Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 29 Dec 2009 21:20 were there a vacuum, there'd be a real need for an aether; but, there is no such thing -- vacuum is just *relative*. you can blather-on about quantum foam or aether etc., and you are just reifiying the math of Heisenberg's principle, which verifiably applies at any scale, for any pair of "covariant" parameters that can be measured. yes, electrons & fullerenes show interference in double-slits, and that is good. (incidentally, Young's 18th cce experiment was done, with the coherent light provided by a pinhole of sunlight; it was really a two-hole experiment, with a lovely moire pattern pf interference.) thus: 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. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: mpc755 on 29 Dec 2009 21:26 On Dec 29, 9:20 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > were there a vacuum, there'd be a real need for an aether; > but, there is no such thing -- vacuum is just *relative*. > > you can blather-on about quantum foam or aether etc., and > you are just reifiying the math of Heisenberg's principle, > which verifiably applies at any scale, > for any pair of "covariant" parameters that can be measured. > Not sure if you have been following other threads, but my main concept is Aether Displacement and Entrainment, so it looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree. > yes, electrons & fullerenes show interference in double-slits, and > that is good. (incidentally, Young's 18th cce experiment was done, > with the coherent light provided by a pinhole of sunlight; > it was really a two-hole experiment, with a lovely moire pattern > pf interference.) > > thus: > 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. > > --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why?http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf > --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How?
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 00:23 On Dec 29, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Let's plug in some numbers to make this easier to conceptualize. A' and B' are each 1 light year from M'. Let's assume the light waves propagate in the water at rest with respect to the embankment at .75c. Let's also assume the train is moving at .25c relative to the embankment (which means the train is moving at .25c relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment). The light wave from the lightning strike in the water at B/B' reaches M'. The Observer on the train measure to B' and determines it to be 1 light year from M'. The Observer on the train factors in the train is moving at .25c relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment and factors in the light wave traveled at .75c relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment and determines the light wave must have been created 1 year ago. The light wave from A/A' is .25c from M and .5c from M' when the light wave from B/B' reaches M'. One year after the light wave from B/B' reached M', the wave from A/A' reaches M' (M' moved .25c further away from the light propagating from the lightning strike at A/A' for a total of .75c from where the light wave from A/A' was when the light wave from B/B' reached M'). The Observer on the train measures to A' and determines it is 1 light year from M', The Observer on the train also factors in the train is moving at .25c relative to the embankment away from the wave propagating from A/A', factors in the light wave propagates at .75c in the water at rest with respect to the embankment and determines the wave must have been created 2 years ago. The Observer at M' on the train concludes the light waves at A/A' and B/B' were created simultaneously.
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 01:24 On Dec 30, 12:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 7:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > Let's plug in some numbers to make this easier to conceptualize. > > A' and B' are each 1 light year from M'. Let's assume the light waves > propagate in the water at rest with respect to the embankment at .75c. > Let's also assume the train is moving at .25c relative to the > embankment (which means the train is moving at .25c relative to the > water at rest with respect to the embankment). > > The light wave from the lightning strike in the water at B/B' reaches > M'. The Observer on the train measure to B' and determines it to be 1 > light year from M'. The Observer on the train factors in the train is > moving at .25c relative to the water at rest with respect to the > embankment and factors in the light wave traveled at .75c relative to > the water at rest with respect to the embankment and determines the > light wave must have been created 1 year ago. > > The light wave from A/A' is .25c from M and .5c from M' when the light > wave from B/B' reaches M'. One year after the light wave from B/B' > reached M', the wave from A/A' reaches M' (M' moved .25c further away > from the light propagating from the lightning strike at A/A' for a > total of .75c from where the light wave from A/A' was when the light > wave from B/B' reached M'). The Observer on the train measures to A' > and determines it is 1 light year from M', The Observer on the train > also factors in the train is moving at .25c relative to the embankment > away from the wave propagating from A/A', factors in the light wave > propagates at .75c in the water at rest with respect to the embankment > and determines the wave must have been created 2 years ago. > > The Observer at M' on the train concludes the light waves at A/A' and > B/B' were created simultaneously. The aether is entrained by the Earth. Meaning, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Light travels at c with respect to the aether. Both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment have this information. The light from the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' reach the Observer at M simultaneously. The light from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A' reaches M'. The Observer at M' knows the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment and knows the trains speed relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the aether. With this information, along with knowing the difference in time from when the light from B/B' reaches M' and when the light from A/A' reaches M' and factoring in the distance A' is from M' and the distance B' is from M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 13:23
On Dec 29, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. And my intent is to emphasize to you the importance of REAL experiment in science, as opposed to gedankens. Your insistence on asking questions about your gedankens is underscoring the need for MY point. |