A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 07:20 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:569df602-c4fe-440c-b9ae-fd6ed3daf528(a)w31g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > On 14 Feb, 20:06, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> Ste a �crit : >> >> > Of course I realise that. The point I'm making is that where you're >> > dealing with two different frames that are moving relative, the same >> > object (i.e. the photon, or whatever) cannot physically have the same >> > measured velocity in both. >> >> I still can't make sense of what you intend by "physically", but what >> is remarquable here is that your "physically" is in contradiction with >> "according to experiments". Whatever you mean by "physical" it is >> contradictory with "reality". > > That's because you, rather foolishly in my view, seem to think that > observation is not open to interpretation. You can't imagine how > wearing it is to keep being told "the sun goes round the Earth, > because that is what we observe", as though it is impossible that the > observation could possibly have more than one explanation. Who is telling you that? But yes, a given observation can often be explained differently. That does not mean that you are free to interpret it to be anything you like. in particular, you are not free to interpret it in ways that may be consistent with that one observation, but not with some others > Indeed, it's even more serious than that. It's like talking to > children, who can't distinguish between the physical movement of the > Sun, and their own movement when they spin themselves in a circle, and > who are constantly self-referential in their answers. So when the > child spins on the spot, they cry "the sky is spinning". And when the > sky is *really* spinning (due to a previously unheard-of astronomical > phenomenon), they cry "the sky is spinning". And when you ask, "which > is physically spinning", then child looks at you and says "what do you > mean 'physical'?" Yes .. you can begin to appreciate our frustration when talking to you then. But you must define your terms .. 'physical' is rather ambiguous.
From: Inertial on 15 Feb 2010 07:21 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ed73b725-fdd3-4f16-bfab-b15738b748a9(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > On 14 Feb, 23:46, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really >> > interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely >> > hypothetical "grooves in spacetime". >> >> And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer >> simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime. >> Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it means >> to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something >> else. It means that you're both "facing different directions". Every >> effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact >> that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different >> directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving >> with respect to something else. It means that you have a different t >> and x axis. > > Mark, if you consider this an answer, then you simply haven't > understood the question. What was your question?
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:35 On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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? I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of light? Are you using mirrors? If you are using mirrors and the light propagates from M' to A' and B' the light will take longer with respect to the aether to get from M' to B' because the light waves are propagating against the 'flow' of the aether relative to the train but the Observer at B's clock is off set an behind the other Observers clock so when the light gets to B' the clock at B' will read the same time as the clock at A' even though the light gets to A' after the light gets to B' with respect to the aether the train is moving through. When the light is reflected the opposite occurs so the light gets back to M' simultaneously. You really need to read my previous posts to understand this.
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:36 On Feb 15, 1:08 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:285f58e2-a468-4257-8051-fa7249dc0e72(a)m35g2000prh.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. 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... > > _____________________________________________ > I didn't ask about trains, or embankments, or anything like that. I asked > you why you can't measure the relative speed of the ether by the simple > process I described above. Why can't you? Or can you? In order to answer the question I used Einstein's train gedanken with water/aether at rest with respect to the embankment.
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:37
On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.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 the speed of light and how do you determine it is > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks? > > _______________________________ > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like. > > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state > with respect to the aether. > > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured? > > ________________________________ > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you couldn't > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that. It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read. |