Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:23 On Dec 19, 1:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 10:48 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 12/19/09 12:24 AM, Tom Potter wrote: > > > > Galileo discovered > > > that the frequency of oscillators > > > varied with acceleration, ... > > > Where in the literature is is discovery noted, Potter? > > Why is everyone who is adamant in the correctness of SR in so much of > a state of denial as to be unwilling to answer the following question? Because there is no point in answering a question about a model that is already known to be in contradiction with experimental measurement. Your model is in conflict with experiment, and so it is wrong. Period. There is no point answering questions about a model that is wrong, period. Now, did you want to learn about SR, which is in full agreement with experiment? > > Einstein's train gedanken is performed within water which is at rest > with respect to the embankment. > > There are two Observers on the train at M'. One of the Observers knows > the train is moving relative to water which is at rest with respect to > the embankment. The other Observer either does not know the train is > moving relative to water which is at rest with respect to the > embankment or is adamant water does not exist. > > Lightning strikes occur in the water at A/A' and at B/B'. Marks are > made on the train at A' and B' and on the embankment at A and B. > > The Observer who knows the train is moving relative to water at rest > with respect to the embankment measures to A' and B' and factors in > the trains speed relative to the embankment (taking into account the > water at rest with respect to the embankment) in order to determine > how far the light from the lightning strikes traveled to M'. > > The other Observer measures to A' and B' and determines the distance > the light traveled is from A' and B' to M'. > > Who is correct?
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:34 On Dec 20, 4:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. But that doesn't have anything to do with how light behaves in the absence of water. In the absence of water, your conclusion about light arriving from A' and B' at M' simultaneously is experimentally disproven. Therefore, any talk about light arriving at M' simultaneously in the absence of water is simply wrong. > > > > > > 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. If the light is not at rest with respect to the embankement and at rest with respect to the train, then please account with your aether theory why the following experimental facts are observed: 1. There are two and only two strikes, at A/A' and B/B'. 2. The light arrives at M simultaneously. 3. The light arrives at M' nonsimultaneously. 4. The speed of light from either direction, measured directly by M, is c. 5. The speed of light from either direction, measured directly by M', is c. I'm happy to hear an accounting of these experimental observations in aether displacement theory. > > > 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. The light comes from the lightning strikes. There is one and only one lightning strike at one end and it hits right on the location A and A'. There is one and only one lightning strike at the other end and it hits right on the location B and B'. Where else would the light be traveling 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. Why would you think this is important for the frames of reference to be equal in all respects. That's not what the principle of equivalence says. The principle of equivalence does NOT say that everything that happens in one frame of reference also happens the same way in another frame of reference. What it says is the laws of physics are the same in both. Do you know what a law of physics is? > 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. Einstein's gedanken didn't involve a medium. > > 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: PD on 21 Dec 2009 12:39 On Dec 20, 5:23 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? Yes, of course he can measure. From where he is standing to where there is a scorch mark left by the lightning, with a tape measure. Yes, he can conclude that the lightning strikes occur simultaneously. He needs to know the following things: 1. That the distance traveled from A to M and from B to M are equal. 2. That the speed of the light going from A to M and from B to M are equal. If (1) and (2) are known, then he knows also that the time it takes for the light to travel from A to M equals the time it takes fro the light to travel from B to M. Therefore, if the light arrives at M at the same time, then the light left A and B at a common earlier time. (1) is determined by a measurement with a tape measure. (2) is determined by isotropy experiments. A list of isotropy experiments was already provided to you. > > 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 21 Dec 2009 14:41 On Dec 21, 12:04 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 dic, 13:19, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 21, 11:10 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So you did not like my answer to your question, which was "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'?", and now you are asking again....the > > > very same question!!! Are you out of your mind???? > > > > Let us do it again!!! > > > > You ask: "The question is, in the modified Einstein train gedanken > > > where the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, does the > > > light travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'?" > > > > The answer is the same I gave you before which is the following: > > > > 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). > > > > Do you need a more detailed explanation? > > > > Miguel Rios > > > I agree with you in terms of what you have answered so far. If the > > Observer at M sees the light from A/A' and B/B' simultaneously, the > > Observer at M' will not see the light from A/A' and from B/B' > > simultaneously. > > > That is NOT what I am asking. I am asking, in a modified Einstein > > train gedanken where the water is at rest with respect to the > > embankment, does the light from the TWO lighting strikes, one at A/A' > > and the one at B/B', travel from A' and B' to M' or from A and B to M'. > > Well, quite easy. At the strike time of occurrence (say t_A=t0, as > measured on the embankment frame of reference) points A and A' > coincided (they shared the same physical location, with A on the > embankment frame of reference and A' on the train frame of reference). > The same is true for points B and B', also at time t_B=t0 (again > measured at the embankment frame of reference). This is like droping a > stone at the source point A/A', which will propagate in an expanding > circle > > From that time t_A=t_B=t0, light signal fronts propagate (one is > tranporting the information of the strike from the common source A/A', > while the other is transporting the information of the strike from the > common source B/B'). There are then two expanding circles on the > water. > > These light signal fronts are not longer connected, at a given time, > to the instantaneous location of A, A', B or B'. We do know that from > the point of view of the observer M', both A' and B' remains at the > same location they were before, while A and B, again from the point of > view of observer M' have moved (into the negative direction of x). So > when the aforementioned circles continue to propagate in the water, > points A' and B' are not longer at their original location and > observer M' is moving to reach the water circle coming from B/B' way > before the water circle coming from A/A' reach him > > So does the light of the strikes travel from A' and B' to M'? Sure, > they do that!! > Of course not. The waves travel with respect to the water. The waves travel from A and B to M', in nature. > Does the light of the strikes travel from A and B to M'? Sure, they do > that!! > > Does the previous assertion imply that the light signals get to > observer M' simultaneously? No, actually quite the contrary, observer > M' will observe the light signal from source point B/B' arriving > before the light signal coming from source point A/A', while observer > M will see two simultaneous light signals. > > Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 14:43
On Dec 21, 12:06 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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). Why are you afraid to answer the modified Einstein train gedanken? You do realize when I say 'modified' I know it is a different gedanken than the Einstein gedanken. What is it about the modified gedanken that has you so scared you won't answer it? Einstein's train gedanken is modified to consist of water at rest with respect to the embankment. The train consists of flat bed cars which do not alter the state of 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'? |