Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 26 Dec 2009 11:33 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >The light travels at 'w' from B to M' If you insist on frame jumping, you'll never understand Einstein's train gedanken, or relativity in general.
From: PD on 26 Dec 2009 13:22 On Dec 23, 8:59 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. It doesn't have to do with relativity. This is what simultaneity means in PHYSICS. > 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: spudnik on 27 Dec 2009 16:34 M&M did not get nulls. (I first read of this in the government-rebooted Larouchie science mag, and later that Einstein pooh-poohed DCMiller's refinement, when he read his results in a journal, while at his office in Caltech. but, surfer's paper, below, pits this all into perspective.) unfortunately, the "photon" of the sole measurement of light where it "exists," the photoelectrical effect, had been used by Schoredinger's joke-cat against verifiable experiment, alas. > 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). thus: yeah, one has to account for acceleration in both ground & orbital referentials. surfer's paper is good, because it accounts for the so-called null results of M&M, DCMiller et al -- also, in a graph (fig.3 .-); it's not perfect, but it's still great! http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 "......The spacecraft observations demonstrate again that the speed of light is not invariant, and is isotropic only with respect to a dynamical 3-space....." --l'OEuvre, http://wlym.com http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon.pdf FCUK Copenhagen free carbon-credit trade rip-off; put a tariff on imported energy!
From: mpc755 on 27 Dec 2009 22:08 On Dec 26, 11:33 am, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >The light travels at 'w' from B to M' > > If you insist on frame jumping, you'll never understand Einstein's > train gedanken, or relativity in general. If you think water at rest with respect to the embankment, where the light traveling at w from B reaches M', then the light traveling at w from A and B reaches M, and then the light traveling at w from A reaches M' is frame jumping, you will never understand nature.
From: mpc755 on 27 Dec 2009 22:10
On Dec 26, 1:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 23, 8:59 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > It doesn't have to do with relativity. This is what simultaneity > means in PHYSICS. > "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 water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w with respect to the water, does the light travel at w from B to M', at w from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'? > > 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. > > |