Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: Y.y.Porat on 4 Jan 2010 02:41 On Jan 4, 5:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 5:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 5:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 2, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > > > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > > > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > > > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > > > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > > > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > > > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > > > > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > > > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > > > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > > > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > > > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > > > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > > > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > > > > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > > > > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > > > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > > > > > > probability' is not nature. > > > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > > > > > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > > > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html' > > > > > > I think it's fair to say that Porat will be aghast that there is a > > > > > website that looks better than his and which features mention of > > > > > "circlons". > > > > > > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > > > > > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > > > > > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > > > > > > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > > > > > > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > > > > > > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > > > > > > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > > > > > > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > > > > > > displacing the ocean? > > > > > > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > > > > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > > > > > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > > > > > > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > > > > > > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > > > > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. > > > > > --------------------- > > > > for PD more importasnt is if it looks better > > > > > sort of a youg woman model is bettr scientifically than an old person > > > > > anyway Mr mpc > > > > my circlon model is not al all th elink you quoted > > > > it i s described schematically at the** appendix** > > > > of my abstract of my model book > > > > it does not look like a young model woman > > > > but anyway > > > > see my model at the appendix: > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > ps about my whole ** book*** > > > > PD (and some others )stole it > > > > and is very eager to hide > > > > and obfuscate that fact !!.... > > > > > ATB > > > > Y.Porat > > > > -------------------------- > > > > If you want to summarize how 'Circlon pressure' is a more accurate > > > description of nature than 'Aether pressure', go right ahead. > > > > But I do not see any difference in nature between 'Aether Pressure' > > > and 'Hydrostatic Pressure' except for the medium in which the clock > > > exists. > > > > Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which > > > has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the > > > second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water. > > > Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand > > > correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat. > > > > Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of > > > the increase in water pressure on the clock, I'm guessing it is going > > > to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push > > > through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute to > > > make one complete rotation as determined by the clock on the boat. > > > > Has time changed? Of course not. > > > > Now, of course, if a fish refuses to believe in the existence of > > > water, then time really does change. > > > -------------------- > > BTW > > whose 'Circlon' was first > > mine of the other one you quoted ?? > > i did check it > > 2 > > > please have a look at my appendix > > how the circlon can make attraction force > > it is described schematically > > on teo masses one big and one small > > (say sun and earth) > > but not necessarily big and small > > it can be between any massed > > and > > attraction force is equivalentto pressure > > (if you lke it better that way) > > but still please note the big difference > > between your Aether and my Circlon > > > the Circlon is stemming > > and associated only to and from mass!! > > not from Vacuum and it as massive! > > for me > > no mass - no real physics !! > > Sounds like: > > '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 at every place determined by connections with > the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > aether's state of displacement and entrainment. ---------------- but stil we know that wherever thre is mass there is forces we *cant know* that if there is *no mass* - there is Aether Y.P --------------------
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 08:16 On Jan 4, 2:41 am, "Y.y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 5:30 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 3, 5:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 3, 5:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 2, 10:42 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 8:57 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31 2009, 9:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 31, 2:00 pm, PD the *collective* body > > > > > > > > > > of experimental evidence that determines which theory is the most > > > > > > > > > > successful. Choosing one experiment that permits both explanations and > > > > > > > > > > then insisting that only your favorite is the favored one is > > > > > > > > > > scientific fraud. > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > > It is perfectly physical. You perhaps have a disagreement with > > > > > > > > > > physicists about what "physical" means. > > > > > > > > > > > > Time is a concept. SR (and > > > > > > > > > > > its incorrect train gedanken) and GR are mathematical theories > > > > > > > > > > > No, they are PHYSICAL theories. > > > > > > > > > > SR, GR, and QM are not physical explanations of nature. They are > > > > > > > > > mathematical representations of nature. > > > > > > > > > > Your dogma makes you insist a 'wave function probability' is nature. > > > > > > > > > > > > describing the aether pressure > > > > > > > > > > Since SR and GR dispense with aether as something that exerts pressure > > > > > > > > > > on anything, it is difficult to say that SR and GR describe aether > > > > > > > > > > pressure. Now, it's plain that AD is a theory that describes aether > > > > > > > > > > pressure, but AD doesn't have anything to do with SR and GR, does it? > > > > > > > > > > AD is a physical representation of SR, GR, and QM, but again, your > > > > > > > > > dogma doesn't allow you to understand anything but what you have been > > > > > > > > > indoctrinated into believing. > > > > > > > > > > You will never understand time is a concept and a 'wave function > > > > > > > > > probability' is not nature. > > > > > > > > > --------------------------- > > > > > > > > i fully agree with your last sentence !!! > > > > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > > > if you will replace your' Aether pressure' with > > > > > > > > **Circlon pressure** i will be with you !!! > > > > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > > > ----------------------------------- > > > > > > > > If by Circlon Pressure you are referring to: > > > > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/index.html' > > > > > > > I think it's fair to say that Porat will be aghast that there is a > > > > > > website that looks better than his and which features mention of > > > > > > "circlons". > > > > > > > > Then I have to disagree with you. 'Their' explanation of gravity: > > > > > > > >http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/gravitation.html > > > > > > > > seems too different than what I am describing. > > > > > > > > In terms of the apple falling on Newton's head, the AD explanation of > > > > > > > this is the matter which is the apple displaces the aether which would > > > > > > > otherwise exist where the apple is and the Earth displaces the aether > > > > > > > which would otherwise exist where the matter which is the Earth is. > > > > > > > The apple displaces the aether to infinity, but it is like dropping a > > > > > > > bowling ball into the ocean. Where does the bowling ball 'stop' > > > > > > > displacing the ocean? > > > > > > > > When the apple breaks free from the tree, the aether pressure > > > > > > > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth and the aether > > > > > > > pressure associated with the aether displaced by the apple push the > > > > > > > Earth and the apple towards one another, but for all practical > > > > > > > purposes, it is only the aether pressure associated with the aether > > > > > > > displaced by the Earth that is pushing the apple towards the Earth. > > > > > > --------------------- > > > > > for PD more importasnt is if it looks better > > > > > > sort of a youg woman model is bettr scientifically than an old person > > > > > > anyway Mr mpc > > > > > my circlon model is not al all th elink you quoted > > > > > it i s described schematically at the** appendix** > > > > > of my abstract of my model book > > > > > it does not look like a young model woman > > > > > but anyway > > > > > see my model at the appendix: > > > > > >http://sites.google.com/site/theyporatmodel/an-abstract > > > > > > ps about my whole ** book*** > > > > > PD (and some others )stole it > > > > > and is very eager to hide > > > > > and obfuscate that fact !!.... > > > > > > ATB > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > -------------------------- > > > > > If you want to summarize how 'Circlon pressure' is a more accurate > > > > description of nature than 'Aether pressure', go right ahead. > > > > > But I do not see any difference in nature between 'Aether Pressure' > > > > and 'Hydrostatic Pressure' except for the medium in which the clock > > > > exists. > > > > > Think of a clock a couple of feet below the surface of the ocean which > > > > has the second hand of the clock exposed to the water. Make it so the > > > > second hand on the clock is a paddle that pushes through the water. > > > > Time the clock in the water so one full rotation of the second hand > > > > correlates with one minute on a clock on the boat. > > > > > Now drop the clock one mile below the surface of the ocean. Because of > > > > the increase in water pressure on the clock, I'm guessing it is going > > > > to require more force for the second hand with the paddle to push > > > > through the water, causing the hand to take more than one minute to > > > > make one complete rotation as determined by the clock on the boat. > > > > > Has time changed? Of course not. > > > > > Now, of course, if a fish refuses to believe in the existence of > > > > water, then time really does change. > > > > -------------------- > > > BTW > > > whose 'Circlon' was first > > > mine of the other one you quoted ?? > > > i did check it > > > 2 > > > > please have a look at my appendix > > > how the circlon can make attraction force > > > it is described schematically > > > on teo masses one big and one small > > > (say sun and earth) > > > but not necessarily big and small > > > it can be between any massed > > > and > > > attraction force is equivalentto pressure > > > (if you lke it better that way) > > > but still please note the big difference > > > between your Aether and my Circlon > > > > the Circlon is stemming > > > and associated only to and from mass!! > > > not from Vacuum and it as massive! > > > for me > > > no mass - no real physics !! > > > Sounds like: > > > '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 at every place determined by connections with > > the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the > > aether's state of displacement and entrainment. > > ---------------- > but stil > we know that wherever thre is mass > there is forces > we *cant know* that if there is *no mass* - there is Aether > > Y.P > -------------------- 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" According to the theory of aether displacement space without ether is unthinkable.
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 08:48 On Dec 30 2009, 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 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 propagating at 0.8421c relative to the train from B' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike at B' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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 propagating at 0.6154c relative to the train from A' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike at A' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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, in nature.
From: paparios on 4 Jan 2010 09:27 On 4 ene, 10:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 30 2009, 4:09 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael > > 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 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 propagating at 0.8421c relative to > the train from B' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike > at B' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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 propagating at 0.6154c relative to > the train from A' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike > at A' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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, in nature. What matters here is what a theory says it will be observed (and measured). In this respect Special Relativity has once and again proved itself as correct. Let us consider Einstein gedanken as set in www.bartleby.com/173/9.html. Frame K, which is the embankment, is defined by coordinates (x,ct) and there is an observer M initially is located at coordinates (0,0). There are also two points A and B (where the striking events occur), which initially have the following coordinates: Point A: (x_A, ct_A) = (-100000, 0) Point B: (x_B, ct_B) = (+100000, 0) Where distances are expressed in kilometers and c = 300000 km/sec. This is shown in the following figure: ct | | ___________|__________x A M B | | Let us first consider only the embankment frame. We know observer M does not move in this frame, so his coordinate world line is defined by (0, ct) , which is the vertical line shown in the figure. Now we consider the train. This train is very long and moving at a very high speed v = 0.6c = 180000 km/sec towards the positive direction of the x axis. The following figure shows this train, as viewed from the embankment frame: t | | | A'_________M'________B'--> v ___________|__________ x A M B The figure shows the initial location, as Einstein explains just when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M naturally coincides with the point M . We also see from the figure that points A and B coincide with points A and B, on frame K. We will now consider the propagation of light signals on this embankment scenario. If observer M flashes a light at t=0, this light signal will propagate towards the right of the figure (the x axis) at a speed c. This is shown in the following figure, as a 45 degree line, denoting the equation of movement of that light signal x = ct. ct x=ct | * | * | * ___________|*_________ x M So, in one year time (t = 1 year), we will have that the light signal has advanced to x = ct = 1 light year distance. Let us now consider the lightning strikes occurring at points A/A and B/B. As shown in the following figure, light signals from points A and B propagate towards observer M at a speed c and, consequently, they can be drawn as the diagonal lines shown: ct | *|* * | * * | * * | * * | * *__________|__________*__ x A |M B | The lines describe the equations of movement of the light signals (for point A it is x = ct 100000. For point B it is x = -ct + 100000). Both signals will arrive to the location of observer M at ct = 100000 km, that is at t = 1/3 sec, as measured by observer M clock. Now, let us consider the train (again viewed from the embankment frame K). Suppose we have previously located several helper observers along the embankment (every km there is one of these helpers), and each of these helpers have a synchronized clock, with respect to the one of observer M. Just when M observes the light signals (at t = 1/3 sec), we can affirm the following will also be accounted: a)Helper H1, located at x = 60000 km, will record that he saw observer M passing through his location at t=1/3 sec. This is clearly correct, since as the train is moving at v = 180000 km/sec, observer M will have move from coordinate x = 0 to coordinate x = vt = 180000 (1/3) = 60000 km. b)Helper H1 will also point out that he previously saw a light signal coming from point B at t = 40000/300000 = 0.1333 sec. c)Helper H1 will later record that he saw a light signal coming from point A at t = 160000/300000 = 0.5333 sec. These are shown in the following figure: * 0.5333c * | * | ct * | |* | *|* | * | * | * | * M'0.3333c * | * | * | * 0.1333c *__________|________|_*__ x A |M H1 B | The logical conclusion of helper H1, is that the light signal from point B must have encountered observer M on a point located at the left of H1, and that the light signal from point A will encounter observer M at a point located at the right of H1. It is quite clear that, based on these observation made on the embankment frame, the observer M' will not receive these light signals at the same time. Later using Lorentz Transformation we will find exactly when and where M' receives these light signals. These conclusions have been obtained by using just basic geometric relationships. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 09:47
On Jan 4, 9:27 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 4 ene, 10:48, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 30 2009, 4:09 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael > > > 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 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 propagating at 0.8421c relative to > > the train from B' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike > > at B' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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 propagating at 0.6154c relative to > > the train from A' towards M' and the mark made by the lightning strike > > at A' one year from M', the Observer at M' concludes 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 propagates 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, in nature. > > What matters here is what a theory says it will be observed (and > measured). In this respect Special Relativity has once and again > proved itself as correct. > > Let us consider Einstein gedanken as set inwww.bartleby.com/173/9.html. > Frame K, which is the embankment, is defined by coordinates (x,ct) and > there is an observer M initially is located at coordinates (0,0). > There are also two points A and B (where the striking events occur), > which initially have the following coordinates: > > Point A: (x_A, ct_A) = (-100000, 0) > Point B: (x_B, ct_B) = (+100000, 0) > > Where distances are expressed in kilometers and c = 300000 km/sec. > This is shown in the following figure: > > ct > | > | > ___________|__________x > A M B > | > | > > Let us first consider only the embankment frame. We know observer M > does not move in this frame, so his coordinate world line is defined > by (0, ct) , which is the vertical line shown in the figure. > > Now we consider the train. This train is very long and moving at a > very high speed v = 0.6c = 180000 km/sec towards the positive > direction of the x axis. The following figure shows this train, as > viewed from the embankment frame: > > t > | > | > | > A'_________M'________B'--> v > ___________|__________ x > A M B > > The figure shows the initial location, as Einstein explains just > when the flashes of lightning occur, this point M naturally coincides > with the point M . We also see from the figure that points A and B > coincide with points A and B, on frame K. > > We will now consider the propagation of light signals on this > embankment scenario. If observer M flashes a light at t=0, this light > signal will propagate towards the right of the figure (the x axis) at > a speed c. This is shown in the following figure, as a 45 degree line, > denoting the equation of movement of that light signal x = ct. > > ct x=ct > | * > | * > | * > ___________|*_________ x > M > > So, in one year time (t = 1 year), we will have that the light signal > has advanced to x = ct = 1 light year distance. > > Let us now consider the lightning strikes occurring at points A/A and > B/B. As shown in the following figure, light signals from points A > and B propagate towards observer M at a speed c and, consequently, > they can be drawn as the diagonal lines shown: > > ct > | > *|* > * | * > * | * > * | * > * | * > *__________|__________*__ x > A |M B > | > > The lines describe the equations of movement of the light signals (for > point A it is x = ct 100000. For point B it is x = -ct + 100000). > Both signals will arrive to the location of observer M at ct = 100000 > km, that is at t = 1/3 sec, as measured by observer M clock. > > Now, let us consider the train (again viewed from the embankment frame > K). Suppose we have previously located several helper observers along > the embankment (every km there is one of these helpers), and each of > these helpers have a synchronized clock, with respect to the one of > observer M. > > Just when M observes the light signals (at t = 1/3 sec), we can affirm > the following will also be accounted: > > a)Helper H1, located at x = 60000 km, will record that he saw observer > M passing through his location at t=1/3 sec. This is clearly correct, > since as the train is moving at v = 180000 km/sec, observer M will > have move from coordinate x = 0 to coordinate x = vt = 180000 (1/3) = > 60000 km. > b)Helper H1 will also point out that he previously saw a light signal > coming from point B at t = 40000/300000 = 0.1333 sec. > c)Helper H1 will later record that he saw a light signal coming from > point A at t = 160000/300000 = 0.5333 sec. > > These are shown in the following figure: > > * 0.5333c > * | > * | > ct * | > |* | > *|* | > * | * | > * | * M'0.3333c > * | * | > * | * 0.1333c > *__________|________|_*__ x > A |M H1 B > | > > The logical conclusion of helper H1, is that the light signal from > point B must have encountered observer M on a point located at the > left of H1, and that the light signal from point A will encounter > observer M at a point located at the right of H1. It is quite clear > that, based on these observation made on the embankment frame, the > observer M' will not receive these light signals at the same time. > Later using Lorentz Transformation we will find exactly when and where > M' receives these light signals. > > These conclusions have been obtained by using just basic geometric > relationships. > > Miguel Rios The Observer at M' on the train needs to determine where the light propagates from relative to the medium in which the light propagates in order to determine simultaneity. When the Observer at M' on the train does this, as I have described above, the Observer at M' determines the lightning strikes to be simultaneous, in nature. |