Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 21 Dec 2009 12:06 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 20, 3:11 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >> OK. I put you down under "totally clueless". >> >Another poster afraid to answer the modified Einstein Train gedanken. >> >This is a pattern. >> >> The pattern is your cluelessness. >> >> >The water[slap!] >> >> Get rid of the stupid water! Since the experiment you refer to is based >> on the fact that light through water doesn't travel at c, but at 0.75 c. >> It is no longer related to Einstein's thought experiment, which depends on >> light moving at c. Now, your scenario is equivalent to: A train moves >> at 0.25 c. A passnger on board fires a bullet at speed w, which is 0.75 c. >> What do people on the embankment see? (and vice versa, what does someone >> on the train see if someone on the embankment fires a bullet at speed w? >What are you afraid of with the modified Einstein train gedanken? Can't you read? It is no longer Einstein's train gedanken. There is no longer anything moving at c. Your water changes it to an exercise of adding relativistic velocities [W = (v + w)/(1+vw/c^2), namely one with w = 0.75 c (due to the index of refraction of water) and v = 0.25 c (the train).
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:14 On Dec 17, 12:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 1:03 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 17 dic, 14:59, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 17, 12:54 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single > > > LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in > > > the water at B/B'. Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order > > > to determine how far the LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' > > > measure to A' and B', or does the Observer at M' measure to A and B in > > > order to determine how far the LIGHT travels to M'? > > > 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 an gravitational mass > > (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous > > light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along x. > > > Question: 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? > > 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 some travel to do to arrive to the location of observer > > M', or is it not true? > > c) From (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will declare that he > > received two non simultaneous light signals (first the ligt signal > > from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is it not true? > > > Miguel Rios > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single > LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in > the water at B/B'. I'm glad you're at least talking about two strikes, not four. That's at least somewhat close to Einstein's gedanken. > Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order > to determine how far the LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' > measure to A' and B', or does the Observer at M' measure to A and B in > order to determine how far the LIGHT travels to M'? M' measures to A' (because that's where the lightning struck) and to B' (because that's where the lightning struck).
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:15 On Dec 17, 12:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 1:03 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 17 dic, 14:59, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 12:54 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single > > > > LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in > > > > the water at B/B'. Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order > > > > to determine how far the LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' > > > > measure to A' and B', or does the Observer at M' measure to A and B in > > > > order to determine how far the LIGHT travels to M'? > > > > 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 an gravitational mass > > > (including water). Later, at time t1, observer M sees TWO simultaneous > > > light signals A and B arriving from opposite directions along x. > > > > Question: 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? > > > 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 some travel to do to arrive to the location of observer > > > M', or is it not true? > > > c) From (a) and (b) is it true that observer M' will declare that he > > > received two non simultaneous light signals (first the ligt signal > > > from point B, later the light signal from point A), or is it not true? > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The water is at rest relative to the embankment. There is a single > > LIGHTNING STRIKE in the water at A/A' and a single LIGHTNING STRIKE in > > the water at B/B'. Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order > > to determine how far the LIGHT travels? Does the Observer at M' > > measure to A' and B', or does the Observer at M' measure to A and B in > > order to determine how far the LIGHT travels to M'? > > Since no one is able to answer this question, I will have to answer > it. > > Since the light waves associated with the lightning strikes are > traveling relative to the water which is at rest relative to the > embankment, the Observer at M' measures to A and B in order to > determine how far the light traveled to M'. This doesn't have anything to do with Einstein's gedanken, then. > > With the water being at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to > A' and B' is meaningless. Why is it meaningless?
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:17 On Dec 17, 3:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 17, 4:36 pm, "mcmvar...(a)gmail.com" <mcmvar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 17, 1:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Yes, I realize your understanding of nature is on a par with the fish.. > > > Oh... hello little crackpot. My my, you sure are a noisy crank. Are > > you trying to take up the banner of all the prior anti-relativity > > cranks before you? > > It is so wonderful to come back to s.p and see what new crackpots have > > been spawned. Who is your mommy and daddy little crank? > > Are you a cross of traveler and Androginies? Or did Hanson spew his > > seed far and wide, to be carried by the current to the nearest crank > > egg cluster clinging to the underside of some rock? > > > Well little crank, you are a bit small, so I will practice some catch > > and release and come back when you are a little bigger. *smirk* > > I am not anti-relativity. Einstein's train gadenken is incorrect. Einstein's train gedanken is consistent with experimental measurements. Your scenario is not. > > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. > > I realize you are like the fish in the lake who doesn't realize it > exists in water.
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:21
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. > > 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. And this last statement is in direct contradiction with experimental measurement, because in experimental measurement, the light does NOT reach M' simultaneously. Normally, when a scientist makes a prediction of what will be seen and in fact the opposite is seen, the scientist says "whoops" and erases the model that produced the wrong prediction. But then again, you don't appear to behave normally. PD |