Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 13:50 On Dec 29, 1:43 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. If Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect to the embankment and the light from the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and B/B' arrive at M simultaneously, does the Observer at M' conclude the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, or not? You have a problem answering simple questions when it does not fit the dogma you choose to believe in. From the original intent of this thread, all I can say is, you are making my point.
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 14:16 I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski/then-he-died -- and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. read it & sleep on the non-nullities of M&M et al (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > > > 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..." > > > 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 - > > 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 --l'OEuvre, www.wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 14:20 On Dec 29, 2:16 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although > I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water > in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put > in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin > to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" > -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski/then-he-died -- > and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. > > read it & sleep on the non-nullities of M&M et al > (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if > you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, > we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, > firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > If you have a better term than "aether entrainment" to account for the near-null MMX results that fits with: "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein Then let's hear it. Until then, Aether Displacement and Entrainment it is. > > > > > > > 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..." > > > > 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 - > > > 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 > > --l'OEuvre,www.wlym.com
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 14:25 On Dec 29, 2:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 2:16 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > I didn't know that Zeeman made such an experiment, although > > I had read of Fizeau's (using high-pressure & -velocity water > > in a tube of some sort; did Z verify that?) I woulnd't put > > in the terms of either SR or mpc, because it's really more akin > > to general relativity viz-a-vu the "curvature of space" > > -- not of time, the big PLONK from Minkowski/then-he-died -- > > and that is what surfer's cited essay & figures dyscuss. > > > read it & sleep on the non-nullities of M&M et al > > (small, but quite regular; and, you can say "entrainment," if > > you must, iff only to evoke Eisntein's gedankenspiel ... and, > > we'll just ignore, that "eq. (B)" was derived by Lorentz, > > firstly, if also from "the" theory .-) > > If you have a better term than "aether entrainment" to account for the > near-null MMX results that fits with: > > "The state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections > with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - > Albert Einstein > > Then let's hear it. Until then, Aether Displacement and Entrainment it > is. > And the "curvature of space time" is no such thing. First of all, time is a concept. And the curvature of light has to do with the aether displaced by the massive object the light is propagating relative to. > > > > > > > > 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..." > > > > > 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 - > > > > 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 > > > --l'OEuvre,www.wlym.com > >
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Dec 2009 14:25
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 29, 12:52=A0pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Dec 29, 12:40=A0pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > 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. >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. Good. You realize that if Theory A predicts Outcome X for an experiment and if Theory B predicts a different Outcome Y for an experiment, the way to tell which one is correct is to actually perform the experiment and look at the results. This is what science is. >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. Whoops! You jumped to a conclusion without actually performing the experiment, or citing a similar experiment. Fail. |