Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 13:43 On Dec 22, 10:38 am, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > 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. Nice heckle from the peanut gallery. Don't you think it would be better if YOU knew something about STR before you go around claiming who understands it and who doesn't? > > glird
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 13:48 On Dec 22, 9:57 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Of course it can be determined. The location of the source of the light is determined by the scorch mark left at the end of the train by the lightning strike at A'. There can be no other source of light. Measuring the distance between the scorch mark at the end of the train and the little black mark at M' can be done with a tape measure. I don't know why you think this is complicated. It's not. Here's what you do. 1. You measure the distance between the scorch marks where the lightning strikes occurred and where you are standing. You note that those distances are equal. 2. You measure the isotropy of the speed of light where you are standing by an independent experiment. You note that the speed of light is the same from both directions. 3. Since the distances are the same and the speeds are the same, then the times of propagation are the same. 4. If the signals arrived at your location at the same time, then you conclude that the original lightning strikes were simultaneous. If the signals arrived at your location at different times, then you conclude that the original lightning strikes were not simulataneous. Even a 3rd grader could figure this out. > > 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: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 14:00 On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the lightning strike simultaneous? > > 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: glird on 22 Dec 2009 14:02 On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD wrote: > > << 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. > The defense lawyer objects: "The two guys are wrong. M saw two lights that reached him simultaneously and M' saw two that reached him non-simultaneously. That doesn't prove anything at all about whether or not the lightning bolts struck two remote places simultaneously." ... case closed in favor of the defense. > << 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 as to that. What it is relevant if that observations agree about that, and the result is that they do not agree....case closed.> The defense lawyer replies, "How do you know that both strikes were simultaneous? Indeed," he continued, "how do you KNOW whether Mr. M or Mr. M' is stationary?" The offensive lawyer would probably answer, "Because Einstein said so!" ... case remains open. > << 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 lightning 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 not 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!!! > A and B are not "points". They are places on the ground where lightning bolts hit. Even a bug could go to them and check what happened there -- which was that a lightning bolt hit and scorched each place. glird
From: PD on 22 Dec 2009 14:04
On Dec 22, 1:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 11:44 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > A lightning strike occurs one light year away from the Observer on the > embankment. A second before the light from the lightning strike > reaches the Observer on the embankment, a lighting strike occurs one > second away from the Observer on the embankment. The light from both > lightning strikes reach the Observer simultaneously. Were the > lightning strike simultaneous? Of course not. The observer can measure the distance between where he was standing and where the scorch marks from the lightning strikes are, and he can see that the distances are not the same. One is 30 million times longer than the other. Please pay attention to what I told you. > > > > 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 |