point is the observation of observer M (do remember that > > these relativistic effects only are self evident when one object is > > moving from 0.1c to 0.99c). The same observation is compatible with > > points A and B not equidistant and the strikes being non > > simultaneous!! > > > > 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. > > > Bad assumption and bad conclusion equals nonsense. > > > Miguel Rios > > Another poster who believes in the correctness of Relativity of > Simultaneity afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken. > More evidence of a pattern. > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified to consist of water at rest with > respect to the embankment. The train is full of flat bed cars which do > not disturb the water. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does > the light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - One more evidence of your total lack of self consistency and dignity: You wrote above: "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." To which I correctly answered the following: "Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!!" To this comment your reaction is just writing: "Another poster who believes in the correctness of Relativity of Simultaneity afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken. More evidence of a pattern." Do you think you look smart by writing such nonsense. Have you any remaining bit of self dignity left??? If you any dignity left, then you should be able to answer or comment this little question which, as usual, you have eluded to answer or comment before: Observer M' is passing by the location of observer M, at time t0. M' is moving at a speed v, relative to observer M, on the direction of x. All this is happening in deep space, without any gravitational mass (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along the coordinate x. Questions: a) Since observer M', in the interval of time (t1-t0) has already moved towards the source of the light signal B, did he observe the light signal coming from B before observer M, or did he not? ANSWER: YES BECAUSE OBSERVER M' IS "hastening towards the beam of light coming from B". b) Since at time t1, the ligth signal coming from point A is at the location of observer M, is it true that the light signal coming from point A has yet some travel to do to arrive to the location of observer M', or is it not true? ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE! OBSERVER M' is "riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A". c) From observations (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will declare that he received two non simultaneous light signals (first the light signal from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is it not true? ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE. BOTH OBSERVERs DISAGREE ON THE SIMULTANEITY OF THE STRIKES. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 09:36 On Dec 21, 9:32 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 dic, 11:17, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 21, 6:27 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 20 dic, 20:23, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 20, 5:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Since the posters who believe in Relativity of Simultaneity are afraid > > > > to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken, let me try a different > > > > approach. > > > > Well mpc755, quite the contrary it is you who is afraid to answer any > > > question put to you. > > > Let us see what is your new made up as you go idea. > > > > > 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. > > > > Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an > > > embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if > > > the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!! > > > > > 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? > > > > But what is your point? Why does M need or want to know if > > > observations regarded as simultaneous were indeed simultaneous?. The > > > only relevant point is the observation of observer M (do remember that > > > these relativistic effects only are self evident when one object is > > > moving from 0.1c to 0.99c). The same observation is compatible with > > > points A and B not equidistant and the strikes being non > > > simultaneous!! > > > > > 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. > > > > Bad assumption and bad conclusion equals nonsense. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > Another poster who believes in the correctness of Relativity of > > Simultaneity afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken. > > More evidence of a pattern. > > > Einstein's train gedanken is modified to consist of water at rest with > > respect to the embankment. The train is full of flat bed cars which do > > not disturb the water. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does > > the light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - > > One more evidence of your total lack of self consistency and dignity: > > You wrote above: > > "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." > > To which I correctly answered the following: > > "Does this have any sense at all? I'm observer M, standing still on an > embankment inside a large pool of water, and you say I can not know if > the water is moving or not with respect to me???....Wow!!!" > > To this comment your reaction is just writing: > > "Another poster who believes in the correctness of Relativity of > Simultaneity afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken. > More evidence of a pattern." > > Do you think you look smart by writing such nonsense. Have you any > remaining bit of self dignity left??? > > If you any dignity left, then you should be able to answer or comment > this little question which, as usual, you have eluded to answer or > comment before: > > Observer M' is passing by the location of observer M, at time t0. M' > is moving at a speed v, relative to observer M, on the direction of x. > All this is happening in deep space, without any gravitational mass > (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous > light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along the > coordinate x. > > Questions: > > a) Since observer M', in the interval of time (t1-t0) has already > moved towards the source of the light signal B, did he observe the > light signal coming from B before observer M, or did he not? > > ANSWER: YES BECAUSE OBSERVER M' IS "hastening towards the beam of > light coming from B". > > b) Since at time t1, the ligth signal coming from point A is at the > location of observer M, is it true that the light signal coming from > point A has yet some travel to do to arrive to the location of > observer M', or is it not true? > > ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE! OBSERVER M' is "riding on ahead of the beam of > light coming from A". > > c) From observations (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will > declare that he received two non simultaneous light signals (first the > light signal from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is > it not true? > > ANSWER: YES IT IS TRUE. BOTH OBSERVERs DISAGREE ON THE SIMULTANEITY OF > THE STRIKES. > > Miguel Rios Why won't you answer the modified Einstein train thought experiment? What are you afraid of? Water is at rest with respect to the embankment. The train is full of flat bed cars which have no effect on the state of the water. Lightning strike occurs at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?
From: paparios on 21 Dec 2009 10:01
On 21 dic, 11:36, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 9:32 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Why won't you answer the modified Einstein train thought experiment? > What are you afraid of? > > Water is at rest with respect to the embankment. The train is full of > flat bed cars which have no effect on the state of the water. > Lightning strike occurs at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from > A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'? I have, as many other, already answered your "thought experiment". You either have a very short memory or you are a very dishonest person. Well, let us think positive so here we go....again: You say: "Water is at rest with respect to the embankment." Let us interpret that assumption as saying that observer M, who is sitting still on the embankment, is also at rest with respect to your water. Then you write: "The train is full of flat bed cars which have no effect on the state of the water" We interpret this to mean you are saying this "submarine train" is moving without any friction from the water. Because, we are assuming you are still considering the train moving at a speed v relative to the embankment, are you not? Then you write: "Lightning strike occurs at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?" Again, we assume you mean when the strikes hit, point A' on the train coincided with point A on the embankment and the same with points B and B', right? If so, then sure enough, light signal fronts from the TWO hit points (A/A' and B/B') expand on a spherical way. Those two light signal fronts will eventually reach the location of observers M, on the embankment, and observer M', on the train and, sure enough, while observer M will observe TWO simultaneous light signals, observer M' will observe TWO non simultaneous light signals. Note that the converse and symmetrical case is also true, that is, if observer M' sees TWO simultaneous light signals, then observer M will see TWO non simultaneous light signals (this case will occur if observer M' considers himself at rest with respect to the train and sees observer M (and the embankment) moving at a speed v on the negative direction of x. There you go Miguel Rios |