Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 28 Dec 2009 18:47 On Dec 28, 6:21 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:23dda1a8-ea54-47f9-9008-4b81689f222b(a)f6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > > > neither M&M or their successors incurred this nullity, > > that proven by Einstein's say-so at Caltech; > > They found a result that was null within experimental error. > > They did not get anything near the non-null result they were expecting. The near null result is evidence of aether entrainment. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether determined by connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement and entrainment.
From: Michael Moroney on 28 Dec 2009 23:01 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 26, 11:33=A0am, 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. Since it is you who is creating a "theory" that is inconsistent with what is seen in nature (in other words, Automatically Wrong!), it is completely laughable that you try to complain that I don't "understand nature". And not only don't you understand nature, you don't understand frames of reference. M sees A and B, not A' or B'. M' sees A' and B', not A or B. Once again: Which part of "Automatically Wrong" don't you understand?
From: mpc755 on 28 Dec 2009 23:14 On Dec 28, 11:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 26, 11:33=A0am, 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. > > Since it is you who is creating a "theory" that is inconsistent with what > is seen in nature (in other words, Automatically Wrong!), it is completely > laughable that you try to complain that I don't "understand nature". > > And not only don't you understand nature, you don't understand frames of > reference. M sees A and B, not A' or B'. M' sees A' and B', not A or B. > > Once again: Which part of "Automatically Wrong" don't you understand? The water is at rest with respect to the embankment. The train is full of flat bed cars which do not disturb the water. If a pebble is dropped when A/A' exists at the same point in space and a pebble is dropped when B/B' exists at the same point in space, the waves will ripple out with A and B remaining at the center of the waves for each pebble. The pebbles will wind up on top of A and on top of B. The waves from the pebble dropped at A/A' and the waves from the pebble dropped at B/B' reach the Observer at M simultaneously. The Observer at M' will encounter the wave associated with the ripple from the pebble dropped at B/B' and then the Observer at M' will encounter the wave associated with the ripple from the pebble dropped at A/A'. If the Observer at M' knows the speed of the train relative to the embankment and knows the speed at which the waves of the ripples propagate in water and notes the time difference between the wave from B/B' reaching M' and the time the wave from A/A' reaches M' and measures to A' and B', the Observer at M' will conclude the pebbles were dropped simultaneously. If you replace the pebbles with flashes of light, the Observer at M' will conclude the flashes of light were simultaneous.
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 10:39 On Dec 27, 9:10 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I see that you have decided to ignore this statement and proceed directly to passive-aggressive echolalia. > > "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.
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 10:40
On Dec 28, 8:04 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 27, 10:51 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > spudnik" <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:7a5681be-f600-48a7-95d3-0b720f64f835(a)t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com.... > > > > 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.) > > > They got results consistent with null (given experimental error), and > > inconcistent with the expected non-null result predicted > > The MMX experiments are evidence of aether entrainment. They are ALSO evidence for special relativity. Now what you need is an experimental set-up where AD and special relativity make DIFFERENT predictions, so we can see which one is correct. |