A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 16:18 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8e68d36d-64b0-41ab-92c3-2b17937f4b3b(a)19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Mar, 19:14, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 6, 5:58 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > Ste: This is exactly what I was telling you earlier, that people will >> > > be less inclined to teach things on your terms, using your language >> > > and indulging your lack of skills, and will advise you that it is >> > > more >> > > efficient in the long run to teach after you've acquired some >> > > relevant >> > > skills and vocabulary. You didn't seem to think this was the case, >> > > and >> > > here you have others telling you the same thing. Reconsider? >> >> > As I say Paul, the words "total acceleration" I think should have >> > given people some clue as to the meaning - and indeed the more >> > intelligent amongst us here did recognise the meaning, and suggested >> > an alternative word. That said, in this case I'm happy to use an >> > alternative formulation like "impulse", because I can see that it will >> > add further precision to my meanings in future. >> >> > It's quite different from the disputes that arose over words like >> > "physical" and "material", where each side seems to battle childishly >> > over whose idiosyncratic understanding of the word will prevail, when >> > the time could be better used getting on with the substantive argument. >> >> Excellent. Then since you see the value of using a precisely defined >> term like "impulse", then I'm sure you'll have no problem using the >> precisely defined meanings of "physical" and "material" as they are >> understood in science. > > But they aren't precisely defined words. Anyway I don't want to rake > over that again. Yes .. lets just ignore anything that shows you did something wrong.
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 16:21 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:23995f99-86e3-49b6-9ff5-a1606921b6eb(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 6:21 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> news:7ec422c5-c1be-4bb7-a26a-e694cc7a4e34(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > >> > Classically, >> > supporters of the aether tied themselves into knots trying to >> > come up with an aether with the necessary mechanical properties >> > to support all the known characteristics of light. >> >> It would have to have properties unlike any other media .. contracting >> all >> matter and slowing all processes in particular :) >> >> Basically .. in LET you give the aether whatever properties you need to >> to >> explain whatever you want. Its quite ad-hoc in that respect. > > No. Present-day advocates of aether theory may invest the aether > with godlike magical properties, but Lorentz did not do that. > Lorentz's aether had a highly specific set of properties. Which are not falsifiable. And even if one COULD find some test that would make aether falsifiable, if it fails, it would be resolved by aether supporters by providing some new property of the aether that explains it. >> However, despite all that, you've still not come up with a way to falsify >> aether. > > Not within LET itself, but within the meta-theory of which LET > must represent merely one of multiple media of highly diverse > properties. But that is not LET. That is some arbitrary theory you're putting forward that there must be multiple aethers. All we can do is refute your theory that there are which does NOTHING to refute LET > Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity, > for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that? NO idea .. but if it is put forward as a way to refute LET because it doesn't, then LET will be modified so that it does.
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 16:27 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:288076f0-5f9f-416c-a47c-53d780f763d2(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >>> Unless you wish to contend that LET is also a theory of gravity, >>> for example, and explains gravity waves? Who claims that? >> >> ___________________________ >> That would be a somewhat stronger argument if we had ever actually >> detected >> a gravity wave. As it is, their absence may prove a MM moment for GR >> sooner >> or later. > > Of course, Hulse Taylor makes the existence of gravitational > waves all but certain. > > My contention is that aether theories impose no necessary > constraint on the speed of gravitational waves versus light waves. Unless (aether proponents will calim) they are transmitted using the SAME aether, or event a separate aether (as you proposed). Perhaps all aethers have a propagation speed of c due to whatever-it-is that makes them an aether. Of crouse, we can't tell what the properties are directly, as we don't know what an aether really is and have never detected one. So we can only go by what we can observe that we THINK is caused by aether .. and so if we observe that everything has a speed of c in any aether, then that must be a property of all aethers. One cannot ever falsify a 'theory' that is so easily changed. So you cannot use gravity wave propagation rate being the same as the speed of light (say) as a refutation of an aether. > There is no existing aether theory that explains them as > manifestations of the same phenomenon. Aether theories as > presently understood therefore predict different speeds for > gravitational waves versus light waves. > > Note: PREdict, not POSTdict. The speed of gravitation has not > been measured. > > If the speed of sound were measured to be the same in air, water > and steel, that observation would disprove all current theories > of sound. > > If the speed of gravitational waves is ever shown identical to > the speed of light waves, that observation would disprove all > current aether theories... It would do no such thing.
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 16:32 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:0e88157c-dafc-4b1a-9660-66156d14cc02(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> We only need one aether to do that. That is enough to make all aethers >> (if >> any) undetectable (if they have the same propagation speed). > > As a supporter of the "one aether hypothesis", I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can give it any properties they want, there is no reason why we need separate aethers. There is also no reason why an aether should have to be responsible for the weak and strong forces. Unless (as a clear supporter of multiple aethers) you have a reason why aether must exist. > please provide me > with a mechanistic description of a single aether that can > support both the inverse-squared (gravity and light) and diverse > non-inverse-squared laws (strong and weak forces). > > Also, you will have to prove that W and Z particles travel at > the speed of light. :-) *I* don't have to do anything .. I am not advocating aether theories. I am simply pointing out that you have not provided ANY way to falsify aether theories. All you have done is said that if we add another level of theory that predicts multiple aethers, then IF those aethers had different propagation speeds we would get different speeds for emr and gravity waves ... but of crouse, if we DONT" get different speeds, all that refutes is your assumption that the speeds in the aethers is NOT different (or gravity and EMR use the same aether).
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 16:37
"PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6df7b680-7ee4-47a1-b12a-26d0921ce271(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 11:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:4618fc10-f129-4474-b8c4-3eb3466dc5ab(a)t41g2000yqt.googlegroups.com... >> >> > On Mar 7, 9:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> I agree .. the existence of an aether is not falsifiable. Unless >> >> perhaps >> >> some GR predictions (say)would be incompatible with an aether (but >> >> compatible with SR). I'm certainly not aware of any test that would >> >> allow >> >> one to test for its presence or not. >> >> > I beg to differ on the matter of falsifiability, at least in >> > principle. >> >> OK .. so you know how to falsify the hypothesis that aether exists? >> >> > The classical luminiferous aether that we are most familiar with >> > is a hypothetical medium that allows the transmission of >> > electromagnetic disturbances through otherwise empty space. >> >> Hypothetical, but not (as yet) falsifiable >> >> > But >> > there are other forces besides electromagnetic: There are the >> > strong, weak, and gravitational forces. >> >> > These other forces are so completely different in properties from >> > electromagnetic forces, that they -MUST- be transmitted via their >> > own aethers. >> >> Why not the same aether? Why does there need to be ANY aethers? How >> does >> this make the ( luminiferous ) aether falsifiable .. let alone the others >> (if any) ? >> >> > It is absurd to imagine that a single aether could >> > be responsible for transmission of forces of such diverse >> > characteristics. >> >> Why absurd? No more absurd than the notion of an aether for EMR? >> >> > Therefore, besides the luminiferous aether, >> > there must exist strong, weak, and gravitational aethers. >> >> You simply assert that. There is no particular reason to do so. It is >> not >> a prediction of LET. > > That's correct. LET makes no statement whatsoever about strong, weak, > and gravitational forces. However, it is right to expect that if LET > *is* correct in its application to the electromagnetic force, then it > *should* be applicable in the case of the other forces. So either the same aether transmits them, or a different aether (which may have some properties in common with the EMR aether), or some other mechanism (eg for strong and weak forces) > You can take a more limited stance and says that the Lorentz > covariance of the electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the > Lorentz covariance of the other forces is completely unexplained. > However, SR provides a model that DOES explain the Lorentz covariance > of all four forces, and in this sense it wins by broadness of > application. Indeed it does. > You would even take the stance that Lorentz covariance of the > electromagnetic force is explained by LET, and the Lorentz covariance > of the other forces is explained by special relativity. But this would > be an obviously obstinate stance. Supports of 'alternatives' to SR can be a very obstinate bunch. |