A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Uncle Al on 9 Mar 2010 20:33 "Dono." wrote: > > 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". idiot http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Uncle Al on 9 Mar 2010 20:33 "Dono." wrote: > > On Mar 9, 3:00 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > "Dono." <sa...(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. > > > Of course they do. Too bad that you are unable to read- idiot http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Uncle Al on 9 Mar 2010 20:35 "Dono." wrote: [snip] > 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-. idiot http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973) Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974) <http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf> No aether <http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html> Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 No Lorentz violation idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 20:58 On Mar 9, 9:31 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 8, 11:53 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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? > > No, there is no conflict. When you say that the tick rate does not > change, this is a LOCAL statement. What it means is that a process > measured locally with this clock will still have the same duration. That is not what we were discussing. I agree that the clock continues to tick at a rate of one second per proper second in the rest frame of the clock. The question was whether the slowed tick rate measured in the frame of the stay at home twin is real, or an illusion due to the clock sync proceedure, as length contraction is. If it is an illusion the accumulated time on the two clocks should be the same when they are brought back together. The way Inertial described it, it came across as an illusion caused purely by clock sync. I hate discussing what is "real". In a sense length contraction is real because the pole will fit into the barn. But with length contraction there is no accumulated length to inspect when the pole is brought to rest. I can see that the measured slowing of the clock is due to the rotation of the time coordinates when it changed frames, but that doesn't make it any less real. > For example, if the half-life of a muon that is slow in frame A and is > measured with a clock at rest in A is 2.2 us, then if you make the > same measurement of the half-life of a muon that is slow in frame B > and is measured with a clock at rest in B, clock B will still show the > half-life to be 2.2 us. In this sense, we say that the clock tick rate > has not changed, because measurements of local phenomena are > unchanged. Yes, but again you are measuring locally, more or less in the rest frame of the muon. We know that if we measure the half life of a fast moving muon it is longer, as if its personal clock was ticking slower. > However, this does NOT mean that the tick rate of clock B will agree > with the clock rate of all other clocks, nor that it will read the > durations of nonlocal processes to be the same. > > Do you see the distinction? If we set up a light clock with a vertical bouncing beam, and have it send a flash back to the stay at home twin every time the beam hits the top, we can tell just how fast the clock is ticking. The signal will be doppler shifted, but the total count is what it is. None of the flashes drifted off and avoided detection. I am not claiming this slowing is due to motion wrt an ether. It is due to the finite speed of light and how we define/construct the coordinate systems. Bruce
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:03
On Mar 9, 5:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > That is not what we were discussing. I agree that the clock continues > to tick at a rate of one second per proper second in the rest frame of > the clock. The question was whether the slowed tick rate measured in > the frame of the stay at home twin is real, or an illusion due to the > clock sync proceedure, as length contraction is. There is no "slowed tick rate in the frame of the stay at home twin". There is less elapsed time for the travelling twi, period. This is the result of the invariance of ds^2=(cdt)^2-(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2). The twin with the larger (dx^2+dy^2+dz^2) experience less elapsed time. The proof is obvious. |