A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 13 Feb 2010 16:45 On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a > headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that > the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a > ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in > all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling > between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and > logical impossibility. > > It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of > speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive > relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation > in medium-speed of source). > > Take an illustration: > > A C > B > > Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In > the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and > C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching > C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously > towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C. > > Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would > reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can > dismiss that immediately. > > Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like > a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from > both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of > an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be > consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to > the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction > of travel. Lorentz explained how it works in 1904 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena In the end every frame measures the speed of light to be c using its own coordinates. Or you can use that as the second postulate and show how to construct coordinate systems that will always measure light to travel at c. In SR, if you change frames, the rod you left behind didn't change, but you will measure it to be a different length from your new frame. So the changes in length a perceptional. What changes from frame to frame in order for them to all measure the same beam of light as traveling at c is the sync of the clocks. > A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time) > cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame, > *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving > at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile > this physically?
From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 17:57 On Feb 13, 12:51 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 13 Feb, 16:24, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a > > > headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that > > > the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a > > > ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in > > > all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling > > > between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and > > > logical impossibility. > > > The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: > > Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m > > long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content > > for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. > > But even if this were the case, it fails to account for *why* anything > would physically contract. I am afraid that PD tried to confuse you. Most knowledgeable physicists such as Tom Roberts accurately described length contraction in SR is a geometric effect not a physical effect or material effect as insisted by PD. PD's arguement is that physical contraction is not material contraction and that physical contraction means geometric projection contraction. He prefers to use the term physical contraction instead to give the concept of geometric contraction more credence. > > > > It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of > > > speed of bullet+speed of gun), > > > Yes the speed of light is not additive....the reason is that light is > > being transmitted by a medium occupying all of space. > > I dare say this medium *is* space. Yes you can call this medium as space or the aether. > > > > > > > >and nor can they be subtractive > > > relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation > > > in medium-speed of source). > > > Yes the speed of light is not substractive becasue light is being > > transmitted by a medium occupying all of space. What this mean is that > > the speed of light in a medium is independent of the motion of the > > source. However the arrival speed of light to an observer from a > > moving source is dependent on the rate of arrival of frequency of > > light waves from a moving source such as sodium is as follows: > > 1. The universal wavelength of sodium=589 nm. > > 2. The arriving speed of light from a moving sodium dource is: > > c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength > > of sodium 589nm) > > > I hope the above will resolve your problems. > > Not really. I'm still struggling to understand what is happening > physically to explain these phenomena (which is not helped by the > dearth of interest in physics in physical, rather than mathematical, > explanations Here's whatreally happened: 1. In SR length contraction is a geometric projection effect.....not a physical or material effect. 2. geometric projection effect is purely mathematical. 3. I have developed a new theory of relativity called Improve Relativty Theory (IRT). IRT says that physical or material length remains the same in all frames of reference. 4. An IRT observer assumes that the light path length of his meter stick is the same as its physical length. 5. The IRT observer predicts that the light path length of a meter stick moving wrt him can be shorter by a factor of (1/gamma) or longer by a factor of (gamma). The reason for the two predictions is that the light path length of a moving meter stick is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the meter stick compared to the IRT observer's state of absolute motion. 6. If the observed meter stick is in a higher state of absolute motion then its light path length is predicted to be shortened by a factor of 1/gamma meter. 7. If the observed meter stick is in a lower state of absolute motion than the IRT observer then its light path length is predicted to be lengthened by a factor of (gamma). 8. A description of IRT is available in the following link: http://www.modelmechanics.org/2008irt.dtg.pdf Also in this link a new theory of gravity is included. Ken Seto
From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 18:06 On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: > > Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m > > long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content > > for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. > > I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with > the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light! > > The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT > observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans > assign to the speed of light is arbitrary! > > Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the > other way around. ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny that your mother is not your mother?
From: eric gisse on 13 Feb 2010 18:40 kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: [...] > 3. I have developed a new theory of relativity called Improve > Relativty Theory (IRT). IRT says that physical or material length > remains the same in all frames of reference. How is it improved when you can't derive the equations yourself? [...]
From: Sam Wormley on 13 Feb 2010 20:48
On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kenseto(a)erinet.com wrote: > On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote: >> >> >> >>> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows: >>> Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m >>> long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content >>> for a clock second co-moving with the ruler. >> >> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with >> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light! >> >> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT >> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans >> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary! >> >> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the >> other way around. > > ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed > of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny > that your mother is not your mother? Seto--The speed of light exist independent of human. Meter sticks are not require for it relativistic effects to show up. The speed of light has been observed as an unchanging constant for so long that human adopted it as part of the definition of the meter, a unit of distance! I'm glad you get a good laugh out of that, Seto! |