A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 08:40 On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > What ether? > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > double slit experiment ever performed. > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > aether displacement wave? > > ______________________________________ > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling and unable to answer such a simple question. Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been willing to answer this question and their answer was the future determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, but you do have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.
From: Paul Stowe on 15 Feb 2010 11:21 On Feb 14, 10:06 pm, "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 theaether. > > > ____________________________________ > > > > 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 > > theaether. If you can't measure the speed of theaetheryou can't > > measure your speed relative to theaether. > > > 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'? A perfectly systematic way is to observe the CMBR, determine your Doppler shift. This tells you both your speed and direction relative to the aether. This of course takes as a base assumption that such EM radiation is a manifestation the background 'noise' of such a medium. Thus you conclude that, if c is 'measured' as a constant the wave speed c' is c -v(Cos z) where angle z is the angle relative to the direction of motion. You allow for the fact that the Lorentz contraction affects all moving fields and accept that time dilation is exactly as it was expect if the MMX type apparatus would have seen IF the Lorentz contraction didn't occur. Since every material system is held together by fields, and these fields undergo the Lorentz contraction when in motion, the mathematics 'conspire' to make it impossible to take a measurement of changes in wave speed by round trip signaling in material systems. This method does however give you the baseline speed. As both LET and SR demonstrate, one can take advantage of this fact to establish a system of measurements that take advantage of the quirk of mathematics and use wave speed c as an invariant. Both ways of looking at it doesn't change actual physical reality. > _________________________________ > 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? Because moving fields undergo the Lorentz contraction to remain 'physically' internally self consistent. It is a 'result' of the fact that c is a fixed constant which is independent of the speed of the sources. There is nothing 'special' about relativity... Paul Stowe
From: Ste on 15 Feb 2010 11:33 On 15 Feb, 12:20, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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. The essential definition is captured in the analogy above. That is, the same observations for the child, can have a number of physical causes.
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 12:10 On Feb 15, 10:33 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 Feb, 12:20, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > > 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. > > The essential definition is captured in the analogy above. That is, > the same observations for the child, can have a number of physical > causes. And the analogy points to the ambiguity, doesn't it? From one corner of your mouth, you say that there are a number of physical explanations for the observations, and from the other corner of your mouth you dismiss most of them as not physical. This lends to the apprehension that you yourself don't have a clear idea of what you mean by "physical".
From: mpalenik on 15 Feb 2010 12:12
On Feb 15, 6:52 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 14 Feb, 20:06, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > > > Ste a écrit : > > > > 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. Yeah, if only someone would come up with something that makes PHYSICAL sense, like epicycles *rolleyes* |