A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2010 23:36 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 "If there isn't one you can't measure it" do *you* not understand?
From: Bruce Richmond on 10 Mar 2010 23:37 On Mar 10, 10:01 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 10, 8:52 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > 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. If you > > claim my statement is wrong you are claiming there is an experiment > > that can reveal the ether frame. > > Another complete misquote of Einstein. > > http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Ether_%28physics%29 > > 'In his 1905 paper Einstein refers to the ether only once: > > The introduction of a "luminiferous aether" will prove to be > superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require > an "absolutely stationary space" provided with special properties, nor > assign a velocity vector to a point of the empty space in which > electromagnetic processes take place.' > > What part of 'inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not > require "an absolutely stationary space"' do you not understand? > > Just as you do not understand Einstein's definition of motion you do > not understand what Einstein meant by a superfluous aether. > > Einstein's definition of motion requires there to be particles which > can be separately tracked through time. > > Einstein's definition of a superfluous aether is one in which it is an > absolutely stationary space. > > The aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when > displaced. The aether 'displaces back'. The pressure associated with > the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. A moving particle > has an associated aether wave. Fine, go back to Neverland. [plonk] > "According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is > unthinkable" - Albert Einstein
From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 00:02 On Mar 10, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:794e1ebf-1273-45c5-babf-744f05938489(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Mar 10, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >>news:c94dadb2-b9c3-42ee-981e-6407cb5e99b2(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> > 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? > > >> Because it shows that a measured speed of c in one frame gives a measured > >> speed in every other frame when related by lorentz transforms > > >> > 2.You started with c+v, c-v in the lab frame, cretin. > > >> No .. I started with c in the aether frame .. of course, you snipped the > >> lines where I said that. > > > No, lying cretin > > Wrong on all three counts. > > > You were asked to show how you get the anisotropic speed in the lab, > > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) to become isotropic. > > I showed the speed of c in the aether frame is measured as c in the lab > frame. Imbecile, You start by assuming that light speed is anisotropic in the lab c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) From this point on, you need to show how your "ruler compression",RoS and time dilation make the light speed isotropic. You didn't solve the exercise you were asked to do, you simply showed that c composed with v is ...c!
From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 00:07 On Mar 10, 9:02 pm, "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Mar 10, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > > > "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > >news:794e1ebf-1273-45c5-babf-744f05938489(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Mar 10, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > >>news:c94dadb2-b9c3-42ee-981e-6407cb5e99b2(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > > >> > 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? > > > >> Because it shows that a measured speed of c in one frame gives a measured > > >> speed in every other frame when related by lorentz transforms > > > >> > 2.You started with c+v, c-v in the lab frame, cretin. > > > >> No .. I started with c in the aether frame .. of course, you snipped the > > >> lines where I said that. > > > > No, lying cretin > > > Wrong on all three counts. > > > > You were asked to show how you get the anisotropic speed in the lab, > > > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) to become isotropic. > > > I showed the speed of c in the aether frame is measured as c in the lab > > frame. > > Imbecile, > > You start by assuming that light speed is anisotropic in the lab > > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) > > From this point on, you need to show how your "ruler compression",RoS > and time dilation make the light speed isotropic. > You didn't solve the exercise you were asked to do, you simply showed > that c composed with v is ...c! Try the same thing for c=c0/(1+v/c0*cos(theta)) . Let's see you cheat your way out of this. In case you wonder, the above formula is standard for theories that assume light speed anisotropy, since: 1/c(theta)+1/c(pi-theta)=2/c Maybe one day, if you ever solve the exercise you were asked to do, I will explain to you why things are done this way.
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 00:11
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:30414028-b80c-4c4e-b56e-165b51f709cf(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 8:43 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:794e1ebf-1273-45c5-babf-744f05938489(a)l24g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 10, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> >>news:c94dadb2-b9c3-42ee-981e-6407cb5e99b2(a)s36g2000prh.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> Because it shows that a measured speed of c in one frame gives a >> >> measured >> >> speed in every other frame when related by lorentz transforms >> >> >> > 2.You started with c+v, c-v in the lab frame, cretin. >> >> >> No .. I started with c in the aether frame .. of course, you snipped >> >> the >> >> lines where I said that. >> >> > No, lying cretin >> >> Wrong on all three counts. >> >> > You were asked to show how you get the anisotropic speed in the lab, >> > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) to become isotropic. >> >> I showed the speed of c in the aether frame is measured as c in the lab >> frame. > > Imbecile, > > You start by assuming that light speed is anisotropic in the lab > > c=c0(1+v*cos(theta)) > > From this point on, you need to show how your "ruler compression",RoS > and time dilation make the light speed isotropic. > You didn't solve the exercise you were asked to do, you simply showed > that c composed with v is ...c! And that is why the speed in the lab is measured as c. Do you not understand velocity composition? Do you not understand that it applies to measured velocities in LET? I'm really not in the mood to go jumping through hoops for you atm because you can't understand LET and Lorentz transforms. Go to a circus if you want to see that .. you'd feel right at home with the other clowns. |