A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 9 Mar 2010 22:08 On Mar 9, 6:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > I'm not into word games. If that's all you have to offer goodby. > No, imbecile, all clocks run exactly at the same rate. The difference in elapsed time is due to the difference in space travelled. The twin with the largest dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 experiences the least elapsed time. This is basic relativity.
From: Paul Stowe on 9 Mar 2010 22:41 On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of spacetime > > >> > That's simply a silly idea... > > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR > > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric description. > > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry. Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format. BUT! to do so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical independence. Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis for that. > > But, to say that something physical results from, a.k.a. is caused by > > geometry, is putting the cart before the horse, its intellectually > > silly. It's certainly not my problem since I won't buy into it. > > It is your problem if you don't understand it .. not mine. > > What physically makes the universe behave as modelled by euclidean geometry ?? Nothing, that's the WHOLE! point. Geometry cannot dictate physics, it used by us to describe certain things. > >> > No, LET says light actually always travels at speed c, the propagation > >> > velocity of the medium. > > >> Only in the absolute aether frame. > > > In LET (inherited from the physical medium model) light speed is the > > actual propagation speed of all disturbances/perturbations, PERIOD! > > No .. only in the medium. It is MEASURED by compressed rulers and slwoed > out-of-sync clocks to be c in other frames, but isn't. In LET all there is IS! the medium... > You really don't know LET well, do you. Now that's funny... > > It a physical property and if it like all other known media, it not > > universally constant. However, if you're moving c doesn't change. > > It does according to LET. Because the tools we use to measure it are not > distorted by the motion. > > > Then, if your measuring devices are not tied to those very same > > processes and are, in fact independent of and uninfluenced by, you can get > > MMX predicted result. The ONLY difference is the travel length along > > the axis of motion. That's enough to discriminate the asymmetry and > > properly realize you're moving. Again however, by our definition of > > speed as the observed or measured change in distance divided by > > observed or measured change in time, if round trip length is always > > uniform that very same definition guarantees that everyone will > > 'measure' the same value. > > Yes .. due to distorted rulers and slowed-down out of sync clocks. The > actual speed is not what is measured (in LET). Those distorted measurements > in different frame are related by lorentz transforms. However, in LET, > reality is Euclidean geometry and galillean transforms. We are simply > unable to correctly measure reality and so the world appears in this > distorted way So? What's your point? Light speed is actually locally invariant of motion. Internal consistency makes it such that all movement results in equal round trip paths, thus local measurements equal. That not magic or hard to understand. > >>> In LET that is not changed regardless of motion. > > >> Yes .. it is. But it only appears to be travelling at c because we > >> measure > >> speed with contracted rulers and out-of-sync clocks. > > > Maybe we have semantic issue but its not due to 'out-of-synch' > > clocks. > > Yes .. it is > > > All physical processes are regulated by the properties and > > processes of the medium c doesn't change, go faster and clocks must > > tick slower because the it simply takes that fixed speed of c to > > travel the longer paths that all propagating energy must take. > > That was just gibberish .. try again No, it isn't. Let's 'define' a clock tick (standard period) as the the round trip of single flash of light to a reflector and back. The photoreceptor repeats the flash when 'seeing' the return pulse. Light speed is FIXED! and does not change for moving systems. Thus, whether one knows they are moving or not the 'time' it takes the light to cycle through a tick IS! dependent upon the actual path that light takes. Move the system and the round trip time increases! All field processes propagate at c if moving all round trip cycles reflect the actual decrease in, thus 'apparent' slowing the process rates. > >> > In fact, the gamma factor IS the result of this. It's a > >> > simply derivation to show this. > > >> Indeed it is .. but that doesn't mean you are right. The gamma factor in > >> LET is how much ones rulers shrink and how clocks slow etc .. resulting > >> in > >> incorrect measurements of speed. If you could use rulers and clocks > >> unaffected by their motion in the aether, then you'd get very different > >> non-isotropic speeds for light, according to LET > > > Well, that only because of our accepted definitions is it not??? > > But its not reality .. as LET would have us belief. We are measuring things > incorrectly. We can do physics with those measurements, because we know how > the distorted rulers and clocks relate between frames of reference. But its > all an illusion. REAL reality doesn't work that way (according to LET) .. > there is an underlying reality we cannot measure using our current tools. > Of course .. if we could make a ruler out of a material that wasn't affected > by and dependent on EM fields .. just pure neutral matter .. then we could > measure that reality. What's incorrect about measurements??? I thought physics was about trying to understand REAL reality? The measurements aren't wrong but it does help to actually see the man behind the curtain :) > >> > Mea cupa,I stand corrected. In fact LET is a better foundation in > >> > physical science than SR. The physical model (aetherial medium) on > >> > which is LET is founded is perfectly compatible with GR. In fact, it > >> > fits GR better given the fundamental hydrodynamical form of its > >> > mathematics. It even easier to explain its behavior in a more unified > >> > manner. > > >> How does aether theory work with GR (that has curved space-time) ? SR is > >> a > >> subset of GR .. LET is not. > > > Spacetime is curved because the energy density (directly related to > > pressure) varies from one region to another. This, in turn varies all > > fundamentals, including c. Thus, c isn't constant and this is modeled > > as curvature. > > So it is changes in aether 'pressure' or 'density' (which is undetectable > anyway) that cause it? Hmm. Sounds like witchcraft to me. Take a pith ball, fire it past a wire mesh sphere that is set upon a hollow tube which is hooked up to a vacuum pump which is running. The air pressure is minimum at the tube which is at the center of the sphere. Now how does the pith ball behave? You think that's witchcraft??? Paul Stowe
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 22:42 On Mar 9, 10:08 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 9, 6:58 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > I'm not into word games. If that's all you have to offer goodby. > > No, imbecile, all clocks run exactly at the same rate. The difference > in elapsed time is due to the difference in space travelled. The twin > with the largest dx^2+dy^2+dz^2 experiences the least elapsed time. > This is basic relativity. The tick rate measured by the stay at home twin slows. That is his reality and it jibes with the reduced elapsed time on the returned clock.
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 22:51 On Mar 9, 8:41 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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. On the contrary, usually Inertial is quite reasonable. At the moment, though, he seems to have a bit of a bee in his bonnet about considering all aetherists cranks, which is fine except that he is APPLYING THIS JUDGEMENT RETROACTIVELY. Once upon a time, aether theories were mainstream, the subject of often brilliant theoretical work. Since the aim of aether theories were to provide a mechanistic interpretation for light and gravitation, theorists were always careful to justify any novel property of the aether in terms of understood mechanical phenomena. Long before Popper, they understood the importance of being able to make falsifiable predictions. They were also self- critical. I remember reading a number of times expressions of concern about the increasing number of strange and seemingly ad hoc properties that were required for aether theories to work. (I forget the author of the papers, but since they were in German, I wouldn't be surprised if it were Lorentz.) I am convinced that aether SCIENTISTS such as Aragon, Lorentz, Trouton, Lord Rayleigh and so forth would have been open to abandonment of the aether given sufficiently strong evidence against it. Indeed, long before Einstein, Emil Cohn wrote a widely discussed paper critical of aether theories. (To be sure, not all aether scientists would have been so open minded. I imagine that Le Sage and Lodge would have been pretty hard cases...) LET cannot be disproven if one puts blinders on and restricts oneself only to the domain of applicability that LET shares with SR. However, in the broader context of LET's standing among aether theories in general, it can be shown that aether theories require an ever increasing entanglement of coincidence and ad hoc fabrication to maintain even a half-hearted consistency with current scientific evidence. Jerry
From: Jerry on 9 Mar 2010 23:00
On Mar 9, 9:05 am, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Bad 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" Actually, solids support the propagation of both transverse (s) and longitudinal (p) waves. But the speed of s and p waves are different, so you STILL need two aethers for light and gravity. And no, Inertial, you CANNOT simply postulate an aether in which s and p waves travel at the same speed... Jerry |