Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 14:02 On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth replying to, along the lines that you wish. If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, then I will take the time to explain why that line is not worth pursuing, rather than taking the time to pursue the worthless line. This is a *choice* I make for the benefit of any conversation that might follow. At a fork in the road, if you want to walk a mile down a path I know goes nowhere, then I would rather argue for an hour that you should take the other path, than to walk an hour down the wrong path. No matter HOW MUCH you want to walk down the wrong path. Your stubborn insistence on being stupid does not compel me to follow your stupidity. I'm happy to remain here and comment on the stupidity of your stubbornness. > > 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.
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 14:14 On Dec 30, 2:02 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 12:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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? > > Just because it would be easy to reply does not imply that it is worth > replying to, along the lines that you wish. > If I believe that a line of thought is not worth pursuing, You choose to believe it is not worth pursuing because of the dogma you choose to believe. 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: Michael Moroney on 30 Dec 2009 14:52 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Dec 29, 7:14=A0pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> 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). Amazing. You are actually using a more accurate approximation rather than the known-wrong Gallilean you've been using all along until now. I do want to point out that this approximation assumes a relatively small v, you've beem using v=0.25 c so it may not be that accurate. But for now, it will do. >Let's plug in some numbers to make this easier to conceptualize. OK. >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). OK. >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'. OK. > 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 OK. > and determines the >light wave must have been created 1 year ago. Hey! I thought you wanted to plug in the numbers. You went back to the known wrong Galilean, and ignored the formula in the post you quoted, that you yourself wrote! FLUNK! I'll plug in the numbers for you. Light velocity from B' to M': W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c + 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> W = 0.75c + 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c + 0.25c * 0.4375 --> W = 0.75 + 0.1094. W = 0.8594. Light velocity from A' to M': W = w-v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c - 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> W = 0.75c - 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c - 0.25c * 0.4375 --> W = 0.75 - 0.1094. W = 0.6406 [snip incorrect conclusions based on wrong math] I'll let you fix your own work, now that you have the correct numbers. === However, as mentioned, the formula W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2) is an approximation assuming v is nonrelativistic. Let's see some more accurate figures: u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2). For v=0.25c and w = 0.75c (B' to M') we get: u = (1.0c)/(1+.1875) = 1.0c/1.1875 = 0.8421 c. For the opposite direction (A' to M'), v = -0.25c, so we have: u = (0.75c-0.25c)/(1-.1875) = 0.50c/0.8125 = 0.6154. We see that v is large enough that the earlier approximation (based on a nonrelativistic v) isn't that accurate in this case. It's off by several percent. But you can use either pair of numbers.
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 14:59 On Dec 30, 2:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 29, 7:14=A0pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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). > > Amazing. You are actually using a more accurate approximation rather than > the known-wrong Gallilean you've been using all along until now. I do > want to point out that this approximation assumes a relatively small v, > you've beem using v=0.25 c so it may not be that accurate. But for now, > it will do. > > >Let's plug in some numbers to make this easier to conceptualize. > > OK. > > >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). > > OK. > > >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'. > > OK. > > > 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 > > OK. > > > and determines the > >light wave must have been created 1 year ago. > > Hey! I thought you wanted to plug in the numbers. You went back to the > known wrong Galilean, and ignored the formula in the post you quoted, > that you yourself wrote! > > FLUNK! > > I'll plug in the numbers for you. Light velocity from B' to M': > > W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c + 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> > W = 0.75c + 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c + 0.25c * 0.4375 --> > W = 0.75 + 0.1094. W = 0.8594. > > Light velocity from A' to M': > > W = w-v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c - 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> > W = 0.75c - 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c - 0.25c * 0.4375 --> > W = 0.75 - 0.1094. W = 0.6406 > > [snip incorrect conclusions based on wrong math] > > I'll let you fix your own work, now that you have the correct numbers. > > === > > However, as mentioned, the formula W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2) is an approximation > assuming v is nonrelativistic. Let's see some more accurate figures: > > u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2). For v=0.25c and w = 0.75c (B' to M') we get: > u = (1.0c)/(1+.1875) = 1.0c/1.1875 = 0.8421 c. > > For the opposite direction (A' to M'), v = -0.25c, so we have: > u = (0.75c-0.25c)/(1-.1875) = 0.50c/0.8125 = 0.6154. > > We see that v is large enough that the earlier approximation (based on a > nonrelativistic v) isn't that accurate in this case. It's off by several > percent. But you can use either pair of numbers. And what does all this have to do with the Observer at M' determining the simultaneity of the lighting strikes? The Observer at M' knows the relative velocity of the train and the light propagating towards M' from the lightning strike at B/B' is going to be greater than the relative velocity of the train and the light propagating towards M' from the lighting strike at A/A'. The only velocity of light that matters is the velocity w with respect to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. With your numbers above, plus factoring in the distance A' is from M' and the distance B' is from M' and factoring in the trains speed relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous.
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 15:05
On Dec 30, 2:52 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 29, 7:14=A0pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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). > > Amazing. You are actually using a more accurate approximation rather than > the known-wrong Gallilean you've been using all along until now. I do > want to point out that this approximation assumes a relatively small v, > you've beem using v=0.25 c so it may not be that accurate. But for now, > it will do. > > >Let's plug in some numbers to make this easier to conceptualize. > > OK. > > >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). > > OK. > > >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'. > > OK. > > > 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 > > OK. > > > and determines the > >light wave must have been created 1 year ago. > > Hey! I thought you wanted to plug in the numbers. You went back to the > known wrong Galilean, and ignored the formula in the post you quoted, > that you yourself wrote! > > FLUNK! > > I'll plug in the numbers for you. Light velocity from B' to M': > > W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c + 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> > W = 0.75c + 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c + 0.25c * 0.4375 --> > W = 0.75 + 0.1094. W = 0.8594. > > Light velocity from A' to M': > > W = w-v(1-w^2/c^2). W = (0.75c - 0.25c(1-(0.75c^2/c^2))) --> > W = 0.75c - 0.25c(1-0.5625) --> W = 0.75c - 0.25c * 0.4375 --> > W = 0.75 - 0.1094. W = 0.6406 > > [snip incorrect conclusions based on wrong math] > > I'll let you fix your own work, now that you have the correct numbers. > > === > > However, as mentioned, the formula W = w+v(1-w^2/c^2) is an approximation > assuming v is nonrelativistic. Let's see some more accurate figures: > > u = (v+w)/(1+vw/c^2). For v=0.25c and w = 0.75c (B' to M') we get: > u = (1.0c)/(1+.1875) = 1.0c/1.1875 = 0.8421 c. > > For the opposite direction (A' to M'), v = -0.25c, so we have: > u = (0.75c-0.25c)/(1-.1875) = 0.50c/0.8125 = 0.6154. > > We see that v is large enough that the earlier approximation (based on a > nonrelativistic v) isn't that accurate in this case. It's off by several > percent. But you can use either pair of numbers. And what does all this have to do with the Observer at M' determining the simultaneity of the lighting strikes? The Observer at M' knows the relative velocity of the train and the light propagating towards M' from the lightning strike at B/B' is going to be greater than the relative velocity of the train and the light propagating towards M' from the lighting strike at A/A'. The only velocity of light that matters is the velocity w with respect to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. With your numbers above, plus factoring in the distance A' is from M' and the distance B' is from M' and factoring the difference in time between the light from B/B' arriving at M and the light from A/A' arriving at M', and factoring in the trains speed relative to the embankment, giving the Observer at M' the speed of the train relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous. |