 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Simultaneity of Relativity... |
|
Page 23 of 32 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 22, 23, 24 ... 30, 31, 32 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| YBM... |
 Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 10:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
mpc755 a écrit :
[quote]On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
.....
We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of
light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a
coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the
speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c
relative to the system.
I understand that.
[/quote]
You definitely don't.
[quote]I am saying nature does not work that way.
[/quote]
You've definitely been proven wrong, by *experiments*. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 4:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a
"absolutely stationary space".
The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is
entrained by the Earth.
No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every
object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it.. The
rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The
light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the ruler.
Ken Seto
You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller,
and countless others looked for and did not find?
That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to
realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the
vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka
experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion
in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf
You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental
support if you so choose.
It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show
that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of
light is isotropic horizontally.
Ken seto
The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They
found a gravitational redshift.
Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed
of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal
constant.
This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The
aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is
stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B'
are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and
A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect
simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is
isotropic in both frames.
If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves
travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether.
If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect
the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and
M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive
at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c).
Ken seto
You're trying to have it both ways. You are saying if there are four
lightning strikes at A, A', B, and B' then the aether is stationary
relative to both the embankment frame of reference AND the train frame
of reference,
[/quote]
This is because the speed of light is isotropic in all reference
frames....and the isotropy of the speed of light is not due to that
the ether is at rest in each inertial frame.
[quote]but if A/A' is a single lightning strike and B/B' are a
single lightning strike then the aether is at rest in the train frame
of reference relative to the perspective of the train OR the aether is
at rest in the embankment frame of reference relative to the
perspective of the embankment.
[/quote]
Again if there is only one source at each end of the train both M and
M' will see the light fronts simultaneously but at different times.
This is because both M and M' are in different states of absolute
motion wrt the light fronts.
[quote]
This is what I am saying is physically impossible.
I understand that this is not what you think you are saying, but you
are. In order for light to behave as it is in my animation, the aether
must be in identical states in each frame of reference. It must be at
rest relative to the embankment AND at rest relative to the train in
order for the light to propagate as it does in the animation.
[/quote]
Your problem is that you think that direction of relative motion
between M and M' will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the
M' frame but not in the M frame. This means that you have selectively
select that M is in a preferred frame....that is M is not moving wrt
the light fronts but M' is moving wrt the light fronts. Such thinking
is wrong and it destroys the isotropy of the speed of light in the
train.
[quote]
To simply say it does what it does because the speed of light is
isotropic in both frames is exactly what I am saying is incorrect. You
cannot simply place the magical 'isotropic' qualifier on the frames
and then have light waves perform magic tricks. You can if you want,
but you are then incorrect.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of
reference.
I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I
am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums,
waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium.
In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble
into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same
speed in all directions relative to the point on the train.
If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the
center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in
all directions relative to the point on the embankment.
If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest
relative to the K' system.
In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the
aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest
relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike
occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at
'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave
propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.
A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels
from to ANY observer.
If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest
relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/
A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward
from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A
and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the
aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:33 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:06 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 2:00 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 11:02 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 11:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 27, 10:31 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 10:09 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 26, 9:48 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 7:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
By stationary aether, I am referring to Einstein's concept of a
"absolutely stationary space".
The aether is 'stationary' relative to the Earth because it is
entrained by the Earth.
No the aether is not entrained....the aether is stationary and every
object in the universe has a state of absolute motion within it. The
rate of a clock is dependent on its state of absolute moiton. The
light path length of a ruler is dependent on the state of absolute
motion of the ruler.
Ken Seto
You do realize this is the aether Michelson and Morley, and Miller,
and countless others looked for and did not find?
That's because they didn't have the right experiment....they failed to
realize that on earth the direction of absolute motion is in the
vertical direction. This is supported by the Pound and Rebka
experiment. I have designed new experiments to detect absolute motion
in the following link:http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008experiment.pdf
You can choose to believe in an aether which has no experimental
support if you so choose.
It has experimental support....the Pound and Rebka experiments show
that the speed of light is not c vertically and that the speed of
light is isotropic horizontally.
Ken seto
The Pound and Rebka did not find the speed of light to change. They
found a gravitational redshift.
Gravitational redshift is due to a change in the arrival of the speed
of light when the wavelength of the source is defined as a universal
constant.
This thread is titled 'Simultaneity of Relativity' for a reason. The
aether is stationary relative to the embankment and the aether is
stationary relative to the train. If A/A' are not co-located and B/B'
are not co-located and lightning strikes occur simultaneously at A and
A' and at B and B', then if the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously, the light from A' and B' reaches M' simultaneously:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Sure if you have separates sources for M and M' then they will detect
simultaneity for their sources. Why Because the speed of light is
isotropic in both frames.
If A/A' are co-located and B/B' are co-located then the light waves
travel to M and M' at 'c' relative to the aether.
If A/A' is a single source and B/B' is a single source M will detect
the light fronts arrive at him simultaneously at time (L/c) second and
M will predict that M' will detect that the light fronts will arrive
at M' simultaneously at time (gamma*L/c).
Ken seto
You're trying to have it both ways. You are saying if there are four
lightning strikes at A, A', B, and B' then the aether is stationary
relative to both the embankment frame of reference AND the train frame
of reference,
This is because the speed of light is isotropic in all reference
frames....and the isotropy of the speed of light is not due to that
the ether is at rest in each inertial frame.
but if A/A' is a single lightning strike and B/B' are a
single lightning strike then the aether is at rest in the train frame
of reference relative to the perspective of the train OR the aether is
at rest in the embankment frame of reference relative to the
perspective of the embankment.
Again if there is only one source at each end of the train both M and
M' will see the light fronts simultaneously but at different times.
This is because both M and M' are in different states of absolute
motion wrt the light fronts.
This is what I am saying is physically impossible.
I understand that this is not what you think you are saying, but you
are. In order for light to behave as it is in my animation, the aether
must be in identical states in each frame of reference. It must be at
rest relative to the embankment AND at rest relative to the train in
order for the light to propagate as it does in the animation.
Your problem is that you think that direction of relative motion
between M and M' will affect the isotropy of the speed of light in the
M' frame but not in the M frame. This means that you have selectively
select that M is in a preferred frame....that is M is not moving wrt
the light fronts but M' is moving wrt the light fronts. Such thinking
is wrong and it destroys the isotropy of the speed of light in the
train.
[/quote]
You use the term 'isotropic' in order to allow magic to occur. If you
superimpose the two frames in my animation, then exactly what is
occurring in the animation should occur if A/A' are the same point in
three dimensional space and B/B' are the same point in three
dimensional space. With you definition of 'isotropic' to say my
animation is correct for the lightning strikes as represented at A,
A', B, and B' in the animation but something else occurs if the two
'isotropic' frames are superimposed on the same three dimensional
space at the time of the lightning strikes is to be incorrect.
Something else occurs if the frames are overlayed because the aether
is not at rest relative to both frames of reference.
[quote]
To simply say it does what it does because the speed of light is
isotropic in both frames is exactly what I am saying is incorrect. You
cannot simply place the magical 'isotropic' qualifier on the frames
and then have light waves perform magic tricks. You can if you want,
but you are then incorrect.
Light travels at 'c' relative to the aether, not a frame of
reference.
I understand the aether you are referring to and that is the aether I
am saying is incorrect. The aether is a medium and like all mediums,
waves propagate through the medium relative to the medium.
In other words, if there is a pool on the train and you drop a pebble
into the center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same
speed in all directions relative to the point on the train.
If there is a pool on the embankment and you drop a pebble into the
center of the pool, the wave will ripple outward at the same speed in
all directions relative to the point on the embankment.
If the aether is at rest relative to the K system it is not at rest
relative to the K' system.
In terms of Einstein's train thought experiment, this means if the
aether is at rest relative to the embankment the aether is not at rest
relative to the train. In this scenario, when the lightning strike
occurs A/A' and at B/B' the light wave propagates outward from A at
'c' and the light wave propagates outward at B at 'c'. The light wave
propagates outward from A at 'c' and from B at 'c' to ALL observers.
A' and B' are meaningless in terms of where the light wave travels
from to ANY observer.
If the aether is at rest relative to the train, then it is not at rest
relative to the embankment. The light from the lightning strike at A/
A' and B/B' propagates outward from A' at 'c' and propagates outward
from B' at 'c' and travels from A' or B' at 'c' to ALL observers. A
and B are meaningless in terms of where the light travels from if the
aether is at rest relative to the train.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Fri Oct 30, 2009 1:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote
On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events?
An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"?
Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate.
If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will
always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different
times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right.
Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light ... as
long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both
directions, you can synchronise clocks with it.
That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what
it actually means:
IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your
definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space,
then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of
motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in
Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per
successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for
them to be "synchronous".
It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as
constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually
synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition.
In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is
allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame
claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its
clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered
irrelevent.
LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the
illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second
frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the
first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway.
And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect.
Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory
but he had no way around it.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K'
are not physically equivalent relative to the aether.
Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the
aether, not a frame of reference.
We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of
light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a
coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the
speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c
relative to the system.
I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way.
[/quote]
Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do.
[quote]A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
[/quote]
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
[quote]Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
[/quote]
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
[quote]Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
[/quote]
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
[quote]
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
[/quote]
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
[quote]
)If you are a relativist, then despite your answer "Yes", you don't! If you'd like to, then take a look at A Flower for Einstein.)
Sounds like a book worth reading.
It is! If you'd like me to attach a copy to an email letter to you,
let me know and i will send it.
glird- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote
On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events?
An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"?
Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate.
If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will
always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different
times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right.
Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as
long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both
directions, you can synchronise clocks with it.
That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what
it actually means:
IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your
definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space,
then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of
motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in
Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per
successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for
them to be "synchronous".
It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as
constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually
synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition.
In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is
allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame
claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its
clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered
irrelevent.
LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the
illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second
frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the
first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway..
And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect.
Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory
but he had no way around it.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K'
are not physically equivalent relative to the aether.
Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the
aether, not a frame of reference.
We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of
light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a
coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the
speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c
relative to the system.
I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way.
Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do.
[/quote]
But the question is, from where does the light emit from? In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from? Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
[quote]A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
[/quote]
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
[quote]Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
[/quote]
Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of
reference.
[quote]Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
[/quote]
To both Observer's yes.
[quote]
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
[/quote]
Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of
reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the
water.
If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and
the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per-
minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of
the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and
the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the
embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude
the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment
conclude the wave traveled to reach him?
The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into
the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at
1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center
of the pool to his hand.
Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in
three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of
reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble
traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is
misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using
the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled
from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect.
Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at
the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward
from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in
the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of
light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's
hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of
light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand.
Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train,
then the light wave will propagate outward from the center of the pool
at 'c' in all directions relative to the aether which is at rest
relative to the train. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the
embankment's hand, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' from where
the center of the pool on the train *is* to the Observer's hand *is*
because the aether is at rest relative to the train. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:07 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3545
|
On Oct 31, 10:53 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote
On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events?
An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"?
Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate.
If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will
always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different
times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right.
Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as
long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both
directions, you can synchronise clocks with it.
That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what
it actually means:
IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your
definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space,
then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of
motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in
Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per
successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for
them to be "synchronous".
It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as
constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually
synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition.
In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is
allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame
claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its
clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered
irrelevent.
LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the
illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second
frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the
first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway.
And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect.
Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory
but he had no way around it.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K'
are not physically equivalent relative to the aether.
Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the
aether, not a frame of reference.
We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of
light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a
coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the
speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c
relative to the system.
I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way.
Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do.
But the question is, from where does the light emit from? In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from? Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of
reference.
Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
To both Observer's yes.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of
reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the
water.
If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and
the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per-
minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of
the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and
the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the
embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude
the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment
conclude the wave traveled to reach him?
The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into
the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at
1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center
of the pool to his hand.
Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in
three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of
reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble
traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is
misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using
the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled
from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect.
Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at
the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward
from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in
the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of
light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's
hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of
light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand.
Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train,
then the light wave will
read more »- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
[/quote]
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 11:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except
a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the
aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Bruce Richmond... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 1:53 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 7:24 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 8:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 7:26 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 6:23 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Oct 28, 5:15 pm, glird <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote:
On Oct 24, 8:00 pm, "Inertial" wrote:> "glird" <gl... at (no spam) aol.com> wrote
On Oct 13, 7:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Do you know the definition of simultaneity for two spatially separated events?
An allied question: Do you understand the results of setting clocks of a moving system in accord with Einstein's DEFINITION of "synchronous"?
Its the only possible definition for how synchronous clocks should behave, given the second postulate.
If one accepts that light between two places mutually at rest will
always travel at the same speed, then if the clocks measure different
times for travelling the same distance, they can't be right.
Note that that can use any signals/objects .. not just light .. as
long as you know it is travelling at the same speed in both
directions, you can synchronise clocks with it.
That is NOT what Einstein' "synchronous clocks" means! Here's what
it actually means:
IF a system is at rest whatever conducts light at c, then your
definition holds good. But if a system is moving at v in that space,
then a ray will travel realtive to it at c-v in its direction of
motion and at c+v in the return direction, Givwn that, as in
Einstein's own paper, then one has to change the settings per
successive clock of the moving system by -vx/c^2 seconds in order for
them to be "synchronous".
It is obvious that such clocks, set to measure the speed of light as
constant in all directions even though it isn't, are NOT actually
synchronous other than in terms of EINSTEIN'S weird definition.
In SR there is no preferred frame. Every frame inertial frame is
allowed to consider itself at rest. So despite what the first frame
claimed, the second frame can consider itself at reast and set its
clocks accordingly. In SR, if there is an aether it is considered
irrelevent.
LET shows us that even if there is an aether all frames can have the
illusion that they are at rest in the aether. So again the second
frame has every bit as much right to consider itself at rest as the
first, which was most likely moving relative to the ateher anyway.
And that is why both SR and LET are incorrect.
Einstein himself knew having multiple frames at rest was contradictory
but he had no way around it.
'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein'http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html
"Now comes the anxious question:- Why must I in the theory distinguish
the K system above all K' systems, which are physically equivalent to
it in all respects, by assuming that the ether is at rest relatively
to the K system? For the theoretician such an asymmetry in the
theoretical structure, with no corresponding asymmetry in the system
of experience, is intolerable. If we assume the ether to be at rest
relatively to K, but in motion relatively to K', the physical
equivalence of K and K' seems to me from the logical standpoint, not
indeed downright incorrect, but nevertheless unacceptable."
The physical equivalence of K and K' is unacceptable because K and K'
are not physically equivalent relative to the aether.
Einstein failed to realize light waves travel at 'c' relative to the
aether, not a frame of reference.
We construct the coordinate system in each frame using the speed of
light in that frame as a standard. When making measurements using a
coordinate system constructed in that way there is no way that the
speed of light can ever be measured to travel at a speed other than c
relative to the system.
I understand that. I am saying nature does not work that way.
Nature doesn't measure the speed of light, we do.
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
[/quote]
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
[quote]In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
[/quote]
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
[quote]Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
[/quote]
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
[quote]A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
[/quote]
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
[quote]
Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of
reference.
[/quote]
But the track frame doesn't use that moving water as a reference
point. It uses points that are at rest in the track frame.
[quote]Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
To both Observer's yes.
[/quote]
Track observers only use points at rest in the track frame as
reference points. The point where the ripples are radiating from is
not at rest in the track frame.
[quote]
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of
reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the
water.
[/quote]
And if that water is moving it affects the measured speed of the wave
relative to points at rest in the frame of reference.
[quote]If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and
the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per-
minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of
the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and
the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the
embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude
the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment
conclude the wave traveled to reach him?
[/quote]
Not going to waste my time, see above.
[quote]The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into
the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at
1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center
of the pool to his hand.
[/quote]
Plus whatever distance the pool traveled while the wave was traveling.
[quote]Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in
three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of
reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble
traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is
misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using
the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled
from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect.
Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at
the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward
from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in
the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of
light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's
hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of
light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand.
Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train,
then the light wave will propagate outward from the center of the pool
at 'c' in all directions relative to the aether which is at rest
relative to the train. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the
embankment's hand, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' from where
the center of the pool on the train *is* to the Observer's hand *is*
because the aether is at rest relative to the train.
[/quote]
A man on the train takes a baseball bat and holds it out stationary in
front of him. Another man on the train can walk in front of the bat
without fear because the bat isn't moving. Now you stick your hand
out as the train passes by at 100 mph. Does the bat hit your had at 0
mph or 100 mph? If the man swings the bat so that it is moving at 10
mph relative to the train does it hit you at 10 mph or 110 mph? The
two frames do not consider the bat to be traveling the same speed.
The difference with light is that we use it as a standard when
constructing the coordinate system. Take two observers with clocks
that tick at the same rate and place them some distance apart. We
have declared that light travels at c in either direction. If
observer A reflects light off observer B and times its return he can
calculate the distance between them. Observer B can do the same thing
and he will get the same answer as A. It wouldn't matter if someone
else said the aether was moving relative to them, they are still in
agreement on the distance between them. Knowing the distance between
them they can then synchronize their clocks, again based on the fact
that the one way trip at c must take half the time of the two way trip
at c. If they then time the one way speed of light they better get c
because that is what they used to set the clock!
You are trying to build a dragged aether theory. But there is no way
it can work if multiple observers in different states of motion are
sharing the same empty space. You can't say that the aether in on
spot is moving in 20 different directions at the same time. So you
end up with one aether that provides the illusion of being at rest in
all frames, as in LET, or you forget about the aether and just agree
that each frame measures the speed of light to be c as in SR. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 2:59 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3545
|
On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except
a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the
aether.
[/quote]
Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can
move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before
reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity.
Leaving light behind or vice versa.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except
a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the
aether.
Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can
move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before
reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity.
Leaving light behind or vice versa.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
Take a look at the animation which represents Simultaneity of
Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
If you superimpose the frames of reference over the same three
dimensional space, something else happens because the aether will be
either at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment or not at rest relative to either.
Either way, it doesn't matter, light travels at 'c' relative to the
aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
[quote]
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
[/quote]
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
[quote]A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
[/quote]
And that is incorrect.
[quote]If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
[/quote]
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
There are points where the effects of the moving aether does register.
The Pioneer Effect is such an example. The Pioneer Satellites slow
down when they 'fall out of' the Sun's entrained aether. Jupiter's
outer moons orbit in the opposite direction of the inner moons because
the inner moons are in Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons
'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit in the other
direction, but all of Jupiter's moons are kept in orbit by Jupiter's
displaced aether which pushes back.
[quote]
Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of
reference.
But the track frame doesn't use that moving water as a reference
point. It uses points that are at rest in the track frame.
[/quote]
And that is incorrect.
[quote]Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
To both Observer's yes.
Track observers only use points at rest in the track frame as
reference points. The point where the ripples are radiating from is
not at rest in the track frame.
[/quote]
The wave is traveling relative to the water it exists in. If the
maximum speed of a wave created by the pebble was 1 mile-per-minute
and the wave reaches an Observer on the train and an Observer on the
embankment who's hands were placed side-by-side in the pool 1 mile
from where the pebble was dropped into the center of the pool and the
Observer on the train concluded the pebble was dropped into the pool 1
minute ago and the Observer on the embankment concluded the pebble had
to have been dropped into the pool more than 1 minute ago because
where the pebble was dropped into the pool in the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference is more than 1 mile from where the
Observer on the embankment is, the Observer on the embankment would be
incorrect.
I realize you are never going to understand this, but this is the
whole point I am trying to make with light traveling a 'c' relative to
the aether. If a burst of light occurs in the center of pool of water,
the light wave takes the same amount of time to reach the Observer on
the train and the Observer on the embankment whose hands are placed
side-by-side into the pool. If the Observer on the embankment
concludes the flash of light in the center of the pool had to occur
earlier than the Observer on the train does, the Observer on the
embankment is incorrect.
Now, remove the water. The aether is entrained on the train. The light
travels at 'c' from the center of the pool to where the Observer on
the train and the Observer on the embankment, who sticks his head into
an open window, detect the light wave. Both Observers detect the light
wave simultaneously. The Observer on the train determines when the
flash occurred by determining how far away the center of the pool
where the flash occurred *is* when the light wave reaches him. If the
Observer on the embankment concludes the flash occurred earlier than
the Observer on the train does because the Observer on the embankment
concludes the flash of light occurred at some point down the tracks in
the embankment frame of reference, the Observer on the embankment
concludes incorrectly.
[quote]
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of
reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the
water.
And if that water is moving it affects the measured speed of the wave
relative to points at rest in the frame of reference.
If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and
the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per-
minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of
the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and
the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the
embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude
the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment
conclude the wave traveled to reach him?
Not going to waste my time, see above.
The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into
the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at
1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center
of the pool to his hand.
Plus whatever distance the pool traveled while the wave was traveling.
[/quote]
Irrelevant. Not going to waste my time on this. See above.
[quote]Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in
three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of
reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble
traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is
misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using
the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled
from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect.
Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at
the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward
from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in
the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of
light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's
hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of
light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand.
Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train,
then the light wave will propagate outward from the center of the pool
at 'c' in all directions relative to the aether which is at rest
relative to the train. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the
embankment's hand, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' from where
the center of the pool on the train *is* to the Observer's hand *is*
because the aether is at rest relative to the train.
A man on the train takes a baseball bat and holds it out stationary in
front of him. Another man on the train can walk in front of the bat
without fear because the bat isn't moving. Now you stick your hand
out as the train passes by at 100 mph. Does the bat hit your had at 0
mph or 100 mph? If the man swings the bat so that it is moving at 10
mph relative to the train does it hit you at 10 mph or 110 mph? The
two frames do not consider the bat to be traveling the same speed.
[/quote]
Because that is a bat. Not a wave. Now, you can say if a wave of water
hits you that is moving in a train that is moving at 100mph, you are
going to feel the wave hit you a lot harder than if you were on the
train. That is accurate but not correct. You feel the water hit you.
You detect the wave. If the wave is an aether wave which when it hits
your eye collapses and is detected as a particle, if the aether is
entrained on the train, the light wave traveled at 'c' from where it
was emitted on the train, not at 'c' + 100mph. It doesn't matter if
you are on the train or on the embankment, the photon light wave
travels at 'c' through the entrained aether on the train.
[quote]The difference with light is that we use it as a standard when
constructing the coordinate system. Take two observers with clocks
that tick at the same rate and place them some distance apart. We
have declared that light travels at c in either direction. If
observer A reflects light off observer B and times its return he can
calculate the distance between them. Observer B can do the same thing
and he will get the same answer as A. It wouldn't matter if someone
else said the aether was moving relative to them, they are still in
agreement on the distance between them. Knowing the distance between
them they can then synchronize their clocks, again based on the fact
that the one way trip at c must take half the time of the two way trip
at c. If they then time the one way speed of light they better get c
because that is what they used to set the clock!
You are trying to build a dragged aether theory. But there is no way
it can work if multiple observers in different states of motion are
sharing the same empty space.
[/quote]
The reason why you do not think it can work is because you do not
understand it. You think Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity is
correct. It is incorrect.
When a lightning strike occurs at A/A' and another lightning strike
occurs at B/B', if the aether is at rest relative to the embankment,
the light waves travel from A and B at 'c' to ALL Observers and the
marks made at A' and B' are irrelevant in terms of how far the light
travels to ANY Observer. If the aether is at rest relative to the
train, the light wave travel at 'c' from A' and B' at 'c' to ALL
Observers and the marks make at A and B are irrelevant in terms of how
far the light travels to ANY Observer.
[quote]You can't say that the aether in on
spot is moving in 20 different directions at the same time. So you
end up with one aether that provides the illusion of being at rest in
all frames, as in LET, or you forget about the aether and just agree
that each frame measures the speed of light to be c as in SR.
[/quote]
There is a better way. You realize light travels at 'c' relative to
the aether. If you do not know the state of the aether, you assume the
emission point is a particular point in three dimensional space
relative to the Observer's frame of reference.
However, you know the state of the aether cannot be at rest relative
to the embankment and at rest relative to the train so you correctly
conclude Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is physically impossible.
If the Observer at M assumes the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and the Observer at M' assumes the aether is at rest
relative to the train, one of the Observers is incorrect. If the
Observer at M on the embankment sees the light from the lightning
strikes at A/A' and B/B' simultaneously and measures to A and B and
concludes the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the
Observer at M' on the train sees the light from the lighting strike at
B/B' prior to the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and measures
to A' and B' and concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred earlier
than the lightning strike at A', one of the Observers is incorrect.
One, or both Observers, are measuring to incorrect emission points. If
the aether is at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment, one of the Observers is measuring to emission points which
do not reflect where the lightning strikes occurred in three
dimensional space.
For the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference
to be physically equal in all respects, the aether would have to be
moving the same, but opposite, for each frame of reference. This
moving aether would distort the light waves and the light from the
lightning strike at A/A' and the light from the lightning strike at B/
B' would not reach either Observer as a single event, but the light
waves from each lightning strike would reach both Observers over time
as the light waves interacted with the moving aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nick |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:14 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Apr 2005
Posts: 3545
|
On Oct 31, 6:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except
a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the
aether.
Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can
move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before
reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity.
Leaving light behind or vice versa.
Mitch Raemsch
Take a look at the animation which represents Simultaneity of
Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
If you superimpose the frames of reference over the same three
dimensional space, something else happens because the aether will be
either at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment or not at rest relative to either.
Either way, it doesn't matter, light travels at 'c' relative to the
aether.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
You can move toward light it will reach you sooner. Move ahead of
light and you leave it behind in space. This is effecting simultaneity
in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 4:24 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:14 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 6:08 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 8:59 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 2:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 3:07 pm, BURT <macromi... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
You can accelerate and leave light behind in the aether. It takes time
to catch up.
Mitch Raemsch
You can't 'leave light behind' since nothing can travel at 'c' except
a wave through the aether, and 'you' are also moving relative to the
aether.
Physical connectedness is at the speed of light in the aether. You can
move ahead of light creating more distance for it to travel before
reaching you. This is the cause of the relativity of simultaneity.
Leaving light behind or vice versa.
Mitch Raemsch
Take a look at the animation which represents Simultaneity of
Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
If you superimpose the frames of reference over the same three
dimensional space, something else happens because the aether will be
either at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment or not at rest relative to either.
Either way, it doesn't matter, light travels at 'c' relative to the
aether.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You can move toward light it will reach you sooner. Move ahead of
light and you leave it behind in space. This is effecting simultaneity
in the aether.
Mitch Raemsch
[/quote]
What effects simultaneity in the aether is the state of the aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 8:29 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
But the question is, from where does the light emit from?
And the answer is, it depends on what you are using as a reference for
position. In the train frame the pebble hit the pool in the center.
In the train frame the pool isn't moving so the center of the pool
continues to mark where the pebble hit. But in the track frame the
pool is moving, so its center no longer marks where the pebble hit
relative to things in the track frame.
In the
pebble being dropped into a pool of water on the moving train, when
the wave associated with the ripple hits the hand of the Observer on
the embankment, where has the ripple traveled from?
Again it depends on who you ask and what they are referring to for
position.
Do you say the
ripple was created in the Observer on the embankment's frame of
reference in the past, or do you say the ripple was create where the
pebble was dropped into the pool on the train?
If you ask a track observer it happen where the pebble hit the water
relative to the track observers. The pool moved on but the point
where the pebble hit is still in the same place relative to the track
observers. They don't agree with the train observers that say the
pool isn't moving.
The track Observer doesn't even know there is a pebble or a pool until
he places his hand through the window and into the pool. All he knows
is a wave hits his hand. When he backtracks from where the wave hit
his hand it leads to where the center of the pool *is* when the wave
hit his hand. This is how light works. You do not 'see' a photon
travel to you. All you do is detect the photon when it hits you. Where
the pebble was dropped in three dimensional space in the embankment
frame of reference is meaningless in terms of the origination point of
the wave or the distance it traveled to the Observer on the
embankment.
A light
wave isn't tied to a frame of reference. Frames of reference are
mathematical constructs.
Correct. We construct them as we se fit.
Now tell me how you think you can measure the speed of light without
using time or distance.
To determine the speed of light you need to measure the distance
traveled and the time it took to travel. Those measurements depend
entirely on the coordinate system (frame of reference) used. You can
make the answer anything you want to depending on how you set up the
coordinate system.
And that is incorrect. Where the light originated from is dependent on
the aether it is propagating through.
We make our measurements using a coordinate system, not the aether.
And that is incorrect.
If there are multiple objects moving through an area of space you
wouldn't even know what motion applies to your aether in different
spots as it passes through.
For the most part that is correct. If you want to assume the aether is
at rest relative to you in order to estimate where the emission point
was in your frame of reference that is fine, but you are assuming and
estimating how far the light traveled to reach you. That doesn't mean
you are correct. To truly know where the emission point of the light
was in three dimensional space and how far the light traveled to reach
you, you would need to know the effects the aether had on the light
wave.. In Einstein's train thought experiment, if the Observer on the
embankment assumes they are at rest relative to the aether and the
light wave traveled from A and B to where the Observer is a M and the
Observer on the train assumes they are at rest relative to the aether
and the light wave traveled from A' and B' to where the Observer is at
M', one of the Observers is incorrect.
There are points where the effects of the moving aether does register.
The Pioneer Effect is such an example. The Pioneer Satellites slow
down when they 'fall out of' the Sun's entrained aether. Jupiter's
outer moons orbit in the opposite direction of the inner moons because
the inner moons are in Jupiter's entrained aether. The outer moons
'fell out of' Jupiter's entrained aether and orbit in the other
direction, but all of Jupiter's moons are kept in orbit by Jupiter's
displaced aether which pushes back.
Light does not travel at a speed other than 'c' relative to any
system.
What is incorrect is tying the emission point of a photon of light to
a particular frame of reference based on a observer in the frame of
reference.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on a moving
train, the ripple propagates outward at the same speed in all
directions relative to the center of the pool on the train. When an
Observer on the embankment sticks his hand through the window of the
train and sticks his hand into the pool and the ripple hits his hand,
the ripple has traveled from where the center of the pool *is* to
where the observers hand *is*.
So you are tying the emission point of that wave to a particular point
in the train frame which is moving in the track frame.
Yes, because the water is at rest relative in the train frame of
reference.
But the track frame doesn't use that moving water as a reference
point. It uses points that are at rest in the track frame.
And that is incorrect.
Where the pebble was dropped into the pool in three dimensional space
in the past in the Observer on the embankment's frame of reference is
irrelevant in terms of the distance, the path, and the speed the wave
associated with the ripple traveled to the Observer.
To the observer on the train yes, but not to the observer on the
embankment.
To both Observer's yes.
Track observers only use points at rest in the track frame as
reference points. The point where the ripples are radiating from is
not at rest in the track frame.
The wave is traveling relative to the water it exists in. If the
maximum speed of a wave created by the pebble was 1 mile-per-minute
and the wave reaches an Observer on the train and an Observer on the
embankment who's hands were placed side-by-side in the pool 1 mile
from where the pebble was dropped into the center of the pool and the
Observer on the train concluded the pebble was dropped into the pool 1
minute ago and the Observer on the embankment concluded the pebble had
to have been dropped into the pool more than 1 minute ago because
where the pebble was dropped into the pool in the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference is more than 1 mile from where the
Observer on the embankment is, the Observer on the embankment would be
incorrect.
I realize you are never going to understand this, but this is the
whole point I am trying to make with light traveling a 'c' relative to
the aether. If a burst of light occurs in the center of pool of water,
the light wave takes the same amount of time to reach the Observer on
the train and the Observer on the embankment whose hands are placed
side-by-side into the pool. If the Observer on the embankment
concludes the flash of light in the center of the pool had to occur
earlier than the Observer on the train does, the Observer on the
embankment is incorrect.
Now, remove the water. The aether is entrained on the train. The light
travels at 'c' from the center of the pool to where the Observer on
the train and the Observer on the embankment, who sticks his head into
an open window, detect the light wave. Both Observers detect the light
wave simultaneously. The Observer on the train determines when the
flash occurred by determining how far away the center of the pool
where the flash occurred *is* when the light wave reaches him. If the
Observer on the embankment concludes the flash occurred earlier than
the Observer on the train does because the Observer on the embankment
concludes the flash of light occurred at some point down the tracks in
the embankment frame of reference, the Observer on the embankment
concludes incorrectly.
If you drop a pebble into the center of a pool of water on the train,
and the wave ripples outward at 100mph relative to the center of the
pool on the train, when the train is passing the Observer on the
embankment and the Observer on the embankment puts his hand through a
window on the train and puts his hand into the pool and the wave
associated with the ripple hits the Observer's hand, how far did the
wave travel and how fast was the wave traveling when it hit the
Observer on the embankments hand?
The distance the wave traveled is the distance from where the center
of the pool *is* to where the Observer's hand *is* when the wave
associated with the ripple hits the observer on the hand.
The wave traveled at 100mph from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand.
Not in the embankment's frame of reference.
Yes, in the embankment's frame of reference. In all frames of
reference, the wave associated with the ripple moves relative to the
water.
And if that water is moving it affects the measured speed of the wave
relative to points at rest in the frame of reference.
If a pebble is dropped into a round pool with a radius of 1 mile and
the wave propagates outward from the center of the pool at 1 mile-per-
minute and one minute after the pebble is dropped into the middle of
the pool an Observer on the embankment puts his hand into the pool and
the wave associated with the ripple hits the Observer on the
embankments hand, when does the Observer on the embankment conclude
the pebble was dropped and how far does the Observer on the embankment
conclude the wave traveled to reach him?
Not going to waste my time, see above.
The Observer on the embankment concludes the pebble was dropped into
the center of the pool and the wave created by the pebble traveled at
1 mile-per-minute to reach him and traveled one mile from the center
of the pool to his hand.
Plus whatever distance the pool traveled while the wave was traveling.
Irrelevant. Not going to waste my time on this. See above.
Now, you can determine where the pebble was dropped into the pool in
three dimensional space in the Observer on the embankments frame of
reference and decide to determine the wave associated with the pebble
traveled from that point to where your hand is, but that is
misleading, and when it comes to light, which travels at 'c', using
the point in three dimensional space relative to the Observer on the
embankments frame of reference and concluding the light wave traveled
from that point to the Observer's hand at 'c' would be incorrect.
Instead of dropping a pebble into the pool a flash of light occurs at
the center of the pool and the associated light wave travels outward
from the center of the pool at 'c'. Since the water is entrained in
the pool on the train, the water is at rest relative to the wave of
light. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the embankment's
hand, it will have traveled from the center of the pool to the
Observer's hand and the light wave will have traveled at the speed of
light in water from the center of the pool to the Observer's hand.
Now, if you remove the water and the aether is entrained on the train,
then the light wave will propagate outward from the center of the pool
at 'c' in all directions relative to the aether which is at rest
relative to the train. When the light wave reaches the Observer on the
embankment's hand, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' from where
the center of the pool on the train *is* to the Observer's hand *is*
because the aether is at rest relative to the train.
A man on the train takes a baseball bat and holds it out stationary in
front of him. Another man on the train can walk in front of the bat
without fear because the bat isn't moving. Now you stick your hand
out as the train passes by at 100 mph. Does the bat hit your had at 0
mph or 100 mph? If the man swings the bat so that it is moving at 10
mph relative to the train does it hit you at 10 mph or 110 mph? The
two frames do not consider the bat to be traveling the same speed.
Because that is a bat. Not a wave. Now, you can say if a wave of water
hits you that is moving in a train that is moving at 100mph, you are
going to feel the wave hit you a lot harder than if you were on the
train. That is accurate but not correct. You feel the water hit you.
You detect the wave. If the wave is an aether wave which when it hits
your eye collapses and is detected as a particle, if the aether is
entrained on the train, the light wave traveled at 'c' from where it
was emitted on the train, not at 'c' + 100mph. It doesn't matter if
you are on the train or on the embankment, the photon light wave
travels at 'c' through the entrained aether on the train.
The difference with light is that we use it as a standard when
constructing the coordinate system. Take two observers with clocks
that tick at the same rate and place them some distance apart. We
have declared that light travels at c in either direction. If
observer A reflects light off observer B and times its return he can
calculate the distance between them. Observer B can do the same thing
and he will get the same answer as A. It wouldn't matter if someone
else said the aether was moving relative to them, they are still in
agreement on the distance between them. Knowing the distance between
them they can then synchronize their clocks, again based on the fact
that the one way trip at c must take half the time of the two way trip
at c. If they then time the one way speed of light they better get c
because that is what they used to set the clock!
You are trying to build a dragged aether theory. But there is no way
it can work if multiple observers in different states of motion are
sharing the same empty space.
The reason why you do not think it can work is because you do not
understand it. You think Einstein's Relativity of Simultaneity is
correct. It is incorrect.
When a lightning strike occurs at A/A' and another lightning strike
occurs at B/B', if the aether is at rest relative to the embankment,
the light waves travel from A and B at 'c' to ALL Observers and the
marks made at A' and B' are irrelevant in terms of how far the light
travels to ANY Observer. If the aether is at rest relative to the
train, the light wave travel at 'c' from A' and B' at 'c' to ALL
Observers and the marks make at A and B are irrelevant in terms of how
far the light travels to ANY Observer.
You can't say that the aether in on
spot is moving in 20 different directions at the same time. So you
end up with one aether that provides the illusion of being at rest in
all frames, as in LET, or you forget about the aether and just agree
that each frame measures the speed of light to be c as in SR.
There is a better way. You realize light travels at 'c' relative to
the aether. If you do not know the state of the aether, you assume the
emission point is a particular point in three dimensional space
relative to the Observer's frame of reference.
However, you know the state of the aether cannot be at rest relative
to the embankment and at rest relative to the train so you correctly
conclude Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is physically impossible.
If the Observer at M assumes the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and the Observer at M' assumes the aether is at rest
relative to the train, one of the Observers is incorrect. If the
Observer at M on the embankment sees the light from the lightning
strikes at A/A' and B/B' simultaneously and measures to A and B and
concludes the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the
Observer at M' on the train sees the light from the lighting strike at
B/B' prior to the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and measures
to A' and B' and concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred earlier
than the lightning strike at A', one of the Observers is incorrect.
One, or both Observers, are measuring to incorrect emission points. If
the aether is at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment, one of the Observers is measuring to emission points which
do not reflect where the lightning strikes occurred in three
dimensional space.
For the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference
to be physically equal in all respects, the aether would have to be
moving the same, but opposite, for each frame of reference. This
moving aether would distort the light waves and the light from the
lightning strike at A/A' and the light from the lightning strike at B/
B' would not reach either Observer as a single event, but the light
waves from each lightning strike would reach both Observers over time
as the light waves interacted with the moving aether.
[/quote]
Point of clarification:
The aether can be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment if the train and the embankment occupy different
places in three dimensional space. If the train and embankment frames
occupy different places in three dimensional space and the aether is
at rest relative to the train frame of reference and the aether is at
rest relative to the embankment frame of reference the lightning
strikes at A, A', B and B' will result in Simultaneity of Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
If there is a single lightning strike at A/A' and there is a single
lightning strike at B/B' and the train frame of reference and the
embankment frame of reference occupy the same three dimensional space,
then the aether cannot be at rest relative to the train frame of
reference and be at rest relative to the embankment frame of reference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 5:34 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
You can't say that the aether in on
spot is moving in 20 different directions at the same time. So you
end up with one aether that provides the illusion of being at rest in
all frames, as in LET, or you forget about the aether and just agree
that each frame measures the speed of light to be c as in SR.
There is a better way. You realize light travels at 'c' relative to
the aether. If you do not know the state of the aether, you assume the
emission point is a particular point in three dimensional space
relative to the Observer's frame of reference.
However, you know the state of the aether cannot be at rest relative
to the embankment and at rest relative to the train so you correctly
conclude Einstein's Train Thought Experiment is physically impossible.
If the Observer at M assumes the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and the Observer at M' assumes the aether is at rest
relative to the train, one of the Observers is incorrect. If the
Observer at M on the embankment sees the light from the lightning
strikes at A/A' and B/B' simultaneously and measures to A and B and
concludes the lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the
Observer at M' on the train sees the light from the lighting strike at
B/B' prior to the light from the lightning strike at A/A' and measures
to A' and B' and concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred earlier
than the lightning strike at A', one of the Observers is incorrect.
One, or both Observers, are measuring to incorrect emission points. If
the aether is at rest relative to the train or at rest relative to the
embankment, one of the Observers is measuring to emission points which
do not reflect where the lightning strikes occurred in three
dimensional space.
For the embankment frame of reference and the train frame of reference
to be physically equal in all respects, the aether would have to be
moving the same, but opposite, for each frame of reference. This
moving aether would distort the light waves and the light from the
lightning strike at A/A' and the light from the lightning strike at B/
B' would not reach either Observer as a single event, but the light
waves from each lightning strike would reach both Observers over time
as the light waves interacted with the moving aether.
[/quote]
Point of clarification:
The aether can be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment if the train and the embankment occupy different
places in three dimensional space. If the train and embankment frames
occupy different places in three dimensional space and the aether is
at rest relative to the train frame of reference and the aether is at
rest relative to the embankment frame of reference the lightning
strikes at A, A', B and B' will result in Simultaneity of Relativity:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
If there is a single lightning strike at A/A' and there is a single
lightning strike at B/B' and the train frame of reference and the
embankment frame of reference occupy the same three dimensional space,
then the aether cannot be at rest relative to the train frame of
reference and be at rest relative to the embankment frame of
reference. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 11:13 am
|
|