Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 24 Dec 2009 23:44 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, the light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagates outward at 'c' from A and B, in nature.
From: mpc755 on 25 Dec 2009 08:42 On Dec 24, 11:44 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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, the light > from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagates outward at 'c' from > A and B, in nature. "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 If the water is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagates outward at 'w' from A and B, in nature. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagates outward at 'c' from A and B, in nature. 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 c with respect to the aether, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other bodies or not.
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Dec 2009 12:49 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >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 do this again. Light moves at c relative to the earth, the aether, pink flying elephants and anything and everything else you can think of. So the light beam leaves earth at c. If I am moving a v, the received velocity w = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = c(c+v)/(c+c^2v/c^2) = c(c+v)/(c+v) = c. I detect the light beam moving at c (but at a different frequency).
From: mpc755 on 25 Dec 2009 12:56 On Dec 25, 12:49 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >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 do this again. Light moves at c relative to the earth, the aether, > pink flying elephants and anything and everything else you can think of. > So the light beam leaves earth at c. > > If I am moving a v, the received velocity w = (c+v)/(1+cv/c^2) = > c(c+v)/(c+c^2v/c^2) = c(c+v)/(c+v) = c. I detect the light beam moving > at c (but at a different frequency). Just like the Observer at M' would see the light at a different frequency from the light from B/B' than the Observer at M' would from the light from A/A' if Einstein's train gedanken was performed in water. "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 The above sentence means exactly what it says: "the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the liquid". The water is at rest with respect to the embankment. This means the light always takes place with the same velocity w with respect to the embankment. This means the light travels at w from B to M' and travels at w from B to M. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' propagates outward at 'c' from A and B, in nature. If the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' would see the light at a different frequency from the light from B/B' than the Observer at M' would from the light from A/A' if Einstein's train gedanken was performed in water. And the is because if the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment, the light travels at 'c' from B to M' and travels at 'c' from B to M.
From: Michael Moroney on 25 Dec 2009 13:00
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >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. Which frame of reference? I see the light has travelled the distance ct, where t is the time it has travelled in my frame. >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. Which is automatically wrong, since measured experiments disagree with this. Which part of "automatically wrong" don't you understand? >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. Automatically wrong. >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 Now read the rest, where Einstein concludes the light moves at the velocity W ~= w + v(1-w^2/c^2). For water (w = .75c) we get the velocity W ~= 0.75c + v(1-((.75c)^2/c^2) ~= 0.75c + v - .5625v or W ~= 0.75c + .4375v. W is not w+v but about w + .4375v. |