A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 24 Feb 2010 10:43 On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > On 2/24/2010 3:19 AM, Androcles wrote: > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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". > > Still just a shorthand--there's no specific, known value that c is > compelled by theory to have. > > That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is > meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from your > height" or "if the population of New York was different from the > population of New York". You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c". Instead of saying "if the velocity of light is different from c..." you should rather say "if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured maximum possible speed of information transfer..." These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you into semantic contortions. Jerry
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 10:59 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' with respect to the aether 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 the barn is traveling at close to 'c' with respect to the aether 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.
From: Androcles on 24 Feb 2010 11:01 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:7eb767cf-4880-4ede-9a65-4e3f895ca755(a)g23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com... On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c". > > Instead of saying > "if the velocity of light is different from c..." > you should rather say > "if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured > maximum possible speed of information transfer..." > > These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have > unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you > into semantic contortions. > =============================================== All speeds are relative, light is no exception; you two are creating puns and are VERY DIFFERENT IDIOTS.
From: Paul Stowe on 24 Feb 2010 11:22 On Feb 24, 7:43 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Feb 24, 6:44 am, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On 2/24/2010 3:19 AM, Androcles wrote: > > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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". > > > Still just a shorthand--there's no specific, known value that c is > > compelled by theory to have. > > > That's why "if the velocity of light is different from c" is > > meaningless. It's like saying "if your height was different from your > > height" or "if the population of New York was different from the > > population of New York". > > You are still confused by the PUN that exists on the term "c". > > Instead of saying > "if the velocity of light is different from c..." > you should rather say > "if the measured speed of photons is different from the measured > maximum possible speed of information transfer..." > > These are two VERY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS which, since they have > unfortunately become rolled up into one term, are leading you > into semantic contortions. > > Jerry Indeed! There is a very big and distinct difference between saying "the measured speed of light" (c) and "the speed of light". Logic dictates that, if the measured speed of light is, actually, equal TO the speed of light, AND! speed is additive (v' = v1 + v2), you must have the ballistic model of c + v/c - v for any speed v > 0. If, instead if c is independent of motion and invariant the any round trip transit of light in a moving system 'actually' increases by g (1/ Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)). Then, in turn, if these ray paths also increase by this same factor the resultant is that the speed is measured as the same. It's not, but the measurer's time and distances are dilated in such a manner as to provide such an illusion. It is mathematically equivalent to declare that light speed c in any moving frame changes, (slows) relative to the observer by c/g... Couple this with the observable CMBR and Doppler shifts relative to it, and you can determine the absolute velocity and actual speed of light for any and all systems in our universe. The resultant is just as physically viable as SR. Paul Stowe
From: Jerry on 24 Feb 2010 11:50
On Feb 24, 3:13 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > >> news:0baac22d-ad06-4136-b1b2-d7144955080f(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com... >> 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. For the speed of light c not to equal the universal speed limit d would mean only that Maxwell's equations need to be replaced by Proca's equations, which allow for the possibility of a massive photon. If such were the case, you could no more measure your absolute speed through the aether using light than my imaginary beings in the alternate universe could measure their absolute speed against neutrinos or, for that matter, against speeding locomotives. Fortunately, the speed of light c DOES seem to equal the universal speed limit d to an accuracy of at least 10^-16. http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/39867717.html The minor discrepancy noted in the Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope measurements could simply be a reflection of our ignorance concerning the mechanism of gamma ray bursts, or (more exciting) could be indicative of quantum foam effects. Even if confirmed, these results should not be misconstrued as any sort of disproof of SRT within its classical domain of applicability. Jerry |