A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 15 Feb 2010 00:35 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > As I have said at least three times now, > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > ____________________________________ > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > procedure determine the speed of the ether? How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't measure your speed relative to the aether. Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a fifth time? ______________________________________ I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. You measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the difference is your speed relative to the ether. That is because according to you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you your speed relative to the ether. So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you. We know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you are moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether. Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether?
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 00:40 On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > As I have said at least three times now, > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > ____________________________________ > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > fifth time? > > ______________________________________ > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. You > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > difference is your speed relative to the ether. How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'? > That is because according to > you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you > measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you your > speed relative to the ether. > Again, this is yet another point I am making that you are incapable of understanding. Go back to one of my original posts on this thread and re-read what I discussed about the atomic clocks on the train where the train is moving through the aether at rest with respect to the embankment and the time on the clocks and what the Observers conclude about the simultaneity of the lightning strikes. Since everything is relative to the aether the Observers on the train, even thought they are moving relative to the aether, are not going to be able to detect the aether and they are going to conclude light travels at 'c' because their clocks are already offset by the aether pressure they exist in. > So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you. And what I am telling you is since everything is relative to the aether you are not going to find that measurement. Again, I spent a good deal of time on my first couple of posts having to do with synchronized clocks on the train. Go back an re-read that post and, I doubt it, but you may realize why your assumption that the Observers on the train are going to be able to detect the light at other that 'c' is incorrect. > We > know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you are > moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether. > > Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether?
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 00:58 On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > As I have said at least three times now, > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > ____________________________________ > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > fifth time? > > ______________________________________ > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. You > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > difference is your speed relative to the ether. That is because according to > you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you > measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you your > speed relative to the ether. > > So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you. We > know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you are > moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether. > > Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether? Not sure this link will work, but this is a link to the two posts I made having to do with the train and the embankment and the time on the clocks and the lightning strikes. I realize you are not going to understand what I have written, but this is why the light is not detected at other than 'c' for either the Observers on the embankment or the Observers on the train: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/2bb6ac5e1cbf17ed#
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 01:01 On Feb 15, 12:58 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > As I have said at least three times now, > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > > ____________________________________ > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So why > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > > fifth time? > > > ______________________________________ > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether.. You > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > > difference is your speed relative to the ether. That is because according to > > you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you > > measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you your > > speed relative to the ether. > > > So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you.. We > > know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you are > > moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether. > > > Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether? > > Not sure this link will work, but this is a link to the two posts I > made having to do with the train and the embankment and the time on > the clocks and the lightning strikes. > > I realize you are not going to understand what I have written, but > this is why the light is not detected at other than 'c' for either the > Observers on the embankment or the Observers on the train: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... The above link doesn't work. If you are using google groups and you do sort by date it is post #52. Click on "- show quoted text -" to start reading from my first post.
From: Peter Webb on 15 Feb 2010 01:06
"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > As I have said at least three times now, > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > ____________________________________ > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > why > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > and > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > fifth time? > > ______________________________________ > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. > You > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > difference is your speed relative to the ether. How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'? _________________________________ Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a constant relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make this claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from c, and then the difference is the speed of the ether. Why won't that work? |