A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 19:13 I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really interested in learning geometry, ________________________________________ That's your problem. If you are not really interested in learning geometry, you cannot understand Minkowski space-time. If you are not interested in learning vector calculus, you can't understand Maxwell's equations. If you are not really interested in learning simple calculus, you can't understand Newtonian celestial mechanics. If you are not really interested in learning about probability distribution functions, you can't understand QM. You have two choices. Learn some geometry, and hence understand Minkowski spacetime. Or don't learn some geometry, and don't understand it. Pretty much all physics of the 20th Century uses mathematics extensively, and if you want to understand physics you have to learn the maths. Don't complain that its too hard or you are too lazy and then expect anybody to care about your opinions on a subject you know nothing about.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 19:25 On Feb 14, 6:58 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:13d31b2a-e1d4-4b1f-8c50-703bb52a09be(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 9:44 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:24b1dbfc-e19c-4c2e-a7f7-6a3601ea13da(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com.... > > 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. > > > ______________________________________ > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which light > > moves at a constant rate? > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun? > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any > and all mediums in which the light propagates. > > __________________________________ > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are presumably > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is it > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed? The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether. The problem with trying to create a stationary reference frame when discussing the propagation of light is that is not how nature works. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The state of the aether is defined by its connections to the matter. This means the more connected the aether is to the matter the more 'at rest' the aether is with respect to the aether. That is the reason for the MMX 'null' results, the Michelson-Gale results, the Sagnac effect and so on. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the state of the aether is more at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth than the aether is a mile up from the Earth's surface. Since the state of the aether can only be determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and because of the results such as the experiments listed above the best we can do is to conclude the aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Earth. Einstein's definition of motion when discussing the aether is the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. So, you question as to what the Sun's speed is with respect to the aether cannot be answered. Since the aether within and at the surface of the Sun is the most connected to the Sun the best we can state is the aether is the most 'at rest' with respect to the Sun's surface and is less 'at rest' with respect to the Sun the further from the Sun the aether is. That doesn't mean we can't determine the speed of light through the aether. We must determine the speed of light with respect to the aether based upon the aether's connectedness to the matter. Referring to stationary frames of reference when discussing light is completely misunderstanding how light behaves in nature.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 19:31 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:33342036-e226-46e1-b3c3-6ea654b3c2d0(a)r33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On 14 Feb, 05:56, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> >> The poster Ste: >> >> 1. Won't accept mathemetical descriptions of what is happening, because >> he >> doesn't know enough mathematics to even follow the most simplistic >> explanation of Minkowski space time (in terms of the Euclidean metric >> with >> an imaginary axis). > > Indeed. > > > >> 2. Won't accept non-mathematical descriptions, as he variously says they >> are >> analogies, they are not "physical", they don't prove anything or (as >> above) >> he simply doesn't agree. > > I will accept non-mathematical descriptions, but they have to be > something realistic. > > A "groove in space" is a meaningless physical concept. It's really > just a reformulation of saying "an imaginary line in space", but > couched in purportedly "non-mathematical" language. Because you won't accept a mathematical description. You want a non-mathemetical description but not one phrased in non-mathematical terms? > And if I didn't > know any better I'd be asking questions like "what are the properties > of this groove", It is a geodesic. > "how does it come about", They are a function of the geometry, as geodesics always are. >etc., when in fact an > "imaginary line" is easy to deal with, I don't know in what sense they are "imaginary". Would you consider straight lines in normal geometry to be "imaginary" ? > because I recognise it's > abstract non-physical nature, as a representation of a movement that > some real object will make. What does "non-physical" mean in this context? > > > > >> Your use of the word "grooves" was a istake, it will just confuse him >> more. >> Next he will want to know how to see the grooves. What I think you are >> alluding to is the "light cone" or "causality cone", and it would be >> better >> if you had used a more standard explanation. > > Indeed, it would have, although I also have a distaste for the "light > cone" concept, too. > > > >> > The actual geometry is MUCH more interesting, >> > but as I keep saying, you must STUDY this -- your "20 questions" >> > approach on the internet is woefully inadequate. >> >> > Tom Roberts >> >> Ste has been studying physics for a whole month now! >> >> If he knows: >> >> 1. Enough Euclidean geometry to understand Pythagoras's theorem, >> 2. What an "imaginary number" is, and arithmetic over the complex numbers >> 3. The Newtonian derivation of Energy and Momentum .... >> >> (all of which are taught at secondary school level) >> >> Then he can actually learn the rules of Minkowski space and how they map >> to >> the formulas of SR for himself in a couple of days effort. >> >> There is no point trying to teach him this on a newsgroup; he needs to >> learn >> it for himself. There are lots and lots of web pages that do that. Or he >> could buy a book. The real problem I suspect is that he is too lazy to >> try. > > As I said, I'm not that interested in formulas. Then pick a field other than physics to study for month. Physics is full of maths, runs on the damn stuff. > As you concede, with > next to no effort, I could have formulas coming out of my ears. What > you don't seem to realise is that I don't *want* a mathematical proof, > I want a physical explanation. Given many, many times. Called Minkowski spacetime. Pity you don't have enough maths background to understand it. Maybe you should learn some maths! > If you're not interested in a physical > explanation (or don't even understand what I mean by the word), then > fine, but at least acknowledge that I have quite different questions > than you have, which calls for quite different answers, and the only > nexus between the answers you have and the answers I want is that the > answers I want can quite possibly be derived from the answers you have. You probably can't learn any more physics until you learn some more mathematics. Sorry.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 22:12 On Feb 14, 6:58 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:13d31b2a-e1d4-4b1f-8c50-703bb52a09be(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 9:44 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:24b1dbfc-e19c-4c2e-a7f7-6a3601ea13da(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com.... > > 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. > > > ______________________________________ > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which light > > moves at a constant rate? > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun? > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any > and all mediums in which the light propagates. > > __________________________________ > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are presumably > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is it > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed? The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether. The problem with trying to create a stationary reference frame when discussing the propagation of light is that is not how nature works. 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The aether is not an absolutely stationary space. The state of the aether is defined by its connections to the matter. This means the more connected the aether is to the matter the more 'at rest' the aether is with respect to the matter. That is the reason for the MMX 'null' results, the Michelson-Gale results, the Sagnac effect and so on. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter the state of the aether is more at rest with respect to the surface of the Earth than the aether is a mile up from the Earth's surface. Since the state of the aether can only be determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places and because of the results such as the experiments listed above the best we can do is to conclude the aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Earth. Einstein's definition of motion when discussing the aether is the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. So, you question as to what the Sun's speed is with respect to the aether cannot be answered. Since the aether within and at the surface of the Sun is the most connected to the Sun the best we can state is the aether is the most 'at rest' with respect to the Sun's surface and is less 'at rest' with respect to the Sun the further from the Sun the aether is. The speed of light as determined by the state of the aether is based upon the aether's connectedness to the matter. Referring to stationary frames of reference when discussing light is completely misunderstanding how light behaves in nature.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 22:24
> > > 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. > > > ______________________________________ > > > So the inertial reference frame of nature is the rest frame in which > > light > > moves at a constant rate? > > > What reference frame is that, relative to the Sun? > > The reference frame is the state of the aether the light propagates > through. And this includes the state of the aether which exists in any > and all mediums in which the light propagates. > > __________________________________ > No, you misunderstood my question. If the aether defines a stationary > reference frame, what is it exactly? The Sun and the planets are > presumably > moving through space, what is the Sun's speed relative to the ether? Is it > stationary, moving at 1 kms/sec, what is its speed? The aether does not define a stationary reference frame. The state of the aether defines the rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the state of the aether. _______________________________________ Ok. If lightmoves at velocity 'c' with respect to the ether, then what is the velocity of the ether relative to (say) the Sun? |