A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Jerry on 2 Mar 2010 22:35 On Mar 2, 8:56 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:33 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 7:06 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 5:34 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > Special relativity has been established as true within its > > > > domain of applicability. Period. > > > > Your appeal to athority is noted. Some of us don't accept things just > > > because everyone else believes it, particularly when it leads to > > > unexpected results. You would have fit in well with the flat earth > > > society. > > > Not an appeal to authority. Rather, a modest amateur familiarity > > with the literature. > > > I have in my file folders nearly one hundred papers dating from > > the late 1800's to the present dealing with the experimental > > basis of relativity. I have read many more papers than those that > > I own. > > > This is, of course, a very small number compared with the many > > hundreds of papers and subscription journal volumes that I own > > and have read which concern my actual field of work. I know my > > priorities. I am most definitely not a physicist in real life, > > and make no claims to any special expertise. > > > Nevertheless, I imagine that I am probably somewhat more familiar > > with the experimental literature than you. > > > True or false? > > > Jerry > > Seems you have that appeal to athority thing down to a science ;-) Here is a small sampling of papers that have come up for discussion during my newsgroup postings. I stopped putting up any additional ones several years ago, since posting these naturally represents a violation of copyright. So long as I keep the number of these papers small, I figure I won't have any U.S. marshals knocking on my door. http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/ Read through these and we'll have further conversation later.
From: Bruce Richmond on 2 Mar 2010 22:48 On Mar 2, 9:15 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Next, what is the fundamental cause (confining ourselves to SR) of > this non-simultaneity? As I say, as far as I can tell, it's a simple > function of the finite speed of propagation. But I'm told that it > isn't, so I need to know on what grounds a simple propagation > explanation does not suffice. > > ________________________________ > Hey! You asked a question about SR ! Far out! > > The ultimate reason (or, more accurately "an" ultimate reason) is that the > speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and does not > depend on the speeds of two different observers. This makes the propagation > delay a function of the frame of reference you pick, and not a function of > the underlying dynamics. Very well put. > Any book on SR will explain this, and in fact I believe that Einstein > discussed this in his 1905 paper. Have you read it? > > As to why the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, > this is because of Maxwell's eqns, a whole lot earlier than SR, and the > primary motivator for the MM experiment. I know I am picking nits here but light doesn't do anything because of the equations. The equations were written to model what light was already doing. In this case Einstein carried over Maxwell's choice to make c a universal constant. > I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why > Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all reference > frames, but you said you didn't understand. > > If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's eqns, I > would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that you > don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of whatever it > is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help.
From: Androcles on 3 Mar 2010 00:40 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:46e6f9df-8075-49a7-9a05-b8b952dd2100(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Mar 2, 9:15 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Next, what is the fundamental cause (confining ourselves to SR) of > this non-simultaneity? As I say, as far as I can tell, it's a simple > function of the finite speed of propagation. But I'm told that it > isn't, so I need to know on what grounds a simple propagation > explanation does not suffice. > > ________________________________ > Hey! You asked a question about SR ! Far out! > > The ultimate reason (or, more accurately "an" ultimate reason) is that the > speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, and does not > depend on the speeds of two different observers. This makes the > propagation > delay a function of the frame of reference you pick, and not a function of > the underlying dynamics. Very well put. > Any book on SR will explain this, and in fact I believe that Einstein > discussed this in his 1905 paper. Have you read it? > > As to why the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, > this is because of Maxwell's eqns, a whole lot earlier than SR, and the > primary motivator for the MM experiment. I know I am picking nits here but light doesn't do anything because of the equations. The equations were written to model what light was already doing. In this case Einstein carried over Maxwell's choice to make c a universal constant. > I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why > Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all reference > frames, but you said you didn't understand. > > If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's eqns, I > would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that you > don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of whatever it > is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help. Just answer the question: http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 00:52 >> I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why >> Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all reference >> frames, but you said you didn't understand. >> >> If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's eqns, I >> would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that you >> don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of whatever >> it >> is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help. > > Just answer the question: > http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm > > You mean this question: Why did Einstein say the speed of light from A to B is c-v, the speed of light from B to A is c+v, the "time" each way is the same? The answer is that he didn't say that. Unless, of course, you can provide a reference to where he did say it? Which of course you can't, that is the complete opposite of what SR says, and Einstein would never has said something that stupid. It looks like something that you would have said, and then tried to pretend it was something Einstein said. You may have said it, but Einstein certainly didn't.
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 01:08
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b8df931$0$26498$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > >>> I tried to give you an informal, non-mathematical description of why >>> Maxwell's eqns produce a speed of light that is constant in all >>> reference >>> frames, but you said you didn't understand. >>> >>> If you would like to visit a webpage or buy a book on Maxwell's eqns, I >>> would be happy to answer any questions that you have about them that you >>> don't understand. Please provide the exact quote in context of whatever >>> it >>> is that isn't clear, and I will see what I can do to help. >> >> Just answer the question: >> http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/QUESTION.htm >> >> > > You mean this question: > > Why did Einstein say > the speed of light from A to B is c-v, > the speed of light from B to A is c+v, > the "time" each way is the same? > > The answer is that he didn't say that. Unless, of course, you can provide > a reference to where he did say it? Which of course you can't, that is the > complete opposite of what SR says, and Einstein would never has said > something that stupid. It looks like something that you would have said, > and then tried to pretend it was something Einstein said. You may have > said it, but Einstein certainly didn't. > You see .. as soon as Androcles sees a (c-v) or (c+v) *anywhere* in *any* equation, he starts getting excited and thinks it is claiming that the speed of light is c-v or c+v. That's what he thinks when he sees the equation (that is WAY too complicated for his poor excuse for a brain)... 1/2 [ Tau(0,0,0,0) + Tau(0,0,0,(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))) ] = Tau(x',0,0,(x'/(c-v))) He also gets excited about how 'silly' it is to him that the time for light to travel between two co-moving fixed points and back (from A to B and then B back to A) is twice that required to go half the distance (from A to B). How he thinks it can be anything else is anyone's guess. Heaven forbid if Androcles was smart enough to see that gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) = 1/sqrt((c^2-v^2)/c^2) = c/sqrt((c-v)(c+v)) So I guess he must think that must be saying that the speed of light is c AND c+v AND c-v all at the same time .. seeing they are all in the one equation !! He really has NOT idea about math and physics. Its both sad and funny. |