Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 20:05 On Jan 4, 8:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(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. The people in the boat see the wave hit the front of the boat first. The people in the boat know how fast they are moving relative to the water. The people in the boat know the outriggers are 100 feet from the front and back of the boats. The people in the boat know the difference in time from the wave hitting the front of the boat and the wave hitting the back of the boat. The people in the boat conclude the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously. See how easy it is to answer a question. Can you do it? If cement blocks are dropped off the front and the back of a boat 100ft from the boat, do you measure to the end of the outriggers in order to determine how far the waves travel to the boat?
From: Michael Moroney on 4 Jan 2010 20:21 mpc755 <mpc755(a)gmail.com> writes: >On Jan 4, 8:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) >wrote: >> mpc755 <mpc...(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. >The people in the boat see the wave hit the front of the boat first. So they will see the events as nonsimultaneous. Period. >If cement blocks are dropped off the front and the back of a boat >100ft from the boat, do you measure to the end of the outriggers in >order to determine how far the waves travel to the boat? _In the reference frame of the boat_, yes. (Important distinction!) You can frame jump to a different frame and get a different answer from the guy on the shore, of course.
From: mpc755 on 4 Jan 2010 20:47 On Jan 4, 8:21 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) wrote: > mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> writes: > >On Jan 4, 8:01 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > >wrote: > >> mpc755 <mpc...(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. > >The people in the boat see the wave hit the front of the boat first. > > So they will see the events as nonsimultaneous. Period. > Actually if they hold a mirror and watch both cement blocks hit the water, they will SEE the events as being simultaneous. The people in the boat are not allowed to factor in the fact that they know the boat is moving towards the waves propagating towards the front of the boat and moving away from the waves propagating towards the back of the boat when they determine the simultaneity of the cement blocks entering the water? The people in the boat are not allowed to factor in the fact that they know the boat is moving relative to the water the cement blocks were dropped into? > >If cement blocks are dropped off the front and the back of a boat > >100ft from the boat, do you measure to the end of the outriggers in > >order to determine how far the waves travel to the boat? > > _In the reference frame of the boat_, yes. (Important distinction!) You > can frame jump to a different frame and get a different answer from the > guy on the shore, of course. You don't frame jump and get a different answer than the guy on the shore. You don't frame jump at all. You calculate when the cement blocks hit the water based upon the waves from the cement blocks propagating through the water. You factor in the fact that you are in a boat moving relative to the water. You factor in the length of the outriggers which lets you know how far the boat was from the cement blocks when the cement blocks entered the water. You factor in the difference in time between the front waves hitting the boat and the back waves hitting the boat. You conclude the cement blocks hit the water simultaneously, just like the guy on the shore did. If you refuse to allow the people in the boat the ability to use the fact that they know how fast the boat is moving relative to the water when determining the simultaneity of the cement blocks hitting the water, then this 'conversation' is over.
From: spudnik on 4 Jan 2010 21:54 do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems that you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, whenver he was concluding what is sufficiently subtle as to be not totally apparent without further thought. also, he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may be more responsible, after all, forr the time-space crack-up than doctor Minkowski; can you say, Useless fomalism? however, the real problem is your persistent use -- with whomever else from the past & future -- of the the concept of vacuum, which is strictly relative or active (as in, That giant sucking sound). > The difference between using the term aether and vacuum when > describing light is, light is not described as traveling at 'c' with > respect to the vacuum. Light does travel at 'c' with respect to the > aether. > '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 (the H2O molecules) and the state of the aether in > neighboring places is the aether's state of displacement and > entrainment. --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where? http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html
From: spudnik on 4 Jan 2010 22:04
that's an interesting anomaly; how does it relate to the heliopause & so on?... and, what is it about aether that causes it to entrain -- is that it's sole property?... well, doctor Einstein's essay seems quite confuzed about the electromegnetic properties of matter, but that was a while before our standard textbookoid concepts were put out from the Texas Schoolbook Suppository. > 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. thus: do you have the date of the essay by doctor Einstein?... it seems that you are agreeing with him "insofar as," but not really with his penultimate conclusion -- that is, whenver he was concluding what is sufficiently subtle as to be not totally apparent without further thought. also, he is giving a lot of credit to Lorentz, who may be more responsible, after all, forr the time-space crack-up than doctor Minkowski; can you say, Useless fomalism? however, the real problem is your persistent use -- with whomever else from the past & future -- of the the concept of vacuum, which is strictly relative or active (as in, That giant sucking sound). > http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html --Brit's hate Shakespeare, Why? http://wlym.com/campaigner/8011.pdf --Madame Rice is a Riceist, How? http://larouchepub.com/other/2009/3650rice_racist.html --The Riemannian Space of the Nucleus, What? http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2009/Relativistic_Moon... --In perpetuity clause in healthcare bill, Where? http://larouchepub.com/pr/2009/091229reid_exposed.html |