A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 11:56 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... > 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. Well, of course, if the speed of light were not c, Maxwell's equations would have to be replaced with the ones that support a frame-dependent speed of light.
From: JT on 24 Feb 2010 12:32 On 24 Feb, 17:56, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.... > > 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. > > Well, of course, if the speed of light were not c, Maxwell's equations > would have to be replaced with the ones that support a frame-dependent > speed of light.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - What is going on did the con artists get into a fistfight with the jugglers, over the definition of the banana the monkey deity is holding? Nah bananas is yellow and turds are brown they can have any lengths and smel [sniff,sniff.....] meters are units they only come in one flavour and without color. JT
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 12:37 On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time > dilation. On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations. Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on." That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However, among those models that have been tested and which do purport to account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same thing this very day. PD
From: PD on 24 Feb 2010 12:42 On Feb 24, 11:32 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 24 Feb, 17:56, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.... > > > 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. > > > Well, of course, if the speed of light were not c, Maxwell's equations > > would have to be replaced with the ones that support a frame-dependent > > speed of light.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > What is going on did the con artists get into a fistfight with the > jugglers, over the definition of the banana the monkey deity is > holding? > > Nah bananas is yellow and turds are brown they can have any lengths > and smel [sniff,sniff.....] meters are units they only come in one > flavour and without color. > > JT Stop simpering for attention. You're not that interesting.
From: JT on 24 Feb 2010 12:50
On 24 Feb, 17:56, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.... > > 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. > > Well, of course, if the speed of light were not c, Maxwell's equations > would have to be replaced with the ones that support a frame-dependent > speed of light.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well then you should do it now, it is proved beyond doubt in "STEREO" that light speed is not invariant c between two points in space. JT |