Re: The velocity of light going pass a moving train.

"Dono" <sa_ge@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1182702391.757857.176430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Jun 24, 8:54 am, "Jeckyl" <n...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is by definition. Don't you know what aberration is?


This is the root of all argument, you don't even understand the
statement of the problem.

No .. that is your problem, and has been all along.

I asked you to prove that the angle for
which the light will hit the mirror is identical to the aberration
angle

It is by definition.

You tried to do that and your solution turned up to be full of
errors.

No .. it wasn't. Yours was, however, but you managed to get to the correct
result regardless

Now that I pointed them to you, instead of addressing them you
are getting abusive, the trademark of a crackpot.

Oh .. so you admit you're a crackpot?

Only then,
as I kept telling you, can one conclude that the light always hits the
mirror in the center.
No . .we KNOW it is at the centre, because the description of the thought
experiement says it is.
But this is NOT a thought experiment,

Oh god.. you're a sad case ... Yes .. it is a thought experiment .. unless
you actually have a physical train etc.. do you not know what a thought
experiment is?

I asked you to find out the
angle that one needs to aim the light beam in order to hit the mirror
dead center.

You aim it at 90deg in the train frame.

That is then abberated when seens from the track frame

I DEMONSTRATED to you that it happens to coincide with
the aberration angle.

It doesn't "happen" to .. it must do because that is what aberration is.

You tried to do the same thing and you produced
an identical answer but your demonstration has several errors <shrug>

No .. it doesn't have a single error, let alone multiples.

2. The angle of aberration is obtained by using the only fact we need
to know about the train frame, i.e. the fact that theta_train=pi/2
From this it follows immediately that cos(theta_track)=beta
Yes .. we know you can look up the forumlas .. shame you don't understand
them
or ctg(theta_track)=beta*gammma
Yes .. I showed that as well .. the gamma comes from the time dilation.
No ned for time dilation,

Yes .. there is .. otherwise you cannot take the events in the train frame
and talk about them in the track frame.

all calculations are done in the SAME frame
(the track frame). No need to jump frames as you do in your incorrect
proof.

No .. it is YOU who jump frames without applying the Lorentz transforms.

You simply get the same angle as a result (but not the correct distance)

If you get your new vertical beam in the track frame that you've invented,
and angle it to reach the mirror, it will take longer to reach the mirror
that time t .. it will take time gamma.t .. yet in the train it will take
time t .. there is your time dilation.

3. Now, for the part that you are most unable to understand:
There is NOTHING in this example that I do not understand .. However, you
are wrong in so many areas .. its pathetic.
In the time taken by the light to travel from floor to ceiling ALONG
the Oy axis (t=h/c)
NO!!!!!!!! It is t' = h/c .. you are talking about a time in the TRAIN
frame. You are jumping frames WITHOUT applying the approriate
transforms.

Hey Jacko,

It is really simple, all calculations done in track frame:

IF light travelled vertically in the track frame it would hit the car
ceiling at t=h/c.

Yes .. but the light is vertical in the TRAIN frame.

You have now changed the whole problem.

But, if it did that, it would miss the mirror.

Yes .. so that means you are WRONG in claiming it DOES take t = h/c.

To hit the ceiling it takes t = gamma.t' = gamma.h/c

End of demonstration

By how much? By gamma*beta*h.
Therefore the light beam needs to be inclined towards the front of the
car by theta_track=actg(gammma*beta)
Wait a minute, this is exactly the aberration angle. End of
demonstration.

Yes .. because you have CHANGED the whole problem from how it was posed ..
you are now talking about a vertical beam in the track frame that you are
angling to hit the ceiling of the train.

I even restated the problem as posed several time, so it was very clear what
the problem was .. and you never said "no .. that is not the situation i am
describing"

In other words, you've dishonestly shifted the goalposts here !!

In the track frame the light does not travel a distance h to the mirror
..
it has to take a LONGER path, because the mirror is moving.

Yes, see above. I explained to you 3 different ways what the deal is
with t=h/c. Stop jumping frames and you'll understand the correct
solution.

I am not jumping frames. . you are changing the problem

[snip]
You are frame jumping again .. that is the time in the train frame
No, Jacko. This is the time in the track frame IF light were to travel
vertically (thus missing the mirror)

But it ISN'T vertical in the track frame .. it is vertical in the TRAIN
frame .. you have changed the scenario.

The time the light in the train takes to reach the roof of the train, when
seen from the track, is NOT h/c

Done. None of your time dilation BS, all calculations done in the
track frame, and, most importantly, no bogus use of the conclusion in
the demonstration.

You're a complete fool. Go back to you physics classes, and return when
you
actually UNDERSTAND the equations and formulas used.

When you start abusing it becomes clear that you have lost the
argument. Bye!

You lost a LONG time ago then


.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast