Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 15:56 On Dec 29, 3:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 3:37 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > >On Dec 29, 2:25 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > >wrote: > > > >> Whoops! You jumped to a conclusion without actually performing the > > >> experiment, or citing a similar experiment. Fail. > > >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 a simple question when it does not fit > > >the dogma you choose to believe in. > > > My answer is simply: YOU MUST PERFORM THE EXPERIMENT TO SEE WHICH THEORY > > IS CORRECT. You have not done so, you have come to a conclusion and > > present it as if it were a fact. There has been many times that scientists > > performing experiments have been completely surprised at the outcome. > > The Michelson-Morley experiment is the most famous example. "Everybody" > > back then "knew" that the ether wind blew, it was simply a matter of > > performing the experiment to find the velocity and direction. Oops. > > > Actually, we have the experimental results already, and had it since before > > Einstein was even born. The Fizeau Experiment of 1851 which measured the > > effect of moving water on the speed of light in water (the one which you > > always misquote Einstein's comments) shows that the speed of light in a > > medium with index of refraction n was: V = c/n + v(1-1/n^2), and not the > > simple Gallilean addition V = c/n + v. > > (see:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) > > Denial. Dogma. Here we go again. Another SR yahoo who can't answer the > simplest of questions. Everyone is in agreement, the Observer at M' > will see the flash from B/B' prior to the flash from A/A'. The issue > is, since the flashes of light occur in water at rest with respect to > the embankment, what does the Observer at M' conclude? Does the > Observer at M' conclude the lightning strike in the water at B/B' > occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A', or does the Observer > at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment and > conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous? > > The question is, is the Observer at M' allowed to factor in the water > at rest with respect to the embankment when determining the > simultaneity of the lightning strikes, or not? And if the Observer at > M' can or cannot factor in the water at rest with respect to the > embankment, why, and what does this mean in terms of what the Observer > at M' concludes about the simultaneity of the lightning strikes? > > Now, you are once again going to avoid answering this simple question. > For whatever reason, I cannot fathom. But it is interesting. Is it > simply a case of denial? Is it a case where your subconscious knows > the answer is different than what you have been taught and may lead > you to question your education? Is it a case of ignorance? What is it > about the simple question as to the Observer at M' determining the > simultaneity of the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' in water at > rest with respect to the embankment that does not allow you to answer? Let me make this even simpler. When the Observer at M' determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' which reach M simultaneous, where the Observer at M' knows the light propagates through water at rest with respect to the embankment, is the Observer at M' allowed to take into consideration the fact the light waves propagate through water at rest with respect to the embankment?
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 16:05 there is no vacuum -- although Pascal thought that it was as pure as can be, in his evacuated-mercury tube (or barometer) !! --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 29 Dec 2009 16:07 In article <5cdf48f5-a569-45f0-8c0f- 8aa8dba1903d(a)j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > there is no vacuum -- although > Pascal thought that it was as pure as can be, > in his evacuated-mercury tube (or barometer) !! > > --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! There is no void.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 16:28 In article <fe8dd797-9ade-4a00-9514-e64ab0d66298 @o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > yeah, the photo-electrical effect, like when > Moon hits your eye like cheese-pizza-sans-topping, > the only thing that "requires" a photon -- or > the "collapse of schroedinger's wave-function." or, > name another phenomenon. > A photon is most likely a wave propagating through the aether which when detected collapses and is detected as a quantum of aether. There is no 'wave-function collapse', but a physical collapse of a directed/pointed wave. > > When a photon is detected, what is being detected is a quantum of > > aether. >
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 16:48
In article <7aea146d-3b87-4499-a472- c0763fe1657b(a)m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > well, you get the last word -- > after "up!" > Ok, I'll take it, thanks. In Aether Displacement: Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. An atomic clock 'ticks' with respect to the aether pressure. The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. When a double slit experiment is performed with a C-60 molecule the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether travels through multiple slits. In the image on the right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser#The_experimen t There are physical waves in the aether traveling both the blue and red paths, while a photon 'particle' travels the blue or red path. Where the blue and red paths are combined in the image, the physical waves in the aether create interference which alters the direction the photon 'particle' travels. 'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A. EINSTEIN' http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf "If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/c2." The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether and matter is energy. |