A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Mar 2010 01:08 On Mar 2, 10:35 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks, you have some good stuff there :) Bruce
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 01:28 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "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))) > That cannot be the case: 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something completely different said by a completely different person. I am sure even Androcles would know this. Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. That was a joke, BTW.
From: Inertial on 3 Mar 2010 01:35 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b8e0192$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message > news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> >> "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))) >> > > That cannot be the case: Umm . .why not? > 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. Whose quote? > 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. Well .. I typed it .. but it is as from Einstein's 1905 paper (unless I mistyped something) > If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something > completely different said by a completely different person. Eh? > I am sure even Androcles would know this. > > Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. > > That was a joke, BTW.
From: BURT on 3 Mar 2010 01:38 On Mar 2, 10:35 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b8e0192$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > >news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(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))) > > > That cannot be the case: > > Umm . .why not? > > > 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. > > Whose quote? > > > 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. > > Well .. I typed it .. but it is as from Einstein's 1905 paper (unless I > mistyped something) > > > If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something > > completely different said by a completely different person. > > Eh? > > > > > I am sure even Androcles would know this. > > > Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. > > > That was a joke, BTW.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You cannot cause things to move through space by moving yourself around them. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 3 Mar 2010 01:52
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b8e0340$0$8844$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4b8e0192$0$11181$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message >> news:4b8dfce0$0$8766$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >>> >>> "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))) >>> >> >> That cannot be the case: > > Umm . .why not? > >> 1. That was not what his quote says, its completely different. > > Whose quote? The quote on his web page. > >> 2. This equation as far as I know was not written by Einstein. > > Well .. I typed it .. but it is as from Einstein's 1905 paper (unless I > mistyped something) > Sorry, I missed it, searched for tau which doesn't appear, but the symbol does. I stand corrected. >> If you claim "a" was said by "b", you cannot offer as evidence something >> completely different said by a completely different person. > > Eh? > Your quote bears no resemblance to the "quote" that Androcles provided. In fact, Einstein did not say what Androcles claims he did. Unless, of course, Androcles can produce the source for his quote. >> I am sure even Androcles would know this. >> >> Doubtless he will post where Einstein said what he claimed he said. >> >> That was a joke, BTW. > > |