A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 22:49 On Feb 16, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 9:26 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > __________________________________ > > > > My tabletop is not in a spaceship, and there is no train on the > > > > spaceship. > > > > > Here is my question. Lets just take the first half this time: > > > > > 1. We place two atomic clocks on a tabletop at the centre of a 1 metre > > > > ruler. We separate them very slowly so they are at either end of the one > > > > metre ruler. We record the time taken (according to the clocks) for > > > > light > > > > to > > > > travel 1 metre in a vacuum. Will the speed of light measured in this > > > > manner > > > > be c or some other value? > > > > Is the aether at rest with respect to the table top? > > > > _________________________________ > > > No. The tabletop is moving at speed of v relative to the ether. > > > The the tabletop is the train. > > > __________________________________ > > No, a tabletop is a tabletop. Its not a train. And you haven't answered my > > question. Will the speed of light measured in this manner be c or some other > > value? It is a pretty simple question. Why won't you answer it? > > How is the tabletop able to move at 'v' with respect to the aether? > > It's on a train.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Nothing shrinks. There are no flat atoms. The aether is stationary for space but flows for energy.. Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 00:56 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4fd7fda0-5219-4728-89ed-00407156d2cb(a)k11g2000vbe.googlegroups.com... On Feb 15, 1:08 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:285f58e2-a468-4257-8051-fa7249dc0e72(a)m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > As I have said at least three times now, > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > > ____________________________________ > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > > why > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > > and > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > > fifth time? > > > ______________________________________ > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. > > You > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > > difference is your speed relative to the ether. That is because > > according > > to > > you, light moves at a constant speed relative to the ether. So if you > > measure the speed of light, and subtract if from c, that must give you > > your > > speed relative to the ether. > > > So say you measure that light is moving at 2 x 10^8 m/s relative to you. > > We > > know it is moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s relative to the ether, therefore you > > are > > moving at 3 x 10^8 m/s - 2 x 10^8 m/s = 1 x 10^8 m/s relative to the > > ether. > > > Why doesn't that procedure determine your speed relative to the ether? > > Not sure this link will work, but this is a link to the two posts I > made having to do with the train and the embankment and the time on > the clocks and the lightning strikes. > > I realize you are not going to understand what I have written, but > this is why the light is not detected at other than 'c' for either the > Observers on the embankment or the Observers on the train: > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... > > _____________________________________________ > I didn't ask about trains, or embankments, or anything like that. I asked > you why you can't measure the relative speed of the ether by the simple > process I described above. Why can't you? Or can you? In order to answer the question I used Einstein's train gedanken with water/aether at rest with respect to the embankment. _________________________ You didn't answer the question. Why doesn't the procedure I have described above provide the relative speed of the ether? Or does it?
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 00:57 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:70e0e369-7438-4571-b8c6-43b05ca13546(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 15, 1:18 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:cc37a395-3b16-4471-9964-d9db63246254(a)v20g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > As I have said at least three times now, > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > ____________________________________ > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > why > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > and > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > How do you measure the speed of light and how do you determine it is > different from 'c'? Are you using a mirror or synchronized clocks? > > _______________________________ > Use whatever measuring apparatus you like. > > What you are incapable of understanding is everything is under the > effects of the aether. As I said in one of my original posts which it > would help you understand the point I am making. The atomic clocks the > Observers on the train are using are offset because of their state > with respect to the aether. > > So, I will ask you again. How is the light to be measured? > > ________________________________ > You must already have some means of measuring light speed, or you couldn't > claim the speed was constant relative to the ether. Use that. It is all explained in the posts you refuse to read. ________________________ Read them all. Didn't see it, sorry. Perhaps you could repost your answer. Tx
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 00:59 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:48499780-10ed-4377-b4cf-0bde5b5d298f(a)28g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 15, 1:06 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:21c1d72e-9898-436a-ba4e-05a849fc4efc(a)g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 15, 12:35 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:e03b248e-5f49-4e80-9c4c-d542dd7e269e(a)k5g2000pra.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 15, 12:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > As I have said at least three times now, > > > you cannot determine the speed of the aether. > > > ____________________________________ > > > > You said light moves at a constant velocity relative to the ether. So > > > why > > > can't you measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, > > > and > > > the difference is your speed relative to the ether? Why doesn't that > > > procedure determine the speed of the ether? > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > As I have said at least four times now, you can't measure the speed of > > the aether. If you can't measure the speed of the aether you can't > > measure your speed relative to the aether. > > > Do you want to ask this same question again so I can answer it for a > > fifth time? > > > ______________________________________ > > I just described how you *can* measure your speed relative to the ether. > > You > > measure the speed of light, see how much it differs from c, and the > > difference is your speed relative to the ether. > > How do you measure the speed of light so it is not 'c'? > > _________________________________ > Anyway you like. Aren't you claiming that the speed of light is a constant > relative to the speed of the ether, and not constant relative to the > observer? So you can measure the speed of light in some way, to make this > claim at all, right? So why not measure it, see how much it departs from > c, > and then the difference is the speed of the ether. > > Why won't that work? I am asking you to state how it is you want to measure the speed of light? Are you using mirrors? ____________________ No. I am using a metre ruler and two clocks, one at each end. I synchronise the clocks, separate them by a metre, and note the difference between arrival and departure time. The difference between this and c is my speed relative to the ether. Why won't this work?
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:10
On Feb 15, 4:05 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 2:29 pm, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 3:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 15, 1:50 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 15, 2:17 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:44 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 11:36 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:12 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 7:40 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 1:20 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > > >news:16bd20be-baaa-459a-90d2-f763cba4f366(a)b36g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 15, 12:27 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2/14/10 11:23 PM, mpc755 wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How do you measure your speed relative to the ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > > What ether? > > > > > > > > > > > > The aether which is the reason for the observed behaviors in every > > > > > > > > > > > double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > > > > > > > > > A C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Detectors are placed at the exits > > > > > > > > > > > to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s). Every time the > > > > > > > > > > > C-60 molecule exits the slit(s) it is detected exiting a single slit. > > > > > > > > > > > > When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits > > > > > > > > > > > the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern. > > > > > > > > > > > > How is this possible without the C-60 molecule having an associated > > > > > > > > > > > aether displacement wave? > > > > > > > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > Or, more to the point, how is this possible without the C-60 molecule having > > > > > > > > > > > an associated pan-galactic gargleblaster pressure wave? Well? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, here we are once again with another poster who champions the > > > > > > > > > > greatness of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM and yet is unwilling > > > > > > > > > > and unable to answer such a simple question. > > > > > > > > > > > Only one poster on this forum who chooses to believe nature physically > > > > > > > > > > behaves according to the Copenhagen interpretation of QM has been > > > > > > > > > > willing to answer this question and their answer was the future > > > > > > > > > > determines the past. The C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > > > > > > > slits depending on their being, or not being, detectors at the slits > > > > > > > > > > in the future. Now, obviously, this is absurd nonsense, > > > > > > > > > > On what basis is it obvious that it is absurd nonsense? How do you > > > > > > > > > personally determine what is nonsense and what is not nonsense, MPC? > > > > > > > > > > I'll give you a sample statement: The speed of light from a source is > > > > > > > > > always c as seen by an observer, whether the source is standing still > > > > > > > > > relative to the observer, moving away from the observer, or moving > > > > > > > > > toward the observer. > > > > > > > > > > Now, the question to you is -- how do you determine whether this > > > > > > > > > statement is absurd nonsense or not? > > > > > > > > > > > but you do > > > > > > > > > > have to give that poster credit, at least they answered the question. > > > > > > > > > First off, the C-60 molecule is a particle > > > > > > > > Well, that's what YOU say. Physicists say that it has some properties > > > > > > > of a particle and other properties not like a particle, and these > > > > > > > properties are *observed* in real experiments. There are a number of > > > > > > > things that are like that, and they inhabit a new class of objects > > > > > > > called quantum objects. > > > > > > > > Now, you claim that this is not so and that C-60 molecules are > > > > > > > particles, period. Yet you cannot say how it is that you know this. > > > > > > > You just assert that it is so. > > > > > > > > > and as such it always > > > > > > > > enters and exits a single slit. So, to think a particle is physically > > > > > > > > able to enter and exits multiple slits in and of itself is physical > > > > > > > > nonsense to begin with, but it is not absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > > The C-60 molecule is about to enter the slit(s). We will disregard the > > > > > > > > obvious which is the C-60 molecule always enters and exits a single > > > > > > > > slit and go along with the nonsense of the Copenhagen interpretation > > > > > > > > of QM for now. > > > > > > > > > You are saying that the C-60 molecule enters one or multiple slits > > > > > > > > depending upon what has not occurred yet. You really believe the C-60 > > > > > > > > molecule is going to enter one slit, or multiple slits, depending upon > > > > > > > > what has yet to occur. You choose to believe the C-60 molecule will > > > > > > > > enter one or multiple slits depending upon their being, or not being, > > > > > > > > detectors at the exits to the slits in the future. > > > > > > > > > That is absurd nonsense. > > > > > > > > We're back to you just SAYING something is absurd nonsense, without > > > > > > > having any rational scheme for determining what is absurd nonsense and > > > > > > > what is not. Scientists don't operate on that basis, just asserting > > > > > > > this or asserting that. > > > > > > > > > The fact that you choose to believe in absurd nonsense in order to > > > > > > > > maintain the illusion the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't > > > > > > > > physical nonsense to begin with just adds to the absurdity of what you > > > > > > > > choose to believe. > > > > > > > > See? You haven't answered the question at all. > > > > > > > You don't have any method, even in your own mind, for determining what > > > > > > > is absurd nonsense and what is not. > > > > > > > To you, it is all just a matter of what you WANT to believe, and so > > > > > > > what you CHOOSE to believe. > > > > > > > That's called faith, not science. > > > > > > > Are we going to have this conversation yet again? What is more 'faith > > > > > > like'? Understanding light propagates through a medium and this medium > > > > > > is material or believing the future determines the past? > > > > > > You can't tell just by looking at the two statements and deciding.. > > > > > Of course you can. One statement discusses the aether as a physical > > > > material the light propagates through. As a physical material it is > > > > displaced by matter. > > > > > The other statement, where a C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple > > > > slits depending upon what occurs in the future, is absurd nonsense. > > > > Sorry, but just SAYING it's absurd nonsense doesn't make it absurd > > > nonsense. > > > We've been around and around and around the block on this and you are > > > still too dense to figure it out. > > > How do you KNOW it's absurd nonsense, other than just SAYING it's > > > absurd nonsense. > > > If you don't have a method for independently determining that, then > > > it's just an empty assertion. > > > > > > That's the point. You have to have an independent method for > > > > > *checking* which of the two statements is more likely. > > > > > > What's your method for that independent determination? > > > > > My method for that independent determination is the observed behaviors > > > > in every double slit experiment ever performed. > > > > Bullshit, and we've been around and around and around on this too. > > > Your SAYING it doesn't make it so. > > > Just out of curiosity, why do you and other knowledgable people waste > > your time trying to explain things to people like mpc755? He's > > probably on medication, probably lives alone and is constantly > > paranoid that someone is out to get him, and probably has very little > > capability to deal with the real world around him. The kind of > > delusions that he and some other people here display seem to go beyond > > misunderstandings of the physical world to living in a fantasy world-- > > which they probably live in full time--and which is quite sad, > > really. I mean, does anyone HONESTLY believe that Androcles, for > > example, is a normal, well adjusted human being in everyday life? > > > At least with Ste, he has shown the capability to write coherently and > > admit fault in his beliefs, and hasn't quite gone around making up > > absurdities in the same way that mpc, BURT, and others have. I really > > don't think the latter group could ever change because I don't think > > they're mentally healthy enough. And I gather that after years of > > arguing with them, you've probably determined the same thing. > > > So, just out of curiosity, why do you continue to argue with them? > > I'm not faulting you for it, I'm just curious. > > Sometimes I ask myself the same question. Did you notice the poster you're responding to refuses to answer my question as to the validity of your 'understanding' of the behaviors in a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule is due to the future determining the past? I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. |