Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Michael Moroney on 16 Dec 2009 15:35 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 16, 2:26=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the >> >aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of >> >reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at >> >rest in both frames of reference, >> >> This "aether is at rest in both frames of reference" is a contradiction >> and evidence against aether, since it would require it to be both at >> rest and moving at v in the unprimed frames (since it is at rest in the >> primed frame) simultaneously. >The train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional >space. The train is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative >to the train. The embankment is knee deep in water. The water is at >rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A, A', B, >and B'. The light from the lightning strikes at A and B travel through >the water and reach M simultaneously. The light from the lightning >strikes at A' and B' travel through the water and reach M' >simultaneously. >Are you saying the above paragraph is physically impossible? That's fine, but I would assume you'll want to eventually return to the original gedanken experiment, where there is a train passing the embankment, and only two (not four) lightning strikes. In that case, there is only one knee-deep pool of water, and it cannot be at rest with respect to both the embankment and the train, if the train is moving with respect to the embankment. >In the above paragraph, remove the water.
From: BURT on 16 Dec 2009 15:44 On Dec 16, 12:35 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 16, 2:26=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >> >In Aether Displacement, since light travels at 'c' relative to the > >> >aether and the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of > >> >reference are both equal in all respects, meaning the aether is at > >> >rest in both frames of reference, > > >> This "aether is at rest in both frames of reference" is a contradiction > >> and evidence against aether, since it would require it to be both at > >> rest and moving at v in the unprimed frames (since it is at rest in the > >> primed frame) simultaneously. > >The train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional > >space. The train is knee deep in water. The water is at rest relative > >to the train. The embankment is knee deep in water. The water is at > >rest relative to the embankment. Lightning strikes occur at A, A', B, > >and B'. The light from the lightning strikes at A and B travel through > >the water and reach M simultaneously. The light from the lightning > >strikes at A' and B' travel through the water and reach M' > >simultaneously. > >Are you saying the above paragraph is physically impossible? > > That's fine, but I would assume you'll want to eventually return to the > original gedanken experiment, where there is a train passing the > embankment, and only two (not four) lightning strikes. In that case, > there is only one knee-deep pool of water, and it cannot be at rest > with respect to both the embankment and the train, if the train is > moving with respect to the embankment. > > > > >In the above paragraph, remove the water.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When lightening strikes the train moves. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 16 Dec 2009 16:25 On Dec 16, 3:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, with FOUR lightning strikes, it is certainly possible. > > In this scenario, in the rest frame of A, B, and M, the lightning > strikes at A and B will be simultaneous, and the lightning strikes at > A' and B' will NOT be simultaneous. And in the rest frame of A', B' > and M', the lightning strikes at A and B will not be simultaneous, and > the lightning strikes at A' and B' will be simultaneous. > > PD The train and embankment are 1 millimeter apart. A and A' are 1 millimeter apart, B and B' are 1 millimeter apart and M and M' are 1 millimeter apart at the time of the lightning strikes. A and B are 1 light year from M and A' and B' are 1 light year from M'. The train and embankment are moving at 1/4 the speed of light relative to one another. For some reason, in SR, the events A and B on the embankment determine the simultaneity of the events on the train and vice verse. In Aether Displacement, the train and the embankment are 1 mm apart and exist in their own regions of three dimensional space and since the train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional space the aether can be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative to the embankment.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 16:46 On Dec 16, 2:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 16, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 16, 11:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ok, so let's not talk about frames of reference. The train is 100 > > > > billion light years away from the embankment. Is it physically > > > > possible for the light from lightning strikes at A' and B' to reach M' > > > > simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' on the train and is > > > > it physically possible for the light from lightning strikes at A and B > > > > to reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M if the > > > > train and the embankment are 100 billion light years apart and A and B > > > > are 1 mile each from M and A' and B' are one mile each from M'? > > > > Let's assume logic prevails and if the train and the embankment are > > > 100 billion light years apart, light from lightning strikes at A' and > > > B' can reach M' simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M' and > > > light from lightning strikes at A and B can reach M simultaneously as > > > determined by an Observer at M. > > > > So, when does SR 'kick in'? > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the train and the embankment > > > are too close to each other even though both exist in their own > > > regions of three dimensional space: > > > You apparently don't understand the train and the embankment scenario > > that Einstein was proposing. > > In that scenario, there are only TWO lightning strikes, not FOUR. > > > And you are wrong in thinking there are two frames that live in > > isolated regions of three-dimensional space. You have the impression > > that the train frame is the space inside the train and the embankment > > frame is the space outside the train. That is not what a frame of > > reference is. > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk > > > > For some reason, in SR, in my animation, the light from the lightning > > > strikes at A' and B' cannot reach M' simultaneously as determined by > > > an Observer at M' AND the light from the lightning strikes at A and B > > > cannot reach M simultaneously as determined by an Observer at M. > > > In SR's train and embankment scenario, there are only TWO lightning > > strikes, not four. > > In SR's train and embankment scenario? > > You mean in Einstein's train and embankment scenario. > > I'm saying the SR interpretation of my animation where there are four > lightning strikes. Your animation -- which has the strikes at A' and B' occurring simultaneously in the rest frame of A, B, and M -- also has the light from those strikes arriving at M' simultaneously. This does not happen in nature, experimentally. What happens in nature is the following: - If the two strikes at A' and B' occur simultaneously in the rest frame of A, B, and M (this is what happens in your animation), then the light from the strikes arrives at M' at different times. - If the two strikes at A' and B' occur simultaneously in the rest frame of A', B', and M' (your animation doesn't show this frame), then the light from the strikes arrives at M' at the same time. > > There is a difference between SR and Einstein's train thought > experiment. > > > > > > I would think a theory where the distance between the train and the > > > embankment where unique separate events on the train determines the > > > simultaneity of unique separate events on the embankment and vice > > > verse would cause the theory to be disregarded, but then again we are > > > discussing the dogma which is SR.
From: PD on 16 Dec 2009 16:47
On Dec 16, 3:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 16, 3:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Yes, with FOUR lightning strikes, it is certainly possible. > > > In this scenario, in the rest frame of A, B, and M, the lightning > > strikes at A and B will be simultaneous, and the lightning strikes at > > A' and B' will NOT be simultaneous. And in the rest frame of A', B' > > and M', the lightning strikes at A and B will not be simultaneous, and > > the lightning strikes at A' and B' will be simultaneous. > > > PD > > The train and embankment are 1 millimeter apart. A and A' are 1 > millimeter apart, B and B' are 1 millimeter apart and M and M' are 1 > millimeter apart at the time of the lightning strikes. Two lightning strikes? Or four? > A and B are 1 > light year from M and A' and B' are 1 light year from M'. The train > and embankment are moving at 1/4 the speed of light relative to one > another. For some reason, in SR, the events A and B on the embankment > determine the simultaneity of the events on the train and vice verse. No, that's not what's going on, and not what SR says. Are you asking for an explanation of the scenario put forward by Einstein, according to SR? > > In Aether Displacement, the train and the embankment are 1 mm apart > and exist in their own regions of three dimensional space and since > the train and embankment occupy different regions of three dimensional > space the aether can be at rest relative to the train and at rest > relative to the embankment. |