A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 10 Mar 2010 16:59 On Mar 10, 3:34 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 1:31 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 9, 3:26 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:7vlpefFe0lU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > > > "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > > >news:4b947a96$0$8806$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > >> "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > >>news:7vjadlF4daU1(a)mid.individual.net... > > > >>> "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote in message > > > >>>news:4b945dcc$0$8789$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > > > >>>> 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 undetectable aether with properties that don't make > > > >>>> sense. > > > > >>>http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/glet.pdf"A GENERALIZATION OF THE > > > >>> LORENTZ ETHER TO GRAVITY > > > >>> WITH GENERAL-RELATIVISTIC LIMIT" > > > > >> I notice it is self-published .. has it been given favourable peer > > > >> review? Who is this Ilja person? > > > > >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/ > > > > > Ilja Schmelzer is a serious independent researcher and is a long time > > > > poster to these sci.physics.* groups. Do a googlegroup search and you > > > > will find some interesting discussions in years past. Some of the general > > > > ideas of that paper linked above were recently peer reviewed in this > > > > article, > > > > >http://www.ilja-schmelzer.de/papers/FOOP9262.pdf > > > >http://www.springerlink.com/content/2470867k22637651/ > > > > Sounds like its you. Self-publishing on private web-sites generally tends > > > to be the activity of crackpots because reputable journals won't publish > > > them > > > Hey Inertial, FrediFizzx isn't a pseudo of Ilja Schmeltzer and > > Springer isn't a "self-publishing" company either. ;-) > > But this thread's blunder of Physical Review stresses the fact that we > > shouldn't attach too much value to "reputable" journals either. They > > merely serve as imperfect filter - a bit like spam filters. :) > > Once again, it is NOT the (reputable) Physical Review, it is the > fringe Physical Letters A I hardly think that Phys Lett is "fringe". Elsevier journals are highly reputable. Phys Lett is *specifically* aimed to be the publication place for frontier or novel physical ideas, and so there is more tolerance for non-mainstream publications. However, the papers are still peer reviewed. What does happen is that some papers are published that are quickly found to be just wrong. But this is true in ANY journal. Sometimes a paper needs to be published to promote the work needed to show that it is indeed wrong. So just because a journal has published some ideas that have been found to be wrong does not make it a lower quality journal. PD
From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 17:04 On Mar 10, 2:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(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 :):) Following Popper - even loosely - no model can be proven as "true"; worse, we should assume that any physical model is only approximate (example of another useful but ad-hoc model: the Bohr model). Harald
From: harald on 10 Mar 2010 17:14 On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know, > > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our > > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not > > > > > > > > remember that? > > > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite > > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it > > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each > > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS. > > > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a > > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by > > > > > > either observer. > > > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to > > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways. > > > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm > > > > surprised you weren't aware of this. > > > > Do you mean like this one? > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.... > > > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar > > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own. > > > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical > > Review! > > It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe > Phys.Lett.A. Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767. Harald
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 17:47 On Mar 10, 2:14 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know, > > > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our > > > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not > > > > > > > > > remember that? > > > > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite > > > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it > > > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each > > > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS. > > > > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a > > > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by > > > > > > > either observer. > > > > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to > > > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways. > > > > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined. I'm > > > > > surprised you weren't aware of this. > > > > > Do you mean like this one? > > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988... > > > > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar > > > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own. > > > > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical > > > Review! > > > It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe > > Phys.Lett.A. > > Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767. > You are right: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf Hideous.
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 17:52
On Mar 10, 2:47 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 2:14 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 10, 8:07 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > > On Mar 10, 10:56 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 5, 5:33 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 4, 10:48 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 10:59 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 11:21 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:12 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > It is not a function of finite propagation speeds, this we know, > > > > > > > > > > because we took into account the finite propagation speeds in our > > > > > > > > > > procedure for determining simultaneity/nonsimultaneity. Do you not > > > > > > > > > > remember that? > > > > > > > > > > I beg to differ. It is not a "mere" or "simple" function of finite > > > > > > > > > propagation speed, but it *is* a function of it IMO. RoS only took it > > > > > > > > > into account by allowing us to use different time coordinates in each > > > > > > > > > frame. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no RoS. > > > > > > > > > I disagree. All that is needed in relativity of simultaneity is a > > > > > > > > signal speed that can be VERIFIED to be the same from both events by > > > > > > > > either observer. > > > > > > > > Well you are going to have problems with that. There is no way to > > > > > > > *know* that the speed is the same both ways. > > > > > > > Yes, there is. That's what isotropy experiments have determined.. I'm > > > > > > surprised you weren't aware of this. > > > > > > Do you mean like this one? > > > > > >http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988... > > > > > > The author is kind enough to point out problems in some similar > > > > > experiments, while failing to notice any in his own. > > > > > Yes that paper is amazing - shocking, what a blunder of Physical > > > > Review! > > > > It is not the reputed Physical Review but the much lesser, fringe > > > Phys.Lett.A. > > > Gagnon et al, Physical Review A, Vol.38, no.4, 1988. p.1767. > > You are right:http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Gagnon_et_al_1988... > > Hideous.- So much worse since it was published in 1988. RMS theory was already published in '77. No excuse for using a very bad theoretical foundation. No excuse for the reviewers to let the paper through. |