A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 04:33 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:9a5eb50c-6ed1-4435-9493-0a0fef9039df(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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. No .. because we measure the speed as isotropic due to the distorted rulers and malfunctioning clocks that movement thru the aether causes (according to LET). > earlier you were asking Jerry for tests that falsify LET, here you > have it. Thing is we can't measure the (according of LET) real velocity of light. > I can provide you with an extensive list. Please do .. but I think you'll find they are all similarly excused by the effects of movement in the aether on matter and processes.
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 04:34 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:51d25138-0494-4e1a-a46a-ee48ea24a394(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > 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. Do you REALLY need to to give you the SR explanation of the twins paradox? > You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, That's what SR says. But a moving observer will measure the tick rate as slower. Just like the intrinsic length of a rod doesn't change because a moving observer measures it. > yet SR says that the > returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time. It will > You don't see any > conflict there? No .. do you?
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 04:41 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1f4603fc-090d-4113-9258-140a2a7dec78(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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. So says LET .. we have never observed this aether > Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether. NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional waves > Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether. So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether > Electric fields represent distortions of the aether. So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether > Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether. NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > Light travels at c. Yes .. only in the aether frame in LET .. but distorted matter and slowed processes results in us measuring it as c in every frame > Gravitational waves travel at c. That is what is predicted .. I don't know of any definitive results that show that. > Strong force travels at c. No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. > Weak force travels at less than c. No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. > Light couples with charge. Yeup > Gravity couples with matter. Yeup > Strong force couples with color charge. Yeup > Weak force couples with flavour. Yeup > 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!!! Noone said it has to explain anything other than what it explains (ie it doesn't need to explain things outside its domain) .. it only has to be the medium for EMR. It is not part of LET that gravity is carried by an aether ... or if it *is* carried by an aether whether or not it is the same aether as light uses. All one can test is what LET actually says and what can be directly derived from it. If you can find something that LET predicts that SR doesn't (as the things in common have already been tested when we test SR) .. then please let us know. I'm sure there would be aetherists out there keen to have LET distinguished from SR based on factual evidence, rather than on metaphysics and unobservables.
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 05:25 On Mar 9, 3:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1f4603fc-090d-4113-9258-140a2a7dec78(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > 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. > > So says LET .. we have never observed this aether > > > Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether. > > NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional waves > > > Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether. > > So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether > > > Electric fields represent distortions of the aether. > > So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether > > > Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether. > > NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > > > The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. > > NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > > > The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. > > NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces > > > Light travels at c. > > Yes .. only in the aether frame in LET .. but distorted matter and slowed > processes results in us measuring it as c in every frame > > > Gravitational waves travel at c. > > That is what is predicted .. I don't know of any definitive results that > show that. > > > Strong force travels at c. > > No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. > > > Weak force travels at less than c. > > No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. > > > Light couples with charge. > > Yeup > > > Gravity couples with matter. > > Yeup > > > Strong force couples with color charge. > > Yeup > > > Weak force couples with flavour. > > Yeup > > > 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!!! > > Noone said it has to explain anything other than what it explains (ie it > doesn't need to explain things outside its domain) .. it only has to be the > medium for EMR. It is not part of LET that gravity is carried by an aether > .. or if it *is* carried by an aether whether or not it is the same aether > as light uses. > > All one can test is what LET actually says and what can be directly derived > from it. > > If you can find something that LET predicts that SR doesn't (as the things > in common have already been tested when we test SR) .. then please let us > know. I'm sure there would be aetherists out there keen to have LET > distinguished from SR based on factual evidence, rather than on metaphysics > and unobservables. As a matter of fact, Lorentz DID work on an aether theory of gravitation. Lorentz's theory would have predicted the existence of gravitational waves, but the waves would have traveled at -many times- the speed of light. If and when the speed of gravitation is ever measured, if the speed turns out to be identical to the speed of light, that would be an incredible finding that casts severe questions on the viability of aether theories in general. Aether theories explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed. Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't. Jerry
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 05:49
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:dbc8c23a-b036-40f3-b5c4-db556f1c7065(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 3:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:1f4603fc-090d-4113-9258-140a2a7dec78(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> So says LET .. we have never observed this aether >> >> > Gravitational waves result from vibrations in the aether. >> >> NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional waves >> >> > Magnetic fields represent distortions of the aether. >> >> So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether >> >> > Electric fields represent distortions of the aether. >> >> So says LET .. thats why EMR propogates in the aether >> >> > Gravitational forces are transmitted by distortions in the aether. >> >> NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces >> >> > The strong force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. >> >> NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces >> >> > The weak force is transmitted by distortions in the aether. >> >> NO idea .. AFAIK LET does not say anything about gravitional forces >> >> > Light travels at c. >> >> Yes .. only in the aether frame in LET .. but distorted matter and slowed >> processes results in us measuring it as c in every frame >> >> > Gravitational waves travel at c. >> >> That is what is predicted .. I don't know of any definitive results that >> show that. >> >> > Strong force travels at c. >> >> No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. >> >> > Weak force travels at less than c. >> >> No idea if it does or not .. I'll take your word for it. >> >> > Light couples with charge. >> >> Yeup >> >> > Gravity couples with matter. >> >> Yeup >> >> > Strong force couples with color charge. >> >> Yeup >> >> > Weak force couples with flavour. >> >> Yeup >> >> > 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!!! >> >> Noone said it has to explain anything other than what it explains (ie it >> doesn't need to explain things outside its domain) .. it only has to be >> the >> medium for EMR. It is not part of LET that gravity is carried by an >> aether >> .. or if it *is* carried by an aether whether or not it is the same >> aether >> as light uses. >> >> All one can test is what LET actually says and what can be directly >> derived >> from it. >> >> If you can find something that LET predicts that SR doesn't (as the >> things >> in common have already been tested when we test SR) .. then please let us >> know. I'm sure there would be aetherists out there keen to have LET >> distinguished from SR based on factual evidence, rather than on >> metaphysics >> and unobservables. > > As a matter of fact, Lorentz DID work on an aether theory of > gravitation. Lorentz's theory would have predicted the existence > of gravitational waves, but the waves would have traveled at > -many times- the speed of light. > > If and when the speed of gravitation is ever measured, if the > speed turns out to be identical to the speed of light, that > would be an incredible finding that casts severe questions on > the viability of aether theories in general. No .. it just means all aethers (itf there are more than one .. or any) propagate disturbances at c. That may simply be an inherent property of all aethers (well, it will be claimed to be by aetherists if that is ever found ... the aether has gotten more and more (often apparently conflicting) properties attributed to it over time as experiments refute previous understandings. > Aether theories > explain wave propagation as due to the mechanical properties > of the particular aether in question, and there is no reason > whatsoever why two theories should share the same wave speed. Nor any reason why they cannot. > Certainly the gravitational and luminiferous aethers shouldn't. No reason they cannot. No reason why gravity waves and EM waves cannot both travel at c. Any test showing that the do both travel at c will simply refute your assertion that they must be different .. it won't refute aether theory itself. And if necessary, aether will be modified yet again to account for it. |