 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics - Relativity Forum » Simultaneity of Relativity... |
|
Page 29 of 32 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| PD... |
 Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 5, 7:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:53 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 4, 7:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 11:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
This additional observer, which I will lable N, will se the flash when
M' sees it, but he will see it coming from a different direction. A'
is perpendicular to M' but A is not perpendicular to N, so he will
have to look back at an angle to see The flash which was perpendicular
to M in the track frame.
When the Observer at M sees the light from A and B his clock will read
12:00:01. When the Observer at M' sees the light from A' and B' his
clock will read 12:00:01. Since the embankment frame of reference and
the train frame of reference are equal in all respects, this means the
Observer at M sees the light from A and B at the same time as the
Observer at M' sees the light from A' and B'. How can the Observer at
N be seeing the light from A and B at the same instant the Observer at
M' is seeing the light from A' and B' if at this instant the Observer
at M' clock reads 12:00:01 and the Observer at M clock reads 12:00:01
and the light from A and B has just reached the Observer at M?
M and M' are at the same place at the same instant, so they see the
same light arive from A/A'. They see it coming from different
directions due to their different states of motion. They both
consider themselves to be at rest, but obviously they are moving
relative to each other so they will see things differently. When you
sit at rest in your moving car you see rain drops falling diagonally
while the person on the side of the road sees them falling
vertically. The same thing happens with sound waves. If there is a
loud bang of to the side as you ride by you will hear it comeing from
a different direction than a person standing on the side of the road.
As for it being the same time at M and M', it's not really, any more
than x=1 and x'=1 are the same place. Relative simultanity makes time
position dependent. Look at the Lorentz transformation for converting
the time coordinate from one frame to another. It contains an x which
means the time depends on the position.
A/A' is a single event. B/B' is a single event.
In my train thought experiment the Observer at M' is not hastening
towards B and away from A. The Observer at M' remains equidistant from
A and B at all times.
A and M, B and M, A' and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant from each
other.
In my train thought experiment, the light from a lightning strike at A/
A' must take the same amount of time to travel the same distance from
A to M as it does from A' to M'. If the light does not take the same
amount of time to travel from A to M as it does from A' to M', then
the light has not traveled at 'c' in one or both frames. The same is
true for the lightning strike at B/B' and the light that travels from
B to M and the light that travels from B' to M'. It has to take the
same amount of time to reach both Observers.
Now we have an Observer at N who is at the exact same location as M'
is when the light from A' and B' reaches M'.
In order for the light from A and B to reach the Observer at N after
the light from A and B reaches the Observer at M, the light from A and
B must reach M prior to the light from A' and B' reaching M'. This
means the lightning strike at both A and B in the embankment frame of
reference occurred prior to the lightning strike at A' and B' in the
train frame of reference.
If you consider that to be possible, we can continue with the
analogy.
There is an Observer at N' who is at the exact same location as M is
when the light from A and B reaches M. The Observer at N' is at rest
relative to the train.
In the above scenario, since the light from A and B reaches M prior to
the light from A' and B' reaching M', this means the light from A' and
B' reaches N' prior to the light from A' and B' reaching M'. This is
impossible.
You can try and coordinate the events anyway you want to, but with
Observers at N and N', it is physically impossible.
And you do not have to use clocks or time. You just have to set when
the events occur in terms of which lightning strike occurred prior to
which lightning strike relative to both frames but the fact remains
this cannot be resolved.
When the Observer at M' sees the light from A' and B', the Observer at
N sees the light from A and B. This means the Observer at M had to
have seen the light from A and B prior to the Observer at M' seeing
the light from A' and B'. But this means the Observer at N' sees the
light from A' and B' prior to the Observer at M' seeing the light from
A' and B'.
How this works in SR is the following. Since The Observer at M and the
Observer at N are in the same frame of reference, their clocks
maintain the same time. When the light from A and B reaches the
Observer at M, his clock reads 12:00:01:00. When the light from A and
B reaches the Observer at N, his clock reads 12:00:01:03.
From the perspective of the train frame of reference, the Observer at
M is hastening away from the lightning strikes which occurred at A'
and B'. From the perspective of the train frame of reference, the
Observer at M' and the Observer at N see the light from the lightning
strike at A' and B' prior to the Observer at M seeing the light from
the lightning strike. From the perspective of the train frame of
reference, when the Observer at N sees the light, he looks at his
watch and it reads 12:00:01:03. From the perspective of the train
frame of reference, later on, when the Observer at M sees the light
from the lightning strikes he looks down at his watch and it reads
12:00:01:00. I say this is physically impossible.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Not even if the train frame considers the clocks at M and N to be out
of sync?
I think you will agree that using just one coordinate system it is
physically impossible for light to be measured as traveling at c with
respect to both M and M'. That is why you wanted to add a second
aether, or a pond, to provide a second reference point to use when
measuring the speed of light with respect to M'. But if you use time
and space the way it was used prior to SR you end up getting that
light in the train frame can travel at c+v as measured in the track
frame. And that does not agree with our previous claim that light
always travels at c with respect to the track frame.
I get around the c+v problem by realizing tying the emission point of
the light wave to a point in three dimensional space is incorrect. A
pebble is dropped into the pool on the train. If an Observer on the
embankment was unable to detect the moving water and was only able to
detect the wave in the water, he would conclude the wave originated
from where the center of the pool is when he detected the wave.
[/quote]
This is rich. You really do that?
Do all sounds appear to come from the middle of the room where you are
standing? What about if your eyes are closed?
[quote]Any
Observer in any frame of reference who detects the wave will all
conclude the wave originated from where the center of the pool is when
they detect the wave. And all Observers will conclude the wave
traveled at the same speed from the center of the pool, thus 'c' is
maintained for light.
What SR/LET do to get around the problem is to give each frame their
own time. The seconds in two different frames are different from each
other in about the same way that 1 mile north is different from 1 mile
east, but the Lorentz Transformations can be used to convert
coordinates from one frame into those of another. When everything is
done correctly it works.
[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
[/quote]
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 3:27 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32f4f10b-5f65-4cff-a424-080f1f9a4ca8 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:787ac87c-9042-4072-9ab4-e1687e06d4da at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 3, 7:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the
embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur
in
Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of
light
to
exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of
motion
may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest
relative
to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train
which
is
physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference
and
the
train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional
space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and
B
exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on
opposite
sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment
and
the
corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The
arrows
represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from
the
embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A'
exist
at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the
lightning
strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three
dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the
line
A
and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like
after
the
lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away
from
the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously,
the
light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a
single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A
and
M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this
requires
the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is
either
that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the
embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B'
to
M
and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of
Simultaneity.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train
experiment
or
relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of
Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects
the
two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity
to
be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your
choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your
set-up
is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay
equal
as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M'
on
the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes
at
A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00..
It
takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second
for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means that
it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light fronts
to
reach.
Ken Seto
Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of
reference
are moving relative to one another.
Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M.
According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario whether it
is
M
or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one cannot
tell
how
the clock rate relate at all.
That's why IRT has two equations for the rate of an observed clock.
And why it is useless
Fucking idiot....when you compare two clocks the following will
happen:
1. they are running at the same rate.
2. A is running at a faster rate than B.
3. B is running slower than A.
Not in SR.
[/quote]
That's the point....SR is wrong.
[quote]
There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict
that A is running slow.
They are both running at the same rate in their own frame. They are both
measured as slow from any other frame.
[/quote]
Hey idiot.....it is meaningless to say that they both are running at
the same rate in their own frame....in case you are too stupid to
understand (Oh...I forgot you are really that stupid) you can't
compared the rate of your clock with your own clock. There is no
measurement done....SR predicts that the observed clock is running
slow.
Ken Seto
[quote]
One for the observed clock to run slow and the other for the obsrved
clock to run faster than the observer's clock.
Yes that's right.
So its useless. It cannot say what will happen
And in this case, you don't know which will happen.
Yes you don't know which will happen and that's why you have two
equations....and two soultions for the observed clock.
There's an infinite number of solutions between those two., as there's an
infinite number of possible absolute motion the two objects can have
You will have
to do both calculation to see which prediction is correct.
And how do you know which one is correct?
And, of course, it can be any of an infinite number of values because not
only do we not know which has the greater absolute motion,
Fucking idiot there is only one Fab fr the observed clock.
And we don't know what it is
If the
observed clock is running slow then it is running slow by a factor of
Fab/Faa.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -...
read more »[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:17 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32f4f10b-5f65-4cff-a424-080f1f9a4ca8 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:787ac87c-9042-4072-9ab4-e1687e06d4da at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the
embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will occur
in
Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of
light
to
exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of
motion
may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest
relative
to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train
which
is
physically
impossible if the embankment frame of reference
and
the
train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional
space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A and
B
exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on
opposite
sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment
and
the
corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The
arrows
represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed from
the
embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and A'
exist
at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the
lightning
strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three
dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the
line
A
and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like
after
the
lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving away
from
the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M simultaneously,
the
light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A' was a
single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike and A
and
M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this
requires
the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It is
either
that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making the
embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and B'
to
M
and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity of
Simultaneity.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train
experiment
or
relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of
Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which intersects
the
two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of Simultaneity
to
be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but your
choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed. Your
set-up
is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B stay
equal
as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at M'
on
the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning strikes
at
A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at 12:00:00.
It
takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one second
for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means that
it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light fronts
to
reach.
Ken Seto
Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of
reference
are moving relative to one another.
Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M.
According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario whether it
is
M
or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one cannot
tell
how
the clock rate relate at all.
That's why IRT has two equations for the rate of an observed clock.
And why it is useless
Fucking idiot....when you compare two clocks the following will
happen:
1. they are running at the same rate.
2. A is running at a faster rate than B.
3. B is running slower than A.
[/quote]
Not in SR.
[quote]There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict
that A is running slow.
[/quote]
They are both running at the same rate in their own frame. They are both
measured as slow from any other frame.
[quote]One for the observed clock to run slow and the other for the obsrved
clock to run faster than the observer's clock.
Yes that's right.
[/quote]
So its useless. It cannot say what will happen
[quote]And in this case, you don't know which will happen.
Yes you don't know which will happen and that's why you have two
equations....and two soultions for the observed clock.
[/quote]
There's an infinite number of solutions between those two., as there's an
infinite number of possible absolute motion the two objects can have
[quote]You will have
to do both calculation to see which prediction is correct.
[/quote]
And how do you know which one is correct?
[quote]And, of course, it can be any of an infinite number of values because not
only do we not know which has the greater absolute motion,
Fucking idiot there is only one Fab fr the observed clock.
[/quote]
And we don't know what it is
[quote]If the
observed clock is running slow then it is running slow by a factor of
Fab/Faa.
[/quote]
And we don't know what they are
[quote]If the observed clock is running fast then it is running fast by a
factor of Faa/Fab.
[/quote]
And how do you measure any of that .. how do you make any quantitavive
prediction. Answer: you can't
[quote]You are so fucking stuid.
[/quote]
I'll leave the stupidity to you and your theory. Its total crap. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0e1ce719-0119-47c2-94b0-c6188b669068 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 6, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32f4f10b-5f65-4cff-a424-080f1f9a4ca8 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:787ac87c-9042-4072-9ab4-e1687e06d4da at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the
embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will
occur
in
Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of
light
to
exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of
motion
may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest
relative
to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train
which
is
physically
impossible if the embankment frame of
reference
and
the
train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional
space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A
and
B
exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on
opposite
sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment
and
the
corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The
arrows
represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed
from
the
embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and
A'
exist
at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the
lightning
strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three
dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the
line
A
and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like
after
the
lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving
away
from
the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of
reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously,
the
light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A'
was a
single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike
and A
and
M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this
requires
the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It
is
either
that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making
the
embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and
B'
to
M
and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity
of
Simultaneity.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train
experiment
or
relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of
Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which
intersects
the
two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of
Simultaneity
to
be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but
your
choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed.
Your
set-up
is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B
stay
equal
as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at
M'
on
the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning
strikes
at
A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at
12:00:00.
It
takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one
second
for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means
that
it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light
fronts
to
reach.
Ken Seto
Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of
reference
are moving relative to one another.
Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M.
According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario whether
it
is
M
or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one cannot
tell
how
the clock rate relate at all.
That's why IRT has two equations for the rate of an observed clock.
And why it is useless
Fucking idiot....when you compare two clocks the following will
happen:
1. they are running at the same rate.
2. A is running at a faster rate than B.
3. B is running slower than A.
Not in SR.
That's the point....SR is wrong.
[/quote]
Nope. If it is ... show how and why. So far you're just babbling nonsense
[quote]There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict
that A is running slow.
They are both running at the same rate in their own frame. They are both
measured as slow from any other frame.
Hey idiot.....it is meaningless to say that they both are running at
the same rate in their own frame....
[/quote]
In SR there is no slowing of clocks in their own frame in SR.
In LET there is, as movement through the aether physically slows all clocks
and processes in their own frames, but you can't notice the slowing because
everything is slowed by the same amount.
Your IRT, which is just a bastardized non-working version of LET, has the
same behavior as LET wrt movement in the aether and clocks.
[quote]in case you are too stupid to
understand (Oh...I forgot you are really that stupid) you can't
compared the rate of your clock with your own clock.
[/quote]
So it will seem as if the clocks are ticking at the correct rate to an
observer co-moving with the clock .. but REALLY the clock is slower (in LET
or IRT)
[quote]There is no
measurement done....
[/quote]
There has been
[quote]SR predicts that the observed clock is running
slow.
[/quote]
SR predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And that is
what we find experimentally.
LET also predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And that
is what we find experimentally.
IRT says it might be measured as fast, might be measured as slow, might be
measured as the same. We can't tell what it will be, and it does not
preserve the principle of relativity. So its useless and impotent. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| kenseto... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 3:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 8:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
[quote]"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0e1ce719-0119-47c2-94b0-c6188b669068 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32f4f10b-5f65-4cff-a424-080f1f9a4ca8 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:787ac87c-9042-4072-9ab4-e1687e06d4da at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to the
embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will
occur
in
Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation of
light
to
exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea of
motion
may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at rest
relative
to the
embankment and at rest relative to the train
which
is
physically
impossible if the embankment frame of
reference
and
the
train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional
space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line A
and
B
exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist on
opposite
sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the embankment
and
the
corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The
arrows
represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed
from
the
embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A and
A'
exist
at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the
lightning
strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in three
dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to the
line
A
and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look like
after
the
lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving
away
from
the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of
reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously,
the
light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A'
was a
single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike
and A
and
M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But this
requires
the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer. It
is
either
that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M', making
the
embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A' and
B'
to
M
and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in Relativity
of
Simultaneity.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train
experiment
or
relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of
Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which
intersects
the
two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of
Simultaneity
to
be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist, but
your
choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed.
Your
set-up
is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B
stay
equal
as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer at
M'
on
the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning
strikes
at
A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at
12:00:00.
It
takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one
second
for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means
that
it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light
fronts
to
reach.
Ken Seto
Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of
reference
are moving relative to one another.
Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M.
According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario whether
it
is
M
or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one cannot
tell
how
the clock rate relate at all.
That's why IRT has two equations for the rate of an observed clock.
And why it is useless
Fucking idiot....when you compare two clocks the following will
happen:
1. they are running at the same rate.
2. A is running at a faster rate than B.
3. B is running slower than A.
Not in SR.
That's the point....SR is wrong.
Nope. If it is ... show how and why. So far you're just babbling nonsense
There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict
that A is running slow.
They are both running at the same rate in their own frame. They are both
measured as slow from any other frame.
Hey idiot.....it is meaningless to say that they both are running at
the same rate in their own frame....
In SR there is no slowing of clocks in their own frame in SR.
[/quote]
That's why SR is a bunch of bull. Is there no limit to your stupidity?
You can't compared the rate of a clock with itself to reach a
conclusion that it is running slow or fast!!!!
[quote]In LET there is, as movement through the aether physically slows all clocks
and processes in their own frames, but you can't notice the slowing because
everything is slowed by the same amount.
[/quote]
Fucking idiot....LET uses the ether frame to do prediction. That's why
a LET observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
SR also uses the ether frame to do calculations....but SR calls the
ether frame as an inertial frame. BTW that's why SR and LET have the
same math.
[quote]Your IRT, which is just a bastardized non-working version of LET, has the
same behavior as LET wrt movement in the aether and clocks.
[/quote]
You are so fucking stupid
[quote]
in case you are too stupid to
understand (Oh...I forgot you are really that stupid) you can't
compared the rate of your clock with your own clock.
So it will seem as if the clocks are ticking at the correct rate to an
observer co-moving with the clock .. but REALLY the clock is slower (in LET
or IRT)
There is no
measurement done....
There has been
SR predicts that the observed clock is running
slow.
SR predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And that is
what we find experimentally.
[/quote]
No....only those clocks that were originated from the SR observer's
frame are running slow. For those clcok that were not originated from
the observer we don't know if it is running slow or fast compared to
the observer's clock.
[quote]
LET also predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And that
is what we find experimentally.
IRT says it might be measured as fast, might be measured as slow, might be
measured as the same. We can't tell what it will be, and it does not
preserve the principle of relativity. So its useless and impotent.
[/quote]
You don't know what IRT says. you are a stupid human being.
Ken Seto |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:14 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
[/quote]
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper contained in a glass container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and conclude the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before each reached the, both conclude the wave the pebble
created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both conclude the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, would conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. He is incorrect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
[/quote]
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper enclosed in a container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the Observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and concludes the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before the wave reached each of them, both conclude the wave
the pebble created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both
conclude the wave traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, and conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. He is incorrect. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| PD... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 6:56 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 6, 7:27 pm, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[quote][more of the same]
[/quote]
Ken's loop:
"SR says the following things, and that's why it's wrong."
"But Ken, SR doesn't say those things."
"That's because SR is wrong." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 1:42 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper enclosed in a container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the Observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and concludes the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before the wave reached each of them, both conclude the wave
the pebble created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both
conclude the wave traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, and conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. He is incorrect.
[/quote]
If the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference
share the same three dimensional space and the idea of motion may not
be applied to the aether, then everything is at rest relative to the
train frame of reference and everything is at rest relative to the
embankment frame of reference, relative to this shared space. For the
three dimensional space the two frames share to be at rest relative to
both frames is physically impossible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kenseto" <kenseto at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:b16ae8a8-5d1a-4250-afe8-e35eb89f676c at (no spam) f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 6, 8:39 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:0e1ce719-0119-47c2-94b0-c6188b669068 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:32f4f10b-5f65-4cff-a424-080f1f9a4ca8 at (no spam) a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:787ac87c-9042-4072-9ab4-e1687e06d4da at (no spam) m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 7:12 pm, "Inertial" <relativ... at (no spam) rest.com> wrote:
"kenseto" <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote in message
news:58559b17-56a0-454c-a202-8884aa94d656 at (no spam) a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 9:13 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 8:37 am, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 1:16 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 3, 12:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 2, 9:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 2, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 11:20 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:57 pm, Bruce Richmond
bsr3... at (no spam) my-deja.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 10:13 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Nov 1, 7:32 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:49 am, mpc755
mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
If the aether is stationary relative to
the
embankment and stationary
relative to the train, this is what will
occur
in
Einstein's train
thought experiment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyWTaXMElUk
Einstein says in order for the propagation
of
light
to
exist there
must be aether. Einstein also says the idea
of
motion
may not be
applied to aether.
I conclude this means aether must be at
rest
relative
to the
embankment and at rest relative to the
train
which
is
physically
impossible if the embankment frame of
reference
and
the
train frame of
reference occupy the same three dimensional
space.
mpc755 train thought experiment.
The train is moving perpendicular to the line
A
and
B
exist on.
The train is wide enough that A' and B' exist
on
opposite
sides of the
aisle.
Here is an image of the train and the
embankment
and
the
corresponding
locations prior to the lightning strikes. The
arrows
represent the
train moving towards the embankment as viewed
from
the
embankment
frame of reference:
A-----M-----B
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A'----M'----B'
When the lightning strike occurs at A/A', A
and
A'
exist
at the same
point in three dimensional space. When the
lightning
strike occurs at
B/B', B and B' exist at the same point in
three
dimensional space.
The train continues to move perpendicular to
the
line
A
and B exist on
after the lightning strikes.
This is what the embankment and train look
like
after
the
lightning
strikes. The arrows indicate the train moving
away
from
the embankment
as viewed from the embankment frame of
reference:
A'----M'----B'
^ ^ ^
| | |
| | |
A-----M-----B
If the light from A and B reaches M
simultaneously,
the
light from A'
and B' reaches M' simultaneously because A/A'
was a
single lightning
strike and B/B' was a single lightning strike
and A
and
M, B and M, A'
and M', and B' and M' are equi-distant. But
this
requires
the light to
travel from four locations to each Observer.
It
is
either
that or the
light travels from A and B to M and M',
making
the
embankment the
preferred frame or the light travels from A'
and
B'
to
M
and M',
making the train the preferred frame.
I don't think this can be resolved in
Relativity
of
Simultaneity.
This has nothing to do with Einstein's train
experiment
or
relative
simultaneity.
It has everything to do with Relativity of
Simultaneity.
Nope, wrong set-up.
Observers must be traveling along the line which
intersects
the
two
lightning strikes in order for Relativity of
Simultaneity
to
be
correct?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Nope. Relativity of Simultaneity would still exist,
but
your
choice
of event locations would not allow it to be observed.
Your
set-up
is
the special case where the distances from M' to A and B
stay
equal
as
M' passes between them.
When the Observer at M on the embankment and the Observer
at
M'
on
the
train pass one another at the instant of the lightning
strikes
at
A/A'
and B/B' the Observers synchronize their watches at
12:00:00.
It
takes
one second for the light from A and B to reach M and one
second
for
the light from A' and B' to reach M'.
No M' clock is running slower than M's clock....that means
that
it
takes (1/Gamma seconds on the train clock) for the light
fronts
to
reach.
Ken Seto
Why is M' clock running slower than Ms clock? Both frames of
reference
are moving relative to one another.
Because M' is in a higher state of absolute motion than M.
According to your theory one cannot tell from the scenario
whether
it
is
M
or M' that is in a higher state of absolute motion. So one
cannot
tell
how
the clock rate relate at all.
That's why IRT has two equations for the rate of an observed
clock.
And why it is useless
Fucking idiot....when you compare two clocks the following will
happen:
1. they are running at the same rate.
2. A is running at a faster rate than B.
3. B is running slower than A.
Not in SR.
That's the point....SR is wrong.
Nope. If it is ... show how and why. So far you're just babbling
nonsense
There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict
that A is running slow.
They are both running at the same rate in their own frame. They are
both
measured as slow from any other frame.
Hey idiot.....it is meaningless to say that they both are running at
the same rate in their own frame....
In SR there is no slowing of clocks in their own frame in SR.
That's why SR is a bunch of bull.
[/quote]
A 'bunch of bull' that correctly predicts experimental results. Your
so-called theory can't do anything because it is just an incomplete and
broken version of LET
[quote]Is there no limit to your stupidity?
[/quote]
You keep asking, and I keep telling you it is a very low limit. Way below
yours
[quote]You can't compared the rate of a clock with itself to reach a
conclusion that it is running slow or fast!!!!
[/quote]
No .. I didn't. You are the one who claims clocks actually run slower when
in absolutie motion, that their clocks seconds have different amounts of
absolute time. You don't even know what your theory says. Sad
[quote]In LET there is, as movement through the aether physically slows all
clocks
and processes in their own frames, but you can't notice the slowing
because
everything is slowed by the same amount.
Fucking idiot....LET uses the ether frame to do prediction.
[/quote]
Wrong again
[quote]That's why
a LET observer's clock is the fastest running clock in the universe.
[/quote]
No .. its not.
[quote]SR also uses the ether frame to do calculations....
[/quote]
Wrong again
[quote]but SR calls the
ether frame as an inertial frame.
[/quote]
Wrong .. there is no aether frame in SR .. there is no aether in SR
[quote]BTW that's why SR and LET have the
same math.
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]Your IRT, which is just a bastardized non-working version of LET, has the
same behavior as LET wrt movement in the aether and clocks.
You are so fucking stupid
[/quote]
You're in no position to judge
[quote]in case you are too stupid to
understand (Oh...I forgot you are really that stupid) you can't
compared the rate of your clock with your own clock.
So it will seem as if the clocks are ticking at the correct rate to an
observer co-moving with the clock .. but REALLY the clock is slower (in
LET
or IRT)
There is no
measurement done....
There has been
SR predicts that the observed clock is running
slow.
SR predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And that is
what we find experimentally.
No....
[/quote]
Wrong
[quote]only those clocks that were originated from the SR observer's
frame are running slow. For those clcok that were not originated from
the observer we don't know if it is running slow or fast compared to
the observer's clock.
[/quote]
What a load of crap you come out with in order to maintain your lies
[quote]LET also predicts a moving clock will be measured as running slow. And
that
is what we find experimentally.
IRT says it might be measured as fast, might be measured as slow, might
be
measured as the same. We can't tell what it will be, and it does not
preserve the principle of relativity. So its useless and impotent.
You don't know what IRT says.
I seem to udnerstand it better than you do .. which is sad[/quote]
[quote]you are a stupid human being.
[/quote]
I don't think you qualify as a human being |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Inertial... |
| Posted: Sat Nov 07, 2009 5:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"PD" <thedraperfamily at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0e7ffedb-d96d-47d5-88bf-7a97ed02193b at (no spam) k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
[quote]On Nov 6, 7:27 pm, kenseto <kens... at (no spam) erinet.com> wrote:
[more of the same]
Ken's loop:
"SR says the following things, and that's why it's wrong."
"But Ken, SR doesn't say those things."
"That's because SR is wrong."
[/quote]
Nice summary. We also get this line of argument.
"IRT says the following things, and that's why it's right."
"But Ken, IRT doesn't say those things."
"Idiot." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper enclosed in a container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the Observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and concludes the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before the wave reached each of them, both conclude the wave
the pebble created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both
conclude the wave traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, and conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. He is incorrect.
If the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference
share the same three dimensional space and the idea of motion may not
be applied to the aether, then everything is at rest relative to the
train frame of reference and everything is at rest relative to the
embankment frame of reference, relative to this shared space. For the
three dimensional space the two frames share to be at rest relative to
both frames is physically impossible.
[/quote]
Three Observers get together. Two on the embankment and one on the
train. One Observer is at A and on Observer is at M on the embankment.
The Observer on the train is located at a point between M' and B' on
the train. I will call this location C'. The experiment is setup so
the light from A will reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'
when they are located as close to each other as possible in three
dimensional space. The Observers use equal and opposite energies to
get to their appropriate locations.
The embankment begins to move in the direction towards the Observer at
C' and the train begins to move in the direction towards A. The
Observer at A sends out a flash of light from behind a cross-cut of a
steel I bar. The light reaches the Observer at M. At this instant the
light reaches the Observer at C'. The Observer at M and the Observer
at C' capture an image of the I bar. When the Observers get back
together they compare images of the pictures they took of the I bar.
Both images are identical in terms of the size of the I bar in the
image. Meaning, the light traveled from the same location in three
dimensional space, relative to the aether, to both the Observer at M
and the Observer at C'. The light took the same amount of time to
reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 4:36 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper enclosed in a container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the Observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and concludes the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before the wave reached each of them, both conclude the wave
the pebble created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both
conclude the wave traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, and conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. He is incorrect.
If the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference
share the same three dimensional space and the idea of motion may not
be applied to the aether, then everything is at rest relative to the
train frame of reference and everything is at rest relative to the
embankment frame of reference, relative to this shared space. For the
three dimensional space the two frames share to be at rest relative to
both frames is physically impossible.
Three Observers get together. Two on the embankment and one on the
train. One Observer is at A and on Observer is at M on the embankment.
The Observer on the train is located at a point between M' and B' on
the train. I will call this location C'. The experiment is setup so
the light from A will reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'
when they are located as close to each other as possible in three
dimensional space. The Observers use equal and opposite energies to
get to their appropriate locations.
The embankment begins to move in the direction towards the Observer at
C' and the train begins to move in the direction towards A. The
Observer at A sends out a flash of light from behind a cross-cut of a
steel I bar. The light reaches the Observer at M. At this instant the
light reaches the Observer at C'. The Observer at M and the Observer
at C' capture an image of the I bar. When the Observers get back
together they compare images of the pictures they took of the I bar.
Both images are identical in terms of the size of the I bar in the
image. Meaning, the light traveled from the same location in three
dimensional space, relative to the aether, to both the Observer at M
and the Observer at C'. The light took the same amount of time to
reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'.
[/quote]
The Observer at A and the Observer at M are 0.1 light year apart from
each other. The embankment and train are moving at 0.9 'c' relative to
one another. At the time of the flash of light from behind the I bar A
is 1 light year from C'. One light year later M and C' are as close
together in three dimensional space as possible. The Observer at M and
the Observer at C' are holding mirrors and reflect the I bar images
back to the Observer at A. Are the I bar images the same size as seen
by the Observer at A? In AD they are because the light wave has
traveled at 'c' from the point in three dimensional space where the
flash was emitted by the Observer at A, relative to the aether. The
light wave was reflected by the Observer at M and the Observer at C'
from the same point in three dimensional space and traveled back to
the Observer at A at 'c' relative to the aether. In AD, the light wave
travels the same distance from A to M and back to A as it does from A
to C' and back to A. In AD, it is a light wave traveling relative to
the aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mpc755... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 6:12 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 8, 9:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 8, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
There is only one aether. The aether is at rest relative to the train.
When a pebble is dropped into the pool, the center of the pool is at A/
A'. When the wave reaches the Observer at M, the Observer at M
correctly measures the distance the wave traveled as the distance M
was from A' when the wave was detected.
There is only one aether. If the aether is at rest relative to the
embankment and a lightning strike occurs at A/A' the light wave
propagates outward at 'c' from A. When an Observer, regardless of
frame of reference, sees the light it has traveled from where A *is*.
If Observers on the train or the embankment do not know their state of
motion relative to the aether, they may approximate where the light
originated from by measuring to marks left on the embankment or left
on the train. If the Observer on the embankment concludes the
lightning strikes occurred simultaneously and the Observer on the
train concludes the lightning strike at B' occurred prior to the
lightning strike at A', then one or both of the Observers is
incorrect.
Light does not travel at 'c' relative to frames of reference. Light
travels at 'c' relative to the aether. When an Observer sees the
light, the light wave will have traveled at 'c' to the Observer
relative to the aether.
The problem with Einstein's train thought experiment is in order for
the Observer on the train to measure to A' and for the Observer on the
embankment to measure to A and for both measurements to be accurate,
the aether must be at rest relative to the train and at rest relative
to the embankment which is physically impossible if both frames
intersect and occupy the same three dimensional space.
The aether is the preferred frame.
The idea of motion may be applied to the aether.
This one is not mine:
"Aether is the preferred relation to the frame considered"
A boat is moving through the water at 50ft per minute. It is pulling a
platform 2ft behind it containing a pebble several feet above a sheet
of paper enclosed in a container. The pebble is dropped through
the paper and into the water. The ripple the pebble makes in the water
propagates outward from the point it was dropped into the water at
52ft per minute. One minute later, the wave the pebble made when it
was dropped into the water reaches the boat. How far did the wave
travel to the boat? 2ft or 52ft? How far does an Observer on the boat
determine the wave the pebble created traveled to the boat and how
much time does the Observer on the boat determine the wave took to
reach the boat? The Observer on the boat determines the wave took 1
minute and traveled 52ft to reach the boat and concludes the wave
traveled at 52ft per minute. An Observer sitting stationary relative
to the water is 52ft from the pebble's entry point into the water. The
Observer who is stationary relative to the water determines the pebble
took 1 minute to reach where the Observer in the water is and traveled
52ft to where the Observer in the water is and traveled at 52ft per
minute.
Since the Observer in the boat frame of reference and the Observer in
the water frame of reference both know how they are moving relative to
the water, they both conclude the pebble was dropped into the water 1
minute before the wave reached each of them, both conclude the wave
the pebble created in the water traveled 52ft to them, and both
conclude the wave traveled at 52ft per minute.
If the Observer on the boat did not realize his frame of reference
existed in moving water, the Observer would measure to the mark left
in the sheet of paper when determining where the pebble was dropped
into the water, and conclude the wave traveled 2ft to reach the
boat. Since the Observer on the boat knows waves in water always
travel at 52ft per minute in all frames of reference he concludes the
pebble was dropped into the water just seconds ago. This is incorrect.
If the train frame of reference and the embankment frame of reference
share the same three dimensional space and the idea of motion may not
be applied to the aether, then everything is at rest relative to the
train frame of reference and everything is at rest relative to the
embankment frame of reference, relative to this shared space. For the
three dimensional space the two frames share to be at rest relative to
both frames is physically impossible.
Three Observers get together. Two on the embankment and one on the
train. One Observer is at A and on Observer is at M on the embankment.
The Observer on the train is located at a point between M' and B' on
the train. I will call this location C'. The experiment is setup so
the light from A will reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'
when they are located as close to each other as possible in three
dimensional space. The Observers use equal and opposite energies to
get to their appropriate locations.
The embankment begins to move in the direction towards the Observer at
C' and the train begins to move in the direction towards A. The
Observer at A sends out a flash of light from behind a cross-cut of a
steel I bar. The light reaches the Observer at M. At this instant the
light reaches the Observer at C'. The Observer at M and the Observer
at C' capture an image of the I bar. When the Observers get back
together they compare images of the pictures they took of the I bar.
Both images are identical in terms of the size of the I bar in the
image. Meaning, the light traveled from the same location in three
dimensional space, relative to the aether, to both the Observer at M
and the Observer at C'. The light took the same amount of time to
reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C'.
The Observer at A and the Observer at M are 0.1 light year apart from
each other. The embankment and train are moving at 0.9 'c' relative to
one another. At the time of the flash of light from behind the I bar A
is 1 light year from C'. One light year later M and C' are as close
together in three dimensional space as possible. The Observer at M and
the Observer at C' are holding mirrors and reflect the I bar images
back to the Observer at A. Are the I bar images the same size as seen
by the Observer at A? In AD they are because the light wave has
traveled at 'c' from the point in three dimensional space where the
flash was emitted by the Observer at A, relative to the aether. The
light wave was reflected by the Observer at M and the Observer at C'
from the same point in three dimensional space and traveled back to
the Observer at A at 'c' relative to the aether. In AD, the light wave
travels the same distance from A to M and back to A as it does from A
to C' and back to A. In AD, it is a light wave traveling relative to
the aether.
[/quote]
When the light wave is reflected by M and C' and travels back to A,
there is an Observer at D' on the train who is located right next to A
when the light wave reaches A. In SR, the image of the I bar that
travels from A to C' back to D' and the image of the I bar that
travels from A to M back to D' is smaller than the image of the I bar
that travels from A to C' back to A and the image of the I bar that
travels from A to M back to A. This is all because in SR, you get to
choose the size of the I bar depending upon where the light wave winds
up. Since D' is in the train frame of reference the distance from A to
C' back to D' and the distance from A to M back to D' is over 1 light
year, while the distance from A to C' back to A and the distance from
A to M back to A is 0.2 or less light years.
In AD, the images are identical because the light wave travels at 'c'
relative to the aether. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Wed Dec 09, 2009 7:28 am
|
|