A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 14 Mar 2010 11:23 On Mar 14, 3:17 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > On Mar 14, 1:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mar 14, 12:54 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > What I am referring to in terms of the concept of time is the rate at > > > > which a clock ticks is not time. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_pendulum_clock > > > > > > See the four weights that have mass just like a bullet, > > > and the spring that stores energy just like gun powder. > > > "However they are difficult to set up and are usually not as accurate > > as clocks with ordinary pendulums. One reason is that the oscillation > > period of the torsion pendulum changes with temperature due to > > temperature-dependent change in elasticity of the spring. The rate of > > the clock can be made faster or slower by an adjustment screw > > mechanism on the torsion pendulum that moves the weight balls in or > > out from the axis." > > > Similar to the need to adjust an atomic clock based upon the aether > > pressure in which it exists. > > No... More like this: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator > > Torsion pendulumhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications > > When the winner of a drag race finishes with more fuel > than the looser, then time has changed. > > Sue... Whatever clock you use will 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. Since you understand why your battery operated clock physically ticks slower (i.e. because it requires a new batter) you understand time has not changed. Just because you refuse to understand an atomic clock 'ticks' based upon the aether pressure in which it exists does not mean time has changed.
From: Bruce Richmond on 14 Mar 2010 11:24 On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2:52 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > > > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > > > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > > > > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > > > > consider that detecting the ether. > > > > How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > There could be. Problem is, how do you measure it? LET says that > > clocks at rest in the ether tick the fastest, but due to distortions > > and how things are measured they will be measured to tick slower than > > the clocks doing the measuring. > > And that is why LET is incomplete. Not being able to measure something that has never been observed does not make LET incomplete. > In AD, the clock on the train will be measured to be ticking slower > than the clock on the embankment by both the Observer on the train and > the Observer on the embankment. Fast moving muons have been observed to have a longer half life but never a shorter one. That makes the lab clock the fastest ticking clock, putting it at rest wrt your ether. I have no doubts that if the same experiment is conducted on the surface of Mars we will get the same result, making it at rest wrt your ether. Since the Earth and Mars are not at rest wrt each other they cannot both be at rest wrt your ether. And before you try to invoke some sort of dragged ether, that has already been ruled out. > > Would you be interested in an explaination of how the traveling twin > > ends up with less elapsed time on his clock *without his clock slowing > > down*? > > Time is a concept. Would you be interested in understanding what is > physically occurring in nature for the traveling twins clock to > physically tick slower? No, I'm not interested in understanding your theory that doesn't agree with the real world. > The traveling twins clock ticks slower because it is under a greater > amount of aether pressure than the clock which remains on the Earth. > This additional aether pressure the traveling clock is under causes > the traveling clock to physically tick slower.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 14 Mar 2010 11:47 On Mar 14, 11:24 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:52 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > > > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > > > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > > > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > > > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > > > > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > > > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > > > > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > > > > > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > > > > > consider that detecting the ether. > > > > > How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > There could be. Problem is, how do you measure it? LET says that > > > clocks at rest in the ether tick the fastest, but due to distortions > > > and how things are measured they will be measured to tick slower than > > > the clocks doing the measuring. > > > And that is why LET is incomplete. > > Not being able to measure something that has never been observed does > not make LET incomplete. > No, but consider the aether to be an absolutely stationary space stops LET from understanding and more correctly describing basic things such as gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether is the aether's state of displacement. With this more correct understanding of aether you get: The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. A moving particle has an associated aether wave. A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave. The observed behaviors in a double slit, 'quantum eraser', or 'delayed choice' experiment are due to the interference created with the paths the aether waves propagate along are combined which alter the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. If you choose to believe LET is incomplete then you are able to have a more complete and more correct understanding of nature. > > In AD, the clock on the train will be measured to be ticking slower > > than the clock on the embankment by both the Observer on the train and > > the Observer on the embankment. > > Fast moving muons have been observed to have a longer half life but > never a shorter one. That makes the lab clock the fastest ticking > clock, putting it at rest wrt your ether. I have no doubts that if > the same experiment is conducted on the surface of Mars we will get > the same result, making it at rest wrt your ether. Since the Earth > and Mars are not at rest wrt each other they cannot both be at rest > wrt your ether. And before you try to invoke some sort of dragged > ether, that has already been ruled out. > > > > Would you be interested in an explaination of how the traveling twin > > > ends up with less elapsed time on his clock *without his clock slowing > > > down*? > > > Time is a concept. Would you be interested in understanding what is > > physically occurring in nature for the traveling twins clock to > > physically tick slower? > > No, I'm not interested in understanding your theory that doesn't agree > with the real world. > > > The traveling twins clock ticks slower because it is under a greater > > amount of aether pressure than the clock which remains on the Earth. > > This additional aether pressure the traveling clock is under causes > > the traveling clock to physically tick slower.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 14 Mar 2010 12:35 On Mar 14, 11:24 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 4:33 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:52 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 13, 1:37 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:34 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 1:28 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Mar 13, 3:30 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > If they are not directly across from each other you are making > > > > > > > > assumptions about the speed of light carrying the signal. If you use > > > > > > > > two clocks you made assumptions about the speed of light when you > > > > > > > > synchronized the two clocks. > > > > > > > > > _____________________________ > > > > > > > > When solving problems in SR or LET, you don't have to assume the speed of > > > > > > > > light is constant. You know it is. > > > > > > > > In response to both you and Inertial, mpc755 wrote, "The clock which > > > > > > > ticks the fastest is most at rest with respect to the aether." So we > > > > > > > were not discussing SR. And since he thinks he can detect the ether > > > > > > > frame we are not discussing LET either. > > > > > > > I did not say the aether frame can be detected, what I wrote and what > > > > > > you quote above stands on its own. > > > > > > > The aether is most at rest with respect to the clock which ticks the > > > > > > fastest.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > > Then all you would need to do is determine which clock is ticking > > > > > fastest and you have found the ether frame. Most people would > > > > > consider that detecting the ether. > > > > > How do you know there isn't a clock somewhere else ticking faster?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > There could be. Problem is, how do you measure it? LET says that > > > clocks at rest in the ether tick the fastest, but due to distortions > > > and how things are measured they will be measured to tick slower than > > > the clocks doing the measuring. > > > And that is why LET is incomplete. > > Not being able to measure something that has never been observed does > not make LET incomplete. > Considering the aether to be an absolutely stationary space stops LET from understanding and more correctly describing basic things such as gravity and the observed behaviors in a double slit experiment. "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places" - Albert Einstein The state of the aether is the aether's state of displacement. With this more correct understanding of aether you get: The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. A moving particle has an associated aether wave. A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave. The observed behaviors in a double slit, 'quantum eraser', or 'delayed choice' experiment are due to the interference created when the paths the aether waves propagate are combined which alters the direction the particle travels. Detecting the particle causes decoherence of the associated aether wave and there is no interference. If you choose to believe LET is incomplete then you are able to have a more complete and more correct understanding of nature. > > In AD, the clock on the train will be measured to be ticking slower > > than the clock on the embankment by both the Observer on the train and > > the Observer on the embankment. > > Fast moving muons have been observed to have a longer half life but > never a shorter one. That makes the lab clock the fastest ticking > clock, putting it at rest wrt your ether. I have no doubts that if > the same experiment is conducted on the surface of Mars we will get > the same result, making it at rest wrt your ether. Since the Earth > and Mars are not at rest wrt each other they cannot both be at rest > wrt your ether. And before you try to invoke some sort of dragged > ether, that has already been ruled out. > > > > Would you be interested in an explaination of how the traveling twin > > > ends up with less elapsed time on his clock *without his clock slowing > > > down*? > > > Time is a concept. Would you be interested in understanding what is > > physically occurring in nature for the traveling twins clock to > > physically tick slower? > > No, I'm not interested in understanding your theory that doesn't agree > with the real world. > > > The traveling twins clock ticks slower because it is under a greater > > amount of aether pressure than the clock which remains on the Earth. > > This additional aether pressure the traveling clock is under causes > > the traveling clock to physically tick slower.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Sue... on 14 Mar 2010 12:43
On Mar 14, 11:23 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 3:17 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 14, 1:19 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 12:54 am, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 10:31 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 13, 7:56 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > What I am referring to in terms of the concept of time is the rate at > > > > > which a clock ticks is not time. > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_pendulum_clock > > > > > See the four weights that have mass just like a bullet, > > > > and the spring that stores energy just like gun powder. > > > > "However they are difficult to set up and are usually not as accurate > > > as clocks with ordinary pendulums. One reason is that the oscillation > > > period of the torsion pendulum changes with temperature due to > > > temperature-dependent change in elasticity of the spring. The rate of > > > the clock can be made faster or slower by an adjustment screw > > > mechanism on the torsion pendulum that moves the weight balls in or > > > out from the axis." > > > > Similar to the need to adjust an atomic clock based upon the aether > > > pressure in which it exists. > > > No... More like this: > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_oscillator > > > Torsion pendulumhttp://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node139.html > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentumhttp://en.wikipedia.org/... > > > When the winner of a drag race finishes with more fuel > > than the looser, then time has changed. > > > Sue... > > Whatever clock you use will 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in > which it exists. > > Since you understand why your battery operated clock physically ticks > slower (i.e. because it requires a new batter) you understand time has > not changed. > > Just because you refuse to understand an atomic clock 'ticks' based > upon the aether pressure in which it exists does not mean time has > changed. When the winner of a drag race finishes with more fuel than the looser, then time has changed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Applications Sue... |