Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 10:57 On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 21, 6:40 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 21, 3:58 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 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. > > That's true for water. It is true for light waves in water. > What's true for light is this experimental observation: > The speed of light approaching M from either direction is the same: c. > The speed of light approaching M' from either direction is the same: > c. > Correct. > The fact that what you say about water is true does not mean that the > experimental facts about light I just listed are disputable. They > aren't. > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates through, simultaneity cannot be determined. If the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light waves travel through the water from A and B to BOTH M and M'. If the Observer at M and M' know the state of the water, which is at rest with respect to the embankment and if the light from the lighting strikes reaches M simultaneously, BOTH Observers will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. If the Observers do not know the state of the water, determining the simultaneity of the lightning strikes is impossible. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light waves travel through the aether from A and B to BOTH M and M'. If the Observer at M and M' know the state of the aether, which is at rest with respect to the embankment and if the light from the lighting strikes reaches M simultaneously, BOTH Observers will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. If the Observers do not know the state of the aether, determining the simultaneity of lightning strikes is impossible. > > > > 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'. > > > The water is at rest with respect to the embankment. A flash of light > > occurs when A and A' are at the same location. The light wave the > > flash creates propagates outward in all directions at the same speed > > WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER. The light wave the flash creates propagates > > outward in all directions at the same speed WITH RESPECT TO A. > > > When the light wave the flash makes in the water reaches the Observer > > at M', has the wave traveled from A' to M' or from A to M'? > >
From: glird on 22 Dec 2009 11:38 On Dec 22, 9:35 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 7:40 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > ><< 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. >> > > What do you find confusing about STR, glird? It's really >pretty straightforward. Read my words: "NONE of the physicists who've been attacking your thesis understand STR any better than you do." Now read my lips: THAT includes YOu, pd. glird
From: paparios on 22 Dec 2009 11:44 On 22 dic, 12:57, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Correct. What is disputable is where the light travels from to M and > M'. Without knowing the state of the aether the light propagates > through, simultaneity cannot be determined. > Of course it can!!!!. Just ask the two guys what they saw. One of them (M) will tell you "I saw two simultaneous strikes", the other (M') will assure you "I saw two non simultaneous strikes"....case closed. > If the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light > waves travel through the water from A and B to BOTH M and M'. If the > Observer at M and M' know the state of the water, which is at rest > with respect to the embankment and if the light from the lighting > strikes reaches M simultaneously, BOTH Observers will conclude the > lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. If the Observers do > not know the state of the water, determining the simultaneity of the > lightning strikes is impossible. > What is the point of that?. For sure we all know that. In fact it is a given in Einstein gedanken!!!! We know both strikes were simultaneous...there is no question to that. What it is relevant if that observations agree about that, and the result is that they do not agree....case closed. > If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light > waves travel through the aether from A and B to BOTH M and M'. If the > Observer at M and M' know the state of the aether, which is at rest > with respect to the embankment and if the light from the lighting > strikes reaches M simultaneously, BOTH Observers will conclude the > lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. If the Observers do > not know the state of the aether, determining the simultaneity of > lightning strikes is impossible. > Again nonsense. That is no relevant to the relativity of simultaneity gedanken. And in practical terms, I doubt you would be able to travel to points A and B to check what happened there!!! Miguel Rios
From: paparios on 22 Dec 2009 11:49 On 22 dic, 12:40, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 8:29 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, I have dropped pebbles into water and what occurs is the wave > propagates outward in all directions at the same speed with respect to > the water. NO, you have to repeat that experiment again. The wave sure is not propagating with respect to the water!!! That is total nonsense. It is propagating on expanding circles, with respect to the hit point of the pebble. Miguel Rios
From: Michael Moroney on 22 Dec 2009 12:08
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >Dear glird, >I understand STR better than anyone. >mpc755 Thanks for the laugh! |