Re: Simultaneity of Relativity
glird
> mpc755 wrote:
> > I understand exactly what is
> > occurring in Einstein's Train
> > Thought experiment.
>
> Not as Einstein explained it, no you > don't.
>
> You understand the MPC Train Thought
> Experiment, which is something
> completely different than the
> Einstein Train Thought Experiment.
Yes.
> << Lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' behave exactly like the waves of
pebbles dropped into stationary pools of water on the train and
stationary pools of water on the embankment.
If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the
waves the pebbles create from A and B reaches M and the light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
If there are stationary pools on the train and on the embankment, the
light waves from A and B reach M and the light wave from A' and B'
reach M' simultaneously. >>
>
> See? That's the MPC Train Thought
> Experiment, not the Einstein one.
PD is right. In Einstein's, A and A' coincide when a given ray hits
point AA', and B and B' coincide when ray 2 hits BB'. In MPC's, A and
A' are different points than each other in 3-d space and so are b and
B'.
In Einstein, the space between AA' and BB' is empty and light moves
at c wrt to it while the train - thus points A', B' and midpoint M' -
moves to the right at v. in mpc, a luminiferous aether is trapped
within the moving train and is therefore moving wrt to the outside
aether taken as at rest wrt the embankment.
Therefore, as PD said, mpc's conclusions are unrelated to
Einstein's.
BTW, this gedanken experiment by Einstein is to the layman, and
doesn't explain why simultaneity is relative to the states of motion
of different observers' clocks.
glird
them ir point
mpc755
It makes no difference if the points A and A' coincide side-by-side or
not in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment.
Saying it makes a difference shows your limited understanding of the
Einstein's Train Thought Experiment.
The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is
the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light
at B/B' occurring in a single instant and for A and B to be equi-
distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for
the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance
from A' to M' and B' to M'.
Let me ask you about Einstein's Train Thought Experiment with the
following variation. As described in the above sentence, if there is
are simultaneous lightning strikes at A and A' and there are
simultaneous lightning strikes at B and B', if the light from A and B
reaches M simultaneously does the light from A' and B' reach M'
simultaneously? And in terms of simultaneous, I am referring to any
frame of reference. In other words, from the perspective of an
observer on the embankment, if the light from A and B reaches the
observer at M simultaneously, does the light from the lightning
strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
PD
No, I'm sorry, now you're using sentences that Ken Seto uses, and Ken
Seto is insane.
It's you that doesn't understand the Einstein gedanken.
>
> The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is
> the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant
And at a single location.
> and the flash of light
> at B/B' occurring in a single instant
And at a single location.
> and for A and B to be equi-
> distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for
> the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance
> from A' to M' and B' to M'.
>
> Let me ask you about Einstein's Train Thought Experiment with the
> following variation.
Why don't we take up the variation after you've correctly understood
the unvaried case?
mpc755
It makes no difference if the points A and A' coincide side-by-side or
not in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment.
The only thing that matters in Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is
the flash at A/A' occurring in a single instant and the flash of light
at B/B' occurring in a single instant and for A and B to be equi-
distant from M and for A' and B' to be equi-distant from M' and for
the distance from A to M and B to M to be the same as the distance
from A' to M' and B' to M'.
Let me ask you about Einstein's Train Thought Experiment with the
following variation. As described in the above sentence, if there is
are simultaneous lightning strikes at A and A' and there are
simultaneous lightning strikes at B and B', if the light from A and B
reaches M simultaneously does the light from A' and B' reach M'
simultaneously? And in terms of simultaneous, I am referring to any
frame of reference. In other words, from the perspective of an
observer on the embankment, if the light from A and B reaches the
observer at M simultaneously, does the light from the lightning
strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
Bruce Richmond
You were ok up to the last part. The flashes met at M'. They can
only meet at one point on a line between the two strikes, and that one
point is where M is. M' was not with M when the flashes arrived, so
he did not see the flashes at the same instant. IOW he saw the
flashes at different times. Since the strikes at A' and B' were equal
distances from M' the strikes must have happen at different times.
In the frame of M' the strike at the front of the train happen first,
M' passed by M, and then the strike at the back of the train happen.
By the time the strike at the back of the train happen the front had
moved beyond where its strike happen. So the distance between A' and
B' is greater than the distance between A and B. You only think they
are the same distance because M says the two strikes happen at the
same time.
Geordie La Forge @ http://MeAmI.org
Bruce Richmond wrote:> On Oct 10, 11:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com>
E = MC
In 1949 Godel wrote a paper showing in the theory of relativity time
as we see it does not exist. Einstein recognizes Godel's paper is “an
important contribution to the general theory of relativity.” To date
physicists have not been able to find logical shortcomings in Godel's
work, and none has been able to account the existence of
time, nor divorce relativity from the block universe. The current
model accounts for time in both
GR and QM. It shows it is not the fourth dimension, but an emergent
property of underlying dimension's intrinsic relative movement. We
lose the eternal recurrence of
frozen past and future, we gain free will--a physical model supporting
both GR and QM, and perceived time in this universe. It is true “there
is an inseparable connection” between time and light, as time
naturally emerges from the physical expansion of the fourth dimension
relative to the three spatial dimensions, and by light, we measure
time and distance, but matter is caught in a fourth expanding
dimension.
Moving away from Godel's block universe sheds light. Well-rounded
understanding of the otherwise absurd and inexplicable conflations of
paradox prevalent in the inherent understanding of fundamental
advances in Special Relativity must give way to well-versed reasons as
paradox flee.
Einstein did not write time is the fourth dimension, but he wrote x4 =
ict. The fourth dimension is not time; instead it is 'ict'. Prominent
physicists have oft equated time the fourth dimension, leading to un-
resolvable paradox, confusion regarding the physical nature of time as
physicists project properties of three spatial dimensions onto a time
dimension, in curious concepts to include frozen time and s block
universe in the past and future are omni-present, thusly denying free
will, while it implies the possibility of time travel to the past--
future visitors have yet to verify.
dx
4
= ic
dt
uu
dx
4
dx=icdx
44
∫∫
dt
aa
u
dx
4
dx = x (u ) − x (a )
4 4 4
∫
dt
a
u
icdx= icu − ica
4
∫
a
x (u ) − x (a ) = icu − ica
4 4
x (u ) = icu − ica + x (a )
4 4
Let D be the constant -ica+x4(a) and re-label u with t. Then we have
x (t ) = ict + D
4
Dropping the arbitrary constant, we get:
x (t ) = ict
4
Or
x4 = ict
'Search the speed of light!"
Support a cure for childhood cancer:
mpc755
My thought experiment:
Embankment water stationary relative to the embankment.
Train water stationary relative to the train.
Pebbles dropped simultaneously at A on the embankment and A' on the
train.
Pebbles dropped simultaneously at B on the embankment and B' on the
train.
If the waves created by the pebbles at A and B reach M simultaneously,
do the waves created by the pebbles at A' and B' reach M'
simultaneously?
Yes.
Replace the pebbles with flashes of light.
If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M
simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach
M' simultaneously?
Yes.
Replace the water with aether, ice, air, or glass.
If the light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M
simultaneously, do the waves created by the flashes at A' and B' reach
M' simultaneously?
Yes.
If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light
travels through?
Tim Little
> If you think no, why is aether different than other mediums light
> travels through?
If by "aether" you mean "vacuum", it is different because the relative
speed of light is always observed to be constant in it, regardless of
motion of source and/or observer.
That is why analogies with sound or water waves are poorly made.
- Tim
mpc755
The analogy between water and aether in my thought experiment is not
poorly made. In my thought experiment, if the light from A and B
reaches M simultaneously then the light from A' and B' reaches M'
simultaneously.
If you disagree with the above statement, explain why.
mpc755
If light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M
simultaneously, the light waves from the flashes at A' and B' reach M'
simultaneously.
A and B are light years from M. A' and B' are light years from M'. The
membrane between the embankment frame of reference and the train frame
of reference is thin enough to allow light waves to travel through but
not the stationary aether associated with each frame of reference. At
the time of the flashes, A and A' are extremely close together and so
are M and M' and B and B'.
M and M' are moving away from each other at a high rate of speed.
The light reaches each observer accordingly:
The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M
simultaneously, then
The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches
M' simultaneously, then
The light from A reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M
simultaneously.
mpc755
If light waves created by the flashes at A and B reach M
simultaneously, the light waves from the flashes at A' and B' reach M'
simultaneously.
A and B are light years from M. A' and B' are light years from M'. The
membrane between the embankment frame of reference and the train frame
of reference is thin enough to allow light waves to travel through but
not the stationary aether associated with each frame of reference. At
the time of the flashes, A and A' are extremely close together and so
are M and M' and B and B'.
M and M' are moving away from each other at a high rate of speed.
The light reaches each observer accordingly:
The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M
simultaneously, then
The light from A and B reaches M and the light from A' and B' reaches
M' simultaneously, then
The light from A reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M
simultaneously.
glird
> On 2009-10-10, mpc755 wrote:
>
> > If you think no, why is aether
> > different than other mediums light
> > travels through?
>
> If by "aether" you mean "vacuum", it
> is different because the relative
> speed of light is always observed to
> be constant in it, regardless of
> motion of source and/or observer.
> That is why analogies with sound or
> water waves are poorly made.
If we used sound waves or water waves to set clocks of a given
system moving wrt air or water, the results WOULD be analogous to
Einstein's; and the speed of sound or water waves would be constant in
both directions.
As to remaining a constant in ALL directions, if - as denied by
present relativists - the length of a moving unit rod deformed by a
given amount per direction, the speed of sound and light and water
waves would each remain constant in all directions as plotted by
clocks set that way.
mpc755
Stationary aether in each frame of reference allows for Simultaneity
of Relativity.
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which results in multiple wave fronts from the same event, proving it
wrong.
mpc755
> wrong.
There are four wave fronts in my thought experiment.
Bruce Richmond
>
> - Show quoted text -
I know, and that is wrong. Your animation is wrong because A and A'
were together when the strike hit. You have them offset from each
other.
mpc755
My animation is correct for four wave fronts.
If the aether is stationary relative to the train and stationary
relative to the embankment and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at
A and A' and simultaneous lightning strikes occur at B and B', if the
light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, the light from A' and B'
reaches M' simultaneously.
If the strikes occur such that the light will travel at 'c' relative
to the aether in each frame of reference for long enough that it
offsets the reduced speed of the light as it travels through the
membrane dividing the frames of reference, the lightning strikes will
reach M and M' as I have stated:
The light from B reaches M' and the light from A' reaches M
simultaneously, then the light from A and B reaches M and the light
from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously, then the light from A
reaches M' and the light from B' reaches M.
Where did the light travel from in order for this sequence of events
to occur? If you tie the location of the lightning strikes to points
in three dimensional space relative to the frame of reference M and M'
exist in, then the light will not always be traveling at 'c' in
Relativity of Simultaneity.
mpc755
There is an Observer on the membrane who remains equi-distant between
A and A' at all times, likewise an Observer on the membrane who
remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. Each observer
strikes a button so that the flashes of light occur when a line
perpendicular to the membrane can be drawn through A and A' and the
Observer between A and A', likewise a line perpendicular to the
membrane can be drawn through B and B' and the Observer between B and
B' at the time of the flashes, and the light from A and A' reaches the
Observer between A and A' simultaneously and the light from B and B'
reaches the Observer between B and B' simultaneously.
mpc755
How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It
travels from where the source *is* to where the Observer *is* when the
Observer sees the flash.
mpc755
How far does the light travel to reach each Observer at M and M'? It
mpc755
When the flash from A' reaches M, the Observer at M notes the time and
where A' *is*. The Observer at M then determines when the flash at A'
occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the flash from B. When
the flashes from A and B reach M, the Observer at M notes the time and
where A and B *are*. The Observer at M then determines when the
flashes at A and B occurred. The Observer at M' does the same for the
flashes at A' and B'. When the flash from B' reaches M, the Observer
at M notes the time and where B' *is*. The Observer at M then
determines when the flash at B' occurred. The Observer at M' does the
same for the flash at A. Both Observers correctly conclude all four
flashes occurred simultaneously.
Tim Little
> If we used sound waves or water waves to set clocks of a given
> system moving wrt air or water, the results WOULD be analogous to
> Einstein's
The predicted results would be analogous to Einstein's. However,
unlike Einstein's predictions, the experimental results would
disagree with the predictions.
For example, there would be a Glirdian relativity "twin paradox" that
would not be observed. The corresponding Einsteinian "twin paradox"
is actually observed.
- Tim
Androcles
"Tim Little" <t...@little-possums.net> wrote in message
news:slrnhd8g8...@soprano.little-possums.net...
> For example, there would be a Glirdian relativity "twin paradox" that
> would not be observed. The corresponding Einsteinian "twin paradox"
> is actually observed.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
mpc755
Ok, so I have shown in my thought experiment how it is better to
describe nature as light traveling as a wave at 'c' relative to where
the source *is* relative to the wave's interaction with the aether.
I have shown how the behaviors of four wave fronts in two identical
frames of reference is better explained by Simultaneity of Relativity.
And what is the response?
<crickets>
PD
Doesn't the fact that you consistently end up talking to yourself tell
you something that you should be paying attention to?
mpc755
It tells me you can't see beyond the fish bowl you exist in.
I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in
nature.
How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is*
relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether.
My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense
about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals".
There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from
each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is
under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and
travels at 'c' relative to this aether.
But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what
you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect.
Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought
experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of
comprehension and intuition.
PD
Well, it appears that you are told all sorts of crazy stuff.
>
> I have just shown, in my thought experiment, how light waves behave in
> nature.
Thought experiments show nothing in science. Experiments do. Wherever
did you get the RIDICULOUS notion that thought experiments show how
nature works?
>
> How the distance the light travels is from where the source *is*
> relative to the interaction of the light wave and the aether.
>
> My thought experiment explains away de Sitter's binary stars nonsense
> about the "extreme scrambling of their lightsignals".
>
> There is no extreme scrambling because a photon propagates away from
> each star at 'c' as a wave which soon after being emitted by a star is
> under the influence of the aether which exists around both stars and
> travels at 'c' relative to this aether.
>
> But do you care to know the truth? Of course not, if it is not what
> you have been indoctrinated into believing, it is incorrect.
>
> Of course, you can not find anything incorrect in my thought
> experiment except for the fact it is beyond your abilities of
> comprehension and intuition.
Actually, if you'll read back over this thread, you'll see plenty that
was pointed out about where you were wrong. Of course, if you can't
see that, it may be beyond your abilities of comprehension and
intuition. But no matter, it's all recorded her for posterity.
mpc755
Of course, YOU can not point to anything incorrect in my thought
experiment.
Ignorant at all cost.
mpc755
You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment.
doug
mpc755 wrote:
That is a pretty good description of you. However, we are all
laughing over the nonsense you have been getting mired in.
mpc755
You can not point to anything incorrect in my thought experiment.
PD
Look at your original post. You said if the aether was stationary
relative to the embankment and moving relative to the train, then your
animation would be what would happen in such an experiment. However,
that is NOT what happens in real experiments with real light. Since
your premise requires results that are different than is what is
actually observed in real life, then the premises must be wrong.
Your *logic* is fine (or at least close to fine). But something that
is logically consistent -- that is, the conclusions follow logically
from the premises -- can still be as wrong as eyeglasses on a pig.
Being logically consistent does not mean that it is right or that it
describes reality. What describes reality is what is determined in
experiment.
doug
mpc755 wrote:
PD did repeatedly and you completely ignored or misunderstood it.
And you missed the point about thought experiments being worthless
if they do not agree with real experiments.
mpc755
What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train
and stationary relative to the embankment".
mpc755
mpc755
What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train
and stationary relative to the embankment".
And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including
the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars where his
assumption for emitter theory is light propagates outward from the
source as a particle, when in fact, light propagates outward from the
source as a wave which is affected by its interaction with the aether.
PD
Yes, sorry, my mistake.
As I pointed out, there are numerous implications of two bodies of
aether, including transition boundaries, which require further
experimental results predicted that are simply not seen. You kinda
blew by those without consideration.
>
> And my thought experiment is reflected in actual experiments including
> the incorrect conclusions of de Sitter and double stars
Sorry, but as I told you earlier, the double star observations don't
have anything to do with the experiments used to test relativity of
simultaneity.
mpc755
The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories. The
double star observations refute ballistic emitter theories where the
photon is a particle that is emitted at 'c' relative to the source and
travels at 'c' relative to the sources speed relative to us. If one of
the stars was approaching the Earth at 'v', a photon emitted by the
star travels from its point of emission to us at 'c+v'. If the star is
moving away from us at 'v', then the photon is emitted by the star and
travels to the Earth at 'c-v'. The 'c+v' photons overtake the 'c-v'
photons and the images of the stars is 'scrambled'.
This is not how light works. Light is emitted by each star and travels
at 'c' through the aether entrained by the individual star. It does
not take much time at all of the light wave to interact with the
aether which is entrained by both binary stars. Light waves travel at
'c' relative to the aether the wave propagates through. When the light
wave gets close to the Earth, it travels at 'c' relative to the
Earth's entrained aether.
Simultaneity of Relativity explains how the light from a binary star
pair is not scrambled. Simultaneity of Relativity explains how light
waves travel at 'c' from where the source *is* relative to the waves
interaction with the aether.
PD
Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
looked into the other two dozen experiments?
Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
are aetherless.
Moreover, the train gedanken doesn't have anything do with emitter
theories. It is an explanation of what relativity says, and is not
intended in any way as a disproof of any other theory. Gedankens are
not disproofs of anything, let alone competing theories. Experiments
are the sole arbiter of which theories are correct and which are not
correct, and they are usually pretty unambiguous because a given
theory will say you will see result X in quantity Q, where another
theory will say you will see result Y in quantity R. Then it's a
pretty straightforward measurement to see if you see X or Y, and in
quantity Q or R. There is no interpretation needed.
> The
> double star observations refute ballistic emitter theories where the
> photon is a particle that is emitted at 'c' relative to the source and
> travels at 'c' relative to the sources speed relative to us. If one of
> the stars was approaching the Earth at 'v', a photon emitted by the
> star travels from its point of emission to us at 'c+v'. If the star is
> moving away from us at 'v', then the photon is emitted by the star and
> travels to the Earth at 'c-v'. The 'c+v' photons overtake the 'c-v'
> photons and the images of the stars is 'scrambled'.
>
> This is not how light works. Light is emitted by each star and travels
> at 'c' through the aether entrained by the individual star. It does
> not take much time at all of the light wave to interact with the
> aether which is entrained by both binary stars. Light waves travel at
> 'c' relative to the aether the wave propagates through. When the light
> wave gets close to the Earth, it travels at 'c' relative to the
> Earth's entrained aether.
This is inconsistent with experimental results.
mpc755
>
> > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories.
>
> Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
> looked into the other two dozen experiments?
> Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
> are aetherless.
There is no such thing as aetherless.
YBM
> What I said was, "If the aether is stationary relative to the train
> and stationary relative to the embankment".
Do you know that, logically, False => P, whatever proposition P could
be?
mpc755
> On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories.
>
> Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
> looked into the other two dozen experiments?
> Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
> are aetherless.
There is no such thing as aetherless.
Like filling a telescope with water to 'prove' aether is not entrained
by the Earth because the assumption is aether 'sticks' to water but
not to air?
PD
> On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories.
>
> > Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
> > looked into the other two dozen experiments?
> > Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
> > are aetherless.
>
> There is no such thing as aetherless.
You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of
the theories being tested.
What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number
of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think.
No, sir. Please try again.
mpc755
> On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories.
>
> > > Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
> > > looked into the other two dozen experiments?
> > > Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
> > > are aetherless.
>
> > There is no such thing as aetherless.
>
> You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of
> the theories being tested.
>
> What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number
> of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think.
>
Mass-less particle require a medium in order to propagate.
The Emitter Theory I am proposing in Simultaneity of Relativity has to
do with the light waves interaction with the aether.
Aether is entrained by massive objects and therefore the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' relative to the massive object. But it is a
light wave.
As the light wave moves further past the binary star which emitted the
light wave, it travels at 'c' relative to the entrained aether
surrounding both stars.
My thought experiment explains how four wave fronts are determined by
both the Observers at M and M' to have been emitted by simultaneous
flashes.
Do you agree the Observers determine the flashes of light occurred
simultaneously? If so, explain how. If not, explain why not.
PD
I asked you about this earlier, if you want to know how relativity
accounts for what goes on, since you obviously do not understand the
Einstein gedanken. You suggested that we forget the Einstein gedanken.
If you'd like to revisit the Einstein gedanken and actually learn what
relativity says, then ask.
Keep in mind that throughout any discussion that ensues, we would be
talking about RELATIVITY and not your pet aether guess. If you want to
know what's wrong with your pet aether guess, I've already pointed you
to a listing of dozens of experiments and the documentation about
them.
doug
mpc755 wrote:
> On Oct 13, 4:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Oct 13, 3:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Oct 13, 3:55 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>On Oct 13, 2:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>The double star observations are used to refute emitter theories.
>>
>>>>Um, that's just one bit of evidence against emitter theories. Have you
>>>>looked into the other two dozen experiments?
>>>>Moreover, the emitter theories tested in the double-star observations
>>>>are aetherless.
>>
>>>There is no such thing as aetherless.
>>
>>You may think that is true of nature, but it certainly wasn't true of
>>the theories being tested.
>>
>>What you think of as being true is not true until it passes a number
>>of quantitative experimental tests, no matter what you think.
>>
>
>
> Mass-less particle require a medium in order to propagate.
Wrong again. You are not having much luck with science. You need
a new hobby where you do not look stupid so much.
mpc755
I understand Einstein's train thought experiment. I am discussing my
train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts.
> Keep in mind that throughout any discussion that ensues, we would be
> talking about RELATIVITY and not your pet aether guess. If you want to
> know what's wrong with your pet aether guess, I've already pointed you
> to a listing of dozens of experiments and the documentation about
> them.
>
An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes
a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as
close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer
between A and A' simultaneously.
The same is true for an Observer between B and B'.
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light
from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are
they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously?
In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the
light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M'
note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively,
at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the
flashes occurred. The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the
flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M'
note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where
the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes
occurred. The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light
from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M
and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A,
respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred.
The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes
occurred simultaneously.
What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of
Relativity? Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes
as determined by the Observers at M and M' is.
PD
That's doubtful. You seemed to get a number of things about it wrong
right away.
> I am discussing my
> train thought experiment where there are four wave fronts.
There's no real value in it. If you're looking for what's logically
wrong between your presumptions and your animation, I don't know that
there's anything wrong there.
But the predictions you make do not match what is seen in experiment,
and the other predictions that would necessarily follow from your
model are ALSO not seen in experiment, as I've indicated.
I'm more interested in describing what happens with light flashes in
reality. Your model is internally consistent. It just does not
describe the sequence of events that really happens in nature. You say
one thing happens. Observation says a completely different thing
happens.
Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what
really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even
though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you
as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to
dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible
idea to you must be right.
PD
mpc755
Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A'
simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B'
simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really
happen in nature?
> Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what
> really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even
> though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you
> as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to
> dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible
> idea to you must be right.
>
> PD
Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach
the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at
A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously?
mpc755
Are you saying flashes of light do not occur at A and A'
simultaneously or flashes of light do not occur at B and B'
simultaneously? Which of the simultaneous flash events do not really
happen in nature?
> Now a NORMAL person will look at their idea that doesn't match what
> really happens and will say, "Well, I guess I was wrong, then, even
> though it seemed like a sensible idea." However, I don't think of you
> as a normal person anymore. I think of you as someone who is happy to
> dismiss real observations and insist that what seems like a sensible
> idea to you must be right.
>
> PD
Are you saying simultaneous lightning strikes at A and B do not reach
the Observer at M simultaneously or simultaneous lightning strikes at
A' and B' do no reach the Observer at M' simultaneously?
Or are you saying the Observers at M an M' are not able to conclude
the four flashes occurred simultaneously because they have to refer
back to some meaningless point in three dimensional space in their
reference frame where they have to assume the flash occurred and the
light traveled from that point to where they are?
The light from A travels from A to M. The light from B travels from B
to M. The light from A' travels from A' to M'. The light from B'
travels from B' to M'.
But, in Relativity of Simultaneity, for some unexplainable reason, the
light from A' does not travel from A' to M. It travels from where A'
*was* in the past in the Observer at Ms frame of reference to M. Same
for the light from B and M'. For some reason, the Observer at M' must
conclude the light from B traveled from some place B was in the
Observer at M' frame of reference in the past. Even thought that makes
absolutely no sense and does not allow either Observer to come to the
correct conclusion the flashes of light all occurred simultaneously.
All the Observers at M and M' have to do is note where the source *is*
when the flash of light from the source reaches them in order to
determine the flashes occurred simultaneously, but for some reason
they are not allowed to do this.
They are allowed to do this in Simultaneity of Relativity because
light travels at 'c' relative to where the source *is* relative to the
PD
Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you?
Just have to ask.
mpc755
How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity
cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were
simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can?
Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the
light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*? Is light aware of
the frames of reference it is dealing with and act accordingly?
mpc755
How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity
cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were
simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can?
Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the
light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*?
PD
Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are
simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent.
It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is
at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in
another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is
something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school
children ever since have too.
>
> Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the
> light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*?
It doesn't.
You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet.
> > > light waves interaction with the aether.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
mpc755
No, it is not frame-dependent. That is what is incorrect with
Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought
experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all
four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M
arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning
strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just
like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A'
*is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of
Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where
M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B,
and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred
simultaneously.
PD
> On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you?
> > > > Just have to ask.
>
> > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity
> > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were
> > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can?
>
> > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are
> > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent.
>
> No, it is not frame-dependent.
Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really
isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality
and some people go so far as to call it psychosis.
Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical
properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic
energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally
verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are
*experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not
simultaneous in another frame.
Denial of experimental observations is a bad idea in science.
> That is what is incorrect with
> Relativity of Simultaneity. The Observers at M and M' in my thought
> experiment, using Relativity of Simultaneity incorrectly conclude all
> four flashes were not simultaneous because the Observer at M
> arbitrarily and incorrectly concludes the light from the lightning
> strike at A' traveled from where A' *was*. This is incorrect. Just
> like the Observer at M' determines the light traveled from where A'
> *is* when the light reaches M', the Observer at M, in Simultaneity of
> Relativity, determines the light traveled from where A' *is* to where
> M *is*, does the same for the distance the light travels from A, B,
> and B' and correctly concludes all four lightning strikes occurred
> simultaneously.
>
>
>
> > It's similar to being at rest. It's easy to determine if something is
> > at rest. However, that determination is frame-dependent, because in
> > another reference frame the same object is not at rest. This is
> > something that Galileo understood well over 300 years ago, and school
> > children ever since have too.
Do you see this?
>
> > > Why does the light travel from where A' *is* to where M' *is* but the
> > > light travels from where A' *was* to where M *is*?
>
> > It doesn't.
>
> > You haven't asked me to explain the Einstein gedanken yet.
>
And you still haven't. Are you interested in having it explained to
you? Why is it emotionally difficult for you to ask for this? You seem
to have emotional difficulties about a number of things.
glird
> An Observer exists on a line equi-distant between A and A'. He pushes
> a button that allows flashes to occur at A and A' when A and A' are as
> close to him as possible. The light from A and A' reaches the Observer
> between A and A' simultaneously.
"Simultaneously" is the key word. (See below.)
> The same is true for an Observer between B and B'.
Presumably, these two observers are at rest wrt each other. If not,
then their esynched clocks at B and B' have different settings than
each other. The following bit from A Flower for Einstein is relevant
here:
<< In short, for any deformations whatsoever in the perpendicular
axes, ø is a function of the velocity ±v only if both systems move at
identical absolute velocities in opposite directions and only if
plotted either by identically deformed each other or by a third
system, stationary Euclidean cs S whose velocity determinations are
absolute. Hence, and the second point of this temporarily trivial
exercise, it is {and should always have been} self evident that the
degree of physical deformation of moving systems is not a function of
the relative velocities. Not even as found by a moving Euclidean
system.
Once the physical meaning of ø(v) and ø( v) are defined, it is clear
that the inverse transformation, y = ø( v)y', has the same form as
the direct transformation, y' = ø(v)y, simply because ø(v) is equal to
1/ø( v) even if neither of them is equal to 1. It is equally clear
that if y' = ly then y = y’/l, just as Lorentz accurately provided in
some of his "wrong" 1904 equations.
To gain reciprocity for two systems plotting each other's
perpendicular co-ordinates, all we need do is recognize that in
Lorentz, compared to Einstein,
l = ø(v) and l = ø( v) and ø( v) = 1/ø(v)
wherefore y' = ly = ø(v)y and y = ly' = y'/ø
(v) = ø( v)y'.
It is even easier to just define ø(v) as the inverse of the
deformation value in the axes perpendicular to the direction of
motion, as determined by the viewing system. (It is its own numerical
inverse when the other system is the viewer.) Given that, and letting
the primes always denote the viewed system, then all by itself and for
all values of ø, y' = ø(v)y is both the direct and inverse
transformation. What could be simpler?
With one exception (case A, below) a change in unit rate is also
required by relativistic equations. The easiest way to find the needed
rate change is to check events on a perpendicular axis. We will
therefore let rod AB be on the Y axis. Z results would be identical.
(Because c' = q both ways on a perpendicular plane, no local time
offsets have to be inserted perpendicularly to X or X'.)
Again setting ø = q, 1/q, 1 in above cases a, b and c, and letting v
= .6c upon X, we will now examine the consequent degree of rate change
cs K’ must insert in obeying the definition of sinchronism:
t’B - t’A = t'A’ - t’B = AB/c,
in which t’A is the time the ray leaves A (as marked by clock A), t’B
is the time it reaches B (as marked by clock B) and t'A’ is the time
it returns to A. If we set AB equal to one unit length as marked by
K’, this becomes t’B - t’A = t'A’ - t’B = 1. In the three cases, Y"
remains a Euclidean cs but this time is attached to deformed
relativistic cs k' just as in Lorentz's 1904 paper. The two attached
systems thus co-move at .6c on X of cs S.
(a) Y' unit rod AB is contracted to ø = q = .8 units long compared
to those of Y" and S.
At c' = q, it takes one second for a ray to traverse such a q shrunken
unit length. Therefore, no rate change is needed since the ray travels
"one unit" of cs k’ in one Y" and S second in the Y', Z' directions.
(b) Y' units are expanded to 1/q = 1.25 units long. At c' = q it
takes 1.5625 seconds for the ray to reach B. The ratio of rates has to
be set so that t'/t * 1.5625 = 1, hence t'/t = .64 = Q. Therefore, if
ø = 1/q then t'/t = Q.
(c) Y' units aren’t deformed. It thus takes 1.25 seconds for a ray
to reach B. Accordingly, t'/t * 1.25 = 1; so t'/t = q. Therefore, if
ø = 1 then t'/t = q. This represents the LTE case.
Note that this q rate change, imposed by setting ø(v) equal to unity
as in the LTE, is totally independent of any differently moving
system. Even co-moving Euclidean cs Y" will find a .8 slowdown in
rates of cs k’.
Clearly, the degree of rate change is a function of the deformation in
the perpendicular planes, and vice versa. Mathematically, neither of
them can be derived by itself!
To check sinchrony for cs k’ clocks situated in the direction of
motion, we will use the degrees of length and rate deformation set
forth in a,b,c, above; noting that the rate changes in the
perpendicular axes remain valid with respect to the axis of motion.
(Any k' clock in an X' direction also exists in the Y' and Z'
directions, and can have only one rate. We will therefore assume that
the rates were set in accord with those obtained above using the Y'
rods. and that all clocks of k' initially have identical settings.)
(a) Rates: X' unit rod AB is contracted to = qø = Q = .64 S units
long. No rate change was needed since the ray travels "two units" of
cs k’ in two S seconds.
Local time settings: At c' = c v = .4c a ray takes 1.6 seconds to
traverse Q contracted AB. Hence t'B = 1.6. At c' = c+v = 1.6c it
takes .4 seconds for the return leg, so t'A' = 2. In order for the
clock at B to sinchronize with that at A, clock B has to be turned
back by .6 seconds; which is equal to vx'/c2. Similarly, for clocks
of cs k’ a local time lag ("offset" hereafter) of vx'/c2 seconds has
to be inserted, where x' is the distance between any two of them as
plotted by cs k’ itself. In terms of its own origin clock, successive
clocks in the direction of absolute motion have readings such that t'o
= t'x' vx'/c2; in which t'x' is the time of the clock at any x', t'o
is the time of the origin clock and x' is the k' distance between the
origin and the target clock, all exclusively in terms of cs k’ alone.
>>
> If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, does the light
> from A' and B' reach M' simultaneously?
Define "simultaneously".
> When the four flashes of light reach the Observers at M and M', are
> they able to determine the flashes occurred simultaneously?
Define "simultaneously"!!
>
> In Simultaneity of Relativity, the light from A' reaches M and the
> light from B reaches M' simultaneously and the Observers at M and M'
> note the time and the distance A' and B are from them, respectively,
> at the time they see the flashes of light and determine when the
> flashes occurred.
In STR, contrary to Wheeler, the length of a moving rod is different
in the Y and Z directions than in the direction of motion, taken as X;
and the rate at which clocks of a given system beat is a function of
the amount of that deformation and of the velocity of the given
system. The "time" per successive clock of any esynched system is
different from that of any neighbors in the direction of motion by -vx/
c^2 seconds, where v is the speed of the system wrt the space in which
light moves at c, and x is the distance between two such neighbors as
measured by the given system itself.
> The flashes of light from A and B reach M and the
> flashes of light from A' and B' reach M'. The Observers at M and M'
> note the time and determine how far the light has traveled from where
> the source of the flash *is*. The Observers determine when the flashes
> occurred.
. If you are discussing relativity, "when" the flashes occur and "how
far" it travels is an abstraction, being a mathematical function of
how fast the system is moving and how far apart the clocks that mark
the time at A, B, M etc are. If you are discussing classical physics,
the time and length is constant in all systems.
> The light from B' reaches the Observer at M and the light
> from A reaches the Observer at M' simultaneously. The Observers at M
> and M' note the time and how far the light traveled from B' and A,
> respectively, and determine when the flashes of light occurred.
> The Observers at M and M' both conclude correctly the four flashes
> occurred simultaneously.
>
> What is incorrect in the above description of Simultaneity of
> Relativity?
I think you are trying to compare two entirely different scenarios as
though they were identical.
> Explain what is incorrect and what the sequence of flashes
> as determined by the Observers at M and M' is.
Clocks set via Einstein's method MUST mark the time it takes a ray
to get from any point A to any point B as equal to the time it takes
for the return trip. If you really want to understand the latter
portion of your sentence, do this:
Let cs M be at rest in the luminiferous material that Einstein called
"empty space". Let system M' be moving in the X direction at v = .8c.
Let A and A' be at the coinciding origins at t = t' = 0 and M, M', B
and B' on Y, and let AM = A'M' = MB = M'B'.
Now plot how long it will take a ray to get from A to M or B and
from B to M or A and then do it wrt the moving system. (Remember to
let the path of the ray be on the hypotenuse of a right-angled
triangle wrt system M'!) Let the "time" of system M' now run slower
than that of the stationary system by exactly enough so that t' is
identical with t for each leg of the light's trips. (If - as in RT -
we hold vertical lengths unchanged, then clocks of M' must run slow by
q = sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Letting M' clocks run slow by q compared to those of M, now let
lengths in M' contract by q, as in RT. At t' = 0 let a ray emit from
A' and travel to M' and then on to B', where M' and B' are on X of cs
M' thus on or parallel to X of M. Solve for the value of t' in both
cases. Then let the ray reflect from B' and plot the time t it takes
to get to M' and back to A'. Now find out how much you have to change
the times t' in order for t' to be identicle for the trip from A' to
B' as from B' to A'; i.e for the clocks to be set in accord with
Einstein's (defective) definition of "synchronous" clocks.
glird
mpc755
> On Oct 13, 6:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 13, 6:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Neither one. Did you want me to explain the Einstein gedanken to you?
> > > > > Just have to ask.
>
> > > > How is it the Observers who adhere to Relativity of Simultaneity
> > > > cannot determine the lightning strikes in my thought experiment were
> > > > simultaneous but in Simultaneity of Relativity they can?
>
> > > Observers in nature CAN determine if lightning strikes are
> > > simultaneous. It's just that this determination is frame-dependent.
>
> > No, it is not frame-dependent.
>
> Yes, it is, experimentally so. Trying to tell nature that it really
> isn't what it is, is a futile exercise. It is called denial of reality
> and some people go so far as to call it psychosis.
>
> Just like it is *experimentally determined* that some physical
> properties are frame-dependent -- such as velocity, momentum, kinetic
> energy, electric field, magnetic field -- it is also *experimentally
> verified* that simultaneity is frame-dependent. Two events that are
> *experimentally* simultaneous in one frame are *experimentally* not
> simultaneous in another frame.
>
Yes, velocity of objects is frame dependent, except for photons. It's
not like throwing a softball on a train where you can be on the
embankment and see the softball's origination point on the train and
add the softballs velocity to the trains velocity and when you catch
the softball on the embankment it is traveling at the sum of the
velocities.
Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's
origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to
where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits
your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where
you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon
has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye.
I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not
care to understand this concept because it is different than you were
taught.
There is no difference in the distance the photon travels if it winds
up hitting an observer on the train in the eye, or the observer on the
embankment leans into the train and pushes the observer on the train
out of the way and has the photon hit the observer on the embankment
in the eye. The photon simply travels from where the source *is* to
where the destination *is* when the photon reaches its destination.
Because I understand Relativity of Simultaneity.
mpc755
The clocks at M and M' run at the same rate. There is no length
contraction. The aether is stationary in the train frame of reference
and in the embankment frame of reference. When the light wave from the
flash at A' reaches M the flash from the light wave at B reaches M'.
When the light from the flashes at A and B reach M the light from the
flashes at A' and B' reach M'. When the light from the flash at B'
reaches M, the light from the flash at A reaches M'.
All of the light waves travel from where the source *is* to where the
destination *is* when the light from the flash reaches the destination.
PD
And actually for softballs, it is not traveling at the sum of the
velocities, either, though the sum is a pretty good approximation.
>
> Photons do not work that way. You do not 'see' the photon's
> origination point on the train in three dimensional space relative to
> where you are on the embankment. You 'see' the photon when it hits
> your eye and then it has traveled from where the source *is* to where
> you are on the embankment when the photon hits your eye and the photon
> has propagated as a wave at 'c' from the source to your eye.
Photons travel from the event where they were generated to the place
where they are received. They do not travel from the location where
the source eventually is when the photon is received. The source may
have been destroyed by that time, or it may have turned around and
gone the other direction by that time. The photon has no idea where
the source is going to end up by the time the photon is eventually
absorbed.
This is *also* experimentally confirmed.
>
> I know you will never understand this concept and I know you do not
> care to understand this concept because it is different than you were
> taught.
I was taught how to find out about the experimental tests that have
been done for various ideas. And I was taught how to conduct a fair
number of these tests myself. It's awfully hard to argue with what's
going on when you're staring at it with your own eyes.
Apparently not. You've made a number of errors so far in trying to
describe it.
Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated
events?
doug
mpc755 wrote:
And you view is different from how the universe has been demonstrated
to work. There is no point in you continuing to look stupid arguing
a case when the universe is telling you that you are wrong. Do you think
you are going to win against the universe?
It is that hard on your mental health?
mpc755
If the source is traveling with constant momentum, the photon
propagates away from the source at 'c'. If the source is destroyed,
the photon wave still propagates away form the path the source was
traveling with momentum at 'c' unless it is affected by a change
relative to the aether.
If the source changes direction then the source is no longer traveling
with constant momentum, but the photon wave will still propagate away
at 'c' from the path the source would have continued on if it had done
so with constant momentum.
The source is traveling with constant momentum. There are four
observers at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock one light year away form the
source. The four observers are traveling with the same constant
momentum as the source. A flash occurs at the source. One light year
later, all four observers see the flash simultaneously. This is what I
mean by where the source *is*. If the source continued traveling with
constant momentum, the path the light wave would have traveled to each
observer is from where the source *is* to where each of the observers
*is* when the light reaches the observers. If the source no longer
existed after the flash, the light wave still propagates outward from
the path the source would have continued traveling at 'c'. If the
source changes direction, the light wave associated with the flash
still propagates outward at 'c' from the path the source was traveling
with constant momentum.
PD
You realize that waves in water don't even do that. Waves do not come
from where the boat *is* when the waves land at the shore.
This is experimentally confirmed.
It is also experimentally confirmed that photons travel in lines from
where they were generated, not from where the source goes.
Your claim otherwise is simply counter to experimental measurement.
>
> If the source changes direction then the source is no longer traveling
> with constant momentum, but the photon wave will still propagate away
> at 'c' from the path the source would have continued on if it had done
> so with constant momentum.
>
> The source is traveling with constant momentum. There are four
> observers at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock one light year away form the
> source. The four observers are traveling with the same constant
> momentum as the source. A flash occurs at the source. One light year
> later, all four observers see the flash simultaneously. This is what I
> mean by where the source *is*. If the source continued traveling with
> constant momentum, the path the light wave would have traveled to each
> observer is from where the source *is* to where each of the observers
> *is* when the light reaches the observers. If the source no longer
> existed after the flash, the light wave still propagates outward from
> the path the source would have continued traveling at 'c'. If the
> source changes direction, the light wave associated with the flash
> still propagates outward at 'c' from the path the source was traveling
> with constant momentum.
>
>
>
> > This is *also* experimentally confirmed.
The idea of experimental confirmation seems to make no dent in you.
I gather the answer is no.
mpc755
Yes, that is why I continually state 'relative to the aether'. If you
drop a pebble into the middle of a round pool on a train, the wave the
pebble creates will reach all of the sides of the pool simultaneously.
If an Observer on the train has his feet in the water and an Observer
on the embankment puts his feet into the water right before the wave
hits the side of the pool, the wave will hit the feet of the Observer
on the train and hit the feet of the Observer on the embankment and
the wave will have traveled from the middle of the pool to where the
feet *are* when the wave reaches the Observers feet. The wave travels
the same distance to both Observers even though both Observers are in
different frames of reference. Its the same wave.
If the source is stationary relative to the aether, then my
description is correct.
mpc755
The wave generated by the pebble travels from where the middle of the
pool *is* to where the Observers feet *are* when the wave reaches the
Observers feet regardless of the frame of reference of the Observer.
PD
Don't be a COMPLETE idiot today, OK?
If a boat is the source of the waves, the wave does not travel from
where the boat IS to where the observer's feet at the shore are. The
wave travels from where the boat WAS when it generated that wavefront.
mpc755
Look asshole. Find something incorrect about my pool on the train
analogy or shut the fuck up.
PD
I already have. It doesn't have anything to do with the reality of how
light behaves. That fact is confirmed in experiment.
You have it in your head that if it doesn't match with experiment,
then there must be something logically wrong with your analogy and
somebody OWES it to you to explain to you what that is. That isn't so.
If it doesn't match experimental results, then it's wrong, period, and
no other reasons are required. It's not unusual that a perfectly
plausible and self-consistent idea is nevertheless just wrong.
As for the nature of the conversation, pal, I remind you that you are
posting to an unmoderated newsgroup, where every single post you make
is open to any and all comments from any and all participants in any
and all fashions they choose. If you don't like that, and you would
like to have greater control over who gets to respond to you and in
what fashion, then you have chosen the wrong venue for opening your
foolish yap. I might suggest creating your own blog site for free.
If you choose to drop trou in a public square, dude, you can expect to
get laughed at. If you're so consumed with the need for attention that
you cannot help but go to public squares to drop trou, then this is
nobody's problem but yours. You can check with your therapist about
that.
PD
> ...
>
> read more »
mpc755
Don't be a complete fucking idiot today, OK?
In this analogy, a pebble is dropped into the middle of the pool on
the train. If you want to change the pebble to a boat, the boat is
dropped into the middle of the pool on the train. The wave the boat
makes by being dropped into the middle of the pool reaches all of the
sides of the pool simultaneously.
The boat is stationary relative to the pool of water on the train it
exists in.
If you want to change the analogy from dropping a pebble into a pool
on a train to a boat moving through the pool on the train we can do
so, because the bow wave will reach an Observer on the train and an
Observer on the embankment who have their feet co-located at the side
of the pool when the bow wave reaches them, and for both Observers the
bow wave has traveled the same distance from where the boat created
the wave in the pool to where the Observers feet are, but don't be an
asshole and change my analogy when you did not understand the original
analogy in the first place.
doug
mpc755 wrote:
The fact that reality disagrees with you is all the explanation
needed. Your having a childish tantrum and swearing does not
change that. You are the one who should shut up until you have
learned some science. You come here and continually look stupid
and seem to enjoy being the fool. You are losing some of your
comic appeal we had in watching you flounder and bluster
and demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of something
as basic as even what a theory is.
mpc755
> On Oct 14, 11:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Don't be a COMPLETE idiot today, OK?
> > > If a boat is the source of the waves, the wave does not travel from
> > > where the boat IS to where the observer's feet at the shore are. The
> > > wave travels from where the boat WAS when it generated that wavefront.
>
> > Look asshole. Find something incorrect about my pool on the train
> > analogy or shut the fuck up.
>
> I already have.
No, you haven't. You changed the analogy.
The analogy is dropping a pebble into a pool of water which is moving
on a train. The wave the pebble creates reaches all of the sides of
the pool simultaneously. An Observer on the train who has his feet in
the pool and an Observer on the embankment who puts his feet into the
pool right before the wave reaches the sides will have the wave reach
both of the Observers simultaneously. The wave will have traveled from
where the middle of the pool *is* to where the Observers feet *are*.
The wave will travel the same distance to both Observers regardless of
the frame of reference the Observers exist in. Its the same wave.
mpc755
Point to one thing that is incorrect about my analogy of dropping a
pebble into a pool on a train and the sequence of events as to when
the wave reaches the two observers and as to how far the wave travels
to each observer.
PD
Oh, I DID understand the analogy. You were trying to relate it to
Einstein's gedanken experiment, and I tried to outline to you why your
attempt to relate it so was misguided. After a bit, you abandoned the
relation and said to forget Einstein's gedanken. Then you tried to use
the analogy to explain light's behavior, and I tried to outline to you
why an explanation that is in conflict with experimental results about
light is already known to be wrong and nonviable as an explanation for
light. Furthermore, I also pointed out what was wrong about your
analogy in the first place, because you were drawing conclusions about
the behavior of waves in water that are already known to be wrong, as
is made clear by reminding you about related phenomena in water waves
that any 3rd-grade child would grasp.
But you'd like to explore your little water analogy with just pebbles
as you wish, draw whatever conclusions you like about water waves from
this limited case (even though those conclusions about water waves are
plainly wrong), then claim that the same must hold true for light
(even though that is in conflict with measurements of light), then
claim that this shoots down something about Einstein's gedanken (when
the gedanken is something completely different than you understand
it). And if you're not allowed to engage in this little escapade of
tomfoolery without being mocked for it, then you'd like to have an
emotional spasm about it.
PD
PD
> On Oct 14, 12:52 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 14, 11:41 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Don't be a COMPLETE idiot today, OK?
> > > > If a boat is the source of the waves, the wave does not travel from
> > > > where the boat IS to where the observer's feet at the shore are. The
> > > > wave travels from where the boat WAS when it generated that wavefront.
>
> > > Look asshole. Find something incorrect about my pool on the train
> > > analogy or shut the fuck up.
>
> > I already have.
>
> No, you haven't. You changed the analogy.
It doesn't matter WHAT the analogy is. The results from YOUR analogy
do not agree with experiment. This means that, as an explanation for
light's behavior, it is WRONG.
Furthermore, your conclusions even about how *water waves* work that
you draw from your analogy are wrong. This I pointed out by changing
the analogy but leaving it about water waves and showing you that the
general conclusion you were making doesn't even work for water waves
in general.
You can't even get water waves right, let alone light.
I'm sorry that this vexes you so. Perhaps if you started with the
basics....
mpc755
Point to one thing that is incorrect about my analogy above of when
the wave reaches the Observers and where the wave travels from.
PD
And there MPC goes, into the small, passive-aggressive loop of
repetition and denial. I'll bet this just brings in the babes. Does
medication help?
doug
PD wrote:
The main difference between mpc and a broken clock it that at
least the clock is correct twice a day.
mpc755
If a pebble is dropped into the center of a round pool on a train,
does the wave the pebble creates reach all the way around the side of
the pool simultaneously?
glird
> The clocks at M and M' run at the same >rate. There is no length contraction.
That is classical physics, which is different that relativistic
physics.
> The aether is stationary in the train >frame of reference and in the embankment >frame of reference.
That is futuristic physics, which is different and immensely better
than classical and relativistic and any present physics.
> When the light wave from the flash at A' >reaches M the flash from the light wave at >B reaches M'.
> When the light from the flashes at A and >B reach M the light from the flashes at A' >and B' reach M'. When the light from the
>flash at B' reaches M, the light from the >flash at A reaches M'.
In terms of the classical physics beneath your assertions, that is
incorrect. in terms of relativistic physics, it isn't applicable at
all. in terms of futuristic physics, clocks AUTOMATICALLY esynch, so
you are incorrect here too.
glird
mpc755
The answer is yes, the wave reaches the side of the pool all the way
around the pool simultaneously.
If an Observer on the train has his feet in the water and an Observer
on the embankment places his feet into the water right before the wave
hits the side of the pool, does the wave hit both Observers
simultaneously?
Yes, the wave hits both observers simultaneously.
Does the wave travel from where the middle of the pool *is* to where
the Observers feet *are* when the wave hits the Observers feet?
Yes, the distance the wave travels is the same for each Observer. And
the Observers could place there feet anywhere along the side of the
pool. Obviously, the Observer on the embankment can only place his
feet near where the side of the pool winds up along the edge of the
embankment where the Observer on the embankment is, but the Observer
on the train could be anywhere on the train.
The wave ripples outward at a constant speed.
If the pebble were a flash of light in stationary aether, the flash of
light would propagate outward at 'c' all the way around from the
source of the flash.
A light wave propagates away from the source at 'c' relative to the
aether. A photon is not emitted from any particular point in three
dimensional space and the travel from that point to its destination at
'c'.
A single photon is fired at A' on the train. If an Observer on the
embankment pushes the Observer at M' on the train out of the way,
sticks his head into the train, and has the photon hit him in the eye,
has it traveled the same distance the photon would have if it had hit
the Observer at M' in the eye?
Of course it does.
mpc755
If the aether is stationary relative to the train in the train frame
of reference, and the aether is stationary relative to the embankment
in the embankment frame of reference. The train is stationary and the
embankment is stationary. There Observer at M and M' stand as close
together as possible and synchronize their clocks. The train is moved
in one direction and the embankment is moved in the other direction
with the same exact acceleration and then the same exact speed. The
train is sent towards the embankment and the embankment is sent
towards the train and accelerate exactly the same towards each other
and maintain the same exact speed when moving with constant momentum.
Everything that has occurred and is occurring to the Observer at M on
the embankment and the Observer at M' on the train is exactly the same
(or more accurately in terms of direction, exactly the opposite).
There is an observer on the membrane equi-distant between A and A' who
hits a button which allows flashes to occur at A and A' when a line
can be drawn perpendicular to the membrane through A, through the
Observer between A and A', and through A'. The light from A and A'
reaches the Observer on the membrane equi-distant between A and A'
simultaneously. The same occurs at B and B' and the Observer on the
membrane between B and B'.
The light from A' reaches the Observer at M.
The light from B reaches the Observer at M'.
When the Observer at M and the Observer at M' check their clocks when
they see the flashes, their clocks say the same time.
The light from A and B reaches M simultaneously.
The light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously.
When the Observer at M and the Observer at M' check their clocks when
they see the flashes, their clocks say the same time.
The light from B' reaches the Observer at M.
The light from A reaches the Observer at M'.
When the Observer at M and the Observer at M' check their clocks when
they see the flashes, their clocks say the same time.
mpc755
When the Observers saw each flash they determined how far away the
source was the instant they saw the flash. The Observers factored in
the aether was stationary relative to the other frame of reference and
factored in the speed of light through the membrane. Both Observers
determine the four flashes occurred at the same time.
mpc755
Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is (most likely) a physical
impossibility in nature.
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and there are
lightning strikes co-located at A/A' and B/B', then the marks made by
the lightning strike at A' and B' are irrelevant in any frame of
reference. The light wave travels at 'c' from A to all destinations
and from B to all destinations.
For the train, the light will behave according to the Fizeau and other
experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) having to
do with light waves propagating through a moving medium. In Einstein's
Train Thought Experiment the aether is moving relative to the train.
If the Observer at M' on the train assumes the light traveled from A'
and B' in this scenario, the Observer is incorrect.
Light waves propagate at 'c' relative to the aether. The aether is not
stationary and is effected by moving objects.
mpc755
Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is (most likely) a physical
impossibility in nature.
If the aether is stationary relative to the embankment and there are
lightning strikes co-located at A/A' and B/B', then the marks made by
the lightning strike at A' and B' are irrelevant in any frame of
reference. The light wave travels at 'c' from A to all destinations
and from B to all destinations.
For the train, the light will behave according to the Fizeau and other
experiments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment) having to
do with light waves propagating through a moving medium. In Einstein's
Train Thought Experiment the aether is moving relative to the train.
If the Observer at M' on the train assumes the light traveled at 'c'
mpc755
Aether is the only medium light waves propagate through.
Light waves propagate through the aether which is contained within
water, ice, air, glass,...
mpc755
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
"It was shown by Hendrik Lorentz (1892, 1895) that the experiment can
be explained by the reaction of the moving water upon the interfering
waves without the need of any aether entrainment."
But it should not be because the aether is entrained.
mpc755
A moving particle or object has an associated aether wave.
The C-60 molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single
slit in the double slit experiment because it always enters and exits
a single slit and the wave it creates in the aether enters and exits
available slits.
It is not a matter of if conventional wisdom will understand aether is
the medium, it is a matter of when.
glird
>
> It is not a matter of if conventional wisdom >will understand aether is the medium, it is a >matter of when.
It is also a matter of when they will understand that "the aether"
is NOT a different kind of matter than the o-called "basic particles";
it is just a word denoting the continuity aspect of any material
field, whether or not particles are present. thus part of it.
glird
mpc755
Correct. 'Matter' is just a different form of aether. 'Matter'
displaces the aether which would otherwise be where the 'matter' is.
mpc755
If a pebble is dropped into the center of a pool on a train, the wave
the pebbles creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from the center of the pool. The wave the pebble creates
propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from where it
was dropped in the train frame of reference.
If the water is now stationary relative to the embankment, then the
wave the pebble creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from where it was dropped in the embankment frame of
reference.
The wave the pebble creates propagates outward relative to the water
it exists in.
The wave the flash creates propagates outward relative to the aether
it exists in.
A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.
The light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects.
mpc755
If a pebble is dropped into the center of a pool on a train, the wave
the pebbles creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from the center of the pool. The wave the pebble creates
propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from where it
was dropped in the train frame of reference.
If the water is now stationary relative to the embankment, then the
wave the pebble creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from where it was dropped in the embankment frame of
reference.
The wave the pebble creates propagates outward relative to the water
it exists in.
The wave the flash creates propagates outward relative to the aether
it exists in.
A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.
Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects.
mpc755
If a pebble is dropped into the center of a pool on a train, the wave
the pebble creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from the center of the pool. The wave the pebble creates
propagates outward at the same speed in all directions from where it
was dropped in the train frame of reference.
If the water is now stationary relative to the embankment, then the
wave the pebble creates propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions from where it was dropped in the embankment frame of
reference.
The wave the pebble creates propagates outward relative to the water
glird
>
><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. >
Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a
given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in
quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we
measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as
low as it is in a vacuum.
< And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.>
In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes.
In terms of c = ft/sec, No.
< Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. >
Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive
objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is
traveling.
glird
mpc755
> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote:
>
>
>
> ><A light wave travels at 'c' relative to the aether. >
>
> Given that "the aether' (or "ether") denotes the matter filling a
> given volume of space, then Yes. BUT!! Only if we measure speed in
> quantity of matter traversed per unit time, i.e. density/sec. If we
> measure speed in cm/sec, then c holds good only if the density is as
> low as it is in a vacuum.
>
Correct. When light travels through water, it is still propagating
through the aether which exists in the water.
> < And that includes the bending of light around massive objects.>
> In terms of c = densa/sec, Yes.
> In terms of c = ft/sec, No.
>
> < Light travels relative to the aether displaced by massive objects. >
>
> Not so. Light waves travel relative to the ether COMPOSING massive
> objects if any are part of the local aether through which a ray is
> traveling.
>
> glird
I see a clear delineation between the object and the aether. There are
theories which tie the two together and there are no 'empty voids'
between the aether and the object, but I see it much more conceptually
easy to understand and intuitive to separate the object from the
aether when discussing things.
For example, the C-60 molecule in the double slit experiment. The C-60
molecule is always detected entering and exiting a single slit in the
double slit experiment because it always enters and exits a single
slit. But the C-60 molecule is 'connected' to the aether which is the
wave which enters and exits both slits.
I see it easier to discuss light bending around the Sun as the
displaced aether caused by the Sun causing the light to bend. Not the
aether composing the Sun causing the light to bend.
Light travels through the Earth's atmosphere. The light is traveling
through the aether associated with the Earth's atmosphere. Where does
the Earth's atmosphere end and there being what we would consider to
be 'just aether'? I don't know.
But I still see it as the light being bent by the aether displaced by
the Sun, not the displaced aether composing the Sun even though the
Sun and the displaced aether are connected.
The Earth exists in the Sun's entrained aether. Does this entrained
aether still compose the Sun? I find that confusing.
mpc755
Objects are the matter they contain.
YBM
>>> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote:
> Objects are the matter they contain.
Talking to yourself again?
It's sad. You have a problem, it has nothing to to with
physics.
Isn't there any newsgroup about mental illness where you
could post?
mpc755
> mpc755 a écrit :
In this thread I am talking to another poster. If this is the best you
can offer yourself in your life on a Saturday night, you might want to
consider changing something. How about joining a club?
YBM
>>
>>> On Oct 17, 12:15 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> On Oct 16, 12:06 am, mpc755 wrote:
>> ...
>>> Objects are the matter they contain.
>> Talking to yourself again?
>>
>> It's sad. You have a problem, it has nothing to to with
>> physics.
>>
>> Isn't there any newsgroup about mental illness where you
>> could post?
>
> In this thread I am talking to another poster.
No, you're not. He pointing out the absurdity of you "theory",
while you're not reading but singing your mantra to yourself.
mpc755
I do not think you are reading the thread carefully enough.
mpc755
And the 'matter' does not include the 'aether' which exists in and
around the object.