A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 16 Feb 2010 18:42 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:da09c070-e346-42f6-a55f-cabf519d20dc(a)k36g2000prb.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 16, 5:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:995b34f4-be02-48bb-b9db-463e3437283a(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 16, 12:57 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> On Feb 16, 1:46 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > Picking and choosing your definitions, Ken? >> >> > Look at the definitions I highlighted for you. >> >> > Look at your freshman physics textbook. Does it tell you that the >> >> > electric field is not physical? >> >> >> In the past you insisted that length contraction in SR is physical and >> >> at that time you think that physical means material. >> >> > No, sir, I *never* said length contraction was material. I said it was >> > PHYSICAL. >> >> >> You even >> >> suggested that length contraction can be measured directly by shooting >> >> lasers from the ends of a moving ruler to the rest frame of the >> >> observer. >> >> > Yes, it is MEASURABLE. Physical things are measurable. >> > Energy is MEASURABLE, it is not material. >> > Magnetic fields are MEASURABLE, they are not material. >> > Radio waves are MEASURABLE, they are not material. >> >> >> So you see you think that length contraction in SR is >> >> material. >> >> > No, it is MEASURABLE. It is not material. >> >> >> Also your SR brother Inertial said in this thread that contraction in >> >> SR means that the atoms get closer....this means material contraction. >> >> > Ken, rather than desperately trying to gather excuses to support your >> > mistaken impression, why don't you just take another look at the >> > correct definitions for physical that I've already shown you? Why >> > don't you reread your freshman physics text again, and check whether >> > it says the electric field is not physical? If you've made a small >> > mistake, then CORRECT IT and move on. If you cannot ever correct a >> > small mistake, you'll never get out of square one. You'll spend all >> > your time searching newsgroups for support for your mistake. >> >> Note that the atoms in a length-contracted rod are physically closer >> together, as measured in the relatively moving inertial frame. In that >> frame the material that makes up the rod is fitting within a shorter >> distance (ie compressed). > > Well, I know what you're saying, but I'd be very careful about > terminology here to avoid confusion. Seto thinks of compression as > being solely the effect of a material interaction, such as a > compressive *force* or perhaps a low temperature bath. That's not > what's going on here. So yes, the pole is shorter and since no atoms > have been lost, then the atoms have a different length, but this does > not imply anything squeezing on them (even if Seto can't imagine it > happening any other way). I didn't say they were squeezed .. I said they were closer together. But yes .. it depends on whether one assumes something being compressed implies that there is some external agent compressing it or not. In this case there isn't an agent .. its just a result of the rotation. Just like a tilted ladder has a shorter height even though nothing has squeezed it. >> However, the intrinsic/proper/rest length of the rod is unchanged, and >> the >> intrinsic/proper/rest distance between the atoms of its material are >> unchanged. > > The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the > length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to > call it an intrinsic property. Perhaps more to the point, the frame-dependent length (spatial distance betwen end points at a given time) and the invariant length both correspond in the frame when the object is at rest. So the invariant length and rest length are always the same value. >> So whether of not it's 'materially' compressed (meaning the atoms of the >> material of which it is made are closer together) depends on whether you >> are >> talking about the frame dependent view of the material or the invariant >> view. Which, when you say it, is bleedingly obvious. >> >> Also note that just because the contraction is MODELLED by a geometrical >> rotation does not mean it there is nothing 'physical' going on wrt >> frame-dependent measurement (which is the sort of measurement we work >> with >> every day, and that makes sense). >> >> It all comes down to whether you are referring to frame dependent or >> invariant measures. In the pole and barn scenario, when one says "in the >> frame of the barn", that implies we are talking about frame-dependant >> values >> .. and 'length contraction' means the frame-dependent length of the pole >> is >> shorter, and in a frame-dependent view of the pole, the atoms that make >> up >> its material are closer together.- > > Yes, > > Seto suffers from a false dichotomy. Indeed .. among other things. > If there is a change in length, > he believes this can be the result of only two possibilities: a > material interaction that causes a stress in the body; or an optical > illusion. > > It is neither. He doesn't understand the third possibility. Indeed again :):)
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:29 On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:17353969-96de-46d5-b54c-74e655e2d34f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > 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. <snip about 200 lines involving trains, embankments and whole lot of > other stuff unrelated to my question> > > ____________________________________ > No. There is no train in my question. Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table, but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved. > There are two clocks and a one metre > ruler. They are on a tabletop. Both clocks are together at the middle. They > are very slowly moved to opposite ends of thje 1 metre ruler - take a year > if you like. A photon is sent from opne to the other, and the difference in > time gives you the speed c' with which the light travelled. Note that two > clocks can be brought back together again and they are still synchronised.. Yes, because when you bring them back they will be moving the opposite with respect to the aether as they did when you pushed them out. When you move the clock from the front of the table back towards the middle it will 'tick' faster as it is being moved because it is being moved with the 'flow' of the aether and when the clock from the back of the table is moved to the middle it will 'tick' slower because it is being moved against the 'flow' of the aether and when both clocks are back together again they are once again 'synchronized'. > If light moves at speed c relative to the ether, and c' relative to you, > then your speed relative to the ether must be the difference c-c'. This > would appear to give a mechanism to exactly measure your speed relative to > the ether. Does it? If not, why not?
From: BURT on 16 Feb 2010 19:32 On Feb 16, 4:29 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 2:16 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:17353969-96de-46d5-b54c-74e655e2d34f(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > 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. <snip about 200 lines involving trains, embankments and whole lot of > > other stuff unrelated to my question> > > > ____________________________________ > > No. There is no train in my question. > > Yes, there is a train in your question even though you do not realize > it. You can move the clocks anyway you like to the ends of the table, > but as you move the clocks they are going to 'tick' based upon the > aether pressure in which they exist. Your tabletop could be in a > spaceship whipping through the aether and in that case the clock moved > the the front of the table will be move against the 'flow' of the > aether and 'tick' slower as it is being moved and the clock being > pushed to the back of the table will be moved with the 'flow' of the > aether and 'tick' faster as it is being moved. > > > There are two clocks and a one metre > > ruler. They are on a tabletop. Both clocks are together at the middle. They > > are very slowly moved to opposite ends of thje 1 metre ruler - take a year > > if you like. A photon is sent from opne to the other, and the difference in > > time gives you the speed c' with which the light travelled. Note that two > > clocks can be brought back together again and they are still synchronised. > > Yes, because when you bring them back they will be moving the opposite > with respect to the aether as they did when you pushed them out. When > you move the clock from the front of the table back towards the middle > it will 'tick' faster as it is being moved because it is being moved > with the 'flow' of the aether and when the clock from the back of the > table is moved to the middle it will 'tick' slower because it is being > moved against the 'flow' of the aether and when both clocks are back > together again they are once again 'synchronized'. > > > > > If light moves at speed c relative to the ether, and c' relative to you, > > then your speed relative to the ether must be the difference c-c'. This > > would appear to give a mechanism to exactly measure your speed relative to > > the ether. Does it? If not, why not?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When lightening strikes the train moves. The train moves through space at that time. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:35 On Feb 16, 10:24 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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? > > And you take his refusal to answer you to be assent to your claim that > it's absurd? > Yes. > > > > I guess the poster realizes it is absurd nonsense also. > > On what basis would he realize that? You don't have a basis either. > You just make the empty assertion that it's "absurd, absurd, absurd, > just absurd nonsense". Empty assertion. If the poster agreed with you that the future determines the past why didn't he just respond stating so? The posters silence is deafening.
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:39
On Feb 16, 10:25 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 'You' do not understand what is occurring physically in a double slit > > experiment so you invent a new type of object. A particle which in and > > of itself 'waves'. > > It doesn't hinge on what you choose to believe. > What I choose to believe is matter and the aether are different states of the same material. What I choose to believe is a moving C-60 molecule and its associated aether displacement wave are a 'one something'. With this understanding of nature I do not need to invent a new type of object or choose to believe the future determines the past. My choices allow for a better understanding of nature than yours. > > In order to maintain the delusion such an object exists you are > > required to believe in the absurd nonsense of the future determining > > the past. > > > Once 'you' realize a moving particle has an associated aether wave > > there is no need for this non-existent made up object of matter which > > in and of itself waves and there is no reason to have to choose to > > believe in the absurd nonsense the future determines the past. > > > > > > 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. > > |