Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 14:51 On Jan 4, 2:27 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Dec 30 2009, 4:09=A0pm, 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 knows both lightning strikes were 1 light year away (by > definition), but arrived at his location 1.1875 years later and 1.6250 > years later (1/0.8421 and 1/0.6154 respectively), which are different > times, therefore the observer concludes the events were not simultaneous. What part of the Observer has to determine how far the light propagates with respect to the medium in order to determine the simultaneity of the lightning strikes do you not understand?
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 14:55 On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 11:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > > > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > > > > anything else is denial? > > > > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > > > > past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > > > > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > > > > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > > > > evidence, > > > > I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I > > > tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you > > > need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are > > > sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if > > > that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in > > > Australia? > > > No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find > > > out facts for himself. > > > If you insist wombats can fly and I ask you to provide evidence of > > flying wombats and you refuse to, then you are in a state of denial to > > the fact wombats can't fly. > > But the difference is that there is no available documentation about > flying wombats. There is plenty of documentation about wombats in > Australia, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > doesn't make wombats nonexistent. Likewise, there is plenty of > documentation of evidence against aether entrainment in the solar > system, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > doesn't make the evidence nonexistent. > > It only makes you a lazy ignoramus who can't look anything up for > himself. Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. But you choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence of either.
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 15:00 On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill. > > > > > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > > > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > > > > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > > > > > anything else is denial? > > > > > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > > > > > past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > > > > > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > > > > > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > > > > > evidence, > > > > > I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I > > > > tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you > > > > need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are > > > > sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if > > > > that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in > > > > Australia? > > > > No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find > > > > out facts for himself. > > > > If you insist wombats can fly and I ask you to provide evidence of > > > flying wombats and you refuse to, then you are in a state of denial to > > > the fact wombats can't fly. > > > But the difference is that there is no available documentation about > > flying wombats. There is plenty of documentation about wombats in > > Australia, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > > doesn't make wombats nonexistent. Likewise, there is plenty of > > documentation of evidence against aether entrainment in the solar > > system, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > > doesn't make the evidence nonexistent. > > > It only makes you a lazy ignoramus who can't look anything up for > > himself. > > Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against > the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. Of course there is. Have you tried looking for it? Or were you expecting it to be served to you in your high chair? Have you tried a search on scholar.google.com? > But you > choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you > choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence > of either. I didn't say I believed in flying wombats. You did. You get easily confused, don't you? Is it the medications?
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 15:09 On Jan 4, 3:00 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 1:55 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 2:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 11:13 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:16 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 11:12 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:05 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jan 4, 10:58 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 9:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 2, 1:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I do expect you to learn how to research the literature yourself, yes. > > > > > > > > > > > ANYBODY who does physics learns this as a basic skill.. > > > > > > > > > > > Not cowtowing to your laziness and apprehensions about doing actual > > > > > > > > > > > work is not denial. It is simply refusing to cowtow to childish > > > > > > > > > > > behavior. > > > > > > > > > > > Sulk if you like. > > > > > > > > > > > Your behavior is the definition of denial. > > > > > > > > > > Really? What dictionary are you using? Or is this another case where > > > > > > > > > you are just defining words the way you want to? > > > > > > > > > I'm still waiting for those links to evidence refuting the Sun's > > > > > > > > aether entrainment ends just past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? > > > > > > > > Why do you think that unless you are SPOONFED information at YOUR > > > > > > > CONVENIENCE just because you WHINE that you want it that way, that > > > > > > > anything else is denial? > > > > > > > The Pioneer Effect is evidence the Sun's entrained aether ends just > > > > > > past the orbit of Uranus. > > > > > > > If you are going to make statements that there is experimental > > > > > > evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending just past the orbit > > > > > > of Uranus and then not back those statements up with the actual > > > > > > evidence, > > > > > > I've already told you where you can find the counter-evidence. If I > > > > > tell you that there are wombats in Australia, and you insist that you > > > > > need to have a wombat delivered to you in the chair where you are > > > > > sitting before you'll believe there are wombats in Australia, then if > > > > > that delivery doesn't happen does it mean there are no wombats in > > > > > Australia? > > > > > No, it means that you a lazy ignoramus who can't be bothered to find > > > > > out facts for himself. > > > > > If you insist wombats can fly and I ask you to provide evidence of > > > > flying wombats and you refuse to, then you are in a state of denial to > > > > the fact wombats can't fly. > > > > But the difference is that there is no available documentation about > > > flying wombats. There is plenty of documentation about wombats in > > > Australia, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > > > doesn't make wombats nonexistent. Likewise, there is plenty of > > > documentation of evidence against aether entrainment in the solar > > > system, even if you don't believe it's there, and your disbelief > > > doesn't make the evidence nonexistent. > > > > It only makes you a lazy ignoramus who can't look anything up for > > > himself. > > > Just like there is no available documentation about evidence against > > the Sun's entrained aether ending past the orbit of Uranus. > > Of course there is. Have you tried looking for it? Or were you > expecting it to be served to you in your high chair? > > Have you tried a search on scholar.google.com? > > > But you > > choose to believe the Sun does not entrain the aether just like you > > choose to believe in flying wombats, even though there is no evidence > > of either. > > I didn't say I believed in flying wombats. You did. > > You get easily confused, don't you? Is it the medications? You are the one who is confused. I'm explaining to you what you state of denial is like. Your state of denial is similar to your belief in flying wombats and when asked for evidence of such wombats, you refuse to offer any evidence to their existence. Your lack of ability to back up the claim of the existence of flying wombats is the same as your lack of ability to back up your claim that the Pioneer Effect is not caused by the satellites exiting the Sun's entrained aether.
From: Michael Moroney on 4 Jan 2010 15:30
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 4, 2:27=A0pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: >> >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 knows both lightning strikes were 1 light year away (by >> definition), but arrived at his location 1.1875 years later and 1.6250 >> years later (1/0.8421 and 1/0.6154 respectively), which are different >> times, therefore the observer concludes the events were not simultaneous. >What part of the Observer has to determine how far the light >propagates with respect to the medium in order to determine the >simultaneity of the lightning strikes do you not understand? That was part of the original problem AS YOU STATED IT!!! "A' and B' are each 1 light year from M'." (Message-ID: <55aade36-058a-4f02-a4f3-e9eff6fee432(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>) |