Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 22 Dec 2009 21:02 On Dec 22, 8:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 5:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:da12e4ea-4256-4e5a-b9bb-cf0a0fe468a9(a)n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > > > 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!!! > > > The statement was correct .. the speed of propagation of the water waves is > > the same with respect to the water. > > > > That is > > > total nonsense. > > > No > > > > It is propagating on expanding circles, with respect to the hit point > > > of the pebble. > > > Not 'with respect to' .. centered around would be better. Even better > > "concentric expanding circles with their centre at the hit point of the > > pebble relative to the water". The speed of those waves is the same > > relative to the water. > > > If the water is flowing, then the waves are NOT concentric on the original > > hit point. The circle centre moves with the water, leaving the pebble > > behind. > > Correct. And the same is true for water which is at rest with respect > to the embankment. The waves created by a pebble dropped at A/A' > propagate outward relative to the water which is at rest with respect > to the embankment. This means the waves created by a pebble dropped at > A/A' propagate outward relative to A which is at rest with respect to > the water. > > And the same is true for light waves. The light waves created by a > flash at A/A' propagate outward relative to the water which is at rest > with respect to the embankment. This means the light waves created by > the flash at A/A' propagate outward relative to A which is at rest > with respect to the water. You are staring down at water at rest. Directly below you, you see A at the bottom of the water. Off in the distance you see A' approaching A. Behind A' is M'. You time it so the pebble hits the water when A and A' exist at the same point in space. The waves propagate outward with A always remaining at the center. When the waves propagate outward and reach M', the waves travel from A to M', in nature. You are staring down at water at rest. Directly below you, you see A at the bottom of the water. Between you and A is a small flash bulb. Off in the distance you see A' approaching A. Behind A' is M'. You time it so the flash occurs when A and A' exist at the same point in space. The light waves propagate outward with A always remaining at the center. When the light waves propagate outward and reach M', the waves travel from A to M', in nature. You are in a vacuum staring down. Directly below you, you see A on the floor. The aether is at rest with respect to A. Between you and A is a small flash bulb. Off in the distance you see A' approaching A. Behind A' is M'. You time it so the flash occurs when A and A' exist at the same point in space. The light waves propagate outward with A always remaining at the center. When the light waves propagate outward and reach M', the waves travel from A to M', in nature.
From: PD on 23 Dec 2009 09:57 On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Without knowing the relative motion of an object with respect to the > aether simultaneity cannot be determined. Sure it can. Read what I wrote. Those are the ONLY conditions required to determine simultaneity. > If light reaches M > simultaneously from A and B and it is assumed the aether is at rest > with respect to the embankment, then the lightning strikes at A/A' and > B/B' were simultaneous. If however, the aether is at rest with respect > to the embankment and the Observer on the train is aware of this > information, when the Observer on the train measures to A' and B' and > factors in when the light from the lightning strike reached M' and > factors in the trains speed relative to the embankment (which gives > the speed of the train relative to the aether), the Observer on the > train concludes the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were > simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 23 Dec 2009 09:59 On Dec 23, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 1:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 1:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > Without knowing the relative motion of an object with respect to the > > aether simultaneity cannot be determined. > > Sure it can. Read what I wrote. Those are the ONLY conditions required > to determine simultaneity. > And that is why you and SR are incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether, just like light travels at 'w' with respect to the liquid. > > If light reaches M > > simultaneously from A and B and it is assumed the aether is at rest > > with respect to the embankment, then the lightning strikes at A/A' and > > B/B' were simultaneous. If however, the aether is at rest with respect > > to the embankment and the Observer on the train is aware of this > > information, when the Observer on the train measures to A' and B' and > > factors in when the light from the lightning strike reached M' and > > factors in the trains speed relative to the embankment (which gives > > the speed of the train relative to the aether), the Observer on the > > train concludes the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were > > simultaneous. > >
From: Michael Moroney on 23 Dec 2009 15:17 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 22, 7:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >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. >> >> Wrong. >> >> From:http://www.bun.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~suchii/EonFizeau.html(which you >> yourself supplied, so you had to have read it already): >> >> Does light in a moving liquid move according to: >> >> (A) W = w + v [Gallilean] >> >> or >> >> (B) W = (w + v) / (1 + wv/cc). [Lorenzian] >> >> ? >> >> "Now, Fizeau's experiment gave the results expressed by >> >> (C) W = w + v(1 - ww/cc). >> >> Thus, (A) is refuted by (C) and the relativistic account is in >> conformity with the results, to the same order of approximation as >> Fizeau's formula (46). " >> >> (C) is (B) with an approximation that wv/c^2 is small compared to 1. >Correct. I'm glad you agree, however it appears that almost all your posts assume u = v + w when at least one of v and w are relativistic speeds, and this is long known to be false. Any of your claims that assume such are false, GIGO. [snip unrelated claim that aether pressure slows time or something]
From: glird on 23 Dec 2009 16:24
On Dec 22, 1:41 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 12:06 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'. > > > >< 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. > > > 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. > > 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. >> > > > What PD listed aren't experimental FACTS; they are interpretations -- > > by physicists -- of experimental data. > > No, they're facts. Do you need references to the experiments that > directly measure the isotropy of the speed of light, and the > independence of the speed of light upon the motion of the source? Yes! (Especially wrt light within or passing by a black hole; and the time it takes a ray to get from NY to Ca westbound as compared to eastbound, with EARTH as the frame of refernce. > > The data is indisputable, but the interpretations are off the wall. > > Even the smartest physicist of them all, Einstein, knew that it is > > impossible for anything to move at a given velocity relative to two > > differently moving objects. > > It can't be impossible if that's what's actually observed in > experiment. If you pretend to think scientifically, but then look at > an experimental result and announce that it's impossible, then your > pretense is uncovered. i don't pretend to think "scientifically" ! I think LOGICALLY !! > > That's why he {EINSTEIN} invented a novel method of setting clocks of a given > > system. (As Einstein showed, at least one of PD's two indisputable > > facts would be experimentally false without it.) Do you need references to Einstein's mental experiments that directly measured the anisotropy of the speed of light, and the dependence of the speed of light upon the motion of the viewer? glird |