A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 01:00 "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b988035$0$27791$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "Peter Webb" <webbfamily(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:4b987dea$0$5860$afc38c87(a)news.optusnet.com.au... >> >> "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3997(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message >> news:ca6a0dbf-23e8-42ff-b741-ae709e93dc66(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... >> 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? >> >> >> _____________________ >> Do you think that zoology has a problem because it knows nothing about >> Unicorns? >> >> >> The difference between LET and SR is that the ether exists in LET, but >> its speed cannot be determined. SR doesn't even have an ether; they are >> different situations. LET assumes that "Unicorns" exist but says some >> properties cannot be determined; SR says they don't exist at all. > > SR says nothing about aether .. whether it exists or not. It certainly > doesn't require aether. It doesn't say there can be no aether. Much like zoology's position on Unicorns. And in sharp contrast to LET, which posits that it exists. The fact the LET cannot determine the velocity of the ether is a real problem for LET. Like saying Unicorns exist, but knowing how big they are. SR has no such problem; as the ether doesn't even exist in SR (like Unicorns in zoology), its not a problem that SR can't describe some of its properties. > SR itself doesn't really say anything much about how light is propagated > (as waves in an aether , or little ballistic particles, or something else) > .. only that it is measured as having a speed of c in all inertial frames. > SR does, of course, work well with theories that DO deal with how light is > propagated. SR itself is light propagation agnostic. > >
From: Bruce Richmond on 11 Mar 2010 01:14 On Mar 11, 12:21 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:ca6a0dbf-23e8-42ff-b741-ae709e93dc66(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > 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? > > _____________________ > Do you think that zoology has a problem because it knows nothing about > Unicorns? > > The difference between LET and SR is that the ether exists in LET, but its > speed cannot be determined. SR doesn't even have an ether; they are > different situations. LET assumes that "Unicorns" exist but says some > properties cannot be determined; SR says they don't exist at all.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Where did I say SR had a problem? You seem to be adding things on your own.
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 01:27 "Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:e3d1109c-e9d9-4102-b90c-2fac1d31243c(a)v34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 9:28 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "Dono." <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >> >> news:20fdca26-407d-48e8-afec-352178f8e4a6(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> > On Mar 10, 9:11 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> "Dono." <sa...(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? >> >> > Autistic imbecile, >> >> > You can't use speed composition >> >> Of course you can. Lorentz transform apply to measured speeds. > > Autistic imbecile, > > You were GIVEN that light speed is anisotropic, i.e. I am given it is isotropic c in the aether frame > c=c0+v*cos(theta) Why use that .. I would then work out the speed of light in the aether frame (which I know is c anyway), and from there apply Lorentz transforms to get the measured speed in the lab. But if you really want me to .. start with (change c to c' .. as c has special meaning) .. c' = c0+v*cos(theta) for a frame (eg lab) moving at velocity v in the aether frame in direction theta. So to work out what that speed corresponds to in the aether rest frame, where v = 0, and we get c' = c0 = c As we already knew. Now apply the velocity composition on v to work out the measured speed and you get that the speed is c (compose c with any other speed and you get c.) > So, you can't make theta=0 and do your cheating. No cheating > You need to solve the > problem honestly. Its all perfectly honest. Unless you don't understand or accept Lorentz transforms and the velocity composition derived from them > So, stop the cheap cheats and solve the problem. I already have. You going to stop lying now? >> I start >> with a measured speed of c in the aether frame (you do realize that in >> LET >> light travels isotropically at c in the aether frame), and use velocity >> composition to give the measured speed in the lab frame. >> > > No, imbecile It works just fine .. don't you understand basic physcis? > You have to start with the fact that light speed is anisotropic in ALL > frames except the "aether" frame. I did. I started with it being isotropic c in the aether frame and got that it is measured as isotropic c in the lab frame. That is what LET claims. Why are you lying about what LET claims? > Stop the cheap cheats and solve the problem the honest way. I *have* solved it. And perfectly honestly. There was no problem to start with .. except in your mind .. and I can't do anything about your mental problems.
From: Dono. on 11 Mar 2010 01:40 On Mar 10, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > > I *have* solved it. And perfectly honestly. There was no problem to start > with .. You solved nothing, dumbfuck You are using the speed composition . The derivation of speed composition is based on the Lorentz transforms. The derivation of the Lorentz transforms (see Einstein) is based on the second postulate (light speed is isotropic and independent of the relative speed of the source vs. the receiver). So, all you have done is a circular cheat, pathetic imbecile.
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 01:49
"Dono." <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:a6b196e0-b8da-4c74-9af4-cc1db29ed542(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 10, 10:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> >> I *have* solved it. And perfectly honestly. There was no problem to >> start >> with .. > > You solved nothing, dumbfuck > > You are using the speed composition . > The derivation of speed composition is based on the Lorentz > transforms. > The derivation of the Lorentz transforms (see Einstein) is based on > the second postulate (light speed is isotropic and independent of the > relative speed of the source vs. the receiver). > So, all you have done is a circular cheat, pathetic imbecile. Its very hard to solve a problem using Lorentz without using Lorentz. That isn't circular reasoning, its answering your question. Ohh, and while you are here, do you need any help understanding SR, or are you fine with it? |