A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 13:44 On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects called quantum objects. Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. You just assert that it is so. > 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. We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting this or asserting that. > > 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. See? You haven't answered the question at all. You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what is absurd nonsense and what is not. To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so what you CHOOSE to believe. That's called faith, not science. > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > aether displacement wave.
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 13:51 On Feb 15, 12:40 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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. And so because it is older and more familiar, then it is acceptable, whereas something that is newer and less familiar is less acceptable? > > But "rotation into time" is totally meaningless in the sense that it's > supposed to have any analogy with spatial rotation. Analogies are always limited. When you say that house walls are like bridge piers, you have to identify in what ways they are alike and what ways they are not alike. To people for whom the analogy is familiar, the distinction is easy. For people for whom it is not familiar, it is easy to get confused and think they are not the same at all. Likewise, you have a limited sense of what "rotation" means, and you don't have any visual concept of what general rotation means -- because you are limited to the spatial context. If you had a better understanding of the *essence* of rotation that is not limited to the specific instance, then the analogy would make much more sense. In a way, you suffer the same limitation of someone who only thinks of mammals as being tetrapod land animals. For this person, who has a limited understanding of what mammals are, the idea of bats and whales being mammals would just make no sense at all, because they aren't tetrapod land animals. > 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", No, it does not mean that. > 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. No, it does not mean that either. Stop trying to pigeonhole things into things you PRESENTLY understand, and try to expand your understanding to include what it REALLY means. PD
From: YBM on 15 Feb 2010 13:55 Ste a �crit : > On 14 Feb, 20:06, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: >> Ste a �crit : >> >>> Of course I realise that. The point I'm making is that where you're >>> dealing with two different frames that are moving relative, the same >>> object (i.e. the photon, or whatever) cannot physically have the same >>> measured velocity in both. >> I still can't make sense of what you intend by "physically", but what >> is remarquable here is that your "physically" is in contradiction with >> "according to experiments". Whatever you mean by "physical" it is >> contradictory with "reality". > > That's because you, rather foolishly in my view, seem to think that > observation is not open to interpretation. You can't imagine how > wearing it is to keep being told "the sun goes round the Earth, > because that is what we observe", as though it is impossible that the > observation could possibly have more than one explanation. As a matter of fact, even in pure Galilean/Newtonian terms, both of these statements are true : - Eearth goes round the Sun - Sun goes round the Earth As usual with cranks like you, issues about SR come from issues with classical dynamics. > 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'?" This is bad, very bad. The worse is that you don't realize it. This is not pre-aristolecian stuff, this is worse.
From: mpc755 on 15 Feb 2010 14:05 On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > called quantum objects. > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > 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. > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > this or asserting that. > > > > > 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. > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > what you CHOOSE to believe. > That's called faith, not science. > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > > aether displacement wave. > >
From: PD on 15 Feb 2010 14:17
On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > called quantum objects. > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > 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. > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > this or asserting that. > > > > 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. > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > That's called faith, not science. > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > is material or believing the future determines the past? You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding. That's the point. You have to have an independent method for *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. What's your method for that independent determination? Or do you just CHOOSE based on what you LIKE? > > > > > > A moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated > > > aether displacement wave. |