A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 08:46 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:9500ca21-a92d-4ccf-a911-4a05e4c2845c(a)b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > 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. I haven't made any. You, on the other hand, have once again made blunder after blunder and refuse to acknowledge it
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 08:46 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:65cac717-801b-406e-a296-e9a461c21d53(a)g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com... > 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? Exactly
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 08:48 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:10db1087-a875-4849-8a2f-cc03a09865d3(a)g7g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > 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. :-) Indeed .. I'd be more than happy if we could come up with something that would either refute LET as false, or prove it as true. I just don't see anything that has been said here so far as doing that. Aether is a slippery devil :):)
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 09:36 On Mar 10, 8:05 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(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 :):) It is helpful in that it gets 'us' closer to understanding what occurs to objects as they move with respect to the aether. The issue with LET is everything is relative. For example, "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein. This means the aether is more at rest with respect to the embankment than it is with respect to the train. The train is moving relative to the aether so it will be length contracted while the embankment will not. The ruler the Observer on the embankment uses to measure the length of the train is not length contracted. The ruler the Observer on the train uses to measure the length of the embankment is length contracted. The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train conclude the embankment is longer than the train. The same holds true for the clocks on the train and on the embankment. Since the train is moving relative to the aether while the embankment is more at rest with respect to the aether there will be a greater pressure associated with the aether on the clock on the train causing it to tick slower. If the Observers on the embankment and on the train where able to 'see' each others clocks as the M and M' pass each other both the Observer on the train and the Observer on the embankment would conclude the clock on the train ticks slower than the clock on the embankment.
From: Y.Porat on 10 Mar 2010 09:41
On Mar 10, 12:57 am, "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 > > And, of course, aether can have whatever properties Aetherists want to > assign to it .. seeing we can never detect it. It is already a solid and a > fluid, massless, no viscosity, transparent, incompressible, continuous at > all scales. Each property was added as an observation or experiment was > performed that would have refuted the aether. Its properties are basically > ad-hoc. > > Aetherists can (and have done similar before) simply say that one of its > properties is the ability to transmit both types of waves .. and their proof > is simple: Both light and gravity waves are propagated, and it MUST be via > the aether, so the aether must have that property. > > Or they will agree that there are two types of aether that co-exist, but > because they are both aethers one of the things they share is a propagation > speed of c. > > The thing is .. seeing we have absolutely zero evidence of an aether and > cannot directly measure its properties .. aetherists have pretty much free > reign in saying what an aether can or cannot do and what properties it does > and does not have. ------------------ psychopath ------------------- |