A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 03:12 "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 Do .. I showed the measured speed of light in a lab frame in LET is c, just as it is in SR. LET and SR make the same predictions. > You are using the speed composition . Of course .. that is the correct formula to use to convert a measured speed in one frame to a measured speed in another in LET > The derivation of speed composition is based on the Lorentz > transforms. Yes it is. Lorentz transforms are part of LET > 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). We are talking about LET .. not SR. So not an appropriate derivation. LET has as a consequence that the speed of light is c in all frames, not a postulate. > So, all you have done is a circular cheat, pathetic imbecile. No .. I've shown you are wrong .. yet again. You going to start back-pedaling yet .. You're well and cornered. Time for you to yell abuse and start running.
From: G. L. Bradford on 11 Mar 2010 05:29 Planet A and planet B are similar planets one light year apart. A ship leaves planet A for planet B and the length of the voyage is set for one year, usual for this commuter ship. The month of departure planet A is Mar 2010. The month of scheduled arrival planet B is Mar 2011. The ship leaves planet A on time (Mar 2010) and arrives planet B on time (Mar 2011). If an observer from planet A could observe the ship's arrival at planet B, what date would the observation of arrival planet B, Mar 2011, take place? As far as planet A is concerned, as far as the observer observes and clocks the arrival, the arrival at planet B takes place, Mar 2012, two years from the date of the ship's departure....and thus, observed from planet A, two years from the date of departure of his twin brother. The ship goes, and light comes (c). The ship goes farther out, and light comes from farther out (c). The ship goes even farther out, and light comes from even farther out (c). The ship goes one light year out in one year and it takes light one year from the instant of arrival to communicate the arrival of the ship and brother to the observer (c).....who notices from the light speed communication that his brother appears to have aged only one year between Mar 2010 (when he departed planet A) and Mar 2012 (when he arrived planet B [[per the observation of that arrival at planet A!]]). His brother APPARENTLY ages only one year while he definitely ages two during the time period, Mar 2010-Mar 2012. Of course he is smart enough to realize that his brother's apparent stretching out in space-time observed during the voyage out was nothing more than an illusion. Particularly when he arrives home apparently in precisely the same month (Mar 2012) he is observed to have left planet B (planet B observed, Mar 2011, from planet A, Mar 2012). He is smart enough to realize that the planet B observed from planet A is the one that is one year behind the times of the real-time planets A and B, and that any arrival, and any departure, observed to be happening there from planet A happened one year ago, making his age one year ago, and his brother's unobserved age one year ago upon his actual arrival and departure planet B, the same age. The twin brother gets to planet B a year before he is observed to get to planet B from planet A. The observation of the duration of the voyage from planet A is a year longer than the actual voyage takes. Yet it is the actual length of the outbound space voyage, one year, that is communicated to the observer on planet A in a two year long span of time where everything concerning the ship, and thus the brother, seems to slow down (seems to stretch) in the observer's view. The ship, the brother, and the ship's clock, outran by a full year the ship, the brother, and the ship's clock, the observer observed. Now someone will say that the time observed from planet A, and thus the stretching that is observed, is the literal physical reality of the traveler. They have no concept that the traveler's space-time reality on the spot might be one thing and his space-time relativity to an ever more distant observer quite another. GLB =======================
From: Inertial on 11 Mar 2010 05:34 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:WaidncSioueeWwXWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > Planet A and planet B are similar planets one light year apart. A ship > leaves planet A for planet B and the length of the voyage is set for one > year, usual for this commuter ship. The month of departure planet A is Mar > 2010. The month of scheduled arrival planet B is Mar 2011. The ship leaves > planet A on time (Mar 2010) and arrives planet B on time (Mar 2011). So you have a spaceship travelling at the speed of light. Just a tad unrealistic. > If an observer from planet A could observe the ship's arrival at planet > B, what date would the observation of arrival planet B, Mar 2011, take > place? As far as planet A is concerned, as far as the observer observes > and clocks the arrival, the arrival at planet B takes place, Mar 2012, two > years from the date of the ship's departure....and thus, observed from > planet A, two years from the date of departure of his twin brother. > > The ship goes, and light comes (c). The ship goes farther out, and light > comes from farther out (c). The ship goes even farther out, and light > comes from even farther out (c). The ship goes one light year out in one > year and it takes light one year from the instant of arrival to > communicate the arrival of the ship and brother to the observer > (c).....who notices from the light speed communication that his brother > appears to have aged only one year between Mar 2010 (when he departed > planet A) and Mar 2012 (when he arrived planet B [[per the observation of > that arrival at planet A!]]). His brother APPARENTLY ages only one year > while he definitely ages two during the time period, Mar 2010-Mar 2012. > > Of course he is smart enough to realize that his brother's apparent > stretching out in space-time observed during the voyage out was nothing > more than an illusion. Particularly when he arrives home apparently in > precisely the same month (Mar 2012) he is observed to have left planet B > (planet B observed, Mar 2011, from planet A, Mar 2012). He is smart enough > to realize that the planet B observed from planet A is the one that is one > year behind the times of the real-time planets A and B, and that any > arrival, and any departure, observed to be happening there from planet A > happened one year ago, making his age one year ago, and his brother's > unobserved age one year ago upon his actual arrival and departure planet > B, the same age. > > The twin brother gets to planet B a year before he is observed to get to > planet B from planet A. The observation of the duration of the voyage from > planet A is a year longer than the actual voyage takes. Yet it is the > actual length of the outbound space voyage, one year, that is communicated > to the observer on planet A in a two year long span of time where > everything concerning the ship, and thus the brother, seems to slow down > (seems to stretch) in the observer's view. The ship, the brother, and the > ship's clock, outran by a full year the ship, the brother, and the ship's > clock, the observer observed. > > Now someone will say that the time observed from planet A, and thus the > stretching that is observed, is the literal physical reality of the > traveler. They have no concept that the traveler's space-time reality on > the spot might be one thing and his space-time relativity to an ever more > distant observer quite another. Of course, you've ignored relativistic effects completely in that (apart from having a spaceship travel at the speed of light) .. so I'm not sure what the point of your post was.
From: Androcles on 11 Mar 2010 05:41 "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message news:WaidncSioueeWwXWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... > Planet A and planet B are similar planets one light year apart. A ship > leaves planet A for planet B and the length of the voyage is set for one > year, usual for this commuter ship. So the ship travels at one light-year per year, unusual for any type of ship.
From: Peter Webb on 11 Mar 2010 05:50
"Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> wrote in message news:4b98c72d$0$8803$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > > "G. L. Bradford" <glbrad01(a)insightbb.com> wrote in message > news:WaidncSioueeWwXWnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d(a)insightbb.com... >> Planet A and planet B are similar planets one light year apart. A ship >> leaves planet A for planet B and the length of the voyage is set for one >> year, usual for this commuter ship. The month of departure planet A is >> Mar 2010. The month of scheduled arrival planet B is Mar 2011. The ship >> leaves planet A on time (Mar 2010) and arrives planet B on time (Mar >> 2011). > > So you have a spaceship travelling at the speed of light. Just a tad > unrealistic. > I think you should lighten up a bit. Photons travel at c, and this is really just a special case of a more general question. The real problem is that looking at what happens at exactly c doesn't really show the general principle, which is why real world hypothetical spacecraft travel at 0.99c. But Mr Bradford maybe doesn't know that. I do agree however that his post seemed pointless. BTW, is you alias Inertial because of SR ? |