A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:36 On Feb 16, 6:35 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Good for you. You're a nutjob. Enjoy your medications. > > > > > > 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: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:36 On Feb 16, 6:39 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 It doesn't hinge on what you 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.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:37 On Feb 16, 8:21 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 16, 8:02 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. > > Then the tabletop is the train. Tabletops are trains. Excellent. Have another pill.
From: PD on 17 Feb 2010 12:38 On Feb 16, 9:22 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. An *invisible*, *secret* train. Run by the same people that tell him when to turn out the lights and go to sleep.
From: Ste on 17 Feb 2010 12:39
On 17 Feb, 16:00, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 17, 7:04 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > As we discussed earlier, it may be that we are only AWARE of four > > > dimensions. It may well be that there are more. Then the way to > > > entertain this notion is to ask the question, how would something that > > > is only AWARE of two dimensions become convinced that there is a third > > > dimension? This turns out to be very answerable. > > > I'm afraid that was not my conclusion. As I've said, these > > possibilities only seem credible to those who already hold them to be > > credible. > > What I've seen here, and even in some books, is a vague improper use > of the term dimension. From what I can tell, the term is strictly as > used, a mathematical concept. See: > > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dimension.html > > It is often confused with the concept of physical properties such as > mass, length, time, charge. Since two of these (length and time) are > modeled using geometrical dimensionality this leads to the confusion. > Adding further to this is the unitary systems we assign to the > physical properties (kilogram, meter, second, Coulomb, ... etc.). A > dimension has no physical existence and a physical property has no > inherent unitary values, we must combine these concepts to make, > quantify, and describe physical systems and processes. > > As time goes on we get more creative on assigning the term. In > relativity where we have, > > dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - ds^2 = 0 > > The s (ct) term isn't itself a simply point, it's a computed > projection of a destination (point) dependent upon a physical > property, the speed c. To have strict orthogonal axes c must remain > constant over infinite space. In turn, if this were true, there would > be no need for the hydrodynamical equation of General relativity. In > fact, all observational evidence to date supports the fact that, by > strict definition of the term dimension only three primal or actual > dimensions exist and time is 'mapped' into pseudo forth using the > physical property of c to do so. Indeed. Some people look at you funny when you talk of something like a "five-dimensional database". I'm convinced that the essential need for the 4th dimension in relativity, and the significance of 'c', is simply because electromagnetic propagation delays have become practically significant. Before the end of the 19th century and the development of electromagnetic communications over long distances, electromagnetic effects for all practical purposes moved instantaneously. |