A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 23:26 On Feb 14, 11:10 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. > > > ____________________________________ > > 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). > How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts, the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving 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 > > __________________________________ > So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does > this apply in outer space as well? "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials" - Albert Einstein The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter?
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 23:35 On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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.. > Einstein's train gedanken is incorrect. The rate at which clocks 'tick' is based upon the speed of the atomic clock relative to the aether. So, Einstein was correct in that clocks will 'tick' at different rates. Einstein was incorrect in the concept of 'spacetime'. Time is a concept. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. > 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. > Einstein is very correct when describing 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. > > _________________________ > And your evidence for this is? > MMX 'null' result. Michelson-Gale experiments in North America (Chicago?) and New Zealand. Sagnac effect. Hafele and Keating Experiment. > 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? I have not said light travels at different speeds. That is you misinterpretation of what I am saying. I am saying light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. I have described the aether as being at different states of 'at rest' with respect to the matter it is connected to and the state of the neighboring aether.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 23:36 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:bb1d3c17-ff77-4e63-8931-2ca0980faaeb(a)g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 14, 11:10 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. > > > ____________________________________ > > 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). > How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts, the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving with respect to the aether. ______________________________ What is wrong with simply measuring the speed of light where you are (lets say its c') and then substracting the measured speed of light from the speed of light in the ether (c) to find your relative velocity v = c - c' > 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? "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational potentials" - Albert Einstein The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter? _________________________ Who said anything about "neighbouring matter" ? And why are you quoting Einstein if you think he is wrong? And what, exactly is your belief about the rate at which the earth drags the ether at varying distances from the earth?
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 23:46 On Feb 14, 11:36 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:bb1d3c17-ff77-4e63-8931-2ca0980faaeb(a)g28g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 14, 11:10 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. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > 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). > > How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As > the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move > through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in > which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts, > the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at > 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving with > respect to the aether. > > ______________________________ > What is wrong with simply measuring the speed of light where you are (lets > say its c') and then substracting the measured speed of light from the speed > of light in the ether (c) to find your relative velocity v = c - c' > How are you measuring the speed of light? Are you using synchronized clocks, mirrors? How are you measuring your speed 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 > > > __________________________________ > > So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does > > this apply in outer space as well? > > "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational > potentials" - Albert Einstein > > The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of > space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some > matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be > considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether > 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter? > > _________________________ > Who said anything about "neighbouring matter" ? And why are you quoting > Einstein if you think he is wrong? And what, exactly is your belief about > the rate at which the earth drags the ether at varying distances from the > earth? I said Einstein's train gedanken is incorrect. I said Einstein concept of 'spacetime' is incorrect. I said Einstein is very correct when describing the aether. I did not say the earth drags the aether. I have said the aether is at various degrees of 'at rest' with respect to the Earth. I understand you are not going to understand this but your suggestion of the 'rate' at which the Earth drags the aether is once again asking for a speed of the aether. As I have said at least three times now, you cannot determine the speed of the aether. In terms of the aether's speed it is unmeasurable. There is nothing to measure it with. All we can determine is the state of the aether and the state of the aether is determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether is discussed in terms of the aether's state of rest.
From: BURT on 15 Feb 2010 00:14
On Feb 14, 8:26 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 14, 11:10 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. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > 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). > > How do you measure the speed of light? With synchronized clocks. As > the clocks are walked to A' and B' on the train and as the train move > through the aether the clocks are going to be offset by the aether in > which they are moving. Again, as I stated in one of my original posts, > the Observer on the train is going to conclude the light traveled at > 'c' with respect to the train even though the train is moving 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 > > > __________________________________ > > So the ether is at rest relative to the "matter which is the earth". Does > > this apply in outer space as well? > > "There can be no space nor any part of space without gravitational > potentials" - Albert Einstein He was wrong. Not all space is gravitational. There is a range to every force. Gravity has a domain. Mitch Raemsch > The same holds true for the aether. There can be no space nor part of > space that can be considered to not be under the effects of some > matter, so I am not exactly sure even the most remote aether can be > considered to be 'at rest'. The other question is what is the aether > 'at rest' with respect to if there is no neighboring matter?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |