A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 20:09 On Mar 9, 4:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:cfb962f7-8ce3-47af-82a9-98483033b493(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 2:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Dono." <sa...(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. > > > Too bad that you continue to make incorrect claims. > > Too bad you think correct claims are incorrect. I guess that's the result > of your ignorance and arrogance (yet again). This seems to be a recurring > theme with you. > > > The speed of light depends on the sense of motion (the speed in +x is > > different from the speed in -x). The "contraction of rulers" does not > > depend on the sense of motion. > > Gees .. this is basic Lorentz transforms. Have you never studied them? .. > it appears not. You do realize that LET predicts EXACTLY the same things as > SR does .. including time dilation and RoS just. One last time, the "contraction of rulers" is insensitive to sense of motion whreas the light speed anisotropy is sensitive to sense of motion. So, contrary to your claims, the "rulers contraction" cannot counter the light speed anisotropy. If you read the experiments I listed for you, you would have noticed that the aether based thories predict a non-zero light speed anisotropy, precisely because there is no effect that can cancel out the difference between c+ and c-.
From: Peter Webb on 9 Mar 2010 20:09 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. I also find it implausible that C could leap ahead of B. The more plausible explanation, surely, is that B slows down dramatically relative to C. 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? ____________________________________ No. As I keep saying to you - but you fail to understand (which is itself a worry) - is that statements like "the clocks are synchronisation" are not really meaningful, as whether they show the same time is a function of the inertial reference frame in which the clocks are observed; it is not a function of the underlying dynamics, it is an artifact of the co-ordinate system you choose. That is why you can only ask questions about what is observed to happen for a specific observer. In answer to your question about "snapping back into synchronisation", apart from the fact that it is meaningless, even if we reformulated this as a question about observable quantities it is still wrong. When B and C become relatively stationary, there is no sudden dramatic change to the clock to the time they read on each others clocks; no jumps or discontinuities or "snaps". For more detail, consult, read and try to understand any standard explanation of the twins paradox.
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 20:24 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:4c52b5ec-cedd-4940-a54d-689ffb323d17(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(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 >> > This has nothing to do with water, I just explained to you why you > would need AT LEAST two different "aethers". For a start, I think you are confusing gravity waves with gravitational waves. We are talking about gravitational waves .. they are transverse as I understand (they cause motion perpendicular to their direction of propagation) Regardless, I just showed one medium having both longitudinal and transverse components of wave motion. And as I explained to you .. common sense has never stood in the way of aetherist giving the aether more and more properties that are unlike any other material .. no reason why they would not simply claim that aether can propogate both types of waves, if that was required to explain observations.
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 20:29 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:c73c5dd6-2c3e-4b39-a9bd-83a82170781f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 4:52 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:cfb962f7-8ce3-47af-82a9-98483033b493(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 9, 2:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Dono." <sa...(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. >> >> > Too bad that you continue to make incorrect claims. >> >> Too bad you think correct claims are incorrect. I guess that's the >> result >> of your ignorance and arrogance (yet again). This seems to be a >> recurring >> theme with you. >> >> > The speed of light depends on the sense of motion (the speed in +x is >> > different from the speed in -x). The "contraction of rulers" does not >> > depend on the sense of motion. >> >> Gees .. this is basic Lorentz transforms. Have you never studied them? >> .. >> it appears not. You do realize that LET predicts EXACTLY the same things >> as >> SR does .. including time dilation and RoS just. > > One last time, We can hope > the "contraction of rulers" is insensitive to sense of > motion whreas the light speed anisotropy is sensitive to sense of > motion. I know all that .. that is the same in SR as in LET. But (exactly as with SR) there is more to Lorentz transforms than just ruler contraction. Which is why I never claimed that it is just rulers being compressed. > So, contrary to your claims, the "rulers contraction" cannot > counter the light speed anisotropy. I never claimed that ruler contraction on its own does that. You are making up lies about what I said. > If you read the experiments I > listed for you, I have. > you would have noticed that the aether based thories > predict a non-zero light speed anisotropy, Old naive fixed aether theories that have simple 3D spae and galillean transforsm. They are long since refuted (mmx pretty much took care of those). LET does NOT predict non-zero light speed anistropy will be measured. It predicts the speed of light will be measured as c in EVERY inertial frame. Just as SR does. > precisely because there is > no effect that can cancel out the difference between c+ and c-. Lorentz transforms do just that .. they mean all frames measure light at c. This is very basic SR (and LET) stuff. You seem to not understand the basics (let alone what is derived from them).
From: Inertial on 9 Mar 2010 20:32
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b96f4e3$0$27816$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:4c52b5ec-cedd-4940-a54d-689ffb323d17(a)k17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On Mar 9, 2:57 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >>> "Dono." <sa...(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 >>> >> This has nothing to do with water, I just explained to you why you >> would need AT LEAST two different "aethers". > > For a start, I think you are confusing gravity waves with gravitational > waves. We are talking about gravitational waves .. they are transverse as > I understand (they cause motion perpendicular to their direction of > propagation) Please refer to http://elmer.tapir.caltech.edu/ph237/week1/Ph237Week1Slides.pdf |