Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 14:44 On Dec 21, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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). And the Observer at M' would be incorrect. The light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travels with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the lightning strikes DOES NOT travel from A' and B' to M', the light from the lightning strikes travels from A and B to M'.
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 14:48 On Dec 21, 12:15 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Because light propagates outward at the same speed in all directions with respect to the water. http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/einstein_relativity03.htm "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 14:55 On Dec 21, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > What I have been saying is IF the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment and the light is at rest with respect to the train, then the light from A and B would reach M simultaneously and the light from A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously. That is why in my animation the embankment and the train occupy different areas of three dimensional space. Since this is not what occurs in nature in experiments similar to Einstein's train gedanken, this is evidence the aether is NOT at rest with respect to the embankment and with respect to the train. The experimental evidence of experiment similar to Einstein's train gedanken are in agreement with experiment performed in water where the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, or the water is at rest with respect to the train, but the water cannot be at rest with respect to both, just the aether is not at rest with respect to both. Just like if the Observer at M' knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' will NOT conclude the light traveled from A' and B' to M', if the Observer at M' knows the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' will NOT conclude the light traveled from A' and B' to M'. The problem with Einstein's train gedanken is it is assumed the state of the aether does not matter, but even Einstein punted on this one: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable." In Einstein's train gedanken the physical equivalence of the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference IS indeed downright incorrect.
From: mpc755 on 21 Dec 2009 14:58 On Dec 21, 2:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 12:34 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > What I have been saying is IF the aether is at rest with respect to > the embankment and the light is at rest with respect to the train, > then the light from A and B would reach M simultaneously and the light > from A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously. That is why in my > animation the embankment and the train occupy different areas of three > dimensional space. > > Since this is not what occurs in nature in experiments similar to > Einstein's train gedanken, this is evidence the aether is NOT at rest > with respect to the embankment and with respect to the train. The > experimental evidence of experiment similar to Einstein's train > gedanken are in agreement with experiment performed in water where the > water is at rest with respect to the embankment, or the water is at > rest with respect to the train, but the water cannot be at rest with > respect to both, just the aether is not at rest with respect to both. > > Just like if the Observer at M' knows the water is at rest with > respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' will NOT conclude the > light traveled from A' and B' to M', if the Observer at M' knows the > aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' > will NOT conclude the light traveled from A' and B' to M'. > > The problem with Einstein's train gedanken is it is assumed the state > of the aether does not matter, but even Einstein punted on this one: > > 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html > > "If we assume the ether to be at rest relatively to K, but in motion > relatively to K', the physical equivalence of K and K' seems to me > from the logical standpoint, not indeed downright incorrect, but > nevertheless unacceptable." > > In Einstein's train gedanken the physical equivalence of the > embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference IS > indeed downright incorrect. Correction: What I have been saying is IF the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment and the [aether] is at rest with respect to the train...
From: PD on 21 Dec 2009 15:58
On Dec 21, 1:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 12:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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). > > And the Observer at M' would be incorrect. The light from the > lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travels with respect to the water > which is at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the > lightning strikes DOES NOT travel from A' and B' to M', the light from > the lightning strikes travels from A and B to M'. At the time of the lightning strike, A and A' are at the same location. Then the light leaves that common spot before A and A' separate. Therefore to say that the light comes from A and not A', when A and A' were at the SAME PLACE at the moment of the strike, is not just stupid, it is spectacularly stupid. The same goes for B and B'. PD |