Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 13:31 On Dec 30, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What is it with these SR yahoos who won't answer a simple question? They spend so much time pontificating on and on but when asked a very simple question, they avoid it at all cost. Is it simply a case of denial? Does their subconscious know answering the question may lead them to question their faith in their accepted dogma? Is it a simple case of ignorance? Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at A/ A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment?
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 13:40 On Dec 30, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. What is it with these SR yahoos who won't answer a simple question? They spend so much time pontificating on and on but when asked a very simple question, they avoid it at all cost. Is it simply a case of denial? Does their subconscious know answering the question may lead them to question their faith in their accepted dogma? Is it a simple case of ignorance? Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at A/ A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment? Of course the Observer at M' factors in the state of the medium the wave propagates through. If you do not know the state of the medium the wave propagates through, you cannot determine the simultaneity of events simply by when the wave reaches a particular point and how far you guess the wave traveled. You have to know the state of the medium the wave propagates through in order to determine how far the wave traveled. Once you know the state of the medium the wave propagates through, the simultaneity of events will be able to be determined by all Observers, and all Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to the simultaneity of the events, in nature. 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: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 13:45 On Dec 30, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 29, 12:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. What is it with these SR yahoos who won't answer a simple question? They spend so much time pontificating on and on but when asked a very simple question, they avoid it at all cost. Is it simply a case of denial? Does their subconscious know answering the question may lead them to question their faith in their accepted dogma? Is it a simple case of ignorance? Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment? Of course the Observer at M' factors in the state of the medium the wave propagates through. You have to know the state of the medium the wave propagates through in order to determine how far the wave traveled. Once you know the state of the medium the wave propagates through, the simultaneity of events will be able to be determined by all Observers, and all Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to the simultaneity of the events, in nature. 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 13:48 On Dec 30, 12:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 1:23 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > What is it with these SR yahoos who won't answer a simple question? > They spend so much time pontificating on and on but when asked a very > simple question, they avoid it at all cost. Is it simply a case of > denial? Does their subconscious know answering the question may lead > them to question their faith in their accepted dogma? Is it a simple > case of ignorance? No, it's more like this: There is no point pursuing simple questions that don't have anything to do with relativity on a relativity newsgroup. There is no point in pursuing simple questions about gedankens that are in direct conflict with the experimentally observed nature of light. There is no point answering simple questions posed by someone who doesn't like what science does or how it does it, and yet pretends to be talking about something scientific. There is no point being shoehorned into a worthless discussion just because some yahoo who's afraid to open a book wants to discuss it. If you have a question about RELATIVITY and what it says, then ask it. If you want to know something about what nature has revealed about its workings through EXPERIMENT, then more than happy to discuss it. If you have an idea how to make AD a viable scientific theory, in the manner that science considers theories viable, then more than happy to discuss that too. As it is, AD is not a scientific theory, not presently viable, and your piddling around with gedankens because you think that's how science is done is little more than ego-stroking masturbation, and as you know, masturbation is a solo activity. > > Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect > to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at > rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train > determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at A/ > A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with > respect to the embankment?
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 13:57
On Dec 30, 1:48 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 12:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > No, it's more like this: There is no point pursuing simple questions > that don't have anything to do with relativity on a relativity > newsgroup. There is no point in pursuing simple questions about > gedankens that are in direct conflict with the experimentally observed > nature of light. There is no point answering simple questions posed by > someone who doesn't like what science does or how it does it, and yet > pretends to be talking about something scientific. There is no point > being shoehorned into a worthless discussion just because some yahoo > who's afraid to open a book wants to discuss it. > > If you have a question about RELATIVITY and what it says, then ask it. > If you want to know something about what nature has revealed about its > workings through EXPERIMENT, then more than happy to discuss it. > If you have an idea how to make AD a viable scientific theory, in the > manner that science considers theories viable, then more than happy to > discuss that too. > > As it is, AD is not a scientific theory, not presently viable, and > your piddling around with gedankens because you think that's how > science is done is little more than ego-stroking masturbation, and as > you know, masturbation is a solo activity. > How long did you spend on that reply? A minute? Maybe more? In that time you could not answer if Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water if the Observer at M' takes into effect the water when determining the simultaneity of the events? Is it denial? Are you afraid to answer the question because answering it might lead you to question your dogma? Einstein's train gedanken is performed in water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer on the train knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. When the Observer on the train determines the simultaneity of the lightning strikes in the water at A/A' and B/B' does the Observer at M' factor in the water at rest with respect to the embankment? Of course the Observer at M' factors in the state of the medium the wave propagates through. You have to know the state of the medium the wave propagates through in order to determine how far the wave traveled. Once you know the state of the medium the wave propagates through, the simultaneity of events will be able to be determined by all Observers, and all Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to the simultaneity of the events, in nature. 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. I look forward to your next pompous non-response. |