A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 9 Mar 2010 23:45 On Mar 9, 11:10 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 9, 8:00 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > Yes, I know but the "solid aether" died a violent death more than 100 > years ago :-) > This is not going to stop the Inertial imbecile, I guess his own > inertia in admitting his errors is way too big. Ever heard of a devil's advocate?
From: Peter Webb on 10 Mar 2010 00:01 > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? > > _______________________________ > Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the > reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference > frame where lengths and times are "correct". > > There > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing > priveleged as in having different properties about it. > > _____________________________ > It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real > length > is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I > don't actually believe it exists at all. Real length??? What makes length real? ___________________________ Ask the people who believe in the ether. It's their concept. BTW, you asked for a definition of a "privileged reference frame". I posted a not very good one. But this is a standard term in physics, not for me to define. Googling it gives 150,000 hits, and the very first one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_frame explains it exactly in this context opf SR. Should have done this in the first place.
From: Peter Webb on 10 Mar 2010 00:12 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5dfdcd4c-53e4-4131-9cb8-2ead41af6f77(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com... On Mar 8, 9:27 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3355b6f6-1826-4819-b7cb-b85913a5cae0(a)t9g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 7, 8:32 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > > > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:9c1e1ae6-c9c1-497d-a293-35fb68100abb(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 7, 8:10 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > wrote: > > > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:720fa6a7-6744-4bf7-85fe-6050215ee277(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > > On Mar 7, 6:52 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > > > wrote: > > > > > > LET is as possibly valid as SR .. Neither is refuted > > > > > experimentally. > > > > > I > > > > > just don't think it is the correct physical explanation. LET is > > > > > not > > > > > compatible AFAIK with GR .. so is a bit of a dead end .. and has > > > > > the > > > > > assumption of an undetectableaetherwith properties that don't make > > > > > sense. > > > > > The experimental support for a fixed ether in SR is comparable to > > > > the > > > > experimental support for unicorns in zoology. Lots of luck proving > > > > either > > > > exists. > > > > What is a 'fixed ether'? > > > > _______________________ > > > Non-existent. > > > That is your 'belief'. The question was in physical model arena. > > Give or reference a basic hypothetical definition... > > > _____________________________ > > A priveleged inertial reference frame. Of course, as I don't believe it > > exists, I am hardly in a position to extol its qualities. This seems to > > be > > what believers in a "fixed ether" mean by the term, but you would be > > better > > off asking them. I know as much about ether as I do about Unicorns. In > > fact, > > I don't even know if Unicorns are horses with a single spiral horn, or > > are > > a > > completely different species that just looks like a horse with a horn. > > If > > you really want to know, ask somebody who believes in Unicorns and/or > > the > > fixed ether what they are exactly. > > > PaulStowe > > I'm sorry about these questions but, what does privileged mean? > > _______________________________ > Somehow better than the others. Special in some sense. For example, the > reference frame of the ether is privleged because it is the only reference > frame where lengths and times are "correct". > > There > is certainly physical consequences of the medium (such as field > profile alterations due to motion) but there is certainly nothing > priveleged as in having different properties about it. > > _____________________________ > It is privileged; it is the unique reference frame for which the real > length > is the same as the measured length. Or so I understand it; as I said, I > don't actually believe it exists at all. Real length? What makes length real? __________________________ According to LET, an objects real length is the measured length when stationary wrt to the ether. Yes, I know that is a circular definition. All such definitions end up being circular. That is one of the big reasons that LET was dropped and replaced by SR very quickly once SR was developed; SR doesn't suffer from this problem of an ether which cannot even in principle be detected, or real lengths which are unknowable. Paul Stowe
From: Jerry on 10 Mar 2010 04:24 On Mar 9, 10:45 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 9, 11:10 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 9, 8:00 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > 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 > > > Yes, I know but the "solid aether" died a violent death more than 100 > > years ago :-) > > This is not going to stop the Inertial imbecile, I guess his own > > inertia in admitting his errors is way too big. > > Ever heard of a devil's advocate? That's the term! I couldn't remember it!!! Yes, Inertial is just being devil's advocate here. We had a few heated words, but it's all in good fun. :-) Jerry
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 07:39
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:5fedaef2-7496-4745-aba2-95219ace9f85(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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 That seems to show gravitational waves as being transverse, in the same way that the article I referred to does. >> 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. Who says there is any aether at all required? The properties attributed to aether are ad-hoc. If aetherists want there to be a single medium for both types of waves, then they'll give the aether whatever properties and behaviors it needs .. if they want there to be multiple aethers, they'll posit that as the case. Seeing noone has ever seen aether to know what properties it has (or how many types of aether there may be) an aetherist can say almost anything about it they like, and there is noone to say otherwise. |