A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 8 Mar 2010 23:13 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:7e28b441-ee70-4736-bcbe-70f17dbc43cd(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 8, 8:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about >> supposed >> other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good >> luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a >> testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or >> not >> once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that. > > Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about > trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether. hasn't it occured to you that I'm not either? > I have > repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments > that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST. But they aren't. They are very easily dismissed .. which is what I showed you > What > would it have taken to convince, for example, Michelson, or Arago, > or Cauchy? > > You, on the other hand, have repeatedly resorted to utter crackpot > arguments that would have been recognized as such by any of the > premier classical aetherists, like Stokes, Cauchy, or Lorentz. No .. I've just shown that your arguments would not be convincing, because they have logical flaws in them. You propose to refute the existence of aether by claiming there MUST be other aethers and that these other aethers MUST have different propagation speeds. But your only argument as to 'why' is proof by assertion and hand waveing. That doesn't hold water (or aether). > To the classical aetherists, physical explanations about the > nature of light needed to be grounded firmly in mechanical > plausibility. Indeed they do .. though the properties of the aether that have been attributed to it over time as new experiments refute it, are improbable (almost to the point of being self-contradictory). However, you claiming there are other aether's that you think are highly unlikely to have (say) the same propagation speeds as the luminiferous aether do not constitute a valid argument against it. If such differing speeds are not found, then all that is refutes is your arguments that they must be different. > You have REPEATEDLY departed from any such limits > to your imaginings. Nope. I'm just trying to get you to understand that throughout the history of aether theory, there have been many challenges to it, and each time a new property or behavior is attributed to the aether to keep the theory 'alive'. Regardless if that .. your arguments for a test for the existence of aether are not even test for that at all .. but tests for whether there are multiple aethers with different propagation speeds. If that fails, then that does not mean there is no luminiferous aether. You need to be careful about what it is you are testing.
From: BURT on 8 Mar 2010 23:25 On Mar 8, 8:13 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:7e28b441-ee70-4736-bcbe-70f17dbc43cd(a)33g2000yqj.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 8, 8:31 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> You are the one who has been hand-waving and special pleads about > >> supposed > >> other aethers that are NOT part of LET. Doesn't work. Try again. Good > >> luck if you CAN find something that would make the existence of aether a > >> testable theory .. then we can settle whether or not LET is correct or > >> not > >> once and for all. ATM it is not .. you arm-waving doesn't change that. > > > Inertial, hasn't it occurred to you that I am NOT talking about > > trying to convince present-day CRACKPOTS about the aether. > > hasn't it occured to you that I'm not either? > > > I have > > repeatedly emphasized that I am talking about reasonable arguments > > that should have sufficed to convince a CLASSICAL AETHERIST. > > But they aren't. They are very easily dismissed .. which is what I showed > you > > > What > > would it have taken to convince, for example, Michelson, or Arago, > > or Cauchy? > > > You, on the other hand, have repeatedly resorted to utter crackpot > > arguments that would have been recognized as such by any of the > > premier classical aetherists, like Stokes, Cauchy, or Lorentz. > > No .. I've just shown that your arguments would not be convincing, because > they have logical flaws in them. > > You propose to refute the existence of aether by claiming there MUST be > other aethers and that these other aethers MUST have different propagation > speeds. But your only argument as to 'why' is proof by assertion and hand > waveing. That doesn't hold water (or aether). > > > To the classical aetherists, physical explanations about the > > nature of light needed to be grounded firmly in mechanical > > plausibility. > > Indeed they do .. though the properties of the aether that have been > attributed to it over time as new experiments refute it, are improbable > (almost to the point of being self-contradictory). > > However, you claiming there are other aether's that you think are highly > unlikely to have (say) the same propagation speeds as the luminiferous > aether do not constitute a valid argument against it. If such differing > speeds are not found, then all that is refutes is your arguments that they > must be different. > > > You have REPEATEDLY departed from any such limits > > to your imaginings. > > Nope. I'm just trying to get you to understand that throughout the history > of aether theory, there have been many challenges to it, and each time a new > property or behavior is attributed to the aether to keep the theory 'alive'. > > Regardless if that .. your arguments for a test for the existence of aether > are not even test for that at all .. but tests for whether there are > multiple aethers with different propagation speeds. If that fails, then > that does not mean there is no luminiferous aether. You need to be careful > about what it is you are testing. Space's immaterial substance is round and flows toward its geometric center of point energy density. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 9 Mar 2010 00:27 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3355b6f6-1826-4819-b7cb-b85913a5cae0(a)t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:9c1e1ae6-c9c1-497d-a293-35fb68100abb(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:720fa6a7-6744-4bf7-85fe-6050215ee277(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > > sense. > > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to the > > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving > > > either > > > exists. > > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > > _______________________ > > Non-existent. > > That is your 'belief'. The question was in physical model arena. > Give or reference a basic hypothetical definition... > > _____________________________ > A priveleged inertial reference frame. Of course, as I don't believe it > exists, I am hardly in a position to extol its qualities. This seems to be > what believers in a "fixed ether" mean by the term, but you would be > better > off asking them. I know as much about ether as I do about Unicorns. In > fact, > I don't even know if Unicorns are horses with a single spiral horn, or are > a > completely different species that just looks like a horse with a horn. If > you really want to know, ask somebody who believes in Unicorns and/or the > fixed ether what they are exactly. > > Paul Stowe I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? _______________________________ Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference frame where lengths and times are "correct". There is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing priveleged as in having different properties about it. _____________________________ It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real length is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I don't actually believe it exists at all.
From: Peter Webb on 9 Mar 2010 00:34 "Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:381b9f20-ab1b-45be-9164-af178af76839(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On 7 Mar, 02:51, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:651a713d-7ae4-4048-bafb-f1b3219ee4fc(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On 6 Mar, 12:47, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> >> > wrote: >> >> > This should make perfect sense to you. If a clock is running 2% >> >> > slower, then it is running 2% slower regardless of distance. But if, >> >> > as a result of running 2% slower, it falls behind 6 minutes after >> >> > running a certain amount of time, then it will fall behind 12 >> >> > minutes >> >> > after running for twice as long. >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> >> The question now is, if we agree that both clocks suffer time dilation >> >> in this way, then when they return to the start point, how do they >> >> each reconcile the fact that (after accounting for the effects of >> >> acceleration) it ought to be the other clock which is slow, when in >> >> fact one clock (the one that went furthest from the start point) will >> >> be slower than the other? And a third clock, left at the start point, >> >> will be running ahead of both? >> >> >> _________________________ >> >> They know that the operations were not symmetric. Only one clock >> >> remained >> >> in >> >> the same inertial reference frame throughout. The other two clocks >> >> spent >> >> different amounts of time in at least 3 different inertial reference >> >> frames. >> >> Everybody can see this is true, and so nobody expects that the clocks >> >> will >> >> remain synchronised. >> >> > Yes, but the important question here is whether they agree *after* the >> > effects of acceleration are taken into account. I mean, if we said >> > that each travelling clock slows by 2% when moving away from the start >> > point at a certain speed, then by rights both travelling clocks should >> > slow equally. Yes? >> >> As I understand your thought experiment, no. >> >> In SR, time dilation is a function of relative speed and the time for >> which >> they are moving at the speed. It is not a function of accleration. >> >> A doesn't move. B moves at speed v for time t, and its clock will read x >> behind A. C moves at speed v for time 2t, and its clock will read 2x >> behind >> A. > > The question is this. We'll deal with only the outbound trip (in other > words, the clocks are on the move, but time 't' has not yet elapsed, > so there has been no further acceleration). I agree with your answer > above, as it concerns A's frame. > > The question is, from the frame of B, what will the slowdown be on > clock C, *after* having accounted for the increased distances between > them (i.e. having accounted for the increased propagation delays). It > seems to me that the natural answer is to say "4%". Did you look at the diagrams on the Wikipedia page on the twins paradox as I suggested? This shows *exactly* what the moving and stationary clocks see as happening at all stages of the thought experiment. If you didn't understand it, go through it again, and identify where you start having problems, and I will be happy to help ... unfortunately if you want to understand the Twins Paradox fully, you will need to do some work yourself.
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 00:39
On Mar 8, 9:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:7vlpefFe0lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > >news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > >>news:7vjadlF4daU1(a)mid.individual.net... > >>> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > >>>news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > >>>> 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. > > >>>http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf "A GENERALIZATION OF THE > >>> LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY > >>> WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT" > > >> I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer > >> review? Who is this Ilja person? > > >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ > > > Ilja Schmelzer is a serious independent researcher and is a long time > > poster to these sci.physics.* groups. Do a googlegroup search and you > > will find some interesting discussions in years past. Some of the general > > ideas of that paper linked above were recently peer reviewed in this > > article, > > >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/FOOP9262.pdf > >http://www.springerlink.com/content/2470867k22637651/ > > Sounds like its you. Self-publishing on private web-sites generally tends > to be the activity of crackpots because reputable journals won't publish > them- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - It's not Fredi, or me, or anyone else that posts here. When Ilja posts he uses his own name. Read a few of his posts and I think you will agree that he is no crackpot. |