Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 16 Dec 2009 14:26 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the >aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of >reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at >rest in both frames of reference, This "aether is at rest in both frames of reference" is a contradiction and evidence against aether, since it would require it to be both at rest and moving at v in the unprimed frames (since it is at rest in the primed frame) simultaneously.
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 14:45 On Dec 16, 2:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the > >aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > >reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at > >rest in both frames of reference, > > This "aether is at rest in both frames of reference" is a contradiction > and evidence against aether, since it would require it to be both at > rest and moving at v in the unprimed frames (since it is at rest in the > primed frame) simultaneously. The train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional space. The train is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative to the train. The embankment is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A, A', B, and B'. The light from the lightning strikes at A and B travel through the water and reach M simultaneously. The light from the lightning strikes at A' and B' travel through the water and reach M' simultaneously. Are you saying the above paragraph is physically impossible? In the above paragraph, remove the water.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 15:00 On Dec 16, 10:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 11:20 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:00 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 10:55 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 9:28 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 16, 10:11 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 2:51 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 15, 1:43 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > >On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > >> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation... > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > >> ... > > > > > > > > > > > >> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously > > > > > > > > > > > >> struck by lightning. > > > > > > > > > > > >And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning? > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would > > > > > > > > > > > propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic > > > > > > > > > > > jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of > > > > > > > > > > > sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the > > > > > > > > > > > ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as > > > > > > > > > > > nearly twice normal. > > > > > > > > > > > > Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times, > > > > > > > > > > > your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is > > > > > > > > > > > automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has > > > > > > > > > > > even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850, > > > > > > > > > > > before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet. > > > > > > > > > > > MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by > > > > > > > > > > pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression > > > > > > > > > > that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The > > > > > > > > > > idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe > > > > > > > > > > a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend. > > > > > > > > > > If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the > > > > > > > > > lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the > > > > > > > > > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of > > > > > > > > > reference? > > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from > > > > > > > A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it > > > > > > > is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M' > > > > > > > simultaneously? > > > > > > > You asked whether it accurately reflects what occurs with light in the > > > > > > train frame of reference. > > > > > > It does not, according to experiment. > > > > > > According to experiment, the light from A' and B' does not arrive at > > > > > > M' simultaneously. > > > > > > This is an observational FACT. > > > > > > Once again, you are simply not paying very much attention to a > > > > > discussion. > > > > > > That is not what I have been saying at all. Please pay attention. > > > > > > In MY ANIMATION the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. > > > > > That's right. But your animation has no bearing on reality. > > > > > In REALITY, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > In SR, the light from A' and B' does not reach M' simultaneously. > > > > SR accurately represents reality. > > > > Your animation does not accurately represent reality. > > > > > There is no point in discussing what happens in an animation that has > > > > no bearing on reality. No matter how much attention you crave. > > > > Ok, I am not talking about an animation, I am talking about the > > > scenarios below: > > > OK, so what you are now asking about is reality, then? > > You want some guidance on what happens in reality. > > > > > > I will try and make it as simple as possible so there may at least be > > > > > a slight chance you will not once again misinterpret what I am saying. > > > > > > Scenario 1: > > > > > > All there is is a train. That is it. There is no embankment. Lightning > > > > > strikes occur at A' and B' and the light from the lightning strikes > > > > > reaches M' simultaneously. > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M' simultaneously > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the train and > > the lightning strikes and M'. > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' simultaneously. Yes, in one reference frame, but this is not the reference frame shown in your animation. This is the part you are having difficulty with, and we need to discuss what a reference frame is. > > > > > > > > Scenario 2: > > > > > > All there is is an embankment. That is it. There is no train. > > > > > Lightning strikes occur at A and B and the light from the lightning > > > > > strikes reach M simultaneously. > > > Whether the light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously > > depends on the frame of reference being used to look at the embankment > > and the lightning strikes and M. > > > If you think there is only one reference frame here, then we need to > > talk about what a frame of reference is. > > I'm simply asking you if it is physically possible in nature for the > light from lightning strikes at A and B to reach M simultaneously. Yes, in one reference frame. > > > > > > > > > > Do you agree Scenario 1 and Scenario two are physically possible in > > > > > nature? > > > Yes, but see my notes. > > > > > > Scenario 3: > > > > > > There are both a train frame of reference and an embankment frame of > > > > > reference. The frames of reference occupy completely different regions > > > > > of three dimensional space. The frames of reference never interact. > > > We obviously need to discuss what a frame of reference is. What you've > > described regarding frames of reference is not what a reference frame > > is. > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > billion light years away from the embankment. The distance makes no difference as far as reference frames are considered. ALL of 3-dimensional space is in each and every reference frame. You don't want to talk about reference frames. But Einstein's gedanken is all about reference frames. We can talk about your animation if you like, even though it doesn't represent reality, but the moment you want to talk about Einstein's gedanken, we're going to have to talk about what reference frames are. > 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'? Now, keep in mind that you are talking about FOUR lightning strikes: at A, A', B, B', and there is significant distance between each of them. When we get around to talking about Einstein's gedanken, remember that there are only TWO lightning strikes. Any claim about what Einstein said has to be done in the context of TWO and only TWO lightning strikes. The other thing I'd want to point out to you is that your animation DOES adopt a particular reference frame: the rest frame of A, B, and M. Do you understand that? Do you understand what a reference frame is? The reason I mention this is that your animation shows the light from A' and B' arriving at M' simultaneously IN THE REST FRAME OF A, B, AND M. This does not represent reality. > > > > > > > > Are Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 physically possible in Scenario 3. > > > > > > If your answer is no, then that is not relativity. > > > > > > In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the > > > > > aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > > > > > reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at > > > > > rest in both frames of reference, Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 are not > > > > > only physically possible in Scenario 3, it is the way nature must be > > > > > in order to maintain relativity.
From: paparios on 16 Dec 2009 15:01 On 16 dic, 16:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > The train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional > space. The train is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative > to the train. The embankment is knee deep in water. The water is at > rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A, A', B, > and B'. The light from the lightning strikes at A and B travel through > the water and reach M simultaneously. The light from the lightning > strikes at A' and B' travel through the water and reach M' > simultaneously. > > Are you saying the above paragraph is physically impossible? > > In the above paragraph, remove the water. Forget the train, forget the embankment and please do forget the water, for Christ sake!!!. We are talking of light signals here, and in vacuum... The point here is that if observer M receives two light signals at the same time, observer M', who is himself moving at a speed v relative to the observer M, will receive the same light signals at different times. This is because one of the light signals is approaching him, while he is moving towards the source of that signal (that is, with a closing speed of c+v), while the other light signal is trying to catch with him, since he is moving away from the light source (that is, with a closing speed of c-v). Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 15:03
On Dec 16, 2:45 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 2:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the > > >aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > > >reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at > > >rest in both frames of reference, > > > This "aether is at rest in both frames of reference" is a contradiction > > and evidence against aether, since it would require it to be both at > > rest and moving at v in the unprimed frames (since it is at rest in the > > primed frame) simultaneously. > > The train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional > space. The train is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative > to the train. The embankment is knee deep in water. The water is at > rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A, A', B, > and B'. The light from the lightning strikes at A and B travel through > the water and reach M simultaneously. The light from the lightning > strikes at A' and B' travel through the water and reach M' > simultaneously. > > Are you saying the above paragraph is physically impossible? > > In the above paragraph, remove the water. Scenario 1: The train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart. Light from lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. Light form lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M'. Scenario 2: The train and embankment are 1 millimeter apart. A and A' are 1 millimeter apart, B and B' are 1 millimeter apart and M and M' are 1 millimeter apart at the time of the lightning strikes. A and B are 1 light year from M and A' and B' are 1 light year from M'. The train and embankment are moving at 1/4 the speed of light relative to one another. For some reason, in SR, the events A and B on the embankment determine the simultaneity of the events on the train and vice verse. In Aether Displacement, the train and the embankment are 1 mm apart and exist in their own regions of three dimensional space and since the train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional space the aether can be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative to the embankment. In Scenario 2, in AD, the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously as determined by and Observer at M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M'. In AD, light travels at 'c' relative to the aether. |