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
mpc755
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800, mpc755 wrote:
> > 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.
>
The animation does match the behavior of the wave fronts in reality.
What would you consider incorrect in the animation?
> > 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.
>
The frames of reference are equal. And in the animation this means 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.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
The portion of the light wave traveling from A and B to M and the
portion of the light wave traveling from A' and B' to M' both remain
in their respective frames of reference and travel at 'c' relative to
the aether which is at rest relative to the frame of reference.
Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether and the aether is at
rest relative to the train in the train frame of reference and the
aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the embankment frame
of reference, the animation is accurate.
BURT
You are part of a deranged program.
sal
> On Dec 14, 10:32 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800, mpc755 wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> The animation does match the behavior of the wave fronts in reality.
What's this, proof by assertion?
> What would you consider incorrect in the animation?
Your animation clearly shows the velocity of the waves as being equal to
the propagation velocity plus the velocity of the emitter. That's
"emission theory".
>> > 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.
>>
>>
> The frames of reference are equal. And in the animation this means 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.
Sorry, pick one. You can't have it both ways. The aether is at rest WRT
the train, or the embankment, but not both. In aether theory, the aether
is a physical thing, which has a (single) physical velocity at each point
in space/time.
>
> Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
And you've got what, a shear plane through your aether, so the aether can
stick to the train and, a few inches over, stick to the embankment?
But no, you've shown two waves traveling through the same exact region
going at two different velocities. That's not any aether theory I've
heard of.
It's emission theory, pure and simple. Maybe you were thinking of
something else, but the picture you drew is of emission theory.
>
> The portion of the light wave traveling from A and B to M and the
> portion of the light wave traveling from A' and B' to M' both remain in
> their respective frames of reference and travel at 'c' relative to the
> aether which is at rest relative to the frame of reference.
A frame of reference is a concept, not a thing that light propagates
through.
>
> Since light travels at 'c' relative to the aether and the aether is at
> rest relative to the train in the train frame of reference and the
> aether is at rest relative to the embankment in the embankment frame of
> reference, the animation is accurate.
--
mpc755
Incorrect. The light waves propagate at 'c' relative to the aether,
not the emitter. It just so happens the aether is at rest relative to
the train in the train frame of reference and at rest relative to the
embankment in the embankment frame of reference.
> >> > 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.
>
> > The frames of reference are equal. And in the animation this means 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.
>
> Sorry, pick one. You can't have it both ways. The aether is at rest WRT
> the train, or the embankment, but not both. In aether theory, the aether
> is a physical thing, which has a (single) physical velocity at each point
> in space/time.
>
No. that is what I am saying is incorrect about aether theories. In
the Fizeau experiment the aether in entrained by the water. In the
Michelson-Morley experiments the aether is entrained by the matter
which is the Earth.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places"
The state of the aether is its state of displacement and entrainment.
In SR, in my animation is the Observer at M on the embankment able to
measure to A and B on the embankment and conclude the light traveled
from A and B to M and is the Observer at M' on train able to measure
to A' and B' on the train and conclude the light traveled from A' and
B' to M'?
>
>
> > Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
>
> And you've got what, a shear plane through your aether, so the aether can
> stick to the train and, a few inches over, stick to the embankment?
>
Yes.
> But no, you've shown two waves traveling through the same exact region
> going at two different velocities. That's not any aether theory I've
> heard of.
>
I know.
> It's emission theory, pure and simple. Maybe you were thinking of
> something else, but the picture you drew is of emission theory.
>
Forget emission theory for a second. Emission Theory says light
travels at 'c' relative to the emitter and light traveling from double
stars was used to refute emission theory. What I am proposing is not
emitter theory.
The light from a binary star travels at 'c' relative to the entrained
aether surrounding the star. But very soon after being emitted from
the star, the light travels at 'c' relative to the aether which is
entrained by both stars.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether.
>
>
> > The portion of the light wave traveling from A and B to M and the
> > portion of the light wave traveling from A' and B' to M' both remain in
> > their respective frames of reference and travel at 'c' relative to the
> > aether which is at rest relative to the frame of reference.
>
> A frame of reference is a concept, not a thing that light propagates
> through.
>
Correct. But we have the embankment and the train and for the frames
of reference to be equal the state of the aether in the train frame of
reference must be equal to the state of the aether in the embankment
frame of reference and in my animation that state is a state of rest
relative to the frame of reference the aether is in.
Inertial
news:4b270362$0$16217$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800, mpc755 wrote:
>
>> 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,
Indeed it can
> or a place where the theory doesn't match the facts.
Not unless you've already done some sort of experiment or observation to
know what the facts are :)
> 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.
Yeup. Nicely put
>
> [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.
Yeup. Showing an animation (or a thought experiment) of what theory A
predicts does not refute theory B.
>> 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.
LET has a preferred frame, but as the transforms between any two inertial
frames in LET (preferred or not) is the same, there is no reason to work in
the preferred frame (if one is only considering what can be measured). LET
also has the notion of an underlying reality that we cannot measure.
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
mpc755
The waves are not going through the same exact region. As you can see
by my animation there are four lightning strikes. One each at A, A',
B, and B'. I specifically have the train and the embankment not in the
same region to demonstrate how the aether can be at rest relative to
the train and at rest relative to the embankment because each frame of
reference consists of its own aether.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I can tell you that there is absolute motion in space because matter
can travel behind light.
Relativity is in the aether only as the appearence of opposite motion
around you. And it shrinks in the distance.
Mitch Raemsch
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..
mpc755
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I can tell you that there is absolute motion in space because matter
> can travel behind light.
> Relativity is in the aether only as the appearence of opposite motion
> around you. And it shrinks in the distance.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
You can't even give me this thread to have a conversation with someone
else without jumping in, can you?
BURT
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I can tell you that there is absolute motion in space because matter
> > can travel behind light.
> > Relativity is in the aether only as the appearence of opposite motion
> > around you. And it shrinks in the distance.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch
>
> You can't even give me this thread to have a conversation with someone
>
> - Show quoted text -
For certain.
mpc755
Focus on the wave fronts that exist and remain in each frame of
reference. Focus on the light wave traveling from A to M and from B to
M and focus on the light wave traveling from A' to M' and from B' to
M'.
Forget about the light waves that travel from one frame of reference
into the other. The animation does not accurately reflect what would
happen to the light waves as they transition from the embankment to
the train and vice verse.
Again, the important thing to realize is the aether is at rest in the
train frame of reference and the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment frame of reference and each frame of reference exists in a
different region of three dimensional space.
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?
Inertial
news:e321b0d9-edaf-4777...@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Doesn't prove anything about absolute motion at all
> Relativity is in the aether only as the appearence of opposite motion
> around you. And it shrinks in the distance.
Nope .. it doesn't
Henry Wilson DSc
What mistake? Did you find one? Please tell me about it.
mpc755
Last post and then I will give you a chance to respond if you choose.
The train is filled knee deep with water. The water on the train is at
rest relative to the train. The embankment is filled knee deep with
water. The water on the embankment is at rest relative to the
embankment.
Pebbles are dropped at A, A', B, and B' and the waves propagate
outward as demonstrated in my animation.
The waves from A and B reach M and the waves from A' and B' reach M'
as demonstrated in my animation.
Now, instead of pebbles being dropped at A, A' B and B' flashes of
light occur in the water at A, A', B, and B' as demonstrated in my
animation. The light waves traveling through the water from A and B
reach M and the light waves traveling through the water from A' and B'
reach M' as demonstrated in my animation.
Now, remove the water. The flashes of light occur in the aether at A,
A', B, and B' as demonstrated in my animation. The light waves
traveling through the aether from A and B reach M and the light waves
traveling through the aether from A' and B' reach M' as demonstrated
in my animation.
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
news:93378ce8-8cf8-42e6...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
Androcles
>
>> 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.
>
the thinker, Lawrence, especially his ability to think logically.
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.
papa...@gmail.com
> On Dec 14, 10:32 pm, sal <pragmat...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> The animation does match the behavior of the wave fronts in reality.
> What would you consider incorrect in the animation?
>
Still trying to sell your dead and rotten cow mpc755?
Your pointless video is wrong in multiple ways, as it has been told to
you on multiple oportunities in the last year, to no avail, due to
your complete ignorance on even some basic physics.
For just start the ennumeration of your wrong conclusions, you are
showing four events in two different frames. You then forget to
address the fact that all those events are measured by both observers,
and so each one of the observers see four light signals and sure
enough, some are simultaneous and some are not simultaneous, both
cases agreeing with what SR and Einstein gedanken say it will be
observed.
Go back to your graveyard now.
Miguel Rios
mpc755
In SR, in my animation, where does the Observer at M on the embankment
measure to in order to determine how far the light from the lightning
strikes traveled to M? The Observer at M on the embankment measures to
the marks left by the lightning strikes at A and B in order to
determine how far the light traveled to M.
In SR, in my animation, where does the Observer at M' on the train
measure to in order to determine how far the light from the lightning
strikes traveled to M'? The Observer at M' on the train measures to
the marks left by the lightning strikes at A' and B' in order to
determine how far the light traveled to M'.
In SR, in my animation, if the Observer at M measures to A and B in
order to determine how far the light from the lightning strike
traveled to M and if the Observer at M' measures to A' and B' in order
to determine how far the the light from the lightning strike traveled
to M', then how is the animation incorrect?
In SR, my animation is not incorrect, but the dogma of SR is.
papa...@gmail.com
> In SR, my animation is not incorrect, but the dogma of SR is.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
That is the second error in your faulty reasoning. The observers just
do observe. Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B
arrive simultaneously to his location, while he sees the light signal
from event A' arrive earlier than the light signal from event B'.
Conversely, observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B'
to arrive simultaneously to his location, while he sees the light
signal from event B arrive earlier than the light signal from event
A.
Both observers then, logically, arrive to different conclusion
regarding the simultaneity of those events:
a) Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from
event B arrive earlier than the light signal from event A. They
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events.
b) Observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B' to arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M sees the light signal from
event A' arrive earlier than the light signal from event B'.
These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
Miguel Rios
mpc755
> On 15 dic, 10:20, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 7:22 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In SR, in my animation, where does the Observer at M on the embankment
> > measure to in order to determine how far the light from the lightning
> > strikes traveled to M? The Observer at M on the embankment measures to
> > the marks left by the lightning strikes at A and B in order to
> > determine how far the light traveled to M.
>
> > In SR, in my animation, where does the Observer at M' on the train
> > measure to in order to determine how far the light from the lightning
> > strikes traveled to M'? The Observer at M' on the train measures to
> > the marks left by the lightning strikes at A' and B' in order to
> > determine how far the light traveled to M'.
>
> > In SR, in my animation, if the Observer at M measures to A and B in
> > order to determine how far the light from the lightning strike
> > traveled to M and if the Observer at M' measures to A' and B' in order
> > to determine how far the the light from the lightning strike traveled
> > to M', then how is the animation incorrect?
>
> > In SR, my animation is not incorrect, but the dogma of SR is.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
>
> simultaneously to his location.
>
> simultaneously to his location.
>
Correct.
>
> These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
>
Incorrect. You a) and b) conclusions above completely undermine SR.
Instead of the train and the embankment occupying different regions of
three dimensional space, overly the train and the embankment so they
occupy the same region of three dimensional space as in Einstein's
train thought experiment. In SR, there is no difference between my
animation and the train and embankment occupying the same region of
three dimensional space, so the conclusions must be the same.
This means, as you have correctly concluded, in SR, in Einstein's
train thought experiment, the Observer at M sees the two light signals
from events A and B arrive simultaneously to his location and the
Observer at M' sees the two light signals from events A' and B" arrive
simultaneously to his location. This is physically impossible.
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.
>
> > > > > > > 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 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800, mpc755 wrote:
> > 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.
>
> theory, or a place where the theory doesn't match the facts.
Where the facts come from *experiment*.
>
> 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.
>
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?
>
> > > > > What is incorrect in the animation? Nothing. To conclude the animation
> > > > > 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*.
>
> xxein: Then came Eddington's measurements.
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?
> but of
> course, in reality, that is far from the truth.
>
> My animation is the rational eye being turned to the dogma.
papa...@gmail.com
> On Dec 15, 8:45 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
>
> > a) Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
> > simultaneously to his location.
>
> > b) Observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B' to arrive
> > simultaneously to his location.
>
> Correct.
>
>
Now besides ignorant you are being a liar, by modifying what I clearly
wrote snipping the relevant issues.
The correct conclusions are, again, the following:
a) Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal
from
event B arrive earlier than the light signal from event A. They
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events.
b) Observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B' to arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M sees the light signal from
event A' arrive earlier than the light signal from event B'. They
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events.
These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
>
> > These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
>
> Incorrect. You a) and b) conclusions above completely undermine SR.
> Instead of the train and the embankment occupying different regions of
> three dimensional space, overly the train and the embankment so they
> occupy the same region of three dimensional space as in Einstein's
> train thought experiment. In SR, there is no difference between my
> animation and the train and embankment occupying the same region of
> three dimensional space, so the conclusions must be the same.
>
> This means, as you have correctly concluded, in SR, in Einstein's
> train thought experiment, the Observer at M sees the two light signals
> from events A and B arrive simultaneously to his location and the
> Observer at M' sees the two light signals from events A' and B" arrive
> simultaneously to his location. This is physically impossible.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
No...!!!!
Again you are using four (4) events A, A', B and B'. Einstein gedanken
uses only two (2) A and B. So for these two (2) events A and B, the
valid conclusion is the following:
Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal
from
event B arrive earlier than the light signal from event A. They
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events.
Got it now?
Miguel Rios
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?
sal
> "sal" <pragm...@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:4b270362$0$16217$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:11:10 -0800, mpc755 wrote:
>>
>>> 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,
>
> Indeed it can
>
>> or a place where the theory doesn't match the facts.
>
> Not unless you've already done some sort of experiment or observation to
> know what the facts are :)
Right.
>
>> 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.
>
> Yeup. Nicely put
>
>
>> [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.
>
> Yeup. Showing an animation (or a thought experiment) of what theory A
> predicts does not refute theory B.
>
>>> 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.
>
> LET has a preferred frame, but as the transforms between any two
> inertial frames in LET (preferred or not) is the same, there is no
> reason to work in the preferred frame (if one is only considering what
> can be measured). LET also has the notion of an underlying reality that
> we cannot measure.
The last statement is certainly correct -- LET postulates an undetectable
underlying reality. That's often cited as a major objection to the theory.
The first statement -- that LET has a "preferred frame" -- unfortunately
points up a semantic issue: Exactly what is a "preferred frame"? We
haven't defined it in this thread. I was using the term to indicate a
particular frame which can be detected by observers as being different in
some way from all others; i.e., a frame of reference in which the results
of some experiment(s) will be different from results obtained if all parts
of the experiment were done in a frame in uniform motion with respect to
the "preferred frame". As far as I know, the aether frame in LET isn't
"preferred" in that sense, because motion relative to the aether can't be
detected. However, if we use it to mean the frame is special within the
"meta-reality" of the model, then indeed LET does have a "preferred
frame": the frame in which the aether is at rest.
mpc755
> On 15 dic, 11:07, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 15, 8:45 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
>
> > > a) Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
> > > simultaneously to his location.
>
> > > b) Observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B' to arrive
> > > simultaneously to his location.
>
> > Correct.
>
> Now besides ignorant you are being a liar, by modifying what I clearly
> wrote snipping the relevant issues.
>
Incorrect. I snipped to what is relevant. The fact that you cannot
understand that shows how the dogma of SR has control over your
mediocre mind.
> The correct conclusions are, again, the following:
>
> a) Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
> simultaneously to his location.
>
> b) Observer M' sees the light signals from events A' and B' to arrive
> simultaneously to his location.
>
> These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
>
Correct.
>
>
>
>
> > > These two conclusions are in total agreement with Special Relativity.
>
> > Incorrect. You a) and b) conclusions above completely undermine SR.
> > Instead of the train and the embankment occupying different regions of
> > three dimensional space, overly the train and the embankment so they
> > occupy the same region of three dimensional space as in Einstein's
> > train thought experiment. In SR, there is no difference between my
> > animation and the train and embankment occupying the same region of
> > three dimensional space, so the conclusions must be the same.
>
> > This means, as you have correctly concluded, in SR, in Einstein's
> > train thought experiment, the Observer at M sees the two light signals
> > from events A and B arrive simultaneously to his location and the
> > Observer at M' sees the two light signals from events A' and B" arrive
> > simultaneously to his location. This is physically impossible.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> No...!!!!
>
> Again you are using four (4) events A, A', B and B'. Einstein gedanken
> uses only two (2) A and B. So for these two (2) events A and B, the
> valid conclusion is the following:
>
> Observer M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive
> simultaneously to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal
> from
> event B arrive earlier than the light signal from event A. They
> disagree on the simultaneity of those two events.
>
> Got it now?
>
> Miguel Rios
Again, you are in denial and can't think for yourself.
In SR, there is no difference between my animation and Einstein's
train thought experiment. The fact you cannot understand that is
making the whole point of this thread.
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.
papa...@gmail.com
You are clearly showing how dishonest you are...but we already knew
that!!!
The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer M
sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A and B.
These conclusion is in total agreement with Special Relativity and
with observed results of experiments.
Miguel Rios
mpc755
> On 15 dic, 11:49, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> You are clearly showing how dishonest you are...but we already knew
> that!!!
>
> The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer M
> sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
> to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
> earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
> disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A and B.
>
Then why doesn't the Observer at M' see the light from the lightning
strike at B' arrive earlier than the light from the lightning strike
at A' in my animation?
In SR, there is no difference between my animation and Einstein's
train thought experiment.
What is incorrect about SR is having the light from B arrive earlier
than the light from A for the Observer at M' and then having the
Observer at M' measure to A' and B' in order to determine how far the
light traveled.
This is what my animation is demonstrating. If the Observer at M'
measure to A' and B' and the light traveled from A' and B' to the
Observer, then the light from A' and B' will have arrived at the
Observer simultaneously.
Measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is arbitrary and
does not represent how far the light travels to either observer. You
have to know how the light is traveling relative to the aether in
order to determine how far the light travels.
mpc755
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:36:44 +1100, Inertial wrote:
If you expand the concept of "the frame in which the aether is at
rest" to allow for multiple unique, non-overlapping frames where the
aether is at rest relative to each frame, you may be able to
understand what I am proposing.
From there we can revisit Einstein's train thought experiment and
discuss why measuring to the marks left by the lightning strikes is
arbitrary.
papa...@gmail.com
> On Dec 15, 9:58 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 15 dic, 11:49, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are clearly showing how dishonest you are...but we already knew
> > that!!!
>
> > The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer M
> > sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
> > to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
> > earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
> > disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A and B.
>
> Then why doesn't the Observer at M' see the light from the lightning
> strike at B' arrive earlier than the light from the lightning strike
> at A' in my animation?
>
Because those other two events A' and B' just illustrate the
symmetrical train gedanken. In that thought experiment the observer M'
considers itself at rest and observer M is moving (to the left). For
that experiment, the conclusion is the following:
a) The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer
M' sees the two light signals from events A' and B' arrive
simultaneously to his location. Observer M sees the light signal from
event A' arrive earlier than the light signal from event B'. Observers
M and M' disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A' and B'.
Note the symmetry with respect to the original Einstein train
gedanken. In the original gedanken, observer M considers itself at
rest and observer M' is moving (to the right). For that experiment,
the conclusion is the following:
b) The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer
M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A' and B'.
Both cases are totally compatible with special relativity and measured
papa...@gmail.com
Typo!. It should read as follows:
b) The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer
M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A and B.
Miguel Rios
mpc755
> On 15 dic, 12:06, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 15, 9:58 am, "papar...@gmail.com" <papar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 15 dic, 11:49, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You are clearly showing how dishonest you are...but we already knew
> > > that!!!
>
> > > The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer M
> > > sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
> > > to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
> > > earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
> > > disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A and B.
>
> > Then why doesn't the Observer at M' see the light from the lightning
> > strike at B' arrive earlier than the light from the lightning strike
> > at A' in my animation?
>
> Because those other two events A' and B' just illustrate the
> symmetrical train gedanken. In that thought experiment the observer M'
> considers itself at rest and observer M is moving (to the left).
Same in my animation.
> For
> that experiment, the conclusion is the following:
>
> a) The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer
> M' sees the two light signals from events A' and B' arrive
> simultaneously to his location. Observer M sees the light signal from
> event A' arrive earlier than the light signal from event B'. Observers
> M and M' disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A' and B'.
>
> Note the symmetry with respect to the original Einstein train
> gedanken. In the original gedanken, observer M considers itself at
> rest and observer M' is moving (to the right). For that experiment,
> the conclusion is the following:
Same in my animation.
>
> b) The observers in Einstein train gedanken just do observe. Observer
> M sees the two light signals from events A and B arrive simultaneously
> to his location. Observer M' sees the light signal from event B arrive
> earlier than the light signal from event A. Observers M and M'
> disagree on the simultaneity of those two events A' and B'.
>
> Both cases are totally compatible with special relativity and measured
> results of experiments.
>
> Miguel Rios
What you are incapable of understanding is in SR, there is no
difference between my animation and Einstein's train thought
experiment.
In SR, in my animation, the Observer at M concludes the lightning
strikes at A and B were simultaneous AND the Observer at M' concludes
the lightning strikes at A' and B' where simultaneous, then, in SR,
the Observer at M and the Observer at M' must conclude the same occurs
in Einstein's train thought experiment.
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.