A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 17:12 "PD" <thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:32935e3d-1858-4fe3-ade4-171d84664f8f(a)j31g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 3:50 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Feb 17, 3:22 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Feb 17, 4:17 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> >> > > "kenseto" <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >> >> > >news:7c117076-4a6e-4d51-ab62-c3014a7e2559(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... >> >> > > > On Feb 16, 6:42 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> > > >> "PD" <thedraperfam...(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. >> >> > > > You didn't say that they were squeezed and I didn't interpret that >> > > > they were squeezed. But when you said that the atoms are closer >> > > > together I interpreted that the pole is materially really gotten >> > > > shorter...iow it is not just a geometic projection effect. >> >> > > It is a geometric projection / rotation. And that projection has >> > > physical >> > > effects. Just like the geometric projection / rotation of a tilted >> > > ladder >> > > has the physical effect that it is not as tall and can fit thru a >> > > doorway. >> >> > So are you saying that when you tilt the ladder the atoms in the >> > ladder get a little closer? I don't think so. >> >> They do along the plane of the doorway, yes! > > Ken, this should be obvious! > A ladder has 9.6E26 atoms along its length. Its length measured with a > ruler that is lain parallel to the ladder is 12 feet. This means there > are 8.0E25 atoms per foot by this measurement. > > Now you tip the ladder so that it will fit through a doorway that is 8 > feet high. No atoms have disappeared from the ladder when you tip it, > so all 9.6E26 atoms in a line in the ladder still have to get through > the doorway. This means there are 1.2E26 atoms per foot by this > measurement. > > Yes indeed, more atoms per foot! > > It's OBVIOUS! Ken has never been terribly good at the obvious :):)
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:11 On Feb 16, 11:55 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3c8112b0-e86e-4fdb-a9f6-6c390200aa01(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > 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? > > I have answered it several times. If you want to understand how the > clocks on the tabletop behave read my posts and replaced 'train' with > 'tabletop'. > > _______________________________________ > Or, you could simply answer my question. Its pretty simple. Will the speed > be measured as c, or some different value. > > I will make it easy for you: > > If the earth is moving at velocity v with respect to the ether, and we > perform the very simple experiment above, then will the measured speed of > light in a vacuum be measured as c in a laboratory on earth? > > Well? Replace 'earth' with 'train' and read my responses if you want to know the answer.
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:16 On Feb 16, 11:58 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f6d7f0a4-a27c-476d-8098-8b877d62a849(a)b18g2000vba.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ________________________________ > It is not on a train. It is on a tabletop. And it moves relative to the > ether because I have already stated that it is moving at velocity v with > respect to the ether. > So is the train. > So, is the speed on earth measured at c or some other value? Whatever you are saying is moving at 'v' with respect to the aether replace what you insist on calling the object with 'train' and read my responses in order to understand the answer. So far you have said the tabletop is moving at 'v' with respect to the aether and you have said the Earth is moving at 'v' with respect to the aether. When you decide to call the object moving at 'v' with respect to the aether a train read my response in order to understand the answer.
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 20:22 On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Of course the posters refusal to answer the question shows they think your notion of the C-60 molecule entering one or multiple slits depending upon detectors being placed at the exits or not in the future is absurd. Why wouldn't the poster simply respond with a 'yes' if they agreed with your absurd nonsense? The poster's non-answer demonstrates they suffer from delusional denial just like you do. A C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and has an associated aether displacement wave. The displacement wave enters and exits the available slits and creates interference when exiting the slits. The interference alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors at the exits to the slits causes decoherence of the associated displacement wave (the waves are turned into chop) and there is no interference. > > > > > > 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 17 Feb 2010 20:27
On Feb 17, 12:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > Since 'you' do not understand what is occurring in nature in a double slit experiment 'you' invented a new type of object. Obviously, this was unnecessary and a mistake. The particle has a physical aether wave. so. the new type of object was a mistake but for whatever 'reasoning' beyond the more correct explanation of what is occurring in nature, 'you' insist a particle of matter is able to create an interference pattern in and of itself in a double slit experiment. This state of denial you choose to exist in has now forced you to choose to believe the future determines the past. A moving particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave. > > 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. > > |