A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 17 Feb 2010 21:32 On Feb 17, 8:57 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > mpc755 a écrit : > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:33 pm, YBM <ybm...(a)nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > >> mpc755 a écrit : > > >>> 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 > >> Hmm... I'm not sure scientists really pretend to understand what > >> is occurring in nature but they can actually pretend to try to > >> do so since they are realizing experiments. > > >> You don't pretend to try, you pretend to do, while not doing > >> any kind of experiment. > > >> You are a buffoon. > > > The observed behaviors in the double slit experiment is evidence of > > aether. A moving 'particle' has an associated aether wave. A moving > > particle of matter has an associated aether displacement wave. > > > Every double slit experiment ever performed is evidence of aether. > > Your usual mantra is completely unrelated to what I just wrote. > > You're only repeating your pray in order to stay yourself > convinced of your nonsense. > > You're not only a buffoon, you're mad. Do you believe the future determines the past? In a double slit experiment with a C-60 molecule, while the C-60 molecule is in the slit(s) detectors are placed at the exits to the slits. The C-60 molecule is always detected exiting a single slit. When the detectors are placed and removed from the exits to the slits while the C-60 molecule is in the slits the C-60 molecule is able to create an interference pattern when the experiment is repeated enough times. Now, another poster choose to believe the C-60 molecule enters one slit or multiple slits depending upon their being detectors at the exits to the slits, or not, when the C-60 molecule gets there in the future. Is this what you choose to believe? What is the more correct answer is the moving C-60 molecule is a particle of matter and it has an associated aether displacement wave and it is the displacement wave which enters and exits multiple slits. The displacement wave creates interference upon exiting the slits which alters the direction the C-60 molecule travels. Detectors at the exits causes decoherence of the associated aether displacement wave (turns the wave into chop) and there is no interference.
From: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 21:48 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 1:22 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. >> >> Ken Seto >> >> >> >> >> >> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Atoms don't shrink to be flat. Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat. And never completely flat. But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame means that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the moving frame is moving)
From: BURT on 17 Feb 2010 22:08 On Feb 17, 6:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 1:22 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. > > >> Ken Seto > > >> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text - > > >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > > Atoms don't shrink to be flat. > > Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat. > > And never completely flat. > > But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame means > that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the moving > frame is moving)- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - If they can flatten the physics doesnt' work for the atom. Can anybody argue that atoms are lopsided? Mitch Raemsch
From: Inertial on 17 Feb 2010 22:15 "BURT" <macromitch(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:30e06f32-7ff7-453c-b7b0-faf7c47909fa(a)t31g2000prh.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 17, 6:48 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: >> "BURT" <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> >> news:e6140f9f-414d-45b2-8ce2-09e22a201f9b(a)y7g2000prc.googlegroups.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Feb 17, 1:22 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. >> >> >> Ken Seto >> >> >> > I don't see why you find this so confusing.- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - >> >> >> - Show quoted text - >> >> > Atoms don't shrink to be flat. >> >> Not in their rest frame .. no. So never intrinsically flat. >> >> And never completely flat. >> >> But their 'geometric projection' in some other relatively moving frame >> means >> that they would measure as somewhat flattened (depending how fast the >> moving >> frame is moving)- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > If they can flatten the physics doesnt' work for the atom. Atoms don't care whether you can do the physics > Can anybody argue that atoms are lopsided? Lopsided?
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 00:40
"mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c7b417f4-cdc4-414a-a24c-3f2e7fc4c67d(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com... 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. ____________________________ So you refuse to answer (again). Shows how much confidence you have in your own theories. |