Wonderful!
mcmv...@gmail.com
Take that, crackpots!
mpc755
wrote:
Simultaneity of Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
What is the email for the president of physics?
PD
OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
mpc755
Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
youtube animation.
PD
Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
The new idea would have to accomplish the same things and more that SR
has accomplished.
But you think that accomplishment means "simple explanation". That's
not how the accomplishments of theories are judged, as you and I have
discussed. But you don't know what those accomplishments are.
mpc755
> On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, "mcmvar...@gmail.com" <mcmvar...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> > > > > Take that, crackpots!
>
> > > > Simultaneity of Relativity:
>
> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> > > > What is the email for the president of physics?
>
> > > OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
> > > MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
>
> > Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
> > of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
>
> > If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
> > youtube animation.
>
> Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
>
Because it shows SR to be incorrect. The light from the lightning
strike at A/A' in Einstein's train thought experiment cannot travel
from A to M and from A' to M'. If it did, then the light from A would
reach M and the light from A' would reach M' simultaneously. Since we
know this does not occur, Einstein's train thought experiment is
fatally flawed.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
Measure to the mark left by the lightning strike at A and saying the
light traveled from A to M and measuring to the mark left by the
lightning strike at A' and saying the light travels from A' to M' is
incorrect. Measuring to the marks is an estimate of where the
lightning strike occurred in three dimensional space. You would have
to know how the light is traveling relative to the aether to be able
to know exactly where the lightning strikes occurred in three
dimensional space.
If you assume the aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the
embankment frame of reference AND the aether is at rest relative to
the train in the train frame of reference, then my animation
accurately reflects the sequence of events.
Now, obviously, since science isn't open to new ideas, especially when
they would overturn indoctrinated dogma like SR, my simple thought
experiment will not be accepted as overturning SR even though it
clearly does.
Loki
... simultaneous is even relative. You can't simply say that two
things happen at the same moment - They don't for other observers. You
simply can't overturn SR so easily. Remember, too, that it had to
overturn almost all logic involved in physics to be accepted. Science
is not solid. Try disproving QM. That might be more useful, but it,
too, can't be done. If you must disprove them, disprove them
mathematically. Remember that they were proved with the same thought
experiments you use. Remember to use logic when trying to disprove the
greatest geniuses of all time.
Robert
> On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, "mcmvar...@gmail.com" <mcmvar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> > > > > > Take that, crackpots!
>
> > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> > > > > What is the email for the president of physics?
>
> > > > OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
> > > > MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
>
> > > Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
> > > of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
>
> > > If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
> > > youtube animation.
>
> > Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
>
> Because it shows SR to be incorrect. The light from the lightning
> strike at A/A' in Einstein's train thought experiment cannot travel
> from A to M and from A' to M'. If it did, then the light from A would
> reach M and the light from A' would reach M' simultaneously.
let me stop you there. no such thing as "simultaneous" in sr
PD
> On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, "mcmvar...@gmail.com" <mcmvar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> > > > > > Take that, crackpots!
>
> > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity:
>
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> > > > > What is the email for the president of physics?
>
> > > > OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
> > > > MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
>
> > > Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
> > > of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
>
> > > If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
> > > youtube animation.
>
> > Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
>
> Because it shows SR to be incorrect.
Nonsense. No animation shows a theory to be incorrect.
A theory can ONLY be shown wrong because it is internally inconsistent
or it is in conflict with experimental data.
I could build an animation that looks perfectly reasonable that makes
it appear that the pressure on bottom of a tank depends on the bottom
surface area. --- But it would STILL be wrong.
> The light from the lightning
> strike at A/A' in Einstein's train thought experiment cannot travel
> from A to M and from A' to M'. If it did, then the light from A would
> reach M and the light from A' would reach M' simultaneously. Since we
> know this does not occur, Einstein's train thought experiment is
> fatally flawed.
>
> Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
>
> Measure to the mark left by the lightning strike at A and saying the
> light traveled from A to M and measuring to the mark left by the
> lightning strike at A' and saying the light travels from A' to M' is
> incorrect. Measuring to the marks is an estimate of where the
> lightning strike occurred in three dimensional space. You would have
> to know how the light is traveling relative to the aether to be able
> to know exactly where the lightning strikes occurred in three
> dimensional space.
>
> If you assume the aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the
> embankment frame of reference AND the aether is at rest relative to
> the train in the train frame of reference, then my animation
> accurately reflects the sequence of events.
>
> Now, obviously, since science isn't open to new ideas, especially when
> they would overturn indoctrinated dogma like SR, my simple thought
> experiment will not be accepted as overturning SR even though it
> clearly does.
A thought experiment is not an experiment. Thought experiments do not
overturn theories. Where did you EVER get the impression that they do?
Androcles
"Robert" <robertmar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:53747fba-9091-4931...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
=============================================
Thank goodness for that, or simple logic would be disproved.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/special_relativity_for_children.htm
--
'By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.' - Galileo
Galilei
Androcles
<mcmv...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:93378ce8-8cf8-42e6...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Nice computer you have there, Varney.
So let's see... a race car on a train travels at 20 boxcars a second,
the train travels at 500 railroad ties a second and there are 50 ties
to a boxcar. How many railroad ties does the race car pass in a
second and why is that less according to relativity?
Take that, fuckwit!
mpc755
In my animation, add in an observer who remains equi-distant between A
and A' at all times. The light from the lightning strikes at A and A'
reaches this observer simultaneously. For this observer, the lightning
strikes at A and A' were simultaneous. Same for the observer who
remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. The light from the
lightning strikes at B and B' reach this observer simultaneously. For
this observer, the lightning strike at B and B' were simultaneous.
Since the above is the case and since A and B are equi-distant from M
and A' and B' are equi-distant from M', the light from A and B reaches
M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. To conclude
otherwise is to have a preferred frame.
mpc755
In my animation, add in an observer who remains equi-distant between A
mpc755
What is incorrect in the animation? Nothing. To conclude the animation
is incorrect is to have a preferred frame.
glird
>
>< A thought experiment is not an experiment. Thought experiments do not overturn theories. Where did you EVER get the impression that they do? >
From a 1905 paper by A Einstein that not only overturned the
equations and theories of classical physics but the minds of our
theoretical physicists too.
PD
An animation doesn't constitute proof of anything, nor does it
constitute counterevidence against any other theory. A thought
experiment is not an experiment.
Does the animation of Roadrunner vs Coyote show that parabolic
trajectories of falling objects are overturned?
PD
What is incorrect in the animation is that it does not match the
*experimentally confirmed* behavior of light. The predictions that it
makes about the measured speed of light signals and the sequence of
light signals received is directly contradicted by measurements in
equivalent experiments.
Animations do not disprove anything. The test of theories is
experimental data. Period.
And it is not correct to say that concluding your animation is
incorrect is to have a preferred frame. SR *does* get the right
predictions of experimentally confirmed behavior of light,
contradicting your animation, and SR does not have a preferred frame.
So it is obvious that here is a case without a preferred frame that
concludes your animation is incorrect.
mpc755
What is incorrect in the animation? Nothing. To conclude the animation
is incorrect is to have a preferred frame.
If an observer is equi-distant between A and A' and the light from the
lightning strikes at A and A' reach this observer simultaneously, this
observer will conclude the lightning strikes at A and A' occurred at
the same time. If an observer is equi-distant between B and B' and the
light from the lightning strikes at B and B' reach this observer
simultaneously, this observer will conclude the lightning strikes at B
and B' occurred at the same time.
Since the above is true and A and B are equi-distant from M and A' and
B' are equi-distant from M', the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously and the observer at M conclude the lightning strikes at
A and B occurred at the same time and the light from A' and B' reach
M' simultaneously and the observer at M' concludes the lightning
strikes at A' and B' occurred at the same time.
PD
No sir. Those thought experiments only served to EXPLAIN the thinking.
The 1905 paper says, "IF these presumptions are correct, then this is
what we SHOULD see in experiment, following reasoning similar to the
ones used in the 'gedankens' as a teaching example."
What turned over classical physics were *experimental measurements*
that showed that classical physics made the wrong prediction and
relativity made the right prediction.
The gedanken experiments proved NOTHING. They only served to teach how
to arrive at the predictions of relativity, which were shown correct
by *experiment*.
mpc755
If there are experiments that have a different outcome than my
animation then there has to be a preferred frame.
PD
I already answered this below. It is in disagreement with
*experimental data*.
In science that is all that's sufficient.
It is perfectly possible to come up with an animation that is
logically consistent and has no math errors and is still wrong because
it disagrees with measurement.
PD
That is simply wrong. As I said, SR does not have a preferred frame,
and it correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments. Therefore there
does NOT HAVE TO BE a preferred frame. You are simply mistaken.
mpc755
If there is no preferred frame than the experimental outcome of an
experiment MUST BE as my animation represents it to be. To have an
experimental outcome that is different than my animation is evidence
of a preferred frame.
Dirk Van de moortel
c016a9e2-b790-4139...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
They *did* prove that elementary relativity theory is totally and utterly
unsuited for certain types of highschool dropouts, retired engineers,
and armchair philosophers.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
ncyVm.64667$Ub.6...@newsfe17.ams2
Androcles' simple disproofs of logic:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html
Dirk Vdm
mpc755
If there is no preferred frame than the experimental outcome of an
experiment MUST BE as my animation represents it to be. To have an
experimental outcome that is different than my animation is evidence
of a preferred frame.
> > Nothing. To conclude the animation
Inertial
So it was Androcles being the idiot crackpot in the cartoon. Just like in
real life.
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Varney isn't self-righteous ? yeah right.
xxein
xxein: Thanks glird. You said it before I did.
xxein
xxein: Then came Eddington's measurements.
xxein
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> c016a9e2-b790-4139-928e-9d83474f0...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
xxein: And totally devoted to believers only.
xxein
> "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote in message
>
> news:mcyVm.64666$Ub.5...@newsfe17.ams2...
>
>
>
> > <mcmvar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:93378ce8-8cf8-42e6...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> >>http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> >> Take that, crackpots!
>
> > Nice computer you have there, Varney.
> > So let's see... a race car on a train travels at 20 boxcars a second,
> > the train travels at 500 railroad ties a second and there are 50 ties
> > to a boxcar. How many railroad ties does the race car pass in a
> > second and why is that less according to relativity?
>
> > Take that, fuckwit!
>
> So it was Androcles being the idiot crackpot in the cartoon. Just like in
> real life.
xxein: Androcles? Would you be stupid enough to walk up to a lion
and grab it's paw to expect a gratitude?
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Mike Varney, Westminster, Colorado, “Physicist, Dancer, Husband!” is
a “Test/Instrumentation Systems Engineer”
at “TauTheta Instruments LLC” since April 2008.
University of Colorado at Boulder:
PhD , Physics , 2011 ( expected )
M.S , Physics , 2006
B.Sci , Physics, Math , 1998
SI Ψ blog:
http://scientificilliteracy.blogspot.com/
Inertial
news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Dec14.4.14pm.w9...
WTF is the point of this thread?
Inertial
news:00b05c7e$0$15569$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
ie the comment about varney being self-righteous and then some bio stuff.
The cartoon he posted though was great :):)
Inertial
news:86748403-f048-48a2...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
But it was a theory based on postulates that could be used to explain
observed results .. not a thought experiment. Though thought experiments
were used in its explanation.
Inertial
You mean physicists. And its a matter of scientific method .. so not
belief, but currently accepted scientific theory .. you make it sound like a
religion (as crackpots pretend it to be, so they don't have to address the
physics)
_...@jeff_relf.seattle.invalid
Varney has yet to understand human nature;
boasting while dragging people down won't get you anywhere.
The “bio stuff” was just that, his bio.
Michael Moroney
><_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> wrote in message
>news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Dec14.4.14pm.w9...
>WTF is the point of this thread?
Relf is cyber-stalking again.
mpc755
The webcomic originally posted was to show how cranks operate, but it
better reflects the dogma of SR and QM.
For example, the following animation shows how light from lightning
strikes behaves if there is no preferred frame:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
But of course, for some magical reason, SR believers simply say there
is no preferred frame and the animation is incorrect. If there is no
preferred frame and the frames of reference are equal in all respects,
then the animation is correct.
So, you have the physics dude saying science is open minded and widely
held theories can be overturned by simple thought experiments, but of
course, in reality, that is far from the truth.
My animation is the rational eye being turned to the dogma.
sal
> On Dec 14, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> An animation doesn't constitute proof of anything, nor does it
>> constitute counterevidence against any other theory.
>> A thought experiment is not an experiment.
True, but a thought experiment could highlight a contradiction in a
theory, or a place where the theory doesn't match the facts.
A thought experiment is a model of an experiment, which is constructed
within the model of a theory. As such, it can tell you something about
the model for the theory, but it can't tell you anything new about reality.
[mpc755 asks:]
>
> What is incorrect in the animation?
It's a nice illustration of what would happen if emission theory were
correct. However, the behavior of the wave fronts doesn't match the
behavior of light in Lorentz ether theory, special relativity, or reality.
> To conclude the animation
> is incorrect is to have a preferred frame.
No. To assert that emission theory is required to avoid a preferred frame
is to exhibit a lack of understanding of the math underpinning either
Lorentz ether theory or special relativity. The models for both of those
theories avoid selecting any particular frame as "preferred", while also
avoiding slaving the speed of light to the speed of the emitter, as you
did in your animation.
--
Nospam becomes physicsinsights to fix the email
I can be also contacted through http://www.physicsinsights.org
dlzc
...
> ie the comment about varney being
> self-righteous and then some bio stuff.
>
> The cartoon he posted though was great :):)
Jeff Relf is a deranged programmer. He will essentially post a reply
(of any random sort) whenever you respond to him.
Varney has twisted Jeff's (and others') titty a few times in the past,
and Jeff (and others) take every opportunity to accuse all and sundry
of being Varney.
Yes, it was a very good cartoon, however many of the ones that post
here really have *no* degrees, except perhaps the 98.6 that being
alive gives them. Depending on units system...
David A. Smith
BURT
You are part of a deranged program.
Inertial
news:e925ffb6-34ad-409c...@h14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 14, 5:30 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> ...
>> ie the comment about varney being
>> self-righteous and then some bio stuff.
>>
>> The cartoon he posted though was great :):)
>
> Jeff Relf is a deranged programmer. He will essentially post a reply
> (of any random sort) whenever you respond to him.
There's a couple of them around in this formum
> Varney has twisted Jeff's (and others') titty a few times in the past,
> and Jeff (and others) take every opportunity to accuse all and sundry
> of being Varney.
I've been acused of being Varney as well. Mostly by Porat .. though he is
senile and paranoid.
> Yes, it was a very good cartoon, however many of the ones that post
> here really have *no* degrees, except perhaps the 98.6 that being
> alive gives them. Depending on units system...
Hehehe. True.
Inertial
news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Dec14.4.38pm.uf...
>
> Varney has yet to understand human nature;
> boasting while dragging people down won't get you anywhere.
Doesn't look like he was doing that. Just posted a clever cartoon
> The “bio stuff” was just that, his bio.
So why bother? Are you a fan and you want to promote his achievements? If
not, then you posting it seems to not be terribly useful to your cause
Henry Wilson DSc
<mcmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
Take this, relativist morons:
Consider two observers, one moving towards the other at v. O1 has a light
source whilst O2 has a mirror and two synched and rigidly joined clocks. They
are arranged in O1's frame, as follows:
O1,S----------------------------------------------------v<--C1___d___ |M,C2,O2
O2 can synch his clocks at any time using Einstein's defined method since they
are at rest in his frame.
In the experiment, a light pulse is emitted by S towards O2's mirror, M. The
two clocks register the times when the pulse passes them.
According to SR, all light moves at c in O1's frame. Therefore, in O1's frame,
the closing speed of the pulse on M is c+v and its separation speed after
reflection is c-v.
C1 reads t0 when the pulse initially passes by. C2 reads t1 when the pulse
reaches the mirror. C1 reads t2 when the reflected pulse passes on the return
trip.
According to Einstein, the pulse always moves at c in O1's frame.
Therefore, in O1's frame, the pulse's travel time between C1 and C2 on forward
trip is = d/(c+v). This is NUMERICALLY recorded by the clocks as t1-t0.
After reflection, its travel time between C2 and C1 on the return trip is =
d/(c-v) and is recorded by the clocks as t2-t1.
Note: the SR claim that d is contracted and both clocks run slow by 1/gamma in
O1's frame does not alter the fact that t1-t0 and t2-t1 have different
numerical values.
According to SR, the pulse should also move at c in O2's frame both before
and after reflection.
However, O2 can only conclude that the pulse DOES NOT reflect from his
mirror at its incident speed, since his clocks clearly indicate that the pulse
travel times are DIFFERENT in the two directions.
The experiment proves that light speed is NOT independent of source speed and
that Einstein's second postulate is clearly wrong.
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
Inertial
news:8s4ei5tuv94ekflii...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:28:27 -0800 (PST), "mcmv...@gmail.com"
> <mcmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> Take this, relativist morons:
[snip henry fumble]
Henry now reposts another copy of his mistake. Isn't once enough for you,
Henry?
Henry Wilson DSc
What mistake? Did you find one? Please tell me about it.
Inertial
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:05:53 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message
>>news:8s4ei5tuv94ekflii...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:28:27 -0800 (PST), "mcmv...@gmail.com"
>>> <mcmv...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://xkcd.com/675/
>>>
>>> Take this, relativist morons:
>>
>>[snip henry fumble]
>>
>>Henry now reposts another copy of his mistake. Isn't once enough for you,
>>Henry?
>
> What mistake? Did you find one? Please tell me about it.
>
I already have .. see the other thread where you posted your proof the
relativity is 'wring'
Inertial
> http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> Take that, crackpots!
Would have been more realistic if the crackpot didn't say president of
physics .. but "High priest of the Relativity Cult:" :):)
Helmut Wabnig
/real) experiments prove that c is independent of source speed
and that your thought experiments are wrong.
If c were dependent on source speed, following should be done:
direct a lens (not mirror) telescope on a receding object and then on
an approaching object, and watch for changes in telescope focus.
(This has actually been done already 150 years ago).
Do you know how refractive optics work?
You are 150 years too late with your sci-fi stuff.
w.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
hahahahahhahahhahhahahhahahaha! what's this crap?Hahahahhahahhahahhaa!
>
>Do you know how refractive optics work?
>
>You are 150 years too late with your sci-fi stuff.
PD
> On Dec 14, 5:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 4:11 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 5:04 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > On Dec 14, 3:05 pm, Loki <kaimas...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 14, 12:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, "mcmvar...@gmail.com" <mcmvar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Take that, crackpots!
>
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What is the email for the president of physics?
>
> > > > > > > > > > OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
> > > > > > > > > > MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
>
> > > > > > > > > Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
> > > > > > > > > of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
>
> > > > > > > > > If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
> > > > > > > > > youtube animation.
>
> > > > > > > > Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
>
> > > > > > > Because it shows SR to be incorrect. The light from the lightning
> > > > > > > strike at A/A' in Einstein's train thought experiment cannot travel
> > > > > > > from A to M and from A' to M'. If it did, then the light from A would
> > > > > > > reach M and the light from A' would reach M' simultaneously. Since we
> > > > > > > know this does not occur, Einstein's train thought experiment is
> > > > > > > fatally flawed.
>
> > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
>
> > > > > > > Measure to the mark left by the lightning strike at A and saying the
> > > > > > > light traveled from A to M and measuring to the mark left by the
> > > > > > > lightning strike at A' and saying the light travels from A' to M' is
> > > > > > > incorrect. Measuring to the marks is an estimate of where the
> > > > > > > lightning strike occurred in three dimensional space. You would have
> > > > > > > to know how the light is traveling relative to the aether to be able
> > > > > > > to know exactly where the lightning strikes occurred in three
> > > > > > > dimensional space.
>
> > > > > > > If you assume the aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the
> > > > > > > embankment frame of reference AND the aether is at rest relative to
> > > > > > > the train in the train frame of reference, then my animation
> > > > > > > accurately reflects the sequence of events.
>
> > > > > > > Now, obviously, since science isn't open to new ideas, especially when
> > > > > > > they would overturn indoctrinated dogma like SR, my simple thought
> > > > > > > experiment will not be accepted as overturning SR even though it
> > > > > > > clearly does.
>
> > > > > > ... simultaneous is even relative. You can't simply say that two
> > > > > > things happen at the same moment - They don't for other observers. You
> > > > > > simply can't overturn SR so easily. Remember, too, that it had to
> > > > > > overturn almost all logic involved in physics to be accepted. Science
> > > > > > is not solid. Try disproving QM. That might be more useful, but it,
> > > > > > too, can't be done. If you must disprove them, disprove them
> > > > > > mathematically. Remember that they were proved with the same thought
> > > > > > experiments you use. Remember to use logic when trying to disprove the
> > > > > > greatest geniuses of all time.
>
> > > > > In my animation, add in an observer who remains equi-distant between A
> > > > > and A' at all times. The light from the lightning strikes at A and A'
> > > > > reaches this observer simultaneously. For this observer, the lightning
> > > > > strikes at A and A' were simultaneous. Same for the observer who
> > > > > remains equi-distant between B and B' at all times. The light from the
> > > > > lightning strikes at B and B' reach this observer simultaneously. For
> > > > > this observer, the lightning strike at B and B' were simultaneous.
>
> > > > > Since the above is the case and since A and B are equi-distant from M
> > > > > and A' and B' are equi-distant from M', the light from A and B reaches
> > > > > M and the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously. To conclude
> > > > > otherwise is to have a preferred frame.
>
> > > > An animation doesn't constitute proof of anything, nor does it
> > > > constitute counterevidence against any other theory. A thought
> > > > experiment is not an experiment.
>
> > > > trajectories of falling objects are overturned?
>
> > > What is incorrect in the animation?
>
> > *experimental data*.
>
> > In science that is all that's sufficient.
>
> > It is perfectly possible to come up with an animation that is
> > logically consistent and has no math errors and is still wrong because
> > it disagrees with measurement.
>
> If there is no preferred frame than the experimental outcome of an
> experiment MUST BE as my animation represents it to be.
But it isn't. Experimental results are documented and they are
different than what your animation represents. Perhaps you need to
check what the experimental results are.
> To have an
> experimental outcome that is different than my animation is evidence
> of a preferred frame.
The experimental outcome IS different, but that experimental outcome
is correctly matched by special relativity, which has no preferred
frame.
What part of this do you not understand?
>
> > > Nothing. To conclude the animation
> > > is incorrect is to have a preferred frame.
>
> > > If an observer is equi-distant between A and A' and the light from the
> > > lightning strikes at A and A' reach this observer simultaneously, this
> > > observer will conclude the lightning strikes at A and A' occurred at
> > > the same time. If an observer is equi-distant between B and B' and the
> > > light from the lightning strikes at B and B' reach this observer
> > > simultaneously, this observer will conclude the lightning strikes at B
> > > and B' occurred at the same time.
>
> > > Since the above is true and A and B are equi-distant from M and A' and
> > > B' are equi-distant from M', the light from A and B reaches M
> > > simultaneously and the observer at M conclude the lightning strikes at
> > > A and B occurred at the same time and the light from A' and B' reach
> > > M' simultaneously and the observer at M' concludes the lightning
> > > strikes at A' and B' occurred at the same time.
>
> > > To conclude otherwise is to have a preferred frame.
PD
> On Dec 14, 5:14 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 4:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 5:08 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Dec 14, 4:03 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Dec 14, 3:42 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Dec 14, 1:25 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Dec 14, 2:13 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 12:56 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 14, 12:28 pm, "mcmvar...@gmail.com" <mcmvar...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > >http://xkcd.com/675/
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Take that, crackpots!
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Simultaneity of Relativity:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> > > > > > > > > > > What is the email for the president of physics?
>
> > > > > > > > > > OMG, this is priceless. The "president of physics"?
> > > > > > > > > > MPC, you have descended into full-scale boobery.
>
> > > > > > > > > Did you even look at the cartoon? Next time I'll make sure to add one
> > > > > > > > > of those smiley faces to the end of the sentence for you.
>
> > > > > > > > > If science was open to new ideas, then SR would be overturned by my
> > > > > > > > > youtube animation.
>
> > > > > > > > Why would you think that SR would be overturned?
>
> > > > > > > Because it shows SR to be incorrect.
>
> > > > > > A theory can ONLY be shown wrong because it is internally inconsistent
> > > > > > or it is in conflict with experimental data.
>
> > > > > > I could build an animation that looks perfectly reasonable that makes
> > > > > > it appear that the pressure on bottom of a tank depends on the bottom
> > > > > > surface area. --- But it would STILL be wrong.
>
> > > > > > > The light from the lightning
> > > > > > > strike at A/A' in Einstein's train thought experiment cannot travel
> > > > > > > from A to M and from A' to M'. If it did, then the light from A would
> > > > > > > reach M and the light from A' would reach M' simultaneously. Since we
> > > > > > > know this does not occur, Einstein's train thought experiment is
> > > > > > > fatally flawed.
>
> > > > > > > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
>
> > > > > > > Measure to the mark left by the lightning strike at A and saying the
> > > > > > > light traveled from A to M and measuring to the mark left by the
> > > > > > > lightning strike at A' and saying the light travels from A' to M' is
> > > > > > > incorrect. Measuring to the marks is an estimate of where the
> > > > > > > lightning strike occurred in three dimensional space. You would have
> > > > > > > to know how the light is traveling relative to the aether to be able
> > > > > > > to know exactly where the lightning strikes occurred in three
> > > > > > > dimensional space.
>
> > > > > > > If you assume the aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the
> > > > > > > embankment frame of reference AND the aether is at rest relative to
> > > > > > > the train in the train frame of reference, then my animation
> > > > > > > accurately reflects the sequence of events.
>
> > > > > > > Now, obviously, since science isn't open to new ideas, especially when
> > > > > > > they would overturn indoctrinated dogma like SR, my simple thought
> > > > > > > experiment will not be accepted as overturning SR even though it
> > > > > > > clearly does.
>
> > > > > > overturn theories. Where did you EVER get the impression that they do?
>
> > > > > is incorrect is to have a preferred frame.
>
> > > > *experimentally confirmed* behavior of light. The predictions that it
> > > > makes about the measured speed of light signals and the sequence of
> > > > light signals received is directly contradicted by measurements in
> > > > equivalent experiments.
>
> > > > Animations do not disprove anything. The test of theories is
> > > > experimental data. Period.
>
> > > > And it is not correct to say that concluding your animation is
> > > > incorrect is to have a preferred frame. SR *does* get the right
> > > > predictions of experimentally confirmed behavior of light,
> > > > contradicting your animation, and SR does not have a preferred frame.
> > > > So it is obvious that here is a case without a preferred frame that
> > > > concludes your animation is incorrect.
>
> > > If there are experiments that have a different outcome than my
> > > animation then there has to be a preferred frame.
>
> > That is simply wrong. As I said, SR does not have a preferred frame,
> > and it correctly predicts the outcomes of experiments. Therefore there
> > does NOT HAVE TO BE a preferred frame. You are simply mistaken.
>
> If there is no preferred frame than the experimental outcome of an
> experiment MUST BE as my animation represents it to be.
But they aren't. Documented.
> To have an
> experimental outcome that is different than my animation is evidence
> of a preferred frame.
The experimental outcome IS different than your animation. But it is
certainly possible to account for the documented experimental outcome
without a preferred frame. SR does just that. Is it possible that you
just don't understand how SR does that?
PD
> On Dec 14, 5:11 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 4:04 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Dec 14, 3:42 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > > >< A thought experiment is not an experiment. Thought experiments do not overturn theories. Where did you EVER get the impression that they do? >
>
> > > equations and theories of classical physics but the minds of our
> > > theoretical physicists too.
>
> > No sir. Those thought experiments only served to EXPLAIN the thinking.
> > The 1905 paper says, "IF these presumptions are correct, then this is
> > what we SHOULD see in experiment, following reasoning similar to the
> > ones used in the 'gedankens' as a teaching example."
>
> > What turned over classical physics were *experimental measurements*
> > that showed that classical physics made the wrong prediction and
> > relativity made the right prediction.
>
> > The gedanken experiments proved NOTHING. They only served to teach how
> > to arrive at the predictions of relativity, which were shown correct
> > by *experiment*.
>
As well as dozens -- dozens -- of others. Including, by the way, ones
that improved on Eddington's findings.
PD
> On Dec 14, 5:04 pm, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 14, 3:42 pm, PD wrote:
>
> > >< A thought experiment is not an experiment. Thought experiments do not overturn theories. Where did you EVER get the impression that they do? >
>
> > From a 1905 paper by A Einstein that not only overturned the
> > equations and theories of classical physics but the minds of our
> > theoretical physicists too.
>
But glird got the wrong impression. See my response.
PD
> On Dec 14, 7:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.inValid> wrote in message
>
> > news:_@Jeff_Relf.Seattle.2009_Dec14.4.14pm.w9...
>
> > > Mike Varney, Westminster, Colorado, “Physicist, Dancer, Husband!” is
> > > a “Test/Instrumentation Systems Engineer”
> > > at “TauTheta Instruments LLC” since April 2008.
>
> > > University of Colorado at Boulder:
> > > PhD , Physics , 2011 ( expected )
> > > M.S , Physics , 2006
> > > B.Sci , Physics, Math , 1998
>
> > > SI Ψ blog:
> > > http://scientificilliteracy.blogspot.com/
>
> > WTF is the point of this thread?
>
> The webcomic originally posted was to show how cranks operate, but it
> better reflects the dogma of SR and QM.
>
> For example, the following animation shows how light from lightning
> strikes behaves if there is no preferred frame:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
>
> But of course, for some magical reason, SR believers simply say there
> is no preferred frame and the animation is incorrect.
There's no magic. The animation is incorrect because it does not match
experimental results, not because it doesn't match SR. Now that it's
established that your animation is incorrect, period, then it becomes
a question whether there is any other theory that *does* match
experimental results. Special relativity does it. And it does it
without a preferred frame. Perhaps you just don't understand SR enough
to know how it does it without a preferred frame.
> If there is no
> preferred frame and the frames of reference are equal in all respects,
> then the animation is correct.
>
> So, you have the physics dude saying science is open minded and widely
> held theories can be overturned by simple thought experiments,
Actually, I said just the opposite. Simple thought experiments do not
overturn anything. Please reread what I said.
What "physics dude" told you that widely held theories can be
overturned by simple thought experiments?
mpc755
Where does the Observer at M measure to in order to determine how far
the light traveled to reach M? The Observer at M measures to A and B.
Where does the Observer at M' measure to in order to determine how far
the light traveled to reach M'? The Observer at M' measures to A' and
B'. If the animation is incorrect, what is incorrect? Is the Observer
at M measuring to the incorrect marks left by the lightning strikes at
A and B? Is the Observer at M' measuring to the incorrect marks left
by the lightning strikes at A' and B'?
If the experimental outcome is different than where does the Observer
at M measure to in order to determine how far the light traveled to
reach him? If the experimental outcome is different than where does
the Observer at M' measure to in order to determine how far the light
traveled to reach him?
If the experimental outcome is different than my animation then there
IS a preferred frame in the experiment.
What part of this are you unable to understand?
PD
None of these questions address the fact that experimental measurement
is in conflict with your animation. Period. Therefore your animation
is incorrect. Period.
Now, it is also the case that SR *does* accurately represent what is
seen in measurement. And it does it without a preferred frame. Period.
mpc755
Denial. SR dogma.
It's a very simple question I am asking. In my animation where does
the Observer at M measure to in order to determine how far the light
from the lightning strikes at A and B traveled to reach him. In my
animation where does the Observer at M' measure to in order to
determine how far the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B'
traveled to reach him?
I will take you next non-answer as evidence of the point I am making
in this thread. The dogma of SR will not even let you answer such a
simple question as I am proposing.
> Now, it is also the case that SR *does* accurately represent what is
> seen in measurement. And it does it without a preferred frame. Period.
>
No it doesn't. If it did, you could answer the question I am asking
you about where does the Observer at M measure to in order to
determine how far the light from A and B traveled to reach M and how
far does the Observer at M' measure to in order to determine how far
the light from A' and B' traveled to reach M'.
The fact you cannot answer such a simple question is evidence of the
incorrectness and dogma of SR.
PD
SR has nothing to do with this confrontation with experiment.
Experiment doesn't care about theories. It yields measurements. The
measurements either agree with a model or they don't. If they don't,
then the model is wrong, no matter what the model is.
Your animation does not match experimental measurement. Therefore it
is incorrect. Period.
>
> It's a very simple question I am asking. In my animation where does
> the Observer at M measure to in order to determine how far the light
> from the lightning strikes at A and B traveled to reach him. In my
> animation where does the Observer at M' measure to in order to
> determine how far the light from the lightning strikes at A' and B'
> traveled to reach him?
Why would I waste time answering questions about your animation that
is incorrect, as determined by the conflict with experimental
measurement?
>
> I will take you next non-answer as evidence of the point I am making
> in this thread. The dogma of SR will not even let you answer such a
> simple question as I am proposing.
>
> > Now, it is also the case that SR *does* accurately represent what is
> > seen in measurement. And it does it without a preferred frame. Period.
>
> No it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Now, are you interested in getting SR explained to you?
You are asking questions about YOUR animation, but your animation
doesn't have anything to do with SR.
Do you want questions answered about SR or about your animation?
If you want questions answered about YOUR animation, then I'm not
interested, because we already know from experiment that your
animation is incorrect.
mpc755
>
> SR has nothing to do with this confrontation with experiment.
> Experiment doesn't care about theories. It yields measurements. The
> measurements either agree with a model or they don't. If they don't,
> then the model is wrong, no matter what the model is.
>
> Your animation does not match experimental measurement. Therefore it
> is incorrect. Period.
>
What is incorrect about my animation? The fact that you cannot say
what is incorrect about my animation is evidence of the incorrectness
and dogma of SR.
You can keep existing in a state of denial if you so choose, which you
will until you specifically answer what is incorrect in the animation.
Is the animation incorrect because it shows the light traveling from
A' and B' to M'? Is the animation incorrect because it shows the light
traveling from A and B to M?
What is incorrect in the animation?
Denial. Denial. Denial.
If you say my animation is incorrect, you should be able to
specifically describe what is incorrect. It is a simple animation.
There are four lightning strikes in two frames of reference.
Your non-answer as to what is incorrect in the animation is evidence
PD
> On Dec 15, 10:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > SR has nothing to do with this confrontation with experiment.
> > Experiment doesn't care about theories. It yields measurements. The
> > measurements either agree with a model or they don't. If they don't,
> > then the model is wrong, no matter what the model is.
>
> > Your animation does not match experimental measurement. Therefore it
> > is incorrect. Period.
>
> What is incorrect about my animation? The fact that you cannot say
> what is incorrect about my animation is evidence of the incorrectness
> and dogma of SR.
I've already told you what's wrong about your animation. It is
inconsistent with experiment. It's that simple. If it's inconsistent
with experiment, then it's incorrect. Period. That's how the truth of
models is determined in science.
You are apparently looking for a critique of your model along
different lines -- something like a logical inconsistency or
something. But what you're looking for doesn't matter. Only
confrontation against experiment counts.
mpc755
> On Dec 15, 9:51 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 10:43 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > SR has nothing to do with this confrontation with experiment.
> > > Experiment doesn't care about theories. It yields measurements. The
> > > measurements either agree with a model or they don't. If they don't,
> > > then the model is wrong, no matter what the model is.
>
> > > Your animation does not match experimental measurement. Therefore it
> > > is incorrect. Period.
>
> > What is incorrect about my animation? The fact that you cannot say
> > what is incorrect about my animation is evidence of the incorrectness
> > and dogma of SR.
>
> I've already told you what's wrong about your animation. It is
> inconsistent with experiment.
What in the animation is inconsistent with experiment?
Michael Moroney
>On Dec 15, 10:43=A0am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your animation does not match experimental measurement. Therefore it
>> is incorrect. Period.
>>
>What is incorrect about my animation? The fact that you cannot say
>what is incorrect about my animation is evidence of the incorrectness
>and dogma of SR.
Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation...
...
...
...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously
struck by lightning.
PD
This has already been discussed thoroughly in an earlier thread. You
have either failed to comprehend what was said earlier or forgotten
what you once understood.
You show signals arriving at M and M' both simultaneously. This is
incompatible with experiment.
mpc755
wrote:
And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning?
mpc755
So, is it the light is not traveling from A' and B' to M' or is it the
light is not traveling from A and B to M?
PD
It can be traveling from either A' to M' or from A to M'.
But in either case, the arrival of light from either ends (A, B or A',
B') does not arrive at BOTH M and M' simultaneously -- as verified by
experiment.
Your animation shows the signals arriving at BOTH M and M'
simultaneously. That's where it is incorrect.
mpc755
Then there was a preferred frame in the experiment. What you are
suggesting is if the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, then
the light at the lightning strike at A' travels from the point in
three dimensional space relative to the embankment to M' and the light
from the lightning strike at B' travels from the point in three
dimensional space relative to the embankment to M'. If the light
arrives from A and B at M simultaneously, but the light from A' and B'
does not arrive at M' simultaneously, then measuring to the marks at
A' and B' in order to determine how far the light travels to M' is
meaningless.
> Your animation shows the signals arriving at BOTH M and M'
> simultaneously. That's where it is incorrect.
It is correct if there is no preferred frame.
PD
Nope. SR accounts correctly for the behavior and does so without a
preferred frame.
> What you are
> suggesting is if the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously, then
> the light at the lightning strike at A' travels from the point in
> three dimensional space relative to the embankment to M' and the light
> from the lightning strike at B' travels from the point in three
> dimensional space relative to the embankment to M'. If the light
> arrives from A and B at M simultaneously, but the light from A' and B'
> does not arrive at M' simultaneously, then measuring to the marks at
> A' and B' in order to determine how far the light travels to M' is
> meaningless.
What's meaningless about the measurement? The fella standing at M'
takes a tape measure and measures the distance from M' to A' and from
M' to B'. He writes down the numbers he gets from the tape measure.
What's meaningless about that?
Perhaps you don't understand what measurements are being made in the
train and embankment scenario.
Are you asking to have the train and embankment scenario explained to
you?
eric gisse
[...]
>>direct a lens (not mirror) telescope on a receding object and then on
>>an approaching object, and watch for changes in telescope focus.
>>(This has actually been done already 150 years ago).
>
> hahahahahhahahhahhahahhahahaha! what's this crap?Hahahahhahahhahahhaa!
Study some elementary optics and pay special attention to the geometry of a
lens and the location of the focal point. Specifically, how the assumption
that light travels at "c" is used.
Michael Moroney
>On Dec 15, 11:41=A0am, moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney)
>wrote:
>>
>> Your animation is a perfectly accurate representation...
>> ...
>> ...
>> ...of how the thunderclaps propagate when M sees A and B simultaneously
>> struck by lightning.
>And M' sees A' and B' simultaneously struck by lightning?
Nope. Your diagram works for how the _sound_ of the thunder would
propagate. Just like if I was in the front of a nearly supersonic
jet and someone in the back spoke to me, I could measure the speed of
sound in the jet as normal (relative to the jet) but someone on the
ground could measure the sound speed (relative to the ground) as
nearly twice normal.
Light doesn't behave like that. As others have mentioned many times,
your diagram doesn't match the observed behavior of light, so it is
automatically wrong. It is irrelevant whether SR is correct, or has
even been formulated. Your diagram would have been just as wrong in 1850,
before Einstein was even born, and SR never derived yet.
PD
wrote:
MPC is under the impression that a model can only be shown wrong by
pointing out where the logical error is. He is under the impression
that if a model is internally consistent, then it must be right. The
idea that a model can be internally consistent but still not describe
a natural phenomenon accurately is something he doesn't comprehend.
mpc755
If my animation only showed A', B' and M' and the light from the
lightning strikes at A' and B' reach M' simultaneously, would the
animation accurately reflect what occurs in the train frame of
reference?
If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the
lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the
animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of
reference?
The answer to both of the above is yes.
If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in
their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face.
mpc755
wrote:
That is where you are incorrect.
If we change the image to just consist of A', B' and M', then my
animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light
propagating outward from the lightning strikes at A' and B'. The light
from the lightning strikes at A' and B' would reach M' simultaneously.
If we change the image to just consist of A, B, and M, then my
animation accurately reflects what would occur for the light
propagating outward from the lightnings strikes at A and B. The light
from the lightning strikes at A and B would reach M simultaneously.
Now, if you put the two frames together and have each of the frames
occupying their own region of three dimensional space and actually
have the frames move relative to one another, SR falls on its face.
Why is the animation correct if it only consists of A', B', and M' and
why is the animation correct if it only consists of A, B, and M, but
everything changes if the train frame of reference and the embankment
frame of reference each exist in their own region of three dimensional
space and are moving relative to one another? Why does the frames
moving relative to one another change when the events at A', B', A,
and B occur? It doesn't.
PD
No.
>
> If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the
> lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the
> animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of
> reference?
Yes.
>
> The answer to both of the above is yes.
No.
You are apparently having difficulty with either what is actually
observed in experiment, or what the set up of the train and embankment
scenario is.
>
> If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in
> their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face.
Frames of reference don't live in confined regions of 3-dimensional
space. They overlap completely. All of 3-dimensional space lives in
every frame of reference.
Perhaps you didn't understand what a frame of reference is?
PD
mpc755
Of course it does. It shows the light from the lightning strike from
A' and B' reaching M' simultaneously. What are you implying, that it
is impossible for the light from the lightnings strikes to reach M'
simultaneously?
>
>
> > If my animation only showed A, B and M and the light from the
> > lightning strikes at A and B reach M simultaneously, would the
> > animation accurately reflect what occurs in the embankment frame of
> > reference?
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > The answer to both of the above is yes.
>
> No.
>
> You are apparently having difficulty with either what is actually
> observed in experiment, or what the set up of the train and embankment
> scenario is.
>
I am talking about my animation. In my animation there are two
separate frames of reference.
>
>
> > If you have the frames of reference moving relative to one another in
> > their own regions of three dimensional space, SR falls on its face.
>
> Frames of reference don't live in confined regions of 3-dimensional
> space. They overlap completely. All of 3-dimensional space lives in
> every frame of reference.
>
The reason the frames of reference are separated in three dimensional
space in my animation is to make it easier to comprehend the aether
being at rest relative to each frame of reference.
I know this is pointless in discussing with you, but for others who
may be open minded, the point of the animation is to show the aether
being at rest relative to each frame of reference and how light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
Once this concept is understood, by those how have an open mind, then
I can move on to discussing Einstein's train thought experiment and
how measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is arbitrary.
> Perhaps you didn't understand what a frame of reference is?
>
What is occurring is you don't really pay much attention to these
threads. Just look at your first response in this thread when I made
the joke about the 'President of physics'. You hadn't even looked at
the webcartoon but already had responses.
For anyone else how has an open mind, here is the deal. In my
animation there are two distinct and separate frames of reference. The
aether is at rest in each frame of reference. That is why the light is
able to travel from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' and for all
of the light from the four lightning strikes to reach M and M'
simultaneously. Because the light is traveling at 'c' relative to the
aether. This is NOT emission/emitter theory.
The next step, if I was able to ever get there by having a
conversation with anyone, would be to describe how Einstein's train
thought experiment is inaccurate. In Einstein's train thought
experiment, the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of
reference both occupy the same three dimensional space. The aether
cannot be at rest relative to the train AND at rest relative to the
embankment. This means having M measure to A and B and having M'
measure to A' and B' is fundamentally flawed. Measuring to the marks
made by the lightning strikes is an approximation of where the light
travels from. In order to know exactly where the light travels from in
three dimensional space, you have to know how the light travels from
the lightning strike relative to the aether.
alie...@gmail.com
> Varney has yet to understand human nature;
> boasting while dragging people down won't get you anywhere.
Look who's talking.
> The “bio stuff” was just that, his bio.
Liar. Why don't you post your own address and means of support to
the State of California?
Mark L. Fergerson
The Poop-oner
clearly?
Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how
einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or
the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special
Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who
probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the
wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've
never seen before.
thanks.
mpc755
Here is Einstein's train thought experiment in his own words:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
Here is Einstein's own words on aether. It does relate to SR in that
Einstein says the aether must exist.
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
Here is a very good animation of Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity
which is fundamental to SR:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM
Einstein's train thought experiment is what I am saying does not
accurately reflect nature, which means SR is incorrect.
And if it appears I am the guy saying Einstein was a phony, that is
incorrect. I am an Einstein fan. If you read what he says in terms of
the aether and it connectedness to matter and you read about how he
knew QM was 'incomplete', the guy really knew what he was talking
about. However, relativity of simultaneity is incorrect.
BURT
Light spreads out in space.
Mitch Raemsch
The Poop-oner
I thought ether didn't exist.
mpc755
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is
unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation
of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space
and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time
intervals in the physical sense."
The Poop-oner
But the ether isnt really a real, actual thing is it? we just give
space numbers and whatnot, but theres not actually a material
substance there, right?
Androcles
"The Poop-oner" <parke...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5f0f880e-0eab-4e33...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone post a link to an article or something that explains SR
> clearly?
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/special_relativity_for_children.htm
> Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how
> einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or
> the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special
> Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who
> probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the
> wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've
> never seen before.
>
> thanks.
Of course if you don't want to believe it then that's your problem.
Inertial
>> Here is Einstein's train thought experiment in his own words:
>>
>> http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
>>
>> Here is Einstein's own words on aether. It does relate to SR in that
>> Einstein says the aether must exist.
>>
>> http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
>>
>> Here is a very good animation of Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity
>> which is fundamental to SR:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM
Yeup .. nice animation
>> Einstein's train thought experiment is what I am saying does not
>> accurately reflect nature, which means SR is incorrect.
So says you , with no supporting evidence, theory or logic
>> And if it appears I am the guy saying Einstein was a phony, that is
>> incorrect. I am an Einstein fan. If you read what he says in terms of
>> the aether and it connectedness to matter and you read about how he
>> knew QM was 'incomplete', the guy really knew what he was talking
>> about. However, relativity of simultaneity is incorrect.
So says you , with no supporting evidence, theory or logic
mpc755
I believe there is a substance of space.
What properties it has is what I like to discuss.
My theory is Aether Displacement.
Not sure what your goal is here, but I am not a physicist and Aether
Displacement definitely falls more into the "crank" category at this
time.
Here is a summary of Aether Displacement:
Aether is an elastic medium and does not rest when displaced. It
pushes back. When matter displaces the aether, the pressure the aether
exerts back towards the matter is gravity.
When a C-60 molecule is used in a double slit experiment, the
displacement wave the C-60 molecule creates in the aether enters and
exits multiple slits while the C-60 molecule enters and exits a single
slit.
'DOES THE INERTIA OF A BODY DEPEND UPON ITS ENERGY-CONTENT? By A.
EINSTEIN'
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf
"If a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass
diminishes by L/c2."
The mass of the body does diminish, but the matter which no longer
exists as part of the body has not vanished. It still exists, as
aether. As the matter transitions to aether it expands in three
dimensions. The effect this transition has on the surrounding aether
and matter is energy.
mpc755
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
The Poop-oner
> "The Poop-oner" <parkers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f0f880e-0eab-4e33...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...> Can someone post a link to an article or something that explains SR
> > clearly?
>
> Yes.
>
>
> > Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how
> > einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or
> > the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special
> > Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who
> > probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the
> > wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've
> > never seen before.
>
> > thanks.
>
> Of course if you don't want to believe it then that's your problem.
I get the gist of what you're saying, but it's confused me even more.
is this right? was einstein really wrong?
I can understand the graphs and stuff, but the equations have alot of
calculus i've never seen (except maybe on relativity pages in
wikipedia).
i thought einstein's stuff was backed by experiments and stuff.
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
There is not one believable experiment in support of Einstein.
His theory is a load of crap from start to finish.
Inertial
> On Dec 15, 7:48 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_q> wrote:
>> "The Poop-oner" <parkers...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:5f0f880e-0eab-4e33...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...>
>> Can someone post a link to an article or something that explains SR
>> > clearly?
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR4kids/special_relativit...
>>
>> > Everytime I get on here some crazy dude is screaming about how
>> > einstein is a phony, and I doubt it, but i cant prove him one way or
>> > the other. So can someone find a userfriendly, sort of "Special
>> > Relatiity for dummies" thing that I (and i guess the others who
>> > probably dont understand einsteins stuff) could look at? i tried the
>> > wikipedia article and a few other sites, but there's alot of math i've
>> > never seen before.
>>
>> > thanks.
>>
>> Of course if you don't want to believe it then that's your problem.
>
> I get the gist of what you're saying, but it's confused me even more.
That's what he tries to do
> is this right? was einstein really wrong?
About some things, yes. He was only human.
Bu this theory of special relativity is one of the most experimentally
tested theories we have, and every experiment supports the results SR
predicts
> I can understand the graphs and stuff, but the equations have alot of
> calculus i've never seen (except maybe on relativity pages in
> wikipedia).
The Lorentz transforms of SR math are very very simple. When you get into
more general cases, the math is more complex, and when you get to general
relativity its quite involved
> i thought einstein's stuff was backed by experiments and stuff.
It is. Of course, no scientific theory is ever proved .. it can only be
tested and pass the test, which SR does every time.
Its like asking to experimentally prove that the sum of two odd numbers is
even by adding numbers. As there are an infinite number of odd numbers, you
cannot possibly test every combination, so cannot prove by experiment that
the sum of every pair of odd numbers is going to be even. Of course, if you
found a pair of odd numbers whose sum was NOT even, then you could disprove
the theory.
mpc755
In other words, in Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether
is at rest relative to the embankment, measuring to the marks on the
train at A' and B' is incorrect. If the aether is at rest relative to
the embankment, the light travels from B to M' and the light travels
from A and B to M and the light travels from A to M'.
In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the aether is at rest
relative to the train, then the marks on the embankment at A and B are
meaningless. If the aether is at rest relative to the train, the light
travels from A' to M and the light travels from A' and B' to M' and
the light travels from B' to M.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.