A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 07:50 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1eb2c398-9d3a-4cc3-9b13-7dfb68fc12f8(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 09:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> >> Nothing wrong with that .. as long as you know which it is .. >> >> philosophy >> >> or >> >> physics. Each has its place. But with the caveat that any philosophy >> >> that >> >> is at odds with reality (eg experimental evidence) is not a useful >> >> adjunct >> >> to physics. >> >> > I agree, but as I say I don't see how my model can be deemed as "not >> > physics". >> >> Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to >> go >> back through it and try to find where you may have explained it > > I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved > planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some > relationship with distance. So you can't or won't give detail. OK .. fine.
From: mpc755 on 26 Feb 2010 07:52 On Feb 26, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1eb2c398-9d3a-4cc3-9b13-7dfb68fc12f8(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On 26 Feb, 09:53, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >> Nothing wrong with that .. as long as you know which it is .. > > >> philosophy > > >> or > > >> physics. Each has its place. But with the caveat that any philosophy > > >> that > > >> is at odds with reality (eg experimental evidence) is not a useful > > >> adjunct > > >> to physics. > > > > I agree, but as I say I don't see how my model can be deemed as "not > > > physics". > > > Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to > > go > > back through it and try to find where you may have explained it > > I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved > planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some > relationship with distance. > > ___________________________________ > About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty forming a > mental picture of how it is supposed to work. If the planets are separated > by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when there > is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage to > pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you > positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting the > 10^80 particles in the Universe? > > Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type these > invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe to move > ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a distance > supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity supposed > to be, physically? The aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. The 'displacing back' is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity.
From: Inertial on 26 Feb 2010 07:57 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:4978932c-1d15-4755-b3ed-70a8fa0914cf(a)g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... [snip for brevity] > What I was saying was that if you define the speed of light as c it > doesn't make sense to measure it to see if it *is* c. Of course it does .. to see if all light travels at the same speed c. You cannot tell if it does unless you do experiments that measure it. Such measurements so far show that light travels at c in vacuo (though its net speed thru mediums is slower). Things like the speed of the source do not affect it. It is for those reasons that we have some confidence that if we measure the speed of some light it will be c, and so we can use it to get the same distance standard every time we do so.
From: Vern on 26 Feb 2010 08:26 On Feb 26, 2:27 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: <snip> > So, just for the record, Lorentz's theory is not the same as SR, and > (according to you) if Einstein had not published SR in 1905 it would have > taken Lorentz a "year or two" to develop it. Not, of course, that it matters > where the theory came from - few people argue about Newton's contribution on > the basis that Galileo already had some key concepts. SR could have been > developed entirely by Joseph Stalin for all I care; the simple matter is > that it works extremely well. SR offers no physical explanation for nature. It is a principle theory. Your post trying to explain Maxwell's equations without the medium the equations were developed from was a joke. Theoretical physics includes attempting to correlate the math with a physical model free from contradictions, absurdities and illogical or noncausal bases. The fact is that ether theories accomplish this and encompass SR/GR, QED and the standard model. Ilja Schmelzer's theories/models are a good example. He has been published now in a reputable physics journal. You need to get down off of your high horse and try to understand what Paul is saying. Progressive physicists are embracing ether concepts and realizing that they are not incompatable with current beliefs. Vern
From: Peter Webb on 26 Feb 2010 09:32
"Vern" <vthodge2(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ec31060c-9e2d-4865-b5f5-db2ae39213f9(a)v13g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... On Feb 26, 2:27 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: <snip> > So, just for the record, Lorentz's theory is not the same as SR, and > (according to you) if Einstein had not published SR in 1905 it would have > taken Lorentz a "year or two" to develop it. Not, of course, that it > matters > where the theory came from - few people argue about Newton's contribution > on > the basis that Galileo already had some key concepts. SR could have been > developed entirely by Joseph Stalin for all I care; the simple matter is > that it works extremely well. SR offers no physical explanation for nature. It is a principle theory. Your post trying to explain Maxwell's equations without the medium the equations were developed from was a joke. __________________________ Uhh, OK, you didn't understand my attempted explanation of what light waves are in terms of Maxwell's equations. I did say it was very difficult to give an insight without actually using mathematics. Seems that if you want to really understand what Maxwell says about light, you actually do have to know basic vector calculus. And that's obviously not something that I could be bothered teaching you. At least I tried. |