Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 24 Dec 2009 09:41 On Dec 24, 12:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 23, 6:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> >A flash of light occurs in the middle of a river upstream. You are in > >> >the middle of the river downstream. The light wave the flash creates > >> >in the water reaches you. The light wave the flash makes has traveled > >> >at w with respect to the water to reach you and the light wave the > >> >flash makes has traveled at w + v relative to the embankment to reach > >> >you. > > >> Wrong. The light reaches you at velocity W = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) since w > >> is a relativistic speed (0.75 c in water). > >> You'd know this if you read Einstein's comments on the Fizeau Experiment. > >> (So why did you say "correct" earlier?) > > I see that, despite spamming your answer (at least) 5 times, you weren't > able to address this. > > >> Since your statements are all based on this incorrect statement, it's > >> GIGO. > >A flash of light occurs in the middle of a vacuum on the surface of > >the Earth. The aether entrained by the Earth is at rest with respect > >to the Earth. You are in the vacuum moving towards the flash of light. > >You are moving with a relativistic velocity relative to the Earth. The > >light wave the flash makes reaches you. The light wave the flash makes > >has traveled at c with respect to the aether to reach you and the > >light wave the flash makes has traveled at c + your relativistic > >velocity relative to the Earth. Factoring you in is the closing > >velocity with respect to the light. The fact remains the flash > >traveled at c with respect to the aether. > > Let's look at this. Since light in a vacuum moves at c relative to > everything, it doesn't matter whether your aether exists or not. > It moves at c relative to you, relative to me, relative to pink flying > elephants and relative to the aether. So, let's do the math. My > relativistic velocity is v, the light flash moves relative to "the aether" > at c. So what is my velocity relative to the light as I approach it? Let's > plug it into u = (v + w)/(1+ vw/c^2). v=v, w=c. u = (v+c)/(1+ vc/c^2) > which is (v+c)/(1+v/c). Multiply by 1 in the form of c/c and we get > c(v+c)/c(1+v/c) = c(v+c)/(c+v) = c. So, I measure the incoming light as > moving at c, consistent with experiments, as well as what I said earlier > (that light moves at c relative to everything). How far has the flash of light traveled to reach you? Has it traveled at 'c' from where the source *is* the instant the light reaches you. In Aether Displacement, since light always propagates with the same velocity 'c' with respect to the aether, and the source is at rest with respect to the aether, yes, the light does travel from where the source *is* when the light waves reach you. When determining the speed of the light relative to your motion relative to the Earth, your speed is your closing speed relative to the light. Since you are moving through aether at rest with respect to the source, when the light reaches you, the light has traveled from where the source *is* to where you *are* with respect to the aether. That is what is incorrect about Einstein's train gedanken. The light does not travel from B to M and from B' to M' at 'c'. The light travels from the emission point with respect to the aether and propagates with the same velocity 'c' with respect to the aether. The Observers have to know their respective states relative to the aether in order to determine simultaneity. If Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water and the Observer at M and the Observer at M' do not know their state with respect to the water they cannot determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert Einstein This means if the water is moving relative to both Observers, the light waves will be traveling at 'w' with respect to the moving water. If the Observers do not know how the water is moving, then when the lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' the cannot conclude anything about when the lightning strikes occurred. If the water is at rest with respect to the embankment and the Observer on the embankment has this information, the Observer on the embankment, when the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, measures to A and B and determines them to be equi-distant from M, and then factors in the light traveled at 'w' from A and traveled at 'w' from B and the lightning strikes were therefore simultaneous. If the Observer the embankment does not know the state of the embankment with respect to the water the Observer on the embankment cannot factor in the light traveled the speed of the light with respect to the water and cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. In fact, if the water is not at rest with respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' do reach the Observer at M simultaneous, then the lightning strikes were NOT simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 24 Dec 2009 11:40 On Dec 24, 9:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 12:49 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 23, 6:02 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > >> >A flash of light occurs in the middle of a river upstream. You are in > > >> >the middle of the river downstream. The light wave the flash creates > > >> >in the water reaches you. The light wave the flash makes has traveled > > >> >at w with respect to the water to reach you and the light wave the > > >> >flash makes has traveled at w + v relative to the embankment to reach > > >> >you. > > > >> Wrong. The light reaches you at velocity W = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2) since w > > >> is a relativistic speed (0.75 c in water). > > >> You'd know this if you read Einstein's comments on the Fizeau Experiment. > > >> (So why did you say "correct" earlier?) > > > I see that, despite spamming your answer (at least) 5 times, you weren't > > able to address this. > > > >> Since your statements are all based on this incorrect statement, it's > > >> GIGO. > > >A flash of light occurs in the middle of a vacuum on the surface of > > >the Earth. The aether entrained by the Earth is at rest with respect > > >to the Earth. You are in the vacuum moving towards the flash of light. > > >You are moving with a relativistic velocity relative to the Earth. The > > >light wave the flash makes reaches you. The light wave the flash makes > > >has traveled at c with respect to the aether to reach you and the > > >light wave the flash makes has traveled at c + your relativistic > > >velocity relative to the Earth. Factoring you in is the closing > > >velocity with respect to the light. The fact remains the flash > > >traveled at c with respect to the aether. > > > Let's look at this. Since light in a vacuum moves at c relative to > > everything, it doesn't matter whether your aether exists or not. > > It moves at c relative to you, relative to me, relative to pink flying > > elephants and relative to the aether. So, let's do the math. My > > relativistic velocity is v, the light flash moves relative to "the aether" > > at c. So what is my velocity relative to the light as I approach it? Let's > > plug it into u = (v + w)/(1+ vw/c^2). v=v, w=c. u = (v+c)/(1+ vc/c^2) > > which is (v+c)/(1+v/c). Multiply by 1 in the form of c/c and we get > > c(v+c)/c(1+v/c) = c(v+c)/(c+v) = c. So, I measure the incoming light as > > moving at c, consistent with experiments, as well as what I said earlier > > (that light moves at c relative to everything). > > How far has the flash of light traveled to reach you? Has it traveled > at 'c' from where the source *is* the instant the light reaches you. > In Aether Displacement, since light always propagates with the same > velocity 'c' with respect to the aether, and the source is at rest > with respect to the aether, yes, the light does travel from where the > source *is* when the light waves reach you. When determining the speed > of the light relative to your motion relative to the Earth, your speed > is your closing speed relative to the light. Since you are moving > through aether at rest with respect to the source, when the light > reaches you, the light has traveled from where the source *is* to > where you *are* with respect to the aether. > > That is what is incorrect about Einstein's train gedanken. The light > does not travel from B to M and from B' to M' at 'c'. The light > travels from the emission point with respect to the aether and > propagates with the same velocity 'c' with respect to the aether. The > Observers have to know their respective states relative to the aether > in order to determine simultaneity. > > If Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water and the Observer at > M and the Observer at M' do not know their state with respect to the > water they cannot determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. > > "In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly > have to take for granted that the propagation of light always takes > place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid, whether the > latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not." - Albert > Einstein > > This means if the water is moving relative to both Observers, the > light waves will be traveling at 'w' with respect to the moving water. > If the Observers do not know how the water is moving, then when the > lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' the cannot conclude anything > about when the lightning strikes occurred. > > If the water is at rest with respect to the embankment and the > Observer on the embankment has this information, the Observer on the > embankment, when the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, > measures to A and B and determines them to be equi-distant from M, and > then factors in the light traveled at 'w' from A and traveled at 'w' > from B and the lightning strikes were therefore simultaneous. If the > Observer the embankment does not know the state of the embankment with > respect to the water the Observer on the embankment cannot factor in > the light traveled the speed of the light with respect to the water > and cannot conclude anything about the simultaneity of the lightning > strikes. In fact, if the water is not at rest with respect to the > embankment and the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' > do reach the Observer at M simultaneous, then the lightning strikes > were NOT simultaneous. The embankment is moving at speed v with respect to the water. The water is moving 'downstream' from B towards A. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B' equi-distant from M. The light from the lightning strikes reaches M simultaneously. Since the light from the lightning strike at B/B' is moving at w + v relative to the embankment and the light from the lightning strike at A/A' is moving at w - v relative to the embankment, this means the lightning strikes did not occur simultaneously. If the Observer at M concludes the lightnings strikes occurred simultaneously, in nature, because the light from the lightning strikes arrived at M simultaneously, the Observer at M is incorrect.
From: glird on 24 Dec 2009 16:16 On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" wrote: >< You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here again is 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. > Here is what's wrong with his maculate reasoning: a) Observer M sees TWO strikes SIMULTANEOUSLY. b) Observer M' sees TWO strikes NON SIMULTANEOUSLY. c) M', who is moving wrt the embankment and its scotch marks, measures the distance from himself to the two marks when he sees the first and then the second flash and notes that those two distances are NOT the same. d) M measures the distance from himself to the two marks and notes that those two distances are the same. e) M measures the speed of light in both directions and observes that it is the same. f) M' does the same and if he doesn't get the same result he changes the setting of clock B to MAKE it be the same. (Einstein called clocks esynched by his postulated method "synchronized".) >< 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. > Dispute: Items 1, 2, 1' and 2' are ambiguous. They should say, 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as measured by Mr. E, and 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same as measured by Mr. E, and 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as measured by Mrs. E, and 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same as measured by Mrs. E, and Though better, they are still ambiguous because they don't tell us whether or not Mr. and Mrs. are at rest relative to each other; nor the state of motion of either of them wrt the signaliferous space; nor HOW "you know" what PD says that you know. If you want to POSTULATE items 1' and 2' then 3' is possible only IF (!!!): 1''. 4' is true. 2''. M' was moving relative to the points where the strikes occurred, thus was NOT at the middle of the two distances when the flashes reached him. 3. The signaliferous medium was moving relative to him. glird
From: mpc755 on 24 Dec 2009 22:19 On Dec 24, 4:16 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" wrote:>< You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here again is 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. > > > Here is what's wrong with his maculate reasoning: > a) Observer M sees TWO strikes SIMULTANEOUSLY. > b) Observer M' sees TWO strikes NON SIMULTANEOUSLY. > c) M', who is moving wrt the embankment and its scotch > marks, measures the distance from himself to the two > marks when he sees the first and then the second flash > and notes that those two distances are NOT the same. > d) M measures the distance from himself to the two marks > and notes that those two distances are the same. > e) M measures the speed of light in both directions and > observes that it is the same. > f) M' does the same and if he doesn't get the same > result he changes the setting of clock B to MAKE it > be the same. (Einstein called clocks esynched by his > postulated method "synchronized".) > > >< 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. > > > Dispute: > Items 1, 2, 1' and 2' are ambiguous. They should say, > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as > measured by Mr. E, and > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same > as measured by Mr. E, and > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as > measured by Mrs. E, and > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same > as measured by Mrs. E, and > > Though better, they are still ambiguous because they don't tell us > whether or not Mr. and Mrs. are at rest relative to each other; nor > the state of motion of either of them wrt the signaliferous space; nor > HOW "you know" what PD says that you know. > If you want to POSTULATE items 1' and 2' then 3' is possible only IF > (!!!): > 1''. 4' is true. > 2''. M' was moving relative to the points where the strikes occurred, > thus was NOT at the middle of the two distances when the flashes > reached him. > 3. The signaliferous medium was moving relative to him. > > glird The state of the medium must be known to determine simultaneity.
From: mpc755 on 24 Dec 2009 22:38
On Dec 24, 10:19 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 24, 4:16 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:08 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" wrote:>< You should careful read what Paul Draper beautifully explained. Here again is 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. > > > > Here is what's wrong with his maculate reasoning: > > a) Observer M sees TWO strikes SIMULTANEOUSLY. > > b) Observer M' sees TWO strikes NON SIMULTANEOUSLY. > > c) M', who is moving wrt the embankment and its scotch > > marks, measures the distance from himself to the two > > marks when he sees the first and then the second flash > > and notes that those two distances are NOT the same. > > d) M measures the distance from himself to the two marks > > and notes that those two distances are the same. > > e) M measures the speed of light in both directions and > > observes that it is the same. > > f) M' does the same and if he doesn't get the same > > result he changes the setting of clock B to MAKE it > > be the same. (Einstein called clocks esynched by his > > postulated method "synchronized".) > > > >< 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. > > > > Dispute: > > Items 1, 2, 1' and 2' are ambiguous. They should say, > > 1. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as > > measured by Mr. E, and > > 2. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same > > as measured by Mr. E, and > > 1'. If you know that the distance two signals travel is the same as > > measured by Mrs. E, and > > 2'. If you know that the speed of two signals is the same > > as measured by Mrs. E, and > > > Though better, they are still ambiguous because they don't tell us > > whether or not Mr. and Mrs. are at rest relative to each other; nor > > the state of motion of either of them wrt the signaliferous space; nor > > HOW "you know" what PD says that you know. > > If you want to POSTULATE items 1' and 2' then 3' is possible only IF > > (!!!): > > 1''. 4' is true. > > 2''. M' was moving relative to the points where the strikes occurred, > > thus was NOT at the middle of the two distances when the flashes > > reached him. > > 3. The signaliferous medium was moving relative to him. > > > glird > > The state of the medium must be known to determine simultaneity. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagate outward at 'c' from A and B, in nature. |