A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 19:40 > > > ____________________ > > > 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 the 1 metre ruler - take a > > year > > if you like. A photon is sent from one 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. _________________________________ One more time. My question does not involve trains or lightening at all. Why won't you answer it? Mitch Raemsch
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 19:37 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... 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. __________________________________ 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?
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:43 On Feb 16, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > __________________________________ > 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?
From: mpc755 on 16 Feb 2010 19:41 > > For the record, I refuse to engage mpc755 in conversation because I > realize that attempting to do so would be a pointless exercise in > futility. So, you believe a moving C-60 molecule will enter one or multiple slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits to the slits or not in the future? At least the other poster is not alone in their state of delusional denial.
From: Peter Webb on 16 Feb 2010 20:02
"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f45910fe-89b2-4a09-9dcb-fcaf4686df7a(a)w12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com... On Feb 16, 7:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:538f8caf-7a7b-4a35-b7e6-35ca5635b97f(a)15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > __________________________________ > 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. |