Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 15:49 On Jan 4, 3:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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'." > What part of the light propagates WITH RESPECT TO THE MEDIUM do you not understand? What part of the light travels from A to M' and B to M' WITH RESPECT to the water do you not understand. You are in a boat moving through water at rest with respect to the embankment. The boat has outriggers on the front and back of the boat equal length from the boat. The outriggers each hold a cement block one inch over the water. The outriggers drop cement blocks into the water. The wave from the cement block dropped in front of the boat hits the boat first and then the wave from the cement block dropped off the back of the boat hits the boat. If you calculate when the cement blocks were dropped into the water, do you factor in the state of the water the waves propagate through, or not? You must factor in THE STATE OF THE WATER the waves the cement blocks created in the water in order to determine the simultaneity of the cement blocks hitting the water. The boat is at rest with respect to the water when the cement blocks are dropped into the water. The waves from the cement blocks hit the boat simultaneously. Does this mean when the boat is moving relative to the water the cement blocks do not hit the water simultaneously, but when the boat is at rest relative to the water the cement blocks do hit the water simultaneously? Of course not because you figure in the state of the water the waves propagate in when determining the simultaneity of the cement blocks entering the water.
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 15:54 On Jan 4, 3:49 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 3:30 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > wrote: > > > > > mpc755 <mpc...(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'." > > What part of the light propagates WITH RESPECT TO THE MEDIUM do you > not understand? What part of the light travels from A to M' and B to > M' WITH RESPECT to the water do you not understand. > > You are in a boat moving through water at rest with respect to the > embankment. The boat has outriggers on the front and back of the boat > equal length from the boat. The outriggers each hold a cement block > one inch over the water. The outriggers drop cement blocks into the > water. The wave from the cement block dropped in front of the boat > hits the boat first and then the wave from the cement block dropped > off the back of the boat hits the boat. > > If you calculate when the cement blocks were dropped into the water, > do you factor in the state of the water the waves propagate through, > or not? > > You must factor in THE STATE OF THE WATER the waves the cement blocks > created in the water in order to determine the simultaneity of the > cement blocks hitting the water. > > The boat is at rest with respect to the water when the cement blocks > are dropped into the water. The waves from the cement blocks hit the > boat simultaneously. > > Does this mean when the boat is moving relative to the water the > cement blocks do not hit the water simultaneously, but when the boat > is at rest relative to the water the cement blocks do hit the water > simultaneously? > > Of course not because you figure in the state of the water the waves > propagate in when determining the simultaneity of the cement blocks > entering the water. The outriggers reach out 100ft from the front and back of the boat. The boat is moving relative to the water. The outriggers each drop a cement block from one foot above the water. Do the waves each travel 100ft to the boat?
From: PD on 4 Jan 2010 17:18 On Jan 4, 2:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. I never said there were flying wombats. You did. You have a distorted sense of reality, mpc. There is medication available for that. > > 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. There is evidence available, and which you can easily find, that rules out aether entrainment as an explanation for the Pioneer effect. No amount of whining on your part about it not being decanted for you on the tray of your high chair will alter that fact. Have you tried scholar.google.com?
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 18:12 On Jan 4, 5:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 4, 2:09 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > I never said there were flying wombats. You did. You have a distorted > sense of reality, mpc. There is medication available for that. > It's an analogy. Your refusal to offer any evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending around the orbit of Uranus being the reason for the Pioneer Effect is analogous to your insistence in flying wombats without providing evidence of any. Do you know what an analogy is? I am saying your behavior in terms of not supporting your claims is the same thing AS IF you believed in flying wombats but refused to provide any evidence of 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. > > There is evidence available, and which you can easily find, that rules > out aether entrainment as an explanation for the Pioneer effect. > > No amount of whining on your part about it not being decanted for you > on the tray of your high chair will alter that fact. > > Have you tried scholar.google.com? Your behavior is the definition of denial.
From: Michael Moroney on 4 Jan 2010 20:01
mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >You are once again missing the point. It is you who misses the point. Do the people in the boat get splashed first by the wave from the block in front, the block in the rear, or both at the same time? I'm sure you'll frame jump to a frame stationary to the water, but don't; I'm talking what the people in the boat see. |