A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 03:46 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3ac37c4e-c566-460b-95eb-6aae62e04aa1(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Feb 24, 1:03 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3f587f42-1458-48b4-b995-56dd1769ce29(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 23, 11:18 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3d071cf9-0885-44d9-a3b0-2ebc4338fb16(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 23, 10:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > > > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > > > synchronized with respect to each other. > > > > ___________________________ > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you > > > think > > > it exists at all? > > > I have explained this to you at least 10 times. If you want to know > > how it works out with respect to the aether read the posts I have > > already posted in response to this question. > > > __________________________________ > > You haven't outlined an experiment which would show your speed "relative > > to > > the ether". I suggested one - you measure the speed of light in your > > local > > reference frame, > > For the 22nd time, the speed will be measured as 'c' in the local > reference frame. > > > subtract it from 'c', and this gives you your speed > > relative to the ether. You said this wouldn't work because the speed of > > light will always be measured at 'c', so this will always show you are > > at > > rest with respect to the ether. > > > So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed > > relative > > to > > the ether as being anything other than zero. > > ___________________________________________________ > So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed relative > to > the ether as being anything other than zero. Relative speed in different frames of reference with respect to the aether can be determined by the rate at which atomic clocks tick. The faster an atomic clock 'ticks' the more at rest with respect to the aether it is. _______________________________ OK. So you get two atomic clocks, and then you do what exactly? Send one into outer space, bring it back to earth, see the difference in time? If not that, what exactly?
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 03:48 > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you > > > think > > > it exists at all? > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > > respect to the aether. > > > _________________________________ > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be > determined relative to another reference frame. > > ______________________ > How? > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > pressure. > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 �s/day". > > ________________________________ > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for > GPS > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it > failed. > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect. If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick' slower? > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a > different result from SR if your theory was correct? ______________________________ Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 04:13 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:0baac22d-ad06-4136-b1b2-d7144955080f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... On Feb 24, 12:31 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something > magic. It's not, it's just a shorthand. The term "c" has multiple meanings. There exists a demonstrable maximum possible speed of communications, designated "c". This constant "c" is a fundamental parameter in the specification of the geometric properties of spacetime. Since this constant "c" is finite, absolute time does not exist, assuming that our universe is correctly described by this geometric model. Light happens to travel at a speed which is either equal to "c" in the sense presented above, or which is so close to "c" that no measurement has yet established any detectable difference. This "speed of light" is conventionally ALSO designated by "c", which represents unfortunate historical baggage reflecting the manner in which relativity developed. Should the speed of light ever be discovered not to precisely equal "c" (and there is some controversial evidence that this may be the case for high energy gamma rays), this will have NO CONSEQUENCE WHATSOEVER in regards to the validity of relativity, since the "c" which is the speed of light is not the same "c" which determines the properties of spacetime. ___________________________________ Although I agree with most everything else you have written in your post, not unfortunately the above. Light does have something of a priveleged position in SR, because if the Universal speed limit (lets call it d) was not equal to c, then Galileo's principle of relativity would be damaged or broken. Specifically, we know from Maxwells eqns that a light wave viewed in a different reference frame has a wavelength that transforms according to Lorentz using 'c'. If other matter used 'd', you could determine your absulute speed through the ether by measuring the wavelength of light which varies by c with a metre rule which varies as d.
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 07:53 Yes but in reality the theory itself is not applied independently of human intervention. As I say, if a theory is subtly given lots of leeway and lots of room for interpretation, and if the opportunities for definitive tests are relatively limited, then it's possible that it will be regarded as "true" even though it is not, simply because it "works" either as a sufficient approximation and/or because it only accidentally manages to account for the real variables involved. _______________________________ SR is proven to be correct every day in particle accelerators (and many other places) to a huge degree of accuracy. Arguing that the equations of SR do not work in their domain of applicability is like trying to argue the earth is flat. Airplanes fly around the world, and electrons flying around particle accelerators operate *exactly* according to SR. Your objection to SR is in many way reminiscent of people who thought the idea of a round earth "ridiculous" (to use your term) because people would fall of the other side. If you have a single alternate theory that better explains the facts, speak up. Obviously you don't; you freely admit to not understanding the mathematics of even SR, so you cannot have any alternative theory. Yet you are so conceited in your stupidity that you think SR must be wrong because you can't understand concepts like Minkowski space-time, or you think they are ludicrous. If you can't understand SR its not because Einstein, Minkowski and every other physicists since is wrong or brainwashed; its because you are stupid. HTH
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 09:33
On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you > > > > think > > > > it exists at all? > > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > > > respect to the aether. > > > > _________________________________ > > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? > > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be > > determined relative to another reference frame. > > > ______________________ > > How? > > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > > pressure. > > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 s/day". > > > ________________________________ > > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for > > GPS > > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a > > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it > > failed. > > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at > which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they > exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect. > > If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it > was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a > clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the > increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick' > slower? > > > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a > > different result from SR if your theory was correct? > > ______________________________ > Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is > different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside > a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality. If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical, will fit in the barn. If the barn is less at rest with respect to the aether and the ladder is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical, will not fit in the barn. Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with respect to the aether. If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick' has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less, and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept. |