Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 14:49 On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 dic, 16:00, 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? > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > with this? > > Miguel Rios The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect to the aether. When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous? No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the aether.
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 15:06 On Dec 22, 2:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:06 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 22, 9:38 am, PD wrote:> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > ><< 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 DO NOT travel from A' and B' to M', the light from > > the lightning strikes travels from A and B to M'. > > Is this your response, or is this my response? > > If this is your response, great! > glird, I just went back through the posts and see the above post is mine. If you think you understand the point I am trying to make, then you need to understand the above. The light travels with respect to the medium it propagates through. If the water, glass, luminiferous stuff, is at rest with respect to the embankment. The light propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from A and B. When the light, propagating through the medium which is at rest with respect to the embankment reaches ANY Observer, the light has traveled from A and B to the Observer, in nature. mpc755
From: paparios on 22 Dec 2009 15:08 On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, 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? > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > with this? > > > Miguel Rios > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > to the aether. > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > simultaneous? > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > aether. You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here is again his immaculate reasoning: a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and notes that those two distances are the same. d) M does the same and gets the same result. e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that it is the same. f) M does the same and gets the same result. Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. Likewise: 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same time. So here are the facts: a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. Miuel Rios
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 15:14 On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 22 dic, 16:49, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2:39 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 22 dic, 16:00, 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? > > > > For the observer location YES!!!!. He did observe TWO simultaneous > > > flashes at his location. There are an infinity number of ways in which > > > this simultaneous observation can be obtained. Do you have a problem > > > with this? > > > > Miguel Rios > > > The Observer cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the > > events without knowing how far away the lighting strikes occurred > > relative to the Observer and how the Observer is moving with respect > > to the aether. > > > When the Observer measures the one light year to the one lightning > > strike and measures the one light second to the other lightning strike > > does the Observer still conclude the lightning strikes were > > simultaneous? > > > No, because the Observer has more information. What the Observer needs > > to realize is the Observer still does not have enough information. The > > Observer needs to know how the Observer is moving with respect to the > > aether. > > You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here > is again his immaculate reasoning: > > a) Observer M sees TWO SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > b) Observer M' sees TWO NON SIMULTANEOUS strikes. > c) M' measures the distance from himself to the two scorch marks and > notes that those two distances are the same. > d) M does the same and gets the same result. > e) M' measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that > it is the same. > f) M does the same and gets the same result. > > Now here is an INDISPUTABLE train of thought: > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > 3. If the signals arrive at the observer at the same time, > 4. Then the original source of the signals occurred at the same time. > Incorrect. You need to know the state of the medium the light travels through. The water is at rest with respect to the TRAIN. Lighting strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. Does the light travel from A and B to M or from A' and B' to M? The light travels with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the train, so the light travels from A' and B' to M. > Likewise: > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same, and > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same, and > 3'. If the signals arrive at the observer at not the same time, > 4'. Then the original source of the signals occurred at not the same > time. > > So here are the facts: > > a) M observes facts 1, 2, 3, and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > conclusion 4, that is indeed both strikes were simultaneous. > b) M' observes facts 1', 2', 3' and rightfully makes INDISPUTABLE > conclusion 4', that is indeed both strikes were not simultaneous. > > Miuel Rios
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 17:03
On Dec 22, 4:16 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, mpc755 wrote: > > > > glird wrote: > ><< M' measures to A' (because that's where the lightning struck) and to B' (because that's where the lightning struck). >> > mpc wrote: > >< 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 DO NOT travel from A' and B' to M', the light from the lightning strikes travels from A and B to M'. > > Is this your response, or is this my response? > > > Yours! > > >< I just went back through the posts and see the above post is mine. If you think you understand the point I am trying to make, then you need to understand the above. The light travels with respect to the medium it propagates through. If the water, glass, luminiferous stuff, is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from A and B. When the light, propagating through the medium which is at rest with respect to the embankment reaches ANY Observer, the light has traveled from A and B to the Observer, in nature. > > > I am beginning to see your point. I think this is what you mean: > The light from the lightning strike at A/A' and B/B' travels at w > with respect to the water which is at rest with respect to the > embankment. The light from the lightning strikes DO NOT travel from A' > and B' to M' at w, however, it travels from AA' to M' at w-v, and from > BB' to M' at w+v, where v is the velocity of M' wrt THE WATER. Not sure if AA' and BB' are misprints or if you meant A/A' and B/B'. Either way, I think the following is clearer: The light from the lightning strikes DO NOT travel from A' and B' to M' at w. However, the light travels from A' to M' at w-v and from B' to M' at w+v, where v is the velocity of the train with respect to the water. > Pleae correct me if my c-at and mowse game is wrong. Either way, > here is what I think you meant in your next statement: > The light travels at a given speed with respect to the medium it > propagates through. If the water, glass, luminiferous stuff, is at > rest with respect to the embankment, the light propagates outward at > the same speed in all directions from A and B. When the light, > propagating at w through the medium which is at rest with respect to > the embankment, reaches ANY Observer, the light has traveled from A &/ > or A' and B &/or B' to the Observer at a relative speed that depends > on that of the Oberver, in nature though not in STR. > > glird Since the speed of the Observer at M is zero relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, the above seems unclear. We need some type of relative speed of any Observer with respect to the water definition. The light travels from A to M at w-v and from B to M at w+v, where v is the velocity of the embankment with respect to the water. The light travels from A' to M' at w-v' and from B' to M' at w+v', where v' is the velocity of the train with respect to the water. |