A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 12:12 On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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, On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving toward the observer. Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this statement is absurd nonsense or not? > but you do > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question.
From: mpalenik on 15 Feb 2010 12:27 On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't understood the answer. The above explains everything about relativity and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle, and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps demanding a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal but the total length of the ladder didn't change. And then the person you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder inside of So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way. And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he says you didn't understand the question. And when you tell him that you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has no bearing on what's physically happening. Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to being able to rotate. There's nothing else to explain. You accellerate something, it rotates. That's a physical answer.
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 12:36 On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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, > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > toward the observer. > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > but you do > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle and as such it always enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM for now. You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. That is absurd nonsense. The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you choose to believe. A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether displacement wave.
From: Ste on 15 Feb 2010 13:19 On 15 Feb, 17:10, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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". Indeed. I suppose the difference is that, when the child is spinning, you'd expect him to say "my head is spinning", not "the sky is spinning", and thereby identify the physical basis for his observation. I acknowledge to some extent that it's difficult to articulate exactly what is required when one demands a "physical explanation", but that's why I've given up asking for one (I'm willing to put it down to irreconcilable philosophical or psychological differences), and instead I'm going to try and build one myself.
From: Ste on 15 Feb 2010 13:40
On 15 Feb, 17:27, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 6:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > And if you think there's more to it than that, then you haven't > understood the answer. The above explains everything about relativity > and there's no ambiguity when you understand it. > > Going back to the fitting a ladder into a barn analogy, it's like you > have a ladder to long to fit into the barn, you turn it at an angle, > and it fits, and then someone starts asking you what "physically" > happened to the ladder. You say "well, it got rotated, so it's > shorter in the horizontal direction". Then the person keeps demanding > a physical explanation, and you say you just rotated the ladder, so it > takes up a bit more space in the vertical and less in the horizontal > but the total length of the ladder didn't change. And then the person > you're talking to says that he refuses to believe that mathematical > things like angles can affect the things that you can put the ladder > inside of So then, you try to say that it's like trying to pack a box > and turning all of the objects so they fit into the box the best way. > And then he says "well, there's no doubt that rotating objects is > useful for packing boxes but it doesn't explain what physically > happened to the ladder," so you try to explain one more time and he > says you didn't understand the question. And when you tell him that > you can even *calculate* the length and height of the ladder after > rotating it, he says that's an abstract mathematical question and has > no bearing on what's physically happening. > > Velocity is rotation, just rotation in a way that you're not used to > being able to rotate. There's nothing else to explain. You > accellerate something, it rotates. That's a physical answer. But you could give a simple demonstration of spatial rotation. Indeed, people knew how to rotate things in space long before formal geometry was ever developed. But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. It's a bit like "light follows a groove in space" - the supposed concrete analogy actually introduces more confusion. I mean, if this "rotation into time" means "at any one instant, you cannot see the whole item", then it would be easier just to say that. On the other hand, if it means "the item gets physically shorter in the direction of travel", then it would be easier just to say that. |