A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 00:48 On Mar 8, 6:06 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > In LET the speed of light is only isotropically c in the aether frame. > ....then all the modern tests that put severe constraints on light speed anisotropy falsify LET. earlier you were asking Jerry for tests that falsify LET, here you have it. I can provide you with an extensive list.
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 00:53 On Mar 8, 1:58 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:29fd9f7d-c9b4-41e6-b33a-585c3e0e7acf(a)q23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 9:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(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.) > > >> The three clock situation cannot be so easily drawn .. bit like trying to > >> drawing a three dimensional figure in 2d :) This sort of diagram only > >> really works for a single pair of clocks looking from a third frame in > >> which > >> they move with the same speed. Things are trickier when there is frame > >> jumping going on :):)- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > The question still remains, if there is no change in the tick rate of > > the clock, how can clock A have fewer ticks recorded when it is > > brought back to clock B? > > Look at the Lorentz transforms to see. Its all due to clock synch.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You are going to give yourself a head cold with all that arm waving. You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, yet SR says that the returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time. You don't see any conflict there?
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 00:59 On Mar 8, 9:53 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > You are going to give yourself a head cold with all that arm waving. > You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, yet SR says that the > returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time. You don't see any > conflict there? There is no conflict, the difference in elapsed time is due to the differences in the length of the space paths. No clock tick rate difference necessary. This is SR 101.
From: Peter Webb on 9 Mar 2010 01:52 - You are going to give yourself a head cold with all that arm waving. You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, yet SR says that the returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time. You don't see any conflict there? ___________________________________ You are playing word games here, and you know it. His meaning is clear to me and I believe to you as well. Just because English lacks words which refer specifically to relativistic time dilation and the transformations which occur when you change reference frames doesn't mean these aren't real; they can be easily, tersely and unambiguously described mathematically as Einstein did in 1905. Any "conflict" is due to the imprecision of English, not a logical conflict in expected outcomes.
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 04:11
On Mar 8, 10:13 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 Sure... Light results from vibrations in the aether. Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether. Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether. Electric fields represent distortions of the aether. Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether. The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. Light travels at c. Gravitational waves travel at c. Strong force travels at c. Weak force travels at less than c. Light couples with charge. Gravity couples with matter. Strong force couples with color charge. Weak force couples with flavour. et cetera... Lorentz would be happy at your claim that a single aether represents the common transmitter for all of these effects. It explains so much!!! Jerry |