Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 13:10 On Dec 29, 1:01 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 29 dic, 14:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 12:50 pm, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 29 dic, 13:54, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > "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 > > > > Again you are citing Einstein snipping the more relevant parts of his > > > writing. The complete text is inhttp://www.bartleby.com/173/13.html, > > > and the relevant part is as follows: > > > > "...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. The > > > velocity of light relative to the liquid and the velocity of the > > > latter relative to the tube are thus known, and we require the > > > velocity of light relative to the tube. It is clear that we have the > > > problem of Section VI again before us. The tube plays the part of the > > > railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays > > > the part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K', and finally, > > > the light plays the part of the man walking along the carriage, or of > > > the moving point in the present section. If we denote the velocity of > > > the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the > > > equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the > > > Lorentz transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment 1 decides > > > in favour of equation (B) derived from the theory of relativity, and > > > the agreement is, indeed, very exact. According to recent and most > > > excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of the velocity of > > > flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to > > > within one per cent..." > > > > Miguel Rios > > > Once again, you are completely missing the point. If the Observer at > > M' knows the state of the water the light propagates through, the > > Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous, just > > like the Observer at M does.- Ocultar texto de la cita - > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita - > > And once again, you are showing your complete ignorance on physics. > What it is relevant is what M and M' observe or measure. Your post > factum analysis it completely irr,elevant. > > Miguel Rios Correct. The Observer at M' observes the train is moving relative to the embankment which the Observer at M' observes to be the speed at which the train is moving relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' observes the difference in time between the light from the lightning strike at B/B' and the light from the lightning strike at A/A' reaching M'. The Observer at M' measures to A' and B'. With this information, the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 13:15 On Dec 29, 12:52 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 12:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > "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 > > > > Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w > > > with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w > > > from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. > > > > In a modified Einstein train gedanken > > > A gedanken is not an experiment. As I said, what you need is an > > experimental set-up where AD and special relativity make DIFFERENT > > predictions, so we can see which one is correct. > > Incorrect. The modified Einstein train gedanken in water shows how the > Observer at M' will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous > just like the Observer at M does. The modified Einstein train gedanken > shows how the definition of simultaneity must include the state of the > medium the light travels through. > > In the SR definition of simultaneity, the Observer at M' will simply > measure to A' and B' and conclude the lightning strikes were not > simultaneous. In SR, the state of the medium the light travels through > is not taken into consideration. The incorrect definition of > simultaneity in SR would lead to an incorrect conclusion for the > Observer at M'. > > The incorrect definition of simultaneity in SR, where it does not > include the state of the medium the light travels through, means the > conclusions in SR about the simultaneity of lightning strikes is > incorrect. > > If the definition of simultaneity in SR is modified in order to > support the correct conclusions the Observers at M and M' make in the > modified Einstein train gedanken in water, where the state of the > medium the light travels through is taken into consideration, then the > state of the aether must be taken into consideration in Einstein's > train gedanken, which would lead both Observers to the same conclusion > with respect to the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. > Let's take this to the next step and actually perform the modified Einstein train gedanken in water. In SR, since the state of the medium the light travels through is not taken into consideration, when the light from the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and B/B' reach M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. In AD, the state of the medium the light travels through is taken into consideration and when the light from the lightning strikes in the water reach the Observer at M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous. Is the Observer at M' who does not take into consideration the state of the water correct, or is the Observer at M' who does take into consideration the state of the water correct? The Observer at M' who takes into consideration the state of the water is correct. > > > where water is at rest with > > > respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ > > > B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The > > > Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the > > > embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative > > > to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference > > > between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' > > > reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > > > > Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is > > > necessary when determining simultaneity. > >
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 13:21 On Dec 29, 11:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 12:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > "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 > > > > Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w > > > with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w > > > from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. > > > > In a modified Einstein train gedanken > > > A gedanken is not an experiment. As I said, what you need is an > > experimental set-up where AD and special relativity make DIFFERENT > > predictions, so we can see which one is correct. > > Incorrect. The modified Einstein train gedanken in water shows how the > Observer at M' will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous > just like the Observer at M does. The modified Einstein train gedanken > shows how the definition of simultaneity must include the state of the > medium the light travels through. Gedankens don't show anything. Einstein didn't show anything with a gedanken and you won't either. EXPERIMENTS show whether a model is correct or not. Experiments showed that Einstein's explanation of what goes on with light is correct, and it wasn't seen as correct until those experiments were done. > > In the SR definition of simultaneity, the Observer at M' will simply > measure to A' and B' and conclude the lightning strikes were not > simultaneous. In SR, the state of the medium the light travels through > is not taken into consideration. The incorrect definition of > simultaneity in SR would lead to an incorrect conclusion for the > Observer at M'. > > The incorrect definition of simultaneity in SR, where it does not > include the state of the medium the light travels through, means the > conclusions in SR about the simultaneity of lightning strikes is > incorrect. > > If the definition of simultaneity in SR It's not SR's definition of simultaneity. It is physics' definition of simultaneity. > is modified in order to > support the correct conclusions the Observers at M and M' make in the > modified Einstein train gedanken in water, where the state of the > medium the light travels through is taken into consideration, then the > state of the aether must be taken into consideration in Einstein's > train gedanken, which would lead both Observers to the same conclusion > with respect to the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. > > > > where water is at rest with > > > respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ > > > B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The > > > Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the > > > embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative > > > to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference > > > between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' > > > reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > > > > Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is > > > necessary when determining simultaneity.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 13:28 On Dec 29, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 11:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 12:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > "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 > > > > > Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w > > > > with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w > > > > from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. > > > > > In a modified Einstein train gedanken > > > > A gedanken is not an experiment. As I said, what you need is an > > > experimental set-up where AD and special relativity make DIFFERENT > > > predictions, so we can see which one is correct. > > > Incorrect. The modified Einstein train gedanken in water shows how the > > Observer at M' will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous > > just like the Observer at M does. The modified Einstein train gedanken > > shows how the definition of simultaneity must include the state of the > > medium the light travels through. > > Gedankens don't show anything. Einstein didn't show anything with a > gedanken and you won't either. > EXPERIMENTS show whether a model is correct or not. > Experiments showed that Einstein's explanation of what goes on with > light is correct, and it wasn't seen as correct until those > experiments were done. > > > > > In the SR definition of simultaneity, the Observer at M' will simply > > measure to A' and B' and conclude the lightning strikes were not > > simultaneous. In SR, the state of the medium the light travels through > > is not taken into consideration. The incorrect definition of > > simultaneity in SR would lead to an incorrect conclusion for the > > Observer at M'. > > > The incorrect definition of simultaneity in SR, where it does not > > include the state of the medium the light travels through, means the > > conclusions in SR about the simultaneity of lightning strikes is > > incorrect. > > > If the definition of simultaneity in SR > > It's not SR's definition of simultaneity. It is physics' definition of > simultaneity. > > > is modified in order to > > support the correct conclusions the Observers at M and M' make in the > > modified Einstein train gedanken in water, where the state of the > > medium the light travels through is taken into consideration, then the > > state of the aether must be taken into consideration in Einstein's > > train gedanken, which would lead both Observers to the same conclusion > > with respect to the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. > > > > > where water is at rest with > > > > respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ > > > > B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is > > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The > > > > Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the > > > > embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative > > > > to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference > > > > between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' > > > > reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > > > > > Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is > > > > necessary when determining simultaneity. > > If the modified Einstein train gedanken is performed as an experiment and the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strike in the water at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike in the water at A/A', is the Observer at M' correct? How do you not take into account the state of the water the light travels through when determining simultaneity at the same time adhering to: "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
From: PD on 29 Dec 2009 13:43
On Dec 29, 12:28 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 1:21 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 11:52 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 29, 12:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Dec 29, 10:40 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > "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 > > > > > > Water is at rest with respect to the embankment and light travels at w > > > > > with respect to the water. The light travels at w from B to M', at w > > > > > from A and B to M, and at w from A to M'. > > > > > > In a modified Einstein train gedanken > > > > > A gedanken is not an experiment. As I said, what you need is an > > > > experimental set-up where AD and special relativity make DIFFERENT > > > > predictions, so we can see which one is correct. > > > > Incorrect. The modified Einstein train gedanken in water shows how the > > > Observer at M' will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous > > > just like the Observer at M does. The modified Einstein train gedanken > > > shows how the definition of simultaneity must include the state of the > > > medium the light travels through. > > > Gedankens don't show anything. Einstein didn't show anything with a > > gedanken and you won't either. > > EXPERIMENTS show whether a model is correct or not. > > Experiments showed that Einstein's explanation of what goes on with > > light is correct, and it wasn't seen as correct until those > > experiments were done. > > > > In the SR definition of simultaneity, the Observer at M' will simply > > > measure to A' and B' and conclude the lightning strikes were not > > > simultaneous. In SR, the state of the medium the light travels through > > > is not taken into consideration. The incorrect definition of > > > simultaneity in SR would lead to an incorrect conclusion for the > > > Observer at M'. > > > > The incorrect definition of simultaneity in SR, where it does not > > > include the state of the medium the light travels through, means the > > > conclusions in SR about the simultaneity of lightning strikes is > > > incorrect. > > > > If the definition of simultaneity in SR > > > It's not SR's definition of simultaneity. It is physics' definition of > > simultaneity. > > > > is modified in order to > > > support the correct conclusions the Observers at M and M' make in the > > > modified Einstein train gedanken in water, where the state of the > > > medium the light travels through is taken into consideration, then the > > > state of the aether must be taken into consideration in Einstein's > > > train gedanken, which would lead both Observers to the same conclusion > > > with respect to the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. > > > > > > where water is at rest with > > > > > respect to the embankment, light from lightning strikes at A/A' and B/ > > > > > B' reaches M simultaneously. The Observer at M' knows the train is > > > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment. The > > > > > Observer at M', knowing the speed of the train relative to the > > > > > embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative > > > > > to the water, measuring to A' and B', noting the time difference > > > > > between the light from B/B' reaching M' and the light from A/A' > > > > > reaching M', will conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > > > > > > Knowing the state of the medium the light propagates through is > > > > > necessary when determining simultaneity. > > If the modified Einstein train gedanken is performed as an experiment You haven't done the actual experiment. > and the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strike in the water at > B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike in the water at A/A', is > the Observer at M' correct? > > How do you not take into account the state of the water the light > travels through when determining simultaneity at the same time > adhering to: > > "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 It appears that what you are having trouble with is two things: - You have difficulty reconciling something you believe to be the case with something that Einstein said by way of explanation. This is to be resolved by learning what relativity actually says. - You have difficulty understanding the difference between a gedanken and an experiment. This is to be resolved by learning how to read experimental documentation and actually performing an interesting experiment or two yourself. |