A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 22:33 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4d7c4067-35de-4426-bbde-50c1a1f3caff(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... 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. ____________________________________ Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in a vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the measured velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right?
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 22:53 On Feb 14, 10:24 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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? You just asked that question in your last post about the Sun's speed relative to the ether. You are just asking the question in reverse. I thought I already answered it here: 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, your 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. Here is some additional information: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particles. Einstein is not saying the aether does not consist of particles. What Einstein is saying is the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein's definition of motion in regards to the aether. Einstein is not saying the aether is, or is not, in motion, only that we have to be careful when applying the idea of motion to the aether. The answer is the same as in my last post. The aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Sun and gets less 'at rest' the further from the Sun you get. It is often referred to aether entrainment. It may just be semantics but I prefer discussing the state of the aether with respect to the Earth as being 'at rest', or almost 'at rest' with respect to the surface of the Earth and the further away from the Earth the aether is the less 'at rest' it is with respect to the Earth.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 23:05 On Feb 14, 10:33 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:4d7c4067-35de-4426-bbde-50c1a1f3caff(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ____________________________________ > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in a > vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the measured > velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right? What you are failing to understand is if you are in a vacuum traveling at a velocity 'v' relative to the aether you don't know you are traveling at velocity 'v' with respect to the aether. If you go back to one of my original posts on this thread you will notice that for the Observer on the train and the atomic clocks on the train, even though the train is moving with respect to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment the Observer on the train will conclude the light traveled at 'c' because the atomic clocks are already offset by the fact the train is moving relative to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment. What I am saying is if the Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both determine, based on the aether's connectedness to the matter which is the Earth that the aether is 'at rest' with respect to the Earth both Observers will be able to arrive at the same conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred in nature.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 23:10 > > > 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. > > ____________________________________ > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the ether, huh? So if you are in a > vacuum travelling at a velocity v relative to the ether, then the measured > velocity of light will be c+v. This is what you believe, right? What you are failing to understand is if you are in a vacuum traveling at a velocity 'v' relative to the aether you don't know you are traveling at velocity 'v' with respect to the aether. __________________________________ Sure you do. You said light travels at c with respect to the ether, so you just measure the speed of light, compare it to c, and the difference is the speed of the ether (according to you, anyway). If you go back to one of my original posts on this thread you will notice that for the Observer on the train and the atomic clocks on the train, even though the train is moving with respect to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment the Observer on the train will conclude the light traveled at 'c' because the atomic clocks are already offset by the fact the train is moving relative to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment. What I am saying is if the Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train both determine, based on the aether's connectedness to the matter which is the Earth that the aether is 'at rest' with respect to the Earth __________________________________ So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does this apply in outer space as well?
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 23:23
"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2731c09b-4629-4a6c-b797-9819fd58c5ce(a)k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com... On Feb 14, 10:24 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > 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? You just asked that question in your last post about the Sun's speed relative to the ether. You are just asking the question in reverse. I thought I already answered it here: 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, your question as to what the Sun's speed is with respect to the aether cannot be answered. ________________________ According to SR, that is correct. But you apparaently don't believe in SR. 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. Here is some additional information: 'Ether and the Theory of Relativity by Albert Einstein' http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html "[The ether] may not be thought of as consisting of particles which allow themselves to be separately tracked through time." "The special theory of relativity forbids us to assume the ether to consist of particles observable through time, but the hypothesis of ether in itself is not in conflict with the special theory of relativity. Only we must be on our guard against ascribing a state of motion to the ether." "But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it." Einstein is not saying the aether consists of particles. Einstein is not saying the aether does not consist of particles. What Einstein is saying is the aether does not consist of particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein's definition of motion in regards to the aether. Einstein is not saying the aether is, or is not, in motion, only that we have to be careful when applying the idea of motion to the aether. ____________________________ Funny, I wanted your opinion, not Einsteins. The answer is the same as in my last post. The aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Sun and gets less 'at rest' the further from the Sun you get. _________________________ And your evidence for this is? It is often referred to aether entrainment. It may just be semantics but I prefer discussing the state of the aether with respect to the Earth as being 'at rest', or almost 'at rest' with respect to the surface of the Earth and the further away from the Earth the aether is the less 'at rest' it is with respect to the Earth. ______________________________ We can (and have) directly measured the speed of light coming to us from at least Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn (the former by radio echoes; the latter by the timing of occultations). In each case, SR predicts an average speed of c for the trip, and this is observed. But your theory has light travelling at one speed when near Jupiter, a different speed between Jupiter and the the earth (where the Sun presumably drags the ether), and a different speed near the earth. This is not observed. The speed is always c. How do you explain this? |