From: mpc755 on
On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation...
> > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously
> > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning.
> > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning?
>
> > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would
> > > > > > > > propagate.  Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic
> > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of
> > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the
> > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as
> > > > > > > > nearly twice normal.
>
> > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that.  As others have mentioned many times,
> > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is
> > > > > > > > automatically wrong.  It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has
> > > > > > > > even been formulated.  Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850,
> > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet.
>
> > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by
> > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression
> > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The
> > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe
> > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend.
>
> > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the
> > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the
> > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of
> > > > > > reference?
>
> > > > > No.
>
> > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from
> > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it
> > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M'
> > > > simultaneously?
>
> > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the
> > > train frame of reference.
> > > It does not, according to experiment.
> > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at
> > > M' simultaneously.
> > > This is an observational FACT.
>
> > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a
> > discussion.
>
> > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention.
>
> > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality.
>
> In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously.
> In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously.
> SR accurately represents reality.
> Your animation does not accurately represent reality.
>
> There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has
> no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave.
>

Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the
scenarios below:

>
>
> > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be
> > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying.
>
> > Scenario 1:
>
> > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning
> > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes
> > reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> > Scenario 2:
>
> > All there is is an embankment. That is  it. There is no train.
> > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning
> > strikes reach M simultaneously.
>
> > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in
> > nature?
>
> > Scenario 3:
>
> > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of
> > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions
> > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact.
>
> > Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3.
>
> > If your answer is no, then that is not relativity.
>
> > In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the
> > aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of
> > reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at
> > rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not
> > only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be
> > in order to maintain relativity.
>
>
From: PD on
On Dec 16, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation....
> > > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning.
> > > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning?
>
> > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would
> > > > > > > > > propagate.  Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic
> > > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of
> > > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the
> > > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as
> > > > > > > > > nearly twice normal.
>
> > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that.  As others have mentioned many times,
> > > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is
> > > > > > > > > automatically wrong.  It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has
> > > > > > > > > even been formulated.  Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850,
> > > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet.
>
> > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by
> > > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression
> > > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The
> > > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe
> > > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend.
>
> > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the
> > > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the
> > > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of
> > > > > > > reference?
>
> > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from
> > > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it
> > > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M'
> > > > > simultaneously?
>
> > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the
> > > > train frame of reference.
> > > > It does not, according to experiment.
> > > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at
> > > > M' simultaneously.
> > > > This is an observational FACT.
>
> > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a
> > > discussion.
>
> > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention.
>
> > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> > That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality.
>
> > In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously.
> > In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously.
> > SR accurately represents reality.
> > Your animation does not accurately represent reality.
>
> > There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has
> > no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave.
>
> Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the
> scenarios below:

OK, so what you are now asking about is reality, then?
You want some guidance on what happens in reality.

>
>
>
> > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be
> > > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying..
>
> > > Scenario 1:
>
> > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning
> > > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes
> > > reaches M' simultaneously.

Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously
depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the train and
the lightning strikes and M'.

If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to
talk about what a frame of reference is.

>
> > > Scenario 2:
>
> > > All there is is an embankment. That is  it. There is no train.
> > > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning
> > > strikes reach M simultaneously.

Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously
depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the embankment
and the lightning strikes and M.

If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to
talk about what a frame of reference is.



>
> > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in
> > > nature?

Yes, but see my notes.

>
> > > Scenario 3:
>
> > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of
> > > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions
> > > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact.

We obviously need to discuss what a frame of reference is. What you've
described regarding frames of reference is not what a reference frame
is.

>
> > > Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3.
>
> > > If your answer is no, then that is not relativity.
>
> > > In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the
> > > aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of
> > > reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at
> > > rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not
> > > only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be
> > > in order to maintain relativity.

From: mpc755 on
On Dec 16, 11:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes:
> > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
> > > > > > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation...
> > > > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > > > >> ...
> > > > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously
> > > > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning.
> > > > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning?
>
> > > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would
> > > > > > > > > > propagate.  Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic
> > > > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of
> > > > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the
> > > > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as
> > > > > > > > > > nearly twice normal.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that.  As others have mentioned many times,
> > > > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is
> > > > > > > > > > automatically wrong.  It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has
> > > > > > > > > > even been formulated.  Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850,
> > > > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet..
>
> > > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by
> > > > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression
> > > > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The
> > > > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe
> > > > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend.
>
> > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the
> > > > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the
> > > > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of
> > > > > > > > reference?
>
> > > > > > > No.
>
> > > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from
> > > > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it
> > > > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M'
> > > > > > simultaneously?
>
> > > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the
> > > > > train frame of reference.
> > > > > It does not, according to experiment.
> > > > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at
> > > > > M' simultaneously.
> > > > > This is an observational FACT.
>
> > > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a
> > > > discussion.
>
> > > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention.
>
> > > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> > > That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality.
>
> > > In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously..
> > > In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously.
> > > SR accurately represents reality.
> > > Your animation does not accurately represent reality.
>
> > > There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has
> > > no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave.
>
> > Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the
> > scenarios below:
>
> OK, so what you are now asking about is reality, then?
> You want some guidance on what happens in reality.
>
>
>
> > > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be
> > > > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying.
>
> > > > Scenario 1:
>
> > > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning
> > > > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes
> > > > reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously
> depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the train and
> the lightning strikes and M'.
>
> If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to
> talk about what a frame of reference is.
>

I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the
light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' simultaneously.

>
>
> > > > Scenario 2:
>
> > > > All there is is an embankment. That is  it. There is no train.
> > > > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning
> > > > strikes reach M simultaneously.
>
> Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously
> depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the embankment
> and the lightning strikes and M.
>
> If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to
> talk about what a frame of reference is.
>

I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the
light from lightning strikes at A and B to reach M simultaneously.

>
>
> > > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in
> > > > nature?
>
> Yes, but see my notes.
>
>
>
> > > > Scenario 3:
>
> > > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of
> > > > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions
> > > > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact.
>
> We obviously need to discuss what a frame of reference is. What you've
> described regarding frames of reference is not what a reference frame
> is.
>

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'?

>
>
> > > > Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3.
>
> > > > If your answer is no, then that is not relativity.
>
> > > > In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the
> > > > aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of
> > > > reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at
> > > > rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not
> > > > only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be
> > > > in order to maintain relativity.
>
>

From: paparios on
On 16 dic, 12:28, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a
> discussion.
>
> That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention.
>
> In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be
> a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying.
>
> Scenario 1:
>
> All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning
> strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes
> reaches M' simultaneously.
>
> Scenario 2:
>
> All there is is an embankment. That is  it. There is no train.
> Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning
> strikes reach M simultaneously.
>
> Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in
> nature?
>
> Scenario 3:
>
> There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of
> reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions
> of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact.
>
> Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3.
>
> If your answer is no, then that is not relativity.
>
> In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the
> aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of
> reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at
> rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not
> only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be
> in order to maintain relativity.-

You are so lost in your soup that it is not even funny anymore!!!

This Einstein relativity of simultaneity gedanken refers to two events
and two observers. You have two events A and B (let us say they are
nuclear blasts occurring in deep space at points A and B), one
observer M which is located at the middle of the arc joining A and B
(which we call the x axis), and one observer M', who is moving along x
at a speed v. The light signals from the blasts A and B propagate on a
spherical front, whose ratio expands at a speed c.

Now we go on to defining the frames of reference. Observer M uses a
frame K, with coordinates (x,ct), in which he can consider himself at
rest. He is located at the origin of coordinates of that frame K, that
is at (0,0), and the location of points A and B are along the x axis
so x_A is negative and x_B is positive, both the same magnitude.

Observer M' uses frame K', with coordinates (x',ct'), in which he can
consider himself at rest. He is located at the origin of coordinates
of that frame K', so that when M is at coordinates (x,ct)=(0,0),
observer M' is sharing the same location and his coordinates are
(x',ct')=(0,0). Note that what SR says is that both observers M and M'
will measure the same speed of light, that is, c=Äx/Ät on frame K and
c=Äx'/Ät' on frame K'.

So, if the two nuclear blasts happened simultaneously at t=0, that is
at the same time observer M' (together with his frame K') was passing
by the location of observer M (and its associated frame K) as measured
on the frame K, the question to be answered is: at what coordinates
observers M and M' will receive the light signals from the blasts.

It is painfully evident that:

a) Observer M on frame K, since he has not moved with respect to the
location of the blasts, will receive the light signals from the blasts
at the same time and declare they were simultaneous. The coordinates
of the reception event is (x,ct)=(0,-x_A)=(0,+x_B).

b) Observer M' (and his associated frame of reference), when the light
signal from the point A arrives to the location of observer M (at t=
+x_B/c), he is not longer at that location since he is now approaching
to the point B. It is clear that the light signal from point B already
was seen by M' and it is also clear that the light signal from point A
has some travel to do in order to catch observer M'. This should
convince you that observer M' will clearly disagree and declare the
blast were not simultaneous.

Since you like Wikipedia so much, in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
you have a nice simulation showing this (the second figure).
In that same wiki page you have another example with only one event (a
flash light in the train), which has the same result.

Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on
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:

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.

I would think a theory where the distance between the train and the
embankment where unique separate events on the train determines the
simultaneity of unique separate events on the embankment and vice
verse would cause the theory to be disregarded, but then again we are
discussing the dogma which is SR.