A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 09:42 On Mar 10, 5:46 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(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 You are still the same imbecile. Bye.
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 09:44 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:faa4d457-3d9d-4216-863f-d612b81d1d5d(a)u9g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > 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 > ------------------- Stalker
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 09:45 On Mar 10, 4:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:eef67368-81e4-46cc-85c6-8fd5cafd5f0f(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > 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 . > > Don't lie. I did NOT claim that > > > I don't know why you are now lying about this. > > I'm not. I NEVER EVER claimed that > Of course you are lying, pathetic imbecile. Look here: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8802e45ec1126caa?dmode=source
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 09:48 On Mar 10, 5:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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. No, imbecile, the discussion is what YOUR claims are. > And as I also pointed > out, multiple aethers do not refute LET. Sure they do, imbecile. Because the "multiple aethers" would need to have contradictory properties. > They just add to the confusing mix > of ad-hoc properties and behaviours. Not if the properties are contradictory, pathetic imbecile.
From: Inertial on 10 Mar 2010 09:52
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:3c296172-0e54-4fa9-96c9-cc376f215bbf(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 4:41 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:eef67368-81e4-46cc-85c6-8fd5cafd5f0f(a)f17g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> > 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 . >> >> Don't lie. I did NOT claim that >> >> > I don't know why you are now lying about this. >> >> I'm not. I NEVER EVER claimed that >> > > Of course you are lying, pathetic imbecile. Look here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8802e45ec1126caa?dmode=source Thatnks for proving I am right. I never made the claim you attribute to me, that only contracted rulers cause isotropic measurement. I claimed that LET says that the combination of compressed rulers and slowed clocks causes the measurement of light to be isotropic c in all frames (note that the slowed clocks cause RoS as well). It is the identical math to SR .. Lorentz transforms I never lie .. you are infamous for it .. we've all have seen you try to lie and weasel your way out of your many blunders. Now you are doing it again. |