A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 Mar 2010 23:59 On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know, > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not > > > remember that? > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS. > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by > either observer. Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to *know* that the speed is the same both ways. That is why Einstein wrote, "But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A." > Since the distance from the events to the observer is > equal, as verifiable at any time by each observer, we learn from this > that each observer KNOWS the propagation delays from each event to the > observer are equal. This acknowledges the propagation delays > completely, but simply allows for verification that they are the same. Assuming the speed of light is the same in both directions. > Then the determination of simultaneity or nonsimultaneity of the > original events is completely unambiguous: If the observer receives > both signals at the same time, then (because the propagation delays > are the same) the original events were simultaneous; if the observer > receives both signals at different times, then (because the > propagation delays are the same) the original events were > nonsimultaneous. > > Then the frame-dependence of simultaneity follows directly from the > experimental *observation* that for the same pair of events, one > observer correctly and unambiguously concludes the events were > simultaneous, and the other observer correctly and unambiguously > concludes the events were nonsimultaneous. > > You've mentioned in the past that you found your disbelief in > relativity stems from being unable to find a good, understandable > explanation of it. I invite you to read back on this thread where I > was trying to explain to Ste (who has a similar complaint) how this > comes about. No need. Lorentz showed how all frames could measure the speed of light to be c. That in effect confirms the second postulate, which is the stumbling block for many.
From: Dono. on 4 Mar 2010 00:10 On Mar 3, 8:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to > *know* that the speed is the same both ways. Maybe for you. Not for the people that know physics: http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html
From: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 00:15 "Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and then, he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space -- what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or out in the field! pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated. > >> Minkowksi space time? thus: hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes! http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1 > and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the > planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no > retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer. thus: "bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto! it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions (a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity goes. > That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves > were the only prediction of GR. thus quoth: Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations had already found wide application in the design of particle accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of socalled Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the Doubochinski brothers original work in the late 1960s and 1970s. Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around 1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons, interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized themselves into bunches, moving in equal phase with http://21stcenturysciencetech.com
From: Bruce Richmond on 4 Mar 2010 00:17 On Mar 3, 11:56 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 6:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 3, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > So you understand it and think it is correct? > > > > What exactly *IS* your position?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I understand it and think it is correct. > > > My position is that far more people would understand it if it was > > explained differently. > > Like all pedagogical strategies, something is best understood if it is > explained in several different ways. Some readers will "see" it with > presentation B, rather than A, C, or D. Other readers will need to see > both A and C but find B incomprehensible. Others still will get it > after reading A, B, and C, and will only appreciate D after having > grasped the others. Agreed, and I would add that there are some cranks here that refuse to see things even when their nose is rubbed in it as when house breaking a puppy. > Again, there is a marked difference between the value of a theory, and > the value of the different ways to explain the theory.
From: spudnik on 4 Mar 2010 00:25
you mean, Kepler's three orbital constraints? now, if you must top-post, don't blame it on some hare-brained proponent of some God-am nettikett -- "read more," Baby! > physical model or explanation for gravity. However there does exist > such a physical model which, from it Newton equation is derived as the > >http://www.archive.org/details/historyoftheorie00whitrich thus: "Time shall henceforth be seen on the same footing as space," and then, he died. what a great geometer & numbertheorist, yet he is primarily known for this silly slogan about phase-space -- what every electronics technician uses in the lab, or out in the field, a bit after Minkowski's time, I guess, although ampere's instruments were simple & widely available ... er, Dalembert's? pretty sad, for a teacher of Einstien to be so adumbrated. > >> Minkowksi space time? thus: hey, so did the epicycle for the precession of the equinoxes! http://quest.nasa.gov/galileo/Galileo-QA/Gravity_Effect/Gravity_Assist.1 > and the Sun passes the planet, a visual effect is created that the > planet is moving backwards to form an ellipse. There is no > retrograde motion in the galactic frame and Newton will suffer. thus: "bending of time-space" is nonsequiter, and Latin is a better dead, synthetic langauge than Esperanto! it is a phase-space, the one that is do-able in quaternions (a.k.a. vector mechanics), at least insofar as *special* relativity goes. > That'd be an excellent point, if gravitational (notice the difference) waves > were the only prediction of GR. thus quoth: Danil Doubochinski emphasizes that argumental oscillations had already found wide application in the design of particle accelerators and electron tubes, as well as in investigations of socalled Fermi acceleration of cosmic rays, long before the Doubochinski brothers original work in the late 1960s and 1970s. Argumental oscillations had already appeared, around 1919, in the pioneering work of Barkhausen and Kurz on the generation of microwaves. They noted that oscillating electrons, interacting with the high frequency electromagnetic field in the tubes they had constructed, spontaneously organized themselves into bunches, moving in equal phase with http://21stcenturysciencetech.com |