A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:06 On Mar 9, 5:35 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > "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/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > No Lorentz violation > > idiot > > -- > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm Imbecile, I am proving the same exact thing as the papers you are citing.
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:17 On Mar 9, 5:24 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(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. No, I am not: http://www.ligo.caltech.edu/docs/P/P980007-00.pdf > 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. The "aether" used for propagating graitational waves would need to have very different properties from the one used for propagating em waves. Get used to this.
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:25 On Mar 9, 5:29 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > 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. > You simply claimed that rulers compression cancels out light speed anisotropy . I don't know why you are now lying about this. Look, bozo: the test theories mentioned in the link I gave you (SME and RMS) use the same exact approach as your beloved LET, they assume light speed isotropic only in the preferred frame (and anisotropic in all other frames)> As such, these theories make predictions that are DIFFERENT from the SR predictions for the class of experiments listed on the website. This is precisely why both SME and RMS are used as test theories for SR, if they predicted the SAME results as SR (as you continue to claim), they would be absolutely useless. I will stop trying to teach you, you are way too imbecile and I don't have that much time to waste.
From: Uncle Al on 9 Mar 2010 21:39 "Dono." wrote: > > On Mar 9, 5:35 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > > "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/0801.0287http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929 > > No Lorentz violation > > > > idiot > > > > -- > > Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ > > (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm > > Imbecile, I am proving the same exact thing as the papers you are > citing. Then who is the idiot? It has been OBSERVED. What do you hallucinate you are doing by not referencing observation? Theory predicts what it is told to predict. A soon as EO Lawrence needed a synchrotron rather than a cyclotron SR was golden. After the first GPS satellite was lofted, GR was golden. No aether, no Lorentz violation... in the masselss sector. Absolutely nobody knows if opposite shoes http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/twistene.png detect an interactive vacucm background in the massed sector. Will vacuum-phase bi-rotors - right-right, right-left, left-left - show a diurnal divergence in rotation state populations at 45 degrees latitude? soembody should look -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 21:41
On Mar 8, 6:12 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > I'm not .. I don't think there is an aether. But as aether advocates can > > give it any properties they want, > > Quite frankly, you have done nothing but present a series of > special pleads, quite similar to how HW explains BaTh. > > Jerry You are so right, the guy is such a waste of time. |