A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 7 Mar 2010 20:21 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf-8577-063efc1a2c72(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... 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 ================================================== Yippee, a kook fight!
From: Bruce Richmond on 7 Mar 2010 20:41 On Mar 7, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b943853$0$11336$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > "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. > > That's what it is :) > > > But I asked you about *your* position, not SR's position. > > My position is SR's position > > > Do you agree that that the clocks slow down due to relativistic time > > dilation, as predicted by SR, or not? > > They are measured as slower, just as a rod is measured as shorter. This is > due to the difference in simultaneity. They don't slow down because a > moving observer is looking at them any more than a rod shrinks because a > relatively moving observer is looking at it. > > Here's a little example you might follow .. with time differences exagerated > for clarity > > Here are six clocks, in tow rows (S and S'), all ticking at the correct > rate, but set with different times... > > S' 10:30 11:00=A 11:30 <--v > S 11:30=C 11:00=B 10:30 -->v > > Clocks B sees the A is synchronized with it. > > Now .. the clocks are moving in opposite directions so after an hour we have > > S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 > S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30 > > Clock A has moved away from clock B .. but another clock (C) in S can see > the time on it. Clock C sees that clock A is half an hour slow (A shows > 12:00 when C shows 12:30). So according to the clocks in S, clock A is > ticking slower. We also note that clock B now sees a *different* S' clock > next to it as being fast (it shows 12:30 when B shows 12:00) > > If you look at the same scenario but from the point of view of the other row > of clocks, you get symmetric results. > > This is how clock synch affects measured ticking rates for moving clocks in > SR. Even though the clocks themselves do NOT change their intrinsic ticking > rates.- Hide quoted text - Looks good, but let's take it one step further. The observer with clock A jumps to frame S" which is traveling in the same direction as S relative to S' but at twice the velocity. S" 1:00 12:00=A 11:00 -->2v S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 <--v S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30 -->v Clocks A and B continue to tick at there same intrinsic ticking rate and an hour later A has overtaken B. S" 2:00 1:00=A 12:00 -->2v S' 12:30 1:00=A 1:30 <--v S 1:30=C 1:00=B 12:30 -->v The above provides the same situation as the twins paradox. Clock A left clock B and returned. So why doesn't clock A show less time elapsed than B? (Note the clocks in S" are further out of sync than those in S due to the higher velocity.)
From: BURT on 7 Mar 2010 21:08 On Mar 7, 4:55 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Light and matter are whole time forms. The dark push from light center is C slowed by the electric bond energy's field. Light and electric matter interact together through their electric energies. Matter's electric energy slows light. Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 7 Mar 2010 21:15 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:aa26451b-dcb7-4bbf-8577-063efc1a2c72(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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. SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime >> 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. AS I said > Again > LET explains what causes it to be 'measured' as invariant. So does SR. LET says its due to light not ACTUALLY travelling at c (in the only frame where what we measure is what is read .. the supposed aether frame) .. only giving the appearance due to distorted rulers and clocks. There are no such distortions in SR >> 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... :) LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted experimentally. I just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is not compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has the assumption of an undetectable aether with properties that don't make sense. > To Bruce, you know what's said about trying to teach > pigs to sing... > > Paul Stowe
From: Peter Webb on 7 Mar 2010 21:47
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1c6a2640-39f5-4ea4-9c85-127e71f4e6a2(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... On Mar 7, 6:58 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > > news:4b943853$0$11336$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > > > > > > > > "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. > > That's what it is :) > > > But I asked you about *your* position, not SR's position. > > My position is SR's position > > > Do you agree that that the clocks slow down due to relativistic time > > dilation, as predicted by SR, or not? > > They are measured as slower, just as a rod is measured as shorter. This is > due to the difference in simultaneity. They don't slow down because a > moving observer is looking at them any more than a rod shrinks because a > relatively moving observer is looking at it. > > Here's a little example you might follow .. with time differences > exagerated > for clarity > > Here are six clocks, in tow rows (S and S'), all ticking at the correct > rate, but set with different times... > > S' 10:30 11:00=A 11:30 <--v > S 11:30=C 11:00=B 10:30 -->v > > Clocks B sees the A is synchronized with it. > > Now .. the clocks are moving in opposite directions so after an hour we > have > > S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 > S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30 > > Clock A has moved away from clock B .. but another clock (C) in S can see > the time on it. Clock C sees that clock A is half an hour slow (A shows > 12:00 when C shows 12:30). So according to the clocks in S, clock A is > ticking slower. We also note that clock B now sees a *different* S' clock > next to it as being fast (it shows 12:30 when B shows 12:00) > > If you look at the same scenario but from the point of view of the other > row > of clocks, you get symmetric results. > > This is how clock synch affects measured ticking rates for moving clocks > in > SR. Even though the clocks themselves do NOT change their intrinsic > ticking > rates.- Hide quoted text - Looks good, but let's take it one step further. The observer with clock A jumps to frame S" which is traveling in the same direction as S relative to S' but at twice the velocity. S" 1:00 12:00=A 11:00 -->2v S' 11:30 12:00=A 12:30 <--v S 12:30=C 12:00=B 11:30 -->v Clocks A and B continue to tick at there same intrinsic ticking rate and an hour later A has overtaken B. S" 2:00 1:00=A 12:00 -->2v S' 12:30 1:00=A 1:30 <--v S 1:30=C 1:00=B 12:30 -->v The above provides the same situation as the twins paradox. Clock A left clock B and returned. So why doesn't clock A show less time elapsed than B? (Note the clocks in S" are further out of sync than those in S due to the higher velocity.) _________________________________________ I can't exactly follow your experiment or its conclusions. But, if as you say, it is the same situation as the twins paradox, then http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox should explain it. More generally, once you understand the "normal" twins paradox, and the diagrams on the web page, it is very simple to change this to model additional frames-of-reference, either by simpy adding a third object to the diagrams or considering the various objects in pairs. If, OTOH, you don't understand the "vanilla" twins paradox, making it more complicated won't help. So, as a starting point, do you understand and accept the resolution of the "vanilla" twins paradox as explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox and many other reputable sites? |