A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 14 Mar 2010 22:30 On Mar 14, 2:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 1:41 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 14, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 12:43 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > 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... > > > > Maybe the winner simply had a better dragster. > > > > You choose to believe when a battery operated clock begins to 'tick' > > > slower time does not change but when an atomic clock 'ticks' slower > > > time does change, why? Why is it because you understand what is > > > physically occurring to the battery operated clock you know time does > > > not change but since you choose to remain ignorant as to what occurs > > > to the atomic clock in order to cause it to physically tick slower you > > > choose to believe time does change? > > > > Why does ignorance count in physics? Why does choosing to remain > > > ignorant allow you to believe time does change for an atomic clock? > > > > Why is it that when the correct explanation as to what occurs > > > physically in nature to a battery operated clock you choose to believe > > > it is correct and time does not change but when the correct > > > explanation as to what occurs physically in nature to an atomic clock > > > you choose not to believe it in order to remain ignorant in order to > > > continue to incorrectly believe time changes?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > I offered to show you how a clock can end up with fewer ticks without > > slowing down. So why are you blathering on about a clock slowing? > > I am explaining to you what you get once you realize LET is > incomplete. If you prefer to remain ignorant as to what causes gravity > and what occurs physically in double slit, 'delayed choice', and > 'quantum eraser' experiments and what occurs physically in nature to > cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates that is up to you.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - And I am telling you when you wish to get real there are folks here that will help you. [plonk until then]
From: mpc755 on 15 Mar 2010 00:58 On Mar 14, 10:30 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Mar 14, 2:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 14, 1:41 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 14, 12:48 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 14, 12:43 pm, "Sue..." <suzysewns...(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > 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... > > > > > Maybe the winner simply had a better dragster. > > > > > You choose to believe when a battery operated clock begins to 'tick' > > > > slower time does not change but when an atomic clock 'ticks' slower > > > > time does change, why? Why is it because you understand what is > > > > physically occurring to the battery operated clock you know time does > > > > not change but since you choose to remain ignorant as to what occurs > > > > to the atomic clock in order to cause it to physically tick slower you > > > > choose to believe time does change? > > > > > Why does ignorance count in physics? Why does choosing to remain > > > > ignorant allow you to believe time does change for an atomic clock? > > > > > Why is it that when the correct explanation as to what occurs > > > > physically in nature to a battery operated clock you choose to believe > > > > it is correct and time does not change but when the correct > > > > explanation as to what occurs physically in nature to an atomic clock > > > > you choose not to believe it in order to remain ignorant in order to > > > > continue to incorrectly believe time changes?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > I offered to show you how a clock can end up with fewer ticks without > > > slowing down. So why are you blathering on about a clock slowing? > > > I am explaining to you what you get once you realize LET is > > incomplete. If you prefer to remain ignorant as to what causes gravity > > and what occurs physically in double slit, 'delayed choice', and > > 'quantum eraser' experiments and what occurs physically in nature to > > cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates that is up to you.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > And I am telling you when you wish to get real there are folks here > that will help you. > > [plonk until then] And I am telling you I understand what causes gravity. I understand what physically occurs in double slit, 'delayed choice', and 'quantum eraser' experiments. I understand what occurs physically in nature to cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates. When you are ready to understand such things all you need to do is ask. All you need to realize is LET is incomplete. In AD, the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. In AD, a moving particle has an associated aether wave and a moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave. In AD, the pressure associated with the aether is responsible for the rate at which atomic clocks tick.
From: spudnik on 15 Mar 2010 15:45 if you really grok gravity, what is a prediction that you can make (for either a) "gravity waves" or b) "gravitons," but not both at the same math) ?? however, don't consider the need of aether for a "particle of light," which is nothing, but a misconsideration of the whole idea of waves (for, if there were such particles, you'd be bound to consider anti-photons; would you not?) > 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. thus: nah; he'll learn from his mistake, and retire for a couple of years to a monastery with no net access & a book or two. thus: see the book by Lerner, _The Big Bang Never -- just kidding. it seems taht he has a hotkey/macro to insert that phraseology, but there is a case to be made for some of it, or, just "herr docktor-professor Albert, the Showman." of course, it doesn't do much for his own Theory of Nuthin'; eh? anyway, Eisntein's biggest blunder was with "homopolar generators," and getting in over his head with Maxwell's wunnerful theory, which is also problematic; or, so saith my school (and Schroedinger's cat, in Meowse Code .-) thus: proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) to a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo- eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a) just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b) show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned to absorb a particular frequency of light (wave). so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas! http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html
From: spudnik on 15 Mar 2010 15:50 what, again, is "LET?" Young proved, a humdred years after Newton espoused his "theory" of corpuscles, that light is simply waves (in the air, if you will, viz permeability & permitivity); among his proofs was the "two pin-hole experiment" -- 2PHX? -- which gave a loveley moire' pattern on the photographic (silver oxide?) emulsion. (his source of light was another pinhole in the far wall, admitting sunlight, quite coherently !-) > And I am telling you I understand what causes gravity. I understand > what physically occurs in double slit, 'delayed choice', and 'quantum > eraser' experiments. I understand what occurs physically in nature to > cause atomic clocks to tick at different rates. thus: if you really grok gravity, what is a prediction that you can make (for either a) "gravity waves" or b) "gravitons," but not both at the same math) ?? however, don't consider the need of aether for a "particle of light," which is nothing, but a misconsideration of the whole idea of waves (for, if there were such particles, you'd be bound to consider anti-photons; would you not?) > 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. thus: nah; he'll learn from his mistake, and retire for a couple of years to a monastery with no net access & a book or two. thus: see the book by Lerner, _The Big Bang Never -- just kidding. it seems taht he has a hotkey/macro to insert that phraseology, but there is a case to be made for some of it, or, just "herr docktor-professor Albert, the Showman." of course, it doesn't do much for his own Theory of Nuthin'; eh? anyway, Eisntein's biggest blunder was with "homopolar generators," and getting in over his head with Maxwell's wunnerful theory, which is also problematic; or, so saith my school (and Schroedinger's cat, in Meowse Code .-) thus: proabably most of the interpretation of the EPR "paradox" results a la Alain Aspect et al, is due to the ideal of a photon, in assinging all of the energy of the wave-front as a "mass" (electron-voltage, say) to a particle, whence the wave-energy was somehow "caught" by the photo- eletrical device. here are two ways to get over this: a) just consider the practice of audio quantization, the phonon; b) show how the photoelectrical device is actually tuned to absorb a particular frequency of light (wave). so, is the "phonon" just one cycle of the period of the sound, and like-wise, is the photon just one cycle of the frequency? --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus! http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/ --The Ides of March Are Coming: Pro-Impeachment Democrat Wins Nomination in Texas! http://larouchepub.com/pr_lar/2010/lar_pac/100303kesha_victory.html
From: Bruce Richmond on 16 Mar 2010 18:57
On Mar 12, 7:44 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote in message > > news:bf49f7ee-126a-4e44-bdfd-cf323e83cdc6(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Mar 11, 10:54 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > >> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>news:722fe1d3-ba1d-4439-bffe-eda2ca668f82(a)p3g2000pra.googlegroups.com.... > > >> > On Mar 10, 8:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 9, 9:41 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> >> > On Mar 8, 8:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > > >> >> > > "PaulStowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >> >> > >news:1132a230-92d9-484a-b0c1-d3a97532cad9(a)z10g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > > >> >> > > >> >> SR explains it as having to be c due to the geometry of > >> >> > > >> >> spacetime > > >> >> > > >> > That's simply a silly idea... > > >> >> > > >> That you think it is silly is your problem, not that of SR > > >> >> > > > Something physical may be represented by a geometric > >> >> > > > description. > > >> >> > > And our universe is represented by Minkowski geometry. > > >> >> > Yes, you can descibe localized behavior with that format. BUT! to > >> >> > do > >> >> > so you must depend on finite light speed and its physical > >> >> > independence. Geometry neither predicts. explains, or has a basis > >> >> > for > >> >> > that. > > >> >> That's incorrect, Paul. The geometric structure of spacetime imposes > >> >> both a finite speed of light AND makes it frame-independent. > > >> >> The geometric structure of spacetime *necessarily* divides pairs of > >> >> events into three categories: spacelike-separated, timelike-separated, > >> >> and nullcone-separated. This structure also immediately leads to the > >> >> result that any wordline that could be traversed by something between > >> >> timelike-separated events will, in any other inertial reference frame, > >> >> still be between timelike-separated events. What this means explicitly > >> >> is that this object can never span two spacelike-separated events. > >> >> Thus, the universe of events is strictly divided into two completely > >> >> separated causal domains. The boundary of these domains is the null > >> >> cone. Since the null cone has a definite slope of space vs time, this > >> >> imposes a causal speed limit. (This limit does not exist in Euclidean > >> >> 3D+1D space -- it is a unique feature of the 4D space and its > >> >> geometry.) > > >> >> Furthermore, while transformations between inertial frames will shift > >> >> the slopes between pairs of timelike events (that is, the speed of an > >> >> object traveling between the two events), the same transformation > >> >> between pairs of events on the null cone do not change slope. What > >> >> this means is that any object that can travel between two events on > >> >> null cone will have the same speed regardless of inertial reference > >> >> frame. > > >> >> So you see, the geometric structure DOES imply both a causal speed > >> >> limit and the invariance of that causal speed limit with choice of > >> >> inertial reference frame. It just so happens that light appears to be > >> >> one of the candidate objects that can travel between nullcone- > >> >> separated events. > > >> >> If you need to see how the structure does impose those limits > >> >> formally, I could point you to a reference book or two that derives > >> >> this unambiguously. > > >> >> At the time that Einstein proposed special relativity, he did not > >> >> understand how such a geometric structure could produce those two > >> >> conclusions as necessary consequences. And so he just posited the > >> >> invariance of the speed of light as a postulate (or equivalently, > >> >> demanded that Maxwell's equations obey the principle of relativity).. > >> >> It was only later that the geometric structure was uncovered and it > >> >> was understood how the light postulate follows directly from this > >> >> structure. > > >> >> PD > > >> > I wasn't going to bother with a reply since we have gone round & round > >> > on this very point. I find your argument without merit and I'm > >> > certain that you mind is made up. Why act like kid and continuously > >> > and say no it ain't, yes it is??? > > >> > In minkowski math c can be any finite value. > > >> Indeed it can. But we observe it to have a particular value in our > >> universe. > > > Would that be the value in meters per second, miles per second, miles > > per hour.... I could go on. > > I'm sure you would carry on with such pedantic nonsense. It is still the > same value .. just expressed with a different numerical value in different > units as every value with units is. > > So yours is really no argument at all. > > [snip rest] > > And that's all you had to say?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Paul Stowe had written, "In minkowski math c can be any finite value." IOW the number can be anything you want, depending on the units of measurement you use. Your response, "Indeed it can. But we observe it to have a particular value in our universe." implies that we use a specific number. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/value 7.Mathematics. a.magnitude; quantity; number represented by a figure, symbol, or the like: the value of an angle; the value of x; the value of a sum. That was the reason for my response, to point out that Paul's statement was correct. |