A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 9 Mar 2010 15:16 On Mar 9, 1:56 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 9 Mar, 17:39, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 11:14 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Yes. I'll take the symmetric case here, where they both travel outward > > and back the same distance. > > Yes, we are back to talking about the symmetric case, although on > reflection I might not have made that clear. > > > > > The details here are interesting, and again, it depends a little on > > what's actually being measured. This is also covered and explained > > nicely in the link that I gave you, so I do recommend you read that. > > You have to first keep in mind that the B and C clocks are not in the > > same place, so it takes some care to explain what you mean when you > > say that B sees that clock C is running slow. How exactly is the > > information exchanged and the propagation time corrected for? See the > > links. In a nutshell, and under one such scenario, what B sees is the > > following: > > 1. On the outward trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it is > > behind B's clock by the time the outward journey ends. > > 2. On the turnaround, C's clock leaps forward so that it is *ahead* of > > B's clock by the time the turnaround is complete. > > 3. On the inbound trip, C's clock is running slow, so that it ends up > > showing the same time as B's clock by the time the inward journey > > ends. > > When we talk of the "turnaround", can we be a bit more specific about > what is happening? Also, bear in mind that *both* turnaround at the > same time. As I said, the specifics are in the link that I provided and I don't want to replicate them here. > > I also find it implausible that C could leap ahead of B. I'm sorry, but do not confuse "don't understand how" with "implausible". If I tell you that the pressure at the bottom of a tank of water doesn't depend on whether the cross-sectional area at the bottom of the tank is bigger than the cross-sectional area at the top of the tank, or the cross-sectional area at the top of the tank is bigger than the cross-sectional area at the bottom of the tank, you may not understand how this is possible, but that does not make it implausible. > The more > plausible explanation, surely, is that B slows down dramatically > relative to C. No. Again, you are making a generalization from a comic-book representation of special relativity that changes in readings in clocks is due to (and only due to) the relative speed of the clock. This is not the case, not even in SR. > So for example, if both clocks stopped moving (relative > to A) while at their farthest distance from each other, then for a > short time the other clock would appear to leap ahead (actually a > slowing of the reference clock), until the effects of each clock > stopping had actually propagated to the other clock, at which point > they would snap back into synchronisation again (propagation delays > disregarded). Yes?
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:44 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:c368db00-b8ab-43c9-9a17-dd257c591e1a(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(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). >> > > You are contradicting yourself , Nope > in the earlier post you claimed > (correctly) that LET predicts light speed to be isotropic ONLY in the > preferrential frame of the "aether". That's right. It does. > In ALL other frame, light speed > is ANISOTROPIC. It is .. but we can't measure it correctly, due to distorted clocks and rulers we use (according to LET) .. and movement through the aether distorts those clocks and rulers by just the right amount so that we measure isotropic c with them. > So, you are now contradicting yourself and your new post is wrong. Nope .. please .. read it again without your 'Dono is superior to all and never wrong' glasses on.
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:57 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:5f94889b-e02a-4b8e-91bc-edcdf876e3bd(a)n7g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 2:49 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >> 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. > > Bad answer: Good answer > EM waves are TRANSVERSE whereas gravitational wave are > LONGITUDINAL waves. The same medium cannot propagate both, so, you > need AT LEAST two different "aethers" Water transmits a combination of the two. http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/waves/wavemotion.html And, of course, aether can have whatever properties Aetherists want to assign to it .. seeing we can never detect it. It is already a solid and a fluid, massless, no viscosity, transparent, incompressible, continuous at all scales. Each property was added as an observation or experiment was performed that would have refuted the aether. Its properties are basically ad-hoc. Aetherists can (and have done similar before) simply say that one of its properties is the ability to transmit both types of waves .. and their proof is simple: Both light and gravity waves are propagated, and it MUST be via the aether, so the aether must have that property. Or they will agree that there are two types of aether that co-exist, but because they are both aethers one of the things they share is a propagation speed of c. The thing is .. seeing we have absolutely zero evidence of an aether and cannot directly measure its properties .. aetherists have pretty much free reign in saying what an aether can or cannot do and what properties it does and does not have.
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 17:59 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:22303455-6302-4e10-8b26-d2053e239a43(a)u15g2000prd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 4:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: >> 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 >> >> ___________________________ >> The confirmation of the existence of the strong and weak forces and QM >> generally is itself a strong argument against LET at a number of levels. >> >> The argument that Lorentz put forward is based upon in the absence of >> gravity there are physical objects, and electromagnetism. Maxwell's eqns >> transformed according to the Lorentz equations. As experiments had shown >> that physical objects and EM transform the same way, and everybody was >> pretty confident about Maxwell, the obvious (and correct) answer was that >> physical objects must also obey a Lorentz transform. The putative >> mechanism >> was that the movement through the ether compressed physical objects. >> >> Now, that's all well and good, but how do you reconcile this with the >> existence of other fields, such as the strong and weak forces? It has >> long >> been known that radioactive decay rates (from say cosmic rays) and other >> processes that are mediated by the strong and weak force follow exactly >> the >> same transformations eg time dilation. >> >> So now this ether is doing more than compress physical objects to make >> them >> have the same transformation rules as EM, it is also compressing weak >> fields >> and strong fields in exactly the same way to force them to align with EM. >> >> By the time you have run this kludge three times (for physical objects, >> strong force, weak force) to align them with Maxwell, its pretty obvious >> that its much, much simpler to assume space itself is changing. > > > > Nice post . I agree. Yet there are still aetherists out there persisting with the notion .. but (not surprisingly) relatively few of them :)
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 18:00
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:67867321-a1b9-454e-96fb-bc8a0bd0783a(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 1:33 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> 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. > > http://www.2physics.com/2009/11/testing-foundation-of-special.html Yeup .. all good stuff. None refute what LET claims. > PS: Jerry and Tom Roberts, there is a lot of newer papers that you > might want to add to your respective websites. |