Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 18:32 On Dec 30, 4:09 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >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. > > Show the math. The Observer knows the water is at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer knows the light is traveling at 0.75c relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer knows the train is moving at 0.25c relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The Observer measures to B' and notes it is one light year from M'. The Observer notes light from B' will travel at 0.8421c relative to the trains speed and the lights speed relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment in the direction from B' towards M'. The Observer measures to A' and notes it is one light year from M'. The Observer notes light from A' will travel at 0.6154c relative to the trains speed and the lights speed relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment in the direction from A' towards M'. The Observer at M' notes the time on the clock at M' when the light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrives at M'. Based on the light traveling at 0.8421c relative to the train and the light traveling relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' concludes, based on the mark made by the lightning strike at B', the lightning strike at B/B' occurred 0.75c from where M' is relative to the water when the light from the lightning strike at B/B' arrived at M'. Since light travels at 0.75c in stationary water, the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strike at B/B' occurred one year prior to the light arriving at M'. The light from the lightning strike at A/A' arrives at M'. Based on the light traveling at 0.6154c relative to the train and the light traveling relative to the water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observer at M' concludes, based on the mark made by the lightning strike at A', the lightning strike at A/A' occurred 1.5c from where M' is relative to the water when the light from the lightning strike at A/A' arrived at M'. Since light travels at 0.75c in stationary water, the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strike at A/A' occurred two years prior to the light arriving at M'. Since the clock at M' notes one year has passed between the light from B/B' arriving at M' and the light from A/A' arriving at M', the Observer at M' concludes the lightning strikes were simultaneous.
From: PD on 30 Dec 2009 18:38 On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. In science, that finishes the debate. If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's not worth pursuing. > > 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: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 18:43 On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. Meaning, the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Meaning, the Observer at M and the Observer at M', having this information, will arrive at the same conclusion as the the simultaneity of lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B'. I realize your dogma will not let you understand this. > In science, that finishes the debate. > If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's > not worth pursuing. > > > > > 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 18:46 On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration and other tests. You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. However, relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a subset of the data that relativity also matches. The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > Meaning, > the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Meaning, the > Observer at M and the Observer at M', having this information, will > arrive at the same conclusion as the the simultaneity of lightning > strikes at A/A' and B/B'. > > I realize your dogma will not let you understand this. I realize you have a lot of homework to do. > > > In science, that finishes the debate. > > If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's > > not worth pursuing. > > > > 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: mpc755 on 30 Dec 2009 19:04
On Dec 30, 6:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30, 5:43 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Dec 30, 1:14 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > No. I choose not to believe it because what you propose about the > > > behavior of light is not consistent with experimental results. > > > It is consistent with experimental results. Light travels at 'c' with > > respect to the aether. The aether is entrained by the Earth. > > This idea (aether entrainment) has been tested with stellar aberration > and other tests. Pouring water into telescopes to disprove aether entrainment? Aether does not 'stick' to liquids an not to air. Aether is entrained by the matter which is the Earth. > You're right that the MMX did not rule this entrainment out. MMX is evidence of aether entrainment. > However, > relativity does not rest on the MMX as its sole experimental support. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment. > You need to check what other experimental work has been done to test > not only relativity, but other models that are consistent with a > subset of the data that relativity also matches. > The problem is that relativity is the only model so far that > accurately predicts ALL the experimental results. > Yes, but it is not a physical explanation. Time is a concept. SR (and its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories describing the aether pressure associated with aether displacement and the GR concept of the connections between aether and matter is aether displacement and entrainment. If the Observer on the train knows the train is moving through water at rest with respect to the embankment, can the Observer on the train use this information when determining simultaneity? > > > Meaning, > > the aether is at rest with respect to the embankment. Meaning, the > > Observer at M and the Observer at M', having this information, will > > arrive at the same conclusion as the the simultaneity of lightning > > strikes at A/A' and B/B'. > > > I realize your dogma will not let you understand this. > > I realize you have a lot of homework to do. > > > > > > In science, that finishes the debate. > > > If it doesn't accurately reproduce the results actually observed, it's > > > not worth pursuing. > > > > > 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. > > |