A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 22:24 On Mar 10, 7:02 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > In a frame S' moving at v wrt the aether frame, then you get the measured > velocity of light is: > > c' = (c + v) / (1 + vc / c^2) > c' = (c + v) / ((c + v)/c) > c' = c > 1.Why would you do such an imbecility? 2.You started with c+v, c-v in the lab frame, cretin. How does your cretinoid calculation make light speed isotropic in the lab frame? You "calculated" light speed wrt the "aether" frame, imbecile. 3. Try your cretinism again with c(theta)=c0/(1+v/c0*cos(theta)). Don't cheat by taking theta=0 > There you go. > > This really is basic stuff .. if measured lengths and time in frames are > related by Lorentz transforms, something with speed measured as c in one > frame will have its speed measured as c in all frames.
From: Peter Webb on 10 Mar 2010 22:39 "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1f04b278-4b2e-4602-9ce8-716f62cff45e(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. > > ______________________ > Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question > of its velocity doesn't even arise. Einstein did not rule out the possibility of an ether, he said that it made no difference if there was one, that it was superfluous. ___________________________ And indeed there is no ether in SR, so there is no problem with calculating its speed. A bit like saying that zoology has a problem because it doesn't say how fast Unicorns can run; it doesn't have a problem, as according to zoology Unicorn's don't even exist so they can't run. If you claim my statement is wrong you are claiming there is an experiment that can reveal the ether frame. __________________________ What part of "SR does not even include an ether" don't you understand?
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 22:41 On Mar 10, 10:39 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:1f04b278-4b2e-4602-9ce8-716f62cff45e(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. > > > ______________________ > > Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question > > of its velocity doesn't even arise. > > Einstein did not rule out the possibility of an ether, he said that it > made no difference if there was one, that it was superfluous. > > ___________________________ > And indeed there is no ether in SR, so there is no problem with calculating > its speed. A bit like saying that zoology has a problem because it doesn't > say how fast Unicorns can run; it doesn't have a problem, as according to > zoology Unicorn's don't even exist so they can't run. > > If you > claim my statement is wrong you are claiming there is an experiment > that can reveal the ether frame. > > __________________________ > What part of "SR does not even include an ether" don't you understand? What part of '"According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein' do you not understand?
From: Dono. on 10 Mar 2010 22:42 On Mar 10, 7:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > What part of '"According to the general theory of relativity space > without ether is > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein' do you not understand? What is the next sentence in the Leiden address, imbecile?
From: mpc755 on 10 Mar 2010 22:44
On Mar 10, 10:41 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 10:39 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > > >news:1f04b278-4b2e-4602-9ce8-716f62cff45e(a)f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > > On Mar 10, 8:13 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > According to both SR and LET there is no experiment that can reveal > > > which frame is at rest WRT the ether, so there is no way to know which > > > frame is more at rest WRT the ether. > > > > ______________________ > > > Wrong. Only LET has this problem. There is no ether in SR, so the question > > > of its velocity doesn't even arise. > > > Einstein did not rule out the possibility of an ether, he said that it > > made no difference if there was one, that it was superfluous. > > > ___________________________ > > And indeed there is no ether in SR, so there is no problem with calculating > > its speed. A bit like saying that zoology has a problem because it doesn't > > say how fast Unicorns can run; it doesn't have a problem, as according to > > zoology Unicorn's don't even exist so they can't run. > > > If you > > claim my statement is wrong you are claiming there is an experiment > > that can reveal the ether frame. > > > __________________________ > > What part of "SR does not even include an ether" don't you understand? > > What part of '"According to the general theory of relativity space > without ether is unthinkable" - Albert Einstein' do you not understand? And before you even go with saying that doesn't mean it applies to SR, Einstein's 'first paper' is all about the aether. http://www.worldscibooks.com/phy_etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf |