A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 25 Feb 2010 09:03 On Feb 25, 7:25 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> We seem to be using different understandings of the term >> "Galilean relativity". To me, Galilean Relativity requires that >> c = infinity, and imply the validity of the Galilean transforms, >> rather than the Lorentz transforms. This would be the meaning >> understood by the great majority of (legitimate) posters on these >> newsgroups.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation > > _________________________ > We do: By the term Galilean Relativity I am referring to the principle that > dynamics looks the same in all inertial frames, first enunciated by Galileo > using thought experiments involving dropping balls on moving ships. It still > stands at the bedrock of physics. > > "The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by > Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World > Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo's ship. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)." We -both- need to be corrected. Galilean -relativity- is not dependent on any value of c. The Galilean -transforms- are dependent on c = infinity. Jerry
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 09:19 On Feb 25, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f65fe091-2c6e-4a1d-9c50-21872decd4c7(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ________________________________ > 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 moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and length is physical, the ladder will fit into the barn. If the barn is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and length is physical, the ladder will not fit into the bar. There is no evidence the twin on the spaceship will age less. If the spaceship is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, the atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' faster than a similar clock on the Earth, but there is no evidence as to how the increase in aether pressure on the twin due to the speed of the spaceship will effect the twin.
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 09:22 On Feb 25, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f65fe091-2c6e-4a1d-9c50-21872decd4c7(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ________________________________ > 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 moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and length contraction is physical, the ladder will fit into the barn. If the barn is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and length contraction is physical, the ladder will not fit into the bar. There is no evidence the twin on the spaceship will age less. If the spaceship is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, the atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower than a similar clock on the Earth, but there is no evidence as to how the increase in aether pressure on the twin in the spaceship will effect the twin.
From: Androcles on 25 Feb 2010 10:12 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:b966f8db-8728-4d2b-a731-3fa6228a36d8(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 25, 7:25 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> We seem to be using different understandings of the term >> "Galilean relativity". To me, Galilean Relativity requires that >> c = infinity, and imply the validity of the Galilean transforms, >> rather than the Lorentz transforms. This would be the meaning >> understood by the great majority of (legitimate) posters on these >> newsgroups.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation > > _________________________ > We do: By the term Galilean Relativity I am referring to the principle > that > dynamics looks the same in all inertial frames, first enunciated by > Galileo > using thought experiments involving dropping balls on moving ships. It > still > stands at the bedrock of physics. > > "The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by > Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World > Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo's ship. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)." We -both- need to be corrected. Galilean -relativity- is not dependent on any value of c. The Galilean -transforms- are dependent on c = infinity. ======================================= You are INSANE!
From: Paul Stowe on 25 Feb 2010 10:34
On Feb 25, 1:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > And on this point, I've repeatedly maintained that it isn't. All > > you've offered in the converse is a quote by Einstein that it is. > > No, I've also referred you to the works of Kuhn and Lakatos. And > indeed, the very method that you describe involves formulating a > theory and then testing its predictions - in other words, the tests > that are carried out are constrained by the predictions made by the > theory. One would be unlikely to test for something that the theory > does not predict in the first place. > ____________________________ > Thus demonstrating you also have no understanding whatsoever of the > scientific method or these philosophers. The whole point of testing through > experiment is to look for places where the theory might break down, not > places where you have tested similar things in the past. The idea is to try > and disprove the theory, and through failure, demonstrate it is true. This > is the complete opposite to what you say. > > The sad fact that even you must acknowledge - and tell us if you don't - is > that SR is routinely tested every day of the year in wildly diverse > environments such as particle accelerators, GPS units, astronomy, and space > exploration. All completely independent ways of testing, and some giving > very highg precision indeed. > > Like it or not, the equations of SR are obviously correct. And like it or not the equations of SR are not original and unique TO SR... Both Lorentz and Poincare published the prior to Einstein. What is unique to SR is the metaphysical interpretation (PoR & RoS). > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some philosophical > interpretation of what is "really" going on. So what? That all Einstein brought to the table! > This is a task you are poorly > prepared to do, as you don't understand the current (dominant) > interpretation of what is really going on, which is Minkowski space-time. It > is (when you understand it) a very simple model which explains a great deal > of the physics very simply - in particular the Energy and Momentum of a > particle. Frankly, you are not going to find a mental model of SR which is > better or simpler than Minkowski space-time, I very much doubt one exists at > all. Everyone speaks of wanting unification but their actions say otherwise... Simplification to the point of the loss of critical information is not 'right' or helpful. I believe it was Einstein that said something to that effect also. > Your disbelief of SR stems from the fact that you don't understand it. > That's because you are lazy; you seem intelligent enough to learn it if you > wanted. However, jumping from you don't understand SR to therefore > physicists are all wrong shows an almighty conceit on your part. Just > because you are an idiot doesn't mean every physicist in the world is as > well. Why does people like you think that? Please provide heo quotes or references that indicates disbelief. And the is a big difference in saying that modern physics metaphysics is 'all wrong' and saying one does buy or experimental data is. > If you really don't believe that SR has been massively and overwhelmingly > been "proved" by experimental evidence, just say so, and I will dig up a > list of experimental proofs for you. OK, what's the difference in saying that Lorentz/Poincare Relativity "has been massively and overwhelmingly "proved" by experimental evidence"? Yup, just the non-science metaphysical viewpoint. Get it yet??? > If you accept that the equations of SR are correct, then your point in all > this is ..... ? There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... Paul Stowe |