A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 15:17 On Mar 7, 12:13 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 7, 11:58 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > Thanks once again for the thorough answer. But my point was that the > > author had implied that his experiment could distinguish between SR > > and LET, so why not use LET as the test theory. > > An experiment to test a theory need a framework of assumptions > that are broader in scope than those of of the original theory. > One cannot test a theory in terms of itself. > > The idea behind a test theory is to parameterize a theory's basic > assumptions so that a -quantitative- comparison can be made > between the theory's predictions and the results of experimental > test. The form of the test theory constrains the questions that > one asks in a particular experimental analysis.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_theories_of_special_relativity > > Take, for instance, Newton's law of gravity. What exponent in r > is consistent with the observed distribution of stellar velocities > in the nearby galaxies? An appropriate test theory might be > F = GmM/r^(2+delta), and after lots and lots of curve fitting > against Doppler measurements, the best-fit value of delta might > be found to be -1.32e-8 +/- 2.19e-9 (totally made-up numbers). > > Such an observation would show that something is seriously lacking > in our understanding of stellar dynamics in galaxies. It would not > necessarily mean that the inverse-square law actually needs to be > modified, but the use of a test theory provides A COMMON LANGUAGE > FOR DISCUSSION among people researching a problem. Viewed in terms > of my over-simplified test theory, it -would- appear as if the > force of gravity falls off more slowly than inverse-squared. > > An alternative test theory might choose to model galaxies as > surrounded by a dilute halo of invisible matter, in which case > the question is, how much of this invisible stuff would be needed > to account for the observed Doppler measurements? > > Different test theories use different parameterizations, and the > different parameterizations imply different questions. This is > just the nature of the beast. Test theories are generally not > meant to be taken seriously as real explanations of nature, but > as I said, offer a framework for common understanding > > Going back to Gagnon et al., the questions that they tried to > address with GGT were (1) how to parameterize the Lorentz > transforms so that any measured anisotropies might be accounted > for in terms of the parameterized theory (2) to distinguish > between the predictions of SR and LET. > > Standard test theories of special relativity do not distinguish > between the predictions of SR and LET, so Gagnon et al. rolled > their own. > > > To disprove a theory > > that was known to be wrong to "confirm" SR hardly seems fair. Isn't > > that what is called a strawman? > > Gagnon et al. didn't know that their test theory was inconsistent. > So it wasn't an -intentional- strawman. > > > The fact that he couldn't disprove > > LET shows that somewhere in the analysis of the experiment an > > assumption was made, since LET definitely uses c+v. > > Jerry The constant of C is through space not any matterial frame. Light can flow ahead of your flow by inches. You can stay behind light and this confirms your absolute motion below light speed through space. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 18:23 On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b93bf73$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > >>> 1) your statement: "For clarity, both effects are purely > >>> observational - SR presumes (ideal) clock mechanisms are completely > >>> unaffected by a clock's motion." -- I agree the physical mechanism of > >>> the clock is unaffected, but this is a really misleading statement, > >>> since the amount of proper time that the clock consumes is affected by > >>> its motion. Are you trying to say > > >> I was "trying to say" exactly what I did say. If you didn't find it > >> clear enough, try this: relative slow-downs/speed-ups observed in the > >> readings of SR's ideal clocks aren't due to changes in the tick > >> mechanisms of those clocks. > > > I still don't find it clear, as it begs the question - it says what > > doesn't cause the change, not what does cause the change. > > > The standard SR answer is much more direct - the clocks slow down due to > > relativistic time dilatation from them being in different reference > > frames. > > > Is that standard position of SR also your position? Or is your somehow > > different? > > SR says that the difference in clock sync (clock settings) cause the > measurement of length to be contracted and measurement of clock ticking > rates to be dilated.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There are no flat atoms in physics. Flat matter is a failure in physics. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 18:51 On Mar 7, 3:35 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > news:4b942bcf$0$27789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > > > > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > >news:4b93bf73$0$28464$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > >>>> 1) your statement: "For clarity, both effects are purely > >>>> observational - SR presumes (ideal) clock mechanisms are completely > >>>> unaffected by a clock's motion." -- I agree the physical mechanism of > >>>> the clock is unaffected, but this is a really misleading statement, > >>>> since the amount of proper time that the clock consumes is affected by > >>>> its motion. Are you trying to say > > >>> I was "trying to say" exactly what I did say. If you didn't find it > >>> clear enough, try this: relative slow-downs/speed-ups observed in the > >>> readings of SR's ideal clocks aren't due to changes in the tick > >>> mechanisms of those clocks. > > >> I still don't find it clear, as it begs the question - it says what > >> doesn't cause the change, not what does cause the change. > > >> The standard SR answer is much more direct - the clocks slow down due to > >> relativistic time dilatation from them being in different reference > >> frames. > > >> Is that standard position of SR also your position? Or is your somehow > >> different? > > > SR says that the difference in clock sync (clock settings) cause the > > measurement of length to be contracted and measurement of clock ticking > > rates to be dilated. > > More or less. > > But I asked you about *your* position, not SR's position. > > Do you agree that that the clocks slow down due to relativistic time > dilation, as predicted by SR, or not?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy and field flow through space and have time or aether flowing over them. Atom and light flow through the hypersphere surface with time flowing over them. Mitch Raemsch
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 19:55 On Mar 6, 11:04 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:690819be-c554-4e0b-9eec-c688f6a03827(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 4, 8:27 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 4, 10:24 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >> > On 4 Mar, 15:54, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > On Mar 4, 1:03 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > > > > This is what fundamentally sets apart things like creationism > >> > > > > > from > >> > > > > > science. Whatever other hoops creationism manages to jump > >> > > > > > through, it > >> > > > > > will never jump through the hoop of naturalism, and that is > >> > > > > > what > >> > > > > > *fundamentally* sets it apart from science. > > >> > > > > And also FUNDAMENTALLY distinguishes science from religion. > >> > > > > Thanks. > > >> > > > Agreed, but then religion in general never claimed to be science, > > >> > > Agreed! And so science is not a religion in the same fashion. > > >> > No, but neither did one religion ever claim to be the other. > > >> > > > and > >> > > > traditional religion is almost immediately identifiable by its > >> > > > supernaturalism. Creationism is different in that it actually > >> > > > claims > >> > > > to be scientific in some essential respects. > > >> > > Ah, yes, but as has been demonstrated even to layfolk (Dover v > >> > > Kitsmiller), this is an unsupportable claim. > > >> > I agree. I'm glad you brought up that case. I just reviewed the > >> > judgment quickly, and apparently the court agrees that the defining > >> > essence of science is naturalism. > > >> Gee, I didn't read that into the judgment at all. > > > ----------------- > > what is all that nonstop spamming about > > 'A constant speed of light ' !!! > > What spamming? > > > who is the crook behind it ??!! > > Its called nature- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light speed flow is a constant in empty space. Aether for light is its fastest flow. Light's clock is therefore the fastest. Mitch Raemsch
From: Paul Stowe on 7 Mar 2010 20:13
On Mar 6, 11:07 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "rotchm" <rot...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:77f3f705-45fc-4505-855b-403619921122(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > > >> > Given that was possible I no longer had any > >> > problem accepting the second postulate. Eventually I became aware > >> > that the second postulate wasn't so much an assumption as a > >> > stipulation. We will consider the speed of light to be our standard. > > >> No .. it is an observed fact. Not a stipulation > > > It is a stipulation. In fact it is a "defintion". > > What ever the behavior of light, it is used as a standard to measure > > lengths. > > Only because it has been MEASURED to behave as SR says. It is an observed > 'fact'. And, as LET explains... SR says nothing, as he says, SR stipulates it as a base assumption... LET provides an actual explanation for the behavior. > Nature came first on this one .. light DOES travel at c in all frames of > reference. Light speed is independent of all motion of physical elements. Again LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant. > That means we CAN use the speed of light to define length to give a very > easily reproduced and accurate standard for length. > > > Length has an operational defintion that uses the integer 299792458. > > This definition implies/makes the speed of light constant. > > > Who owes me 2 cents now ? :) > > No idea. Yup, certainly not you, I don't think you'll ever admit the validity of LET... :) To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach pigs to sing... Paul Stowe |