Wonderful!
in [Physics]
|
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 10:59 On Jan 5, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 10:27 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 5:12 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > It's a poor analogy. My refusal to hand-deliver to your high-chair the > > > existing evidence against the Sun's entrained aether ending around the > > > orbit of Uranus AT ALL is analogous to my insistence of the existence > > > of wombats in Australia. You see, there is documented evidence for > > > both of those. There isn't documented evidence of flying wombats. Your > > > ignorance of the documented evidence is not my problem. I am happy to > > > just point out that it's there and to suggest a fruitful tool by which > > > you can discover it for yourself, so that I do not abet your lazy > > > ignorance. > > > > > 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. > > > > Have you tried using scholar.google.com? Have you even entered the URL > > > in your browser? What excuse do you have for not doing that? > > > What excuse to you have for not posting one link to support your > > argument the Sun's entrained aether does not end close to the orbit of > > Uranus? > > The REASON I have is that it is the obligation of the proposer of a > new theory to do this work. It is an essential skill that is expected > of, and practiced by, every scientific researcher on the planet. You > don't want to do it, because you are afraid, lazy, and childish. And > so you find it easier to try to taunt and wheedle people to do that > work for you. I don't have to indulge you in your foibles. > > > Is that because there is no evidence, like there is no > > evidence to support your belief wombats can fly? If your going to just > > make stuff up like there is evidence against the Sun's entrained > > aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus, then that is similar to > > you making stuff up about flying wombats. > > The evidence is there. I have suggested a tool by which you can find > it. I have searched it thoroughly and the experiments having to do with aether entrainment and the Pioneer Effect support my conclusion the Pioneer Effect is due to the Sun's entrained aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus. 'Miller Challenges Einstein' Explains Ether Drift Research and Function of Interferometer Dr. Dayton C. Miller - "By George, I never could get zero". http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MillerCase1929.pdf 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift' http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf 'Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow' http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.5404v2.pdf "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." (Note: In this article they distinctly refer to space as not consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is to show how the above two aether experiments are in agreement with one another). Aether Displacement - Explains the observed behaviors in any double slit experiment (The photon/particle creates a wave in the aether and the wave always enters and exits both slits, while the particle always enters and exits a single slit). 'Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules' http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952 'Quantum interference experiments with large molecules' http://hexagon.physics.wisc.edu/teaching/2007f_ph448/interesting%20pa... The simpler, more intuitive explanation of the observed behaviors in the experiments described in the articles above is that the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. - Explains gravity (the aether pushes back in order to return to a state of rest) 'A Derivation of Dirac's Equation From a Model of an Elastic Medium' http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10579B "We have taken a model of an elastic medium and derived an equation of motion that has the same form as Diracs equation in the presence of electromagnetism and gravity." - Is the aether based equivalent of curved spacetime. Just as the more massive an object is the more spacetime is curved, the more massive an object is the more aether it displaces. As stated above, the matter that makes up the object displaces the aether that would otherwise be where the matter is. 'Diracs Æther in Curved Spacetime-II: The Geometric Amplification of the Cosmic Magnetic Induction' http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0212/0212234v1.pdf - The photon is, or is creating, a wave in the aether. The photon physically becomes part of the metal in the photoelectric effect experiment. That is why it is frequency and not intensity the emits electrons. Intensity will just bounce the electrons all over the place while frequency allows the photon to physically become part of the metal taking up three-dimensional space that causes the electron to be emitted. 'Photoelectric effect' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect "Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921." In Aether Displacement the photon absorption is a physical absorption of aether by the metal taking up three dimensional space, causing an electron to be emitted. - The sun, earth, jupiter, and the milky way are all likely to be creating whirlpools of aether, similar to the physical characteristics of the whirlpool of a hurricane. The earth's whirlpool of aether is rotating at almost the identical rotation of the earth at the earth's surface and slows down as you move away from the earth. Consider the moon to be getting carried along in the earth's aether whirlpool. Jupiter's outer moons orbit opposite the whirlpool because they are too far away from getting caught in the whirlpool, but Jupiter displaces aether far beyond the moons and the displaced aether is pushing back keeping all of the moons in orbit. 'Space-time Vortex NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's relativity.' http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16nov_gpb.htm "We'll soon know the answer: A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth--and, possibly, the vortex." In Aether Displacement, the vortex physically consists of aether. - Gravity waves are aether waves. 'Gravity Waves Make Tornados' http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/19mar_grits.htm 'What is an atmospheric gravity wave? Coleman explains: "They are similar to waves on the surface of the ocean, but they roll through the air instead of the water. Gravity is what keeps them going. If you push water up and then it plops back down, it creates waves. It's the same with air."' If you read the above article, the whole article makes more sense if you conceptualize them describing aether waves instead of gravity waves. 'Hunting for Gravity Waves' http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index... "Einstein said that every time anything moved -- from the moon orbiting the Earth to one car bumping into another -- the fabric of space-time vibrates, sending out gravitational waves." The above sounds the same as what is occurring in the double slit experiment with C-60 molecules. It also sounds like the following: 'Louis de Broglie' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." Yes, every moving particle has an associated wave, a wave the particle creates in the aether. And that includes C-60 molecules and the Earth. That is why I have been asking you to back up your claim, which as you are in denial, your refuse to do.
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 11:05 On Jan 5, 10:39 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 9:32 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > What excuse to you have for not posting one link to support your > > argument the Sun's entrained aether does not end close to the orbit of > > Uranus? > > The REASON I have is that it is the obligation of the proposer of a > new theory to do this work. It is an essential skill that is expected > of, and practiced by, every scientific researcher on the planet. You > don't want to do it, because you are afraid, lazy, and childish. And > so you find it easier to try to taunt and wheedle people to do that > work for you. I don't have to indulge you in your foibles. > > > Is that because there is no evidence, like there is no > > evidence to support your belief wombats can fly? If your going to just > > make stuff up like there is evidence against the Sun's entrained > > aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus, then that is similar to > > you making stuff up about flying wombats. > > The evidence is there. I have suggested a tool by which you can find > it. I have searched it thoroughly and the experiments having to do with aether entrainment and the Pioneer Effect support my conclusion the Pioneer Effect is due to the Sun's entrained aether ending close to the orbit of Uranus. Aether Entrainment 'Miller Challenges Einstein' Explains Ether Drift Research and Function of Interferometer Dr. Dayton C. Miller - "By George, I never could get zero". http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/MillerCase1929.pdf 'The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Aether Drift' http://muller.lbl.gov/COBE-early_history/SciAm.pdf 'Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow' http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0906/0906.5404v2.pdf "The NASA/JPL data is in remarkable agreement with that determined in other light speed anisotropy experiments, such as Michelson-Morley (1887), Miller (1933), De- Witte (1991), Torr and Kolen (1981), Cahill (2006), Munera (2007), Cahill and Stokes (2008) and Cahill (2009)." (Note: In this article they distinctly refer to space as not consisting of aether but "a dynamical 3-space, which at a small scale is a quantum foam system". The point of referring to this article is to show how the above two aether experiments are in agreement with one another). Aether Displacement - Explains the observed behaviors in any double slit experiment (The photon/particle creates a wave in the aether and the wave always enters and exits both slits, while the particle always enters and exits a single slit). 'Wave-particle duality seen in carbon-60 molecules' http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2952 'Quantum interference experiments with large molecules' http://hexagon.physics.wisc.edu/teaching/2007f_ph448/interesting%20pa... The simpler, more intuitive explanation of the observed behaviors in the experiments described in the articles above is that the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and the displacement wave it creates in the aether enters and exits both. - Explains gravity (the aether pushes back in order to return to a state of rest) 'A Derivation of Dirac's Equation From a Model of an Elastic Medium' http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005cond.mat.10579B "We have taken a model of an elastic medium and derived an equation of motion that has the same form as Diracs equation in the presence of electromagnetism and gravity." - Is the aether based equivalent of curved spacetime. Just as the more massive an object is the more spacetime is curved, the more massive an object is the more aether it displaces. As stated above, the matter that makes up the object displaces the aether that would otherwise be where the matter is. 'Diracs Æther in Curved Spacetime-II: The Geometric Amplification of the Cosmic Magnetic Induction' http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0212/0212234v1.pdf - The photon is, or is creating, a wave in the aether. The photon physically becomes part of the metal in the photoelectric effect experiment. 'Photoelectric effect' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoelectric_effect "Albert Einstein's mathematical description in 1905 of how the photoelectric effect was caused by absorption of quanta of light (now called photons), was in the paper named "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light". This paper proposed the simple description of "light quanta", or photons, and showed how they explained such phenomena as the photoelectric effect. His simple explanation in terms of absorption of discrete quanta of light explained the features of the phenomenon and the characteristic frequency. Einstein's explanation of the photoelectric effect won him the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1921." In Aether Displacement the photon absorption is a physical absorption of aether by the metal taking up three dimensional space, causing an electron to be emitted. - The sun, earth, jupiter, and the milky way are all likely to be creating whirlpools of aether, similar to the physical characteristics of the whirlpool of a hurricane. The earth's whirlpool of aether is rotating at almost the identical rotation of the earth at the earth's surface and slows down as you move away from the earth. Consider the moon to be getting carried along in the earth's aether whirlpool. Jupiter's outer moons orbit opposite the whirlpool because they are too far away from getting caught in the whirlpool, but Jupiter displaces aether far beyond the moons and the displaced aether is pushing back keeping all of the moons in orbit. 'Space-time Vortex NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft has gathered all the data physicists need to check a bizarre prediction of Einstein's relativity.' http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/16nov_gpb.htm "We'll soon know the answer: A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth--and, possibly, the vortex." In Aether Displacement, the vortex physically consists of aether. - Gravity waves are aether waves. 'Gravity Waves Make Tornados' http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/19mar_grits.htm 'What is an atmospheric gravity wave? Coleman explains: "They are similar to waves on the surface of the ocean, but they roll through the air instead of the water. Gravity is what keeps them going. If you push water up and then it plops back down, it creates waves. It's the same with air."' If you read the above article, the whole article makes more sense if you conceptualize them describing aether waves instead of gravity waves. 'Hunting for Gravity Waves' http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/sept/gravitywaves/index... "Einstein said that every time anything moved -- from the moon orbiting the Earth to one car bumping into another -- the fabric of space-time vibrates, sending out gravitational waves." The above sounds the same as what is occurring in the double slit experiment with C-60 molecules. It also sounds like the following: 'Louis de Broglie' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_broglie "This research culminated in the de Broglie hypothesis stating that any moving particle or object had an associated wave." Yes, every moving particle has an associated wave, a wave the particle creates in the aether. And that includes C-60 molecules and the Earth. That is why I have been asking you to back up your claim, which as you are in denial, your refuse to do.
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 11:21 On 5 ene, 12:28, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 10:04 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 ene, 10:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 4, 8:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > We can't go back to any math or anything else until we agree, or agree > > > to disagree, with the above. > > > > Forget the frames of reference for a second and just think about this > > > logically from the perspective of an Observer on the boat and what it > > > means to the Observer at M on the dock if the Observer on the boat > > > concludes the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously as I have > > > described above. > > > > The Observer on the boat must determine the simultaneity of the cement > > > blocks entering the water with respect to the water because the waves > > > propagate through the water. > > > > You really need to step back and understand the gedanken conceptually > > > before jumping into the math. You first have to understand if the > > > Observer on the boat determines the cement blocks entered the water > > > simultaneously, and the cement blocks were equi-distant from the > > > Observer at M on the dock when they entered the water, then the waves > > > reach the Observer at M simultaneously. > > > > You have to understand the waves do not have to reach the boat > > > simultaneously for the Observer on the boat to determine the cements > > > blocks entered the water simultaneously based on the available > > > information. > > > After hundreds of posts you still do not get the basic facts of > > simultaneity. > > When, in the train gedanken initial conditions, it is said "...Just > > when the flashes of lightning occur (at points A and B on the > > embankment frame), this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, > > but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of > > the train...", you seem to believe that it means that, as points A and > > A' also coincide (as well as points B and B'), the lightning strikes > > were also simultaneous for points A' and B'. Actually this is wrong, > > as it was clearly pointed out to you by Paul Draper. > > In Special Relativity, time and length of moving objects are frame > > dependent quantities. > > In the numerical example I provided to you, this is clearly derived: > > > Point A has x=-100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > Point A' has x'=-125000km and lightning strike was at t'=+0.25sec > > > Point B has x=+100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > Point B' has x=+125000km and ligthning strike was at t'=-0.25sec > > > With these initial values, observers saw the following: > > > Observer M saw two simultaneous light signals at t=0.333sec > > > Observer M' saw the light signal from point B at t'=0.167sec and the > > light signal from point A at t'=0.667sec > > > Simultaneity on frame K means non-simultaneity on the moving (relative > > to K) frame K'. > > > Miguel Rios > > Just go back to the Observer on the boat and the cement blocks being > dropped in front of the boat and off the back of the boat. The > Observer on the boat knows the speed of the boat relative to the > water, the speed the waves propagate through the water, the difference > in time the wave hits the front of the boat and the wave hits the back > of the boat, and how far from the boat the cement blocks were when the > cement blocks entered the water. Is this enough information for the > Observer on the boat to conclude the cement blocks entered the water > simultaneously even if the waves the cement blocks make in the water > do not reach the boat simultaneously? > > Of course it is. No it is not enough in Special Relativity, since both time and length quantities are frame dependent. Observer M saw and calculated both strikes were simultaneous. Observer M' saw and calculated both strikes were not simultaneous. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 5 Jan 2010 11:42 On Jan 5, 11:21 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 ene, 12:28, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 5, 10:04 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5 ene, 10:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > We can't go back to any math or anything else until we agree, or agree > > > > to disagree, with the above. > > > > > Forget the frames of reference for a second and just think about this > > > > logically from the perspective of an Observer on the boat and what it > > > > means to the Observer at M on the dock if the Observer on the boat > > > > concludes the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously as I have > > > > described above. > > > > > The Observer on the boat must determine the simultaneity of the cement > > > > blocks entering the water with respect to the water because the waves > > > > propagate through the water. > > > > > You really need to step back and understand the gedanken conceptually > > > > before jumping into the math. You first have to understand if the > > > > Observer on the boat determines the cement blocks entered the water > > > > simultaneously, and the cement blocks were equi-distant from the > > > > Observer at M on the dock when they entered the water, then the waves > > > > reach the Observer at M simultaneously. > > > > > You have to understand the waves do not have to reach the boat > > > > simultaneously for the Observer on the boat to determine the cements > > > > blocks entered the water simultaneously based on the available > > > > information. > > > > After hundreds of posts you still do not get the basic facts of > > > simultaneity. > > > When, in the train gedanken initial conditions, it is said "...Just > > > when the flashes of lightning occur (at points A and B on the > > > embankment frame), this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, > > > but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of > > > the train...", you seem to believe that it means that, as points A and > > > A' also coincide (as well as points B and B'), the lightning strikes > > > were also simultaneous for points A' and B'. Actually this is wrong, > > > as it was clearly pointed out to you by Paul Draper. > > > In Special Relativity, time and length of moving objects are frame > > > dependent quantities. > > > In the numerical example I provided to you, this is clearly derived: > > > > Point A has x=-100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > > Point A' has x'=-125000km and lightning strike was at t'=+0.25sec > > > > Point B has x=+100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > > Point B' has x=+125000km and ligthning strike was at t'=-0.25sec > > > > With these initial values, observers saw the following: > > > > Observer M saw two simultaneous light signals at t=0.333sec > > > > Observer M' saw the light signal from point B at t'=0.167sec and the > > > light signal from point A at t'=0.667sec > > > > Simultaneity on frame K means non-simultaneity on the moving (relative > > > to K) frame K'. > > > > Miguel Rios > > > Just go back to the Observer on the boat and the cement blocks being > > dropped in front of the boat and off the back of the boat. The > > Observer on the boat knows the speed of the boat relative to the > > water, the speed the waves propagate through the water, the difference > > in time the wave hits the front of the boat and the wave hits the back > > of the boat, and how far from the boat the cement blocks were when the > > cement blocks entered the water. Is this enough information for the > > Observer on the boat to conclude the cement blocks entered the water > > simultaneously even if the waves the cement blocks make in the water > > do not reach the boat simultaneously? > > > Of course it is. > > No it is not enough in Special Relativity, since both time and length > quantities are frame dependent. Observer M saw and calculated both > strikes were simultaneous. Observer M' saw and calculated both strikes > were not simultaneous. > > Miguel Rios I'm not talking about the Observer at M or the Observer at M'. I'm simply discussing an Observer on a boat who knows the following: - The speed of the boat relative to the water. - The speed at which the waves the cement blocks make propagate through the water. - The difference in time the wave from the cement block dropped off the bow of the boat hits the front of the boat and the wave from the cement block dropped off the stern of the boat hits the back of the boat. - The distance the cement blocks were from the boat when the cement blocks entered the water. Is this enough information for the Observer on the boat to conclude the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously even if the waves the cement blocks make in the water do not reach the boat simultaneously? Of course it is.
From: paparios on 5 Jan 2010 12:05
On 5 ene, 13:42, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 5, 11:21 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 5 ene, 12:28, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 5, 10:04 am, "papar...(a)gmail.com" <papar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5 ene, 10:45, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 4, 8:47 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > We can't go back to any math or anything else until we agree, or agree > > > > > to disagree, with the above. > > > > > > Forget the frames of reference for a second and just think about this > > > > > logically from the perspective of an Observer on the boat and what it > > > > > means to the Observer at M on the dock if the Observer on the boat > > > > > concludes the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously as I have > > > > > described above. > > > > > > The Observer on the boat must determine the simultaneity of the cement > > > > > blocks entering the water with respect to the water because the waves > > > > > propagate through the water. > > > > > > You really need to step back and understand the gedanken conceptually > > > > > before jumping into the math. You first have to understand if the > > > > > Observer on the boat determines the cement blocks entered the water > > > > > simultaneously, and the cement blocks were equi-distant from the > > > > > Observer at M on the dock when they entered the water, then the waves > > > > > reach the Observer at M simultaneously. > > > > > > You have to understand the waves do not have to reach the boat > > > > > simultaneously for the Observer on the boat to determine the cements > > > > > blocks entered the water simultaneously based on the available > > > > > information. > > > > > After hundreds of posts you still do not get the basic facts of > > > > simultaneity. > > > > When, in the train gedanken initial conditions, it is said "...Just > > > > when the flashes of lightning occur (at points A and B on the > > > > embankment frame), this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, > > > > but it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of > > > > the train...", you seem to believe that it means that, as points A and > > > > A' also coincide (as well as points B and B'), the lightning strikes > > > > were also simultaneous for points A' and B'. Actually this is wrong, > > > > as it was clearly pointed out to you by Paul Draper. > > > > In Special Relativity, time and length of moving objects are frame > > > > dependent quantities. > > > > In the numerical example I provided to you, this is clearly derived: > > > > > Point A has x=-100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > > > Point A' has x'=-125000km and lightning strike was at t'=+0.25sec > > > > > Point B has x=+100000km and lightning strike was at t=0 sec > > > > Point B' has x=+125000km and ligthning strike was at t'=-0.25sec > > > > > With these initial values, observers saw the following: > > > > > Observer M saw two simultaneous light signals at t=0.333sec > > > > > Observer M' saw the light signal from point B at t'=0.167sec and the > > > > light signal from point A at t'=0.667sec > > > > > Simultaneity on frame K means non-simultaneity on the moving (relative > > > > to K) frame K'. > > > > > Miguel Rios > > > > Just go back to the Observer on the boat and the cement blocks being > > > dropped in front of the boat and off the back of the boat. The > > > Observer on the boat knows the speed of the boat relative to the > > > water, the speed the waves propagate through the water, the difference > > > in time the wave hits the front of the boat and the wave hits the back > > > of the boat, and how far from the boat the cement blocks were when the > > > cement blocks entered the water. Is this enough information for the > > > Observer on the boat to conclude the cement blocks entered the water > > > simultaneously even if the waves the cement blocks make in the water > > > do not reach the boat simultaneously? > > > > Of course it is. > > > No it is not enough in Special Relativity, since both time and length > > quantities are frame dependent. Observer M saw and calculated both > > strikes were simultaneous. Observer M' saw and calculated both strikes > > were not simultaneous. > > > Miguel Rios > > I'm not talking about the Observer at M or the Observer at M'. I'm > simply discussing an Observer on a boat who knows the following: > So now you are not discussing anymore Einstein's train gedanken!! > - The speed of the boat relative to the water. Badly put, since for these type of thought experiments you must consider inertial objects, then your observer on the boat does not know if it is the boat which is moving, with respect to a given reference point on the water or, viceversa, is the water which moves at the given speed (with a minus sign) with respect to the boat. In other words, that observer on the boat should at least consider both cases (observations would also be compatible with both the boat and the water moving with respect to each other at a given time which opens the number to infinity). > - The speed at which the waves the cement blocks make propagate > through the water. OK with this > - The difference in time the wave from the cement block dropped off > the bow of the boat hits the front of the boat and the wave from the > cement block dropped off the stern of the boat hits the back of the > boat. OK with this, since these are observations > - The distance the cement blocks were from the boat when the cement > blocks entered the water. > This I doubt you will be able to measure in a reliable way, unless you somehow know beforehand the geometry of the experiment, which you have not defined. > Is this enough information for the Observer on the boat to conclude > the cement blocks entered the water simultaneously even if the waves > the cement blocks make in the water do not reach the boat > simultaneously? > No for a long shot, according to the observer defined knowledge. > Of course it is. Of course it is not enough. It is evident that Einstein was far more clever and clearer than you in formulating these thought experiments. Miguel Rios |