> >> > > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 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:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 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:
> >> > > > > > > > > > > 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.
> >> Nobody said anything about the absolute state of motion of any clock. > >> Quit making things up.
> > Hey idiot....mpc755 asked me why the moving clock is running slow in > > my theory.
> Liar .. he did not- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
If you move ahead of a light beam you leave it behind and there is more space for it to travel before reaching you. Move toward light and you and the light come together faster. This is vice versa. This is the basis of relativity of simultaneity. Connectedness is at the speed of light.
> On Nov 5, 8:46 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 12:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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. 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.- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
> > - Show quoted text -
> Which puts you right back to a two aether theory which we have already > seen is impossible when one frame is passing right through the middle > of another. Sorry but I have no interest in your theory. Bye.
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. Bye.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > 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:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > 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
> > One for the observed clock to run slow and the other for the obsrved > > clock to run faster than the observer's clock.
> And in this case, you don't know which will happen.
> 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, we do not know > the direction or value of absolute motion for M and M' either.
> Your theory basically says we cannot possibly know the relative rates at > which any pair of clocks tick.
> Its useless.- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -
When time slows down for accelerating energy it is absolute.
When time slows down for falling matter it is absolute.
These are the two times. both absolute GR and SR times.
On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
> On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
> >> >> > > > > > > > > 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:
> >> >> > > > > > > > > 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.
There is no way that A predicts that B is running slow and B predict that A is running slow.
> > 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.
> 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. You will have to do both calculation to see which prediction 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. If the observed clock is running slow then it is running slow by a factor of Fab/Faa. If the observed clock is running fast then it is running fast by a factor of Faa/Fab.
> On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
> On Nov 5, 8:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 11:27 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 12:53 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 12:16 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 4, 7:57 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 4, 7:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 3, 11:38 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
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?
> 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.
> On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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"
>> >> >> > > > > > > > > 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.
>> >> >> > > > > > > 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.
> 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.
>> > 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.
> >> >> >> > > > > > > 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.
> > 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 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.
>> >> >> >> > > > > > > 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.
> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > 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.
> On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
> On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
> On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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'.
> On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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'.
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.
mpc755 wrote: > On Nov 8, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 8, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:45 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:31 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 8:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 9:07 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@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.
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. Since A is in the embankment frame of reference 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.
> On Nov 8, 9:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 8, 9:01 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 6:42 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 7, 10:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 1:02 pm, mpc755 <mpc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> 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. Since A is in the embankment frame of reference 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.
Lightning strike at B/B' as in Einstein's train thought experiment. The Observer at M is 0.1 light years from B. Observer C' on the train is 1 light year from B'. The train and embankment are moving at 0.9 light years relative to one another. The light from the lightning strike at B/B' reach the Observer at M and the Observer at C' when the observers are as close as possible in three dimensional space. The lightning strike occurs behind the cross-cut of a steal I bar.
In SR, since the light travels 0.1 light years from B to M and the light travels 1.0 light years from B' to C', the image of the I bar as seen by the Observer at M should be larger than the image of the I bar as seen by the Observer at C'.
In AD, since the light wave traveled at 'c' relative to the aether and traveled the same distance to both observers, the images of the I bar as seen by the observers should be identical.
|
