Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 07:48 On Dec 22, 6:57 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 dic, 21:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 21, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 water is at rest with respect to the embankment. A pebble is > > dropped into the water when A and A' are at the same location. The > > wave the pebble creates propagates outward in all directions at the > > same speed WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER. The wave the pebble creates > > propagates outward in all directions at the same speed WITH RESPECT TO > > A. > > The correct sentence is: > > The wave the pebble creates propagates outward in all directions at > the same speed WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION A/A' WHERE THE PEBBLE HIT > THE WATER. The wave the pebble creates propagates outward in all > directions at the same speed WITH RESPECT TO A/A'. > > > When the wave the ripple makes in the water reaches the Observer at > > M', has the wave traveled from A' to M' or from A to M'? The ripple > > the pebble makes in the water travels from A to M'. A' is meaningless > > when discussing the distance the wave travels to M'. > > Wrong!!! Once created the wave just propagates and eventually it will > reach the location of both observers M and M'. The hit point > coordinates exist in both frames of reference. So when you say A/A', > it means a point A with coordinates (-x_A,t_A) and a point A' with > coordinates (-x_A',t_A'). The light signal front is propagating with > some definite equations of movement involving the location of the > front (in terms of the coordinates (x,t) at the embankment frame and > (x',t') at the train frame). > 'Light signal front'? We are discussing the WATER wave a pebble makes when it is dropped into the water when A and A' occupy the same point in three dimensional space. Does the WATER wave the pebble creates in the water propagate outward at the same speed in all directions with respect to the water? Yes, and since A is at rest with respect to the water, the WATER wave the pebble creates in the water propagates outward at the same speed in all directions with respect to A. A' is meaningless when discussing the propagation of the WATER wave. > For instance if the pebble hit the water at time t=0 (as measured on > the embankment frame of reference), then the equation of movement of > the light signal on the frame K is: > > x(t)=ct-x_A > > The equation of movement of the same light signal, but now viewed from > the frame K' of the train is: > > x'(t)=ct'-x_A' > > So for sure that A and A' are both relevant to these calculations. > > Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 08:21 On Dec 22, 5:53 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 21 dic, 16:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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- > > You should complete your citing!!! I goes like follows: > > "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. The > velocity of light relative to the liquid and the velocity of the > latter relative to the tube are thus known, and we require the > velocity of light relative to the tube. > > It is clear that we have the problem of Section VI again before us. > The tube plays the part of the railway embankment or of the co- > ordinate system K, the liquid plays the part of the carriage or of the > co-ordinate system K', and finally, the light plays the part of the > man walking along the carriage, or of the moving point in the present > section. If we denote the velocity of the light relative to the tube > by W, then this is given by the equation (A) or (B), according as the > Galilei transformation or the Lorentz transformation corresponds to > the facts. Experiment decides in favour of equation (B) derived from > the theory of relativity, and the agreement is, indeed, very exact. > According to recent and most excellent measurements by Zeeman, the > influence of the velocity of flow v on the propagation of light is > represented by formula (B) to within one per cent." > > Mguel Rios From a quick review of Zeeman it looks like he measure the speed of light with respect to moving mediums and compared that with speed of light with respect to mediums at rest. Since an atomic clock 'ticks' with respect to the aether pressure, this makes sense. The aether pressure associated with a moving medium will be greater than the aether pressure associated with a medium at rest if the experiment is performed on the surface of the Earth where the aether is entrained by the Earth.
From: paparios on 22 Dec 2009 08:29 On 22 dic, 09:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 6:57 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The correct sentence is: > > > The wave the pebble creates propagates outward in all directions at > > the same speed WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION A/A' WHERE THE PEBBLE HIT > > THE WATER. The wave the pebble creates propagates outward in all > > directions at the same speed WITH RESPECT TO A/A'. > > > > When the wave the ripple makes in the water reaches the Observer at > > > M', has the wave traveled from A' to M' or from A to M'? The ripple > > > the pebble makes in the water travels from A to M'. A' is meaningless > > > when discussing the distance the wave travels to M'. > > > Wrong!!! Once created the wave just propagates and eventually it will > > reach the location of both observers M and M'. The hit point > > coordinates exist in both frames of reference. So when you say A/A', > > it means a point A with coordinates (-x_A,t_A) and a point A' with > > coordinates (-x_A',t_A'). The light signal front is propagating with > > some definite equations of movement involving the location of the > > front (in terms of the coordinates (x,t) at the embankment frame and > > (x',t') at the train frame). > > 'Light signal front'? > Have you ever drop a pebble into a pool? There are several concentric waves propagating after the pebble hit the water. The first of all those waves is the signal front, and you use it to define the coordinates of the propagating signal. > We are discussing the WATER wave a pebble makes when it is dropped > into the water when A and A' occupy the same point in three > dimensional space. > That is right, at a given time (say t=0 on the embankment frame K) points A and A' coincide on a certain location (say when x=-x_A on frame K). The coordinates of those two points are the following: Point A on frame K: (x,t)=(-x_A,0) Point A' on frame K': (x',t')=(-x_A',t_A'), where x' and t' are related through the Lorentz Transformation Equations. > Does the WATER wave the pebble creates in the water propagate outward > at the same speed in all directions with respect to the water? > Sure it does!, but with respect to its source coordinates. So it is an expanding circle with center in points A/A' at the time the pebble hit the water. > Yes, and since A is at rest with respect to the water, the WATER wave > the pebble creates in the water propagates outward at the same speed > in all directions with respect to A. A' is meaningless when discussing > the propagation of the WATER wave. > Wrong again!!! For instance if the pebble hit the water at time t=0 (as measured on the embankment frame of reference), then the equation of movement of the light signal on the frame K is: x(t)=ct-x_A The equation of movement of the same light signal, but now viewed from the frame K' of the train is: x'(t)=ct'-x_A' So for sure that A and A' are both relevant to these calculations. Miguel Rios
From: glird on 22 Dec 2009 08:40 On Dec 21, 12:39 pm, PD wrote: mpc755 wrote: ><< 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 that A and B are equidistant from M, can the Observer at M conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously? >> PD answered: >< 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 distances 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. knows also that the time it takes for the light to travel from A to M equals the time it takes for 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. > Dear mpc, Please don't reply to any more arguments against your thesis on this newsgroup! Although we disagree on some of the details, I will defend your position from now on. Along the way it will become evident that NONE of the physicists who've been attacking your thesis understand STR any better than you do. glird
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 09:35
On Dec 22, 7:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 12:39 pm, PD wrote: > > mpc755 wrote: > ><< 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 that A and B are equidistant from M, can the Observer at M conclude the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously? >> > > PD answered:>< 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 distances 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. knows also that the time it takes for the light to travel from > A to M equals the time it takes for 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. > > > Dear mpc, > Please don't reply to any more arguments against your thesis on this > newsgroup! Although we disagree on some of the details, I will defend > your position from now on. Along the way it will become evident that > NONE of the physicists who've been attacking your thesis understand > STR any better than you do. > > glird What do you find confusing about STR, glird? It's really pretty straightforward. |