A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 07:42 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:09a1d92c-d69f-4e40-9568-daa61e45556b(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > 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. At least I understand the physics .. you have know idea WHAT LET says
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 07:52 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:18a73d63-5cde-48e9-8719-c68402102dea(a)e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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. And a great deal of ad-hoc-ery (is there such a word :)) > 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. And then change the properties of the aether to match what was found. > 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. Exactly my point > (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. But there is no evidence either way .. as the aether has been imbued with undetectability > 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. Though Dono is arguing against that. He says LET does not make the same predictions and (one assumes) doesn't use the same math. > 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. Exactly what I have been saying. And why falsification doesn't help. Just add another ad-hoc property or behavior and the evidence against disappears. That was the nature of aether science (back when it was popular). I'm not saying that LET is correct in its notion for reality. But trying to refute it by showing that to model things other than what LET does requires other aethers doesn't cut it. Saying it is unlikely for multiple aethers to have the same propagation speed does not cut it .. one caa just say that all aethers have that property and the refutation goes away. I'm wondering if, seeing motion in the aether only affects matter and compresses it due to its effect on chared particles and EM fields. So things that are electrically neutral and not affected by such fields should be immune ot the effects of motion thru the aether. So maybe decay of non-charged particles or behaviour of neutrons could be used. I've no idea how .. but it seems like it might be possible to come up with something.
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 07:59 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1d7a2072-efea-493a-9fd2-9e066f43b529(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 9, 4:34 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >> >> news:51d25138-0494-4e1a-a46a-ee48ea24a394(a)g26g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> Do you REALLY need to to give you the SR explanation of the twins >> paradox? >> >> > You are saying the tick rate doesn't change, >> >> That's what SR says. > > I asked if that was what *you* were saying. The same > Relativity says all kinds > of things depending on who you listen to, including that moving clocks > run slow. It says moving clocks are measured as running slow >> But a moving observer will measure the tick rate as >> slower. > > There you go frame jumping. Nope. No frame jumping there. > We were discussing the stay at home twin, No .. I was discussing clocks in general. > who is stationary, and the clock that changes its state of motion. > >> Just like the intrinsic length of a rod doesn't change because a >> moving observer measures it. > > But we aren't talking about just observing it. Yes we are > The clock changed its > state of motion. If we are back to twins paradox, Indeed it does. Have you not seen the various analysis that show how this happens? >> > yet SR says that the >> > returning twin's clock will show less elapsed time. >> >> It will > > And I agree that it will. Good >> > You don't see any >> > conflict there? >> >> No .. do you? > > Yes. Really? > As I see it any admission that the clock has slowed is being > surpressed to avoid possible connections to ether theory. What are you on about? Conspiracy theories? SR says clocks in any frame of reference run at the correct rate. LET says they don't. What LET and SR agree on is how different frames will measure each others clocks (and rulers). That is WHY we have mutual time dilation due to RoS. It is only when you start to put gravity and GR into things that we get clocks rates actually changing. > That > "Moving clocks run slow" used to be the standard line. Moving clocks are measured as running slow. > As for what > causes the different measurements depending on the frame, it's not > just clock sync. Length contraction figures into it as well. Length contraction is due to clock sync as well. Both time dilation and length contraction are due to clock sync. Are you unfamiliar with how RoS causes length conrtaction? > I have > been re-reading Bondi recently and he says the thing that makes time a > dimension as opposed to just a data point is that when you do a > rotation of coordinates the time gets mixed up with the space. He > didn't mention it, but that also makes time dependent on position, > which is what RoS is all about. > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > hiderence in understanding SR. Indeed .. its math is right (when one is talking about how frames relate) .. it is what is going on behind the scenes that is the issue.
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 08:05 "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4b970c19$0$8039$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... > > I know I still have a long way to go but my goal here is to truely > understand SR, not to just parrot explainations. LET helped me see > that the math of SR is correct, but I also realize it has become a > hiderence in understanding SR. > > ________________________________ > Good. There is one key insight which makes the jump from LET to SR a > little easier (in my opinion). > > For all the talk of relative motion against the ether in LET, the > equations work out exactly the same whatever you choose as the rest frame > of the ether. So the actual rest frame of the ether cannot be detected > within LET. That's right. That's what Dono doesn't get. > Its only a small hop, skip and jump from saying that "it cannot be > detected" to "it doesn't exist". Or at least 'it doesn't matter'. Once you go beyond just the aether frame, and relating frames directly to it, LET becomes more of a hinderance than a help LET tells you (for instance) that even though objects at rest in frame A may be more length compressed and time slowed than those in frame B (where A moves faster in the aether frame than B) .. yet A will see objects at rest in B as being more contracted and time dilated than its own. Which really confuses those who use the simple 'motion in the aether shrinks and slows things' idea of LET as a way to 'understand' into a spin. You end up with a strange combination of real compression and apparent contraction, real slowing and apparent time dilaton. Its not really helpful :):)
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 08:45
"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:dcab12ce-a10d-4303-aa07-6f6a2b8ed5e2(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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... Aether is totally unlike any other material .. its not even 'material' .. so who knows what aetherists may posit it as able to do. And as I also pointed out, multiple aethers do not refute LET. They just add to the confusing mix of ad-hoc properties and behaviours. |