Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 17:04 you are hopelessly confusing the formalism of the photons, with the formalism of the waves, thanks to a century of indoctrination by Schroedinger's poor, undead joke-cat; use one or the other, than report back! http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 17:15 In article <5804109d-a390-46f9-b0d1-ce2546af2e64 @l2g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>, Space998(a)hotmail.com says... > > you are hopelessly confusing the formalism of the photons, with the > formalism of the waves, thanks to a century of indoctrination by > Schroedinger's poor, undead joke-cat; use one or the other, than > report back! > > http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf A photon is a directed/pointed wave which collapses into a quantum of aether when detected: http://superstruny.aspweb.cz/images/fyzika/foton.gif In the image on the right in 'The Experiment' section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser 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.
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Dec 2009 17:26 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: > 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 observer at M' would factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment and conclude the water would not have any effect on making the strikes simultaneous, so the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. But to be sure, YOU MUST DO THE EXPERIMENT. Everyone in 1887 "knew" that Michelson and Morley would find the speed and direction of the ether wind.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 17:37 On Dec 29, 5:26 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > > 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 observer at M' would factor in the water at rest with respect to the > embankment and conclude the water would not have any effect on making the > strikes simultaneous, so the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. > How does the water at rest with respect to the embankment and the Observer at M' having knowledge of this information not have an effect on when the Observer at M' determines the lightning strikes to have occurred? "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 The light from A/A' and the light from B/B' reaches the Observer at M simultaneously. The Observer at M' factors in the difference in time between the light from B/B' reaching M' and when the light from A/A' reaches M', the distance from A' to M' and the distance from B' to M', and the speed at which the train moves relative to the embankment, giving the speed the train moves relative to the water, concluding the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > But to be sure, YOU MUST DO THE EXPERIMENT. Everyone in 1887 "knew" that > Michelson and Morley would find the speed and direction of the ether wind..
From: Michael Moroney on 29 Dec 2009 18:05
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 29, 5:26=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> >> The observer at M' would factor in the water at rest with respect to the >> embankment and conclude the water would not have any effect on making the >> strikes simultaneous, so the lightning strikes were not simultaneous. >> >How does the water at rest with respect to the embankment and the >Observer at M' having knowledge of this information not have an effect >on when the Observer at M' determines the lightning strikes to have >occurred? The observer would realize that the light in one direction would reach him at velocity ~ w+v(1-w^2/c^2) and in the other direction at velocity ~ w-v(1-w^2/c^2) and measure the distances and times and conclude that it could be simultaneous only if v=0 (the train is stopped). [snip misunderstood quote of Einstein's] |