A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 16 Feb 2010 10:36 On Feb 16, 6:21 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 16 Feb, 01:18, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 15, 6:14 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > No I actually agree with you Paul. The use of the word "rotation" is > > > perfectly legitimate in this context, to describe a geometric > > > transformation. My argument is that those who claim knowledge here > > > don't seem to emphasise strongly enough, when queried, that this > > > geometric rotation into time bears *absolutely no resemblance at all* > > > to the physical act of spatial rotation. > > > Well, that would be also going too far. The spatial rotation is a > > special case of the general rotation, after all, so they can't be > > *completely* different things. > > Mathematically, you're correct, spatial rotation is a special case of > general rotation. Physically, you're not in any way correct. A > rotation in any of the 3 spatial dimensions bears no sensory > correspondence at all to this alleged "rotation in time". Nor do whales bear any sensory correspondence to camels. But you see, what is meant by general rotation is not *dependent* on what is familiar to the senses, or on innate conceptual images that are familiar to small children. Nor should it be. > > > To continue pounding on my analogy, it is incorrect to say that whales > > bear *absolutely no resemblance at all* to tetrapod land mammals. They > > bear a *strong* resemblance on the issues that pertain to being a > > mammal. > > > But I understand your plea. You feel it is the burden of the expert to > > be sure that the novice does not misconstrue, which includes actively > > forestalling all places where they may make an erroneous assumption. I > > can see why this might be expected as part of a teaching arrangement, > > in a teaching venue, where the participants have clear teacher and > > student roles. But in an informal discussion group, it's less clear > > where the burden lies, you see. > > I dare say the burden is simply on the expert to either speak a common > language, or to specify which parts of his vocabulary are not common. I only agree with you that this is the burden of the expert in a constructed teacher-student environment, wherein there is a contractual arrangement that the student be taught something by the expert. In an informal discussion group, and in particular a free one, there is no such arrangement and hence no such burden, although one might be undertaken on an ad hoc and completely voluntary basis. You and I have already discussed this: that it is NOT the obligation of the expert to share knowledge. It is not true in law, medicine, plumbing, architecture, music, or engineering. Good musicians may offer lessons to students who want to learn, but that is usually under a contractual arrangement. It is the obligation of the expert to USE that knowledge to get work done. It is the obligation of a surgeon to USE his knowledge to make people well, but it is not his obligation to share his knowledge with others. > After all, the expert, as someone who has contact with both the common > and the specialised vocabulary, is the only person who is ever going > to be in a position to know where those vocabularies differ. I also > tend to take the view that discussion is often good for the expert's > understanding. I agree with that. And you'll notice that as the discussion in this venue spools out, it becomes apparent where there is a misunderstanding about terminology, and then someone might *voluntarily* explain to you the specialized meaning of the word. It must surely be frustrating to go down a dead-end lane because of confusion over terminology over and over again, and only be advised on the specialized meaning after running into the full stop. It's a terribly inefficient way to proceed. But then again, you get what you pay for. If you wanted efficiency, then you'd need a different venue where there is structured efficiency. > > > > If > > > something has both behaviours, then that's something that modern > > > physics needs to explain coherently. > > > Why? It's a class of objects that is discovered in nature and the > > behaviors are *observed*. Why do we have to explain WHY our > > pigeonholing doesn't work for them, other than to acknowledge there is > > something wrong with our pigeonholing scheme? > > > After all, viruses do not meet the usual criteria of "living things", > > nor do they meet the usual criteria of "nonliving things". They have > > *some* of the properties of both. Does this mean that we have to > > explain why viruses can exist, because they resist our pigeonholing? > > I think your misunderstanding. A new pigeonhole can be specified, but > it still requires a specification. It's not good enough to simply say > "this is what we observe" and shrug, because that tells you nothing > about the underlying variables or how the phenomenon works. Such a specification for quantum fields exists, in exactly the same way a specification for "particles" and "waves" exists.
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 01:38 On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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? You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow' of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the 'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it 'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to the front of the train is under. Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A' 'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A' because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it was being walked to A'. Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate. So, even though you synchronized your clocks, once you walk them to their destination, they are out of sync. But there is no way to know this. If the Observer at B' 'calls' the Observer at M' his call is going with the 'flow' of aether and the response from M' is going against the 'flow' of the aether so all communication will be 'unsynchronized' just like the clocks. Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates with the flow of the aether to A' and takes one second to arrive there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes two seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks read 12:00:03. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B', since the light traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after one second by the mirror at A' and will take two seconds to travel back to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two seconds by the mirror at B' and will take one second to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M' arrives simultaneously back at M'.
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 02:03 On Feb 16, 12:59 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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? You separate the clocks by a metre on a train moving relative to the aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow' of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the 'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it 'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to the front of the train is under. Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A' 'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A' because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it was being walked to A'. Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate. So, even though you synchronized your clocks, once you walk them to their destination, they are out of sync. But there is no way to know this. If the Observer at B' 'calls' the Observer at M' his call is going with the 'flow' of aether and the response from M' is going against the 'flow' of the aether so all communication will be 'unsynchronized' just like the clocks. Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates with the flow of the aether to A' and takes two seconds to arrive there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes four seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks read 12:00:04. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B'. Since the light traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two seconds by the mirror at A' and will take four seconds to travel back to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after four seconds by the mirror at B' and will take two seconds to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M' arrives simultaneously back at M' and the clock at M' reads 12:00:07.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 02:06 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:887b7b2c-5c7e-420f-87f1-6705884d5936(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(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 Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles for the second hand. <snip about 200 lines identical to what you posted originally> _______________________________ I didn't ask you about trains, embankments, Einstein or paddles. I described a simple experiment to measure the speed of the ether. One more time. You say light propagates at c with respect to the ether. So measure the speed of light in a vacuum; lets say it is c'. Light moves at c with respect to the ether; you measured it c', therefore you must be moving at speed at c-c' relative to the ether. Doesn't this tell you exactly your speed relative to the ether? If not, why not? What would happen (according to you) if you tried it? Well?
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 02:13
On Feb 16, 2:06 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:887b7b2c-5c7e-420f-87f1-6705884d5936(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 12:57 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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 > > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. > > Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to > be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to > the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles > for the second hand. > > <snip about 200 lines identical to what you posted originally> > _______________________________ > I didn't ask you about trains, embankments, Einstein or paddles. I described > a simple experiment to measure the speed of the ether. One more time. You > say light propagates at c with respect to the ether. So measure the speed of > light in a vacuum; lets say it is c'. Light moves at c with respect to the > ether; you measured it c', therefore you must be moving at speed at c-c' > relative to the ether. Doesn't this tell you exactly your speed relative to > the ether? If not, why not? What would happen (according to you) if you > tried it? > > Well? You have to read the posts you refuse to read in order to understand the answer. |