A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 14 Feb 2010 14:33 On 14 Feb, 11:08, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3a7bc432-defb-4936-b794-236b877d9cc9(a)q29g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a > > headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that > > the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a > > ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in > > all relative frames, > > Why not. it is in SR (which is consistent and correctly predicts what > happens in reality) Which is an interesting fact, and something in want of explanation as far as I'm concerned. > > and at the same time be constant when travelling > > between two objects in two different frames. > > You do realize that points exist in ALL frames. There's no such thing as > objects being in two different frames. They are all in every frame. Of course I realise that. The point I'm making is that where you're dealing with two different frames that are moving relative, the same object (i.e. the photon, or whatever) cannot physically have the same measured velocity in both. For sure, a ball can be bounced on a moving train as it is bounced on the platform, but a ball thrown from the train to the platform (i.e. what I'm calling "between frames") cannot possibly move at the same speed relative to the platform as it does relative to the train.
From: YBM on 14 Feb 2010 15:06 Ste a �crit : > Of course I realise that. The point I'm making is that where you're > dealing with two different frames that are moving relative, the same > object (i.e. the photon, or whatever) cannot physically have the same > measured velocity in both. I still can't make sense of what you intend by "physically", but what is remarquable here is that your "physically" is in contradiction with "according to experiments". Whatever you mean by "physical" it is contradictory with "reality".
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Feb 2010 15:41 On 2/14/10 9:48 AM, kenseto wrote: > On Feb 13, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >>>>> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: >>>>> Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m >>>>> long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content >>>>> for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. >> >>>> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with >>>> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light! >> >>>> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT >>>> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans >>>> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary! >> >>>> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the >>>> other way around. >> >>> ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed >>> of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny >>> that your mother is not your mother? >> >> Seto--The speed of light exist independent of human. Meter sticks >> are not require for it relativistic effects to show up. The speed >> of light has been observed as an unchanging constant for so long >> that human adopted it as part of the definition of the meter, a >> unit of distance! > > No wormy....the speed of light is a constant by definition. It is also constant (as in unchanging) without our definition, Seto! > >> >> I'm glad you get a good laugh out of that, Seto!- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - >
From: JT on 14 Feb 2010 17:54 On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 14 Feb, 14:34, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:49c69202-f525-4bba-bfa0-09b662433837(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are > > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the > > > > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion > > > > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning > > > > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water > > > > > _______________________________________ > > > > Yes. > > > > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. > > > > > __________________________________________ > > > > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference > > > > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even > > > > make > > > > any sense. > > > > Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the > > > medium in which it exists. > > > > __________________________________________ > > > No. > > > > The Observers on the train know their state > > > with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude > > > correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in > > > nature. > > > > ________________________________ > > > If by "in nature", you mean the "in the frame of reference of the earth > > > considered as an inertial frame", then yes. If "in nature" means something > > > else, perhaps you should explain exactly what "in nature" is supposed to > > > mean. > > > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect > > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest > > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes > > occurred in nature. > > Well units is comparisson measurments that is agreed upon, if observer > B,C,D,E,F is travelling different velocities but at moment X all is > aligned parallell in fron of A and all agree on length of object A > the distance to A then you deal with a *UNIT* > > Iif B,C,D,E,F all have different distance and length of A they do not > deal with units they deal with ECDT=Einstein compressed diamond turds. > In SR every *inertial frame*=set have it's own flavour of meters can > be banana, cucumber or pretty much any extension you can think of. > > Those different flavoured units make the barn and the pole paradox a > joke, actually they make it into turdjuggling. > > JT > > > > > > > If an infinite number of Observers in an infinite number of frames of > > reference all exist in the same medium in which the light waves > > propagate and all of the Observers are able to determine their state > > with respect to the state of the medium the light waves propagate > > through being at rest all of the Observers will arrive at the same > > conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred in nature. > > > Even if the Observers themselves do not exist in the same medium in > > which the light waves propagate, as long as every one of the infinite > > Observers are able to factor in the light waves propagating through > > the medium at rest, all of the Observers will arrive as to when the > > lightning strikes occurred in the medium, in nature. All of the > > Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to when the lightning > > strikes occurred. If an infinite number of Observers all arrive at the > > same conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred then the > > infinite number of Observers have determined when the lightning > > strikes occurred in nature.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - Well what i very blunt try to say is following is that when we deal with lengths,distances SRIAN very blunt try to get away with the following concert. By calling a meter a meter they think that it gives it properties of length, it is like using different lengths turds unit of lengths and get by just by calling them a turd. Something is very wrong in SR, they do not know what a unit is. JT
From: Sam Wormley on 14 Feb 2010 17:58
On 2/14/10 4:54 PM, JT wrote: > Well what i very blunt try to say is following is that when we deal > with lengths,distances SRIAN very blunt try to get away with the > following concert. By calling a meter a meter they think that it gives > it properties of length, it is like using different lengths turds unit > of lengths and get by just by calling them a turd. ILLUCID > > Something is very wrong in SR, they do not know what a unit is. > > JT There has never been an observation that has contradicted a prediction of special relativity. Never. Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html |