Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 18:29 On Dec 29, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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). > The Observer at M' knows the light is propagating at w through the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' also knows the water is traveling relative to the train moving through the water at rest with respect to the embankment from the lightning strike at B/B' at velocity ~ w+v(1-w^2/c^2) and the light is traveling relative to the train moving through the water at rest with respect to the embankment from the lightning strike at A/A' at velocity ~ w-v(1- w^2/c^2). When the Observer at M' factors in the distance M' is from A' and B' and the difference between when the light from B/B' arrived at M' and when the light from A/A' arrived at M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous. v can be non-zero.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 18:39 On Dec 29, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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] The Observer at M' knows the light is propagating at w through the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' also knows the light from the lightning strike at B/B' and the train are moving moving relative to each other through the water at rest with respect to the embankment at velocity ~ w+v(1-w^2/c^2) and the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and the train are moving relative to each other through the water at rest with respect to the embankment at velocity ~ w-v(1-w^2/c^2). When the Observer at M' factors in the distance M' is from A' and B' and the difference between when the light from B/B' arrived at M' and when the light from A/A' arrived at M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous. v can be non-zero.
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 19:14 On Dec 29, 6:05 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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] The Observer at M' knows the light is propagating at w through the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer at M' also knows the light from the lightning strike at B/B' and the train are moving relative to each other through the water at rest with respect to the embankment at velocity ~ w+v(1-w^2/c^2) and the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and the train are moving relative to each other through the water at rest with respect to the embankment at velocity ~ w-v(1-w^2/c^2). When the Observer at M' factors in the distance M' is from A' and B' and the difference between when the light from B/B' arrived at M' and when the light from A/A' arrived at M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous. v can be non-zero.
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 20:36 just because Broglie, Bohm and basically everyone, since Pauli provided the matrix equiv. of Schroedinger's cool wave, have been confuzing the two fromalisms, doesn't mean that we have to. the hash surrounding the dobule-slit experiment, which is about as wave-like a phenomenon as occurs (i.e. in the gaps between a breakwater), is a perfect example of Eisnteinmania over "the photon," as well as any precieved need for an aether. yes, but one *can* use an aether formalism, if there is really any practical use to that, viz-a-vu the index of refraction & the brachistochrone. > >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. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 20:54
On Dec 29, 8:36 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > just because Broglie, Bohm and basically everyone, > since Pauli provided the matrix equiv. of Schroedinger's cool wave, > have been confuzing the two fromalisms, > doesn't mean that we have to. > > the hash surrounding the dobule-slit experiment, > which is about as wave-like a phenomenon as occurs > (i.e. in the gaps between a breakwater), > is a perfect example of Eisnteinmania over "the photon," > as well as any precieved need for an aether. > There is a need for an aether. It allows for the propagation of light. And you are correct, the behaviors of the double slit experiment are similar to the gaps in a breakwater. In Aether Displacement, the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single slit while the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits multiple slits. > yes, but one *can* use an aether formalism, if > there is really any practical use to that, > viz-a-vu the index of refraction & the brachistochrone. > > > >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. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html |