A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 09:49 On Feb 17, 7:27 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. On what basis is it a mistake? How can you tell when the identification of a new object type is 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. > >
From: PD on 18 Feb 2010 09:51 On Feb 17, 7:22 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. So if people ignore you, then they are agreeing with you? Why don't you ask the poster directly, and not make any conclusion until you have an answer? Or do you make up answers in the absence of evidence? Why yes, yes you do. > > 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. So a non-answer means "no"? Nice. So if nobody responds to you at all, you'll take that as implicit agreement with everything you say? Have you had a change in medication lately? > > 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: Vern on 18 Feb 2010 10:18 On Feb 15, 11:21 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > A perfectly systematic way is to observe theCMBR, determine your > Doppler shift. This tells you both your speed and direction relative > to the aether. This of course takes as a base assumption that such EM > radiation is a manifestation the background 'noise' of such a medium. > Thus you conclude that, if c is 'measured' as a constant the wave > speed c' is c -v(Cos z) where angle z is the angle relative to the > direction of motion. You allow for the fact that the Lorentz > contraction affects all moving fields and accept that time dilation is > exactly as it was expect if the MMX type apparatus would have seen IF > the Lorentz contraction didn't occur. > > Since every material system is held together by fields, and these > fields undergo the Lorentz contraction when in motion, the mathematics > 'conspire' to make it impossible to take a measurement of changes in > wave speed by round trip signaling in material systems. This method > does however give you the baseline speed. > > As both LET and SR demonstrate, one can take advantage of this fact to > establish a system of measurements that take advantage of the quirk of > mathematics and use wave speed c as an invariant. > > Both ways of looking at it doesn't change actual physical reality. Paul, I wanted to get your perspective on motion relative to the ether. If you use the CMBR, the Earth is moving at approx. 640 km/s around the galactic center as opposed to approx. 30 km/s around the Sun. The Lorentz contraction can't account for both for MMXs done on the Earth's surface and as the 640 km/s is more of the actual velocity, that is the figure that should be used. Obviously, Lorentz was not aware of the motion of the solar system wrt the galactic center. Given the results of Sagnac-type experiments and the above reasoning, I think the evidence indicates that there are circulatory (and inflow) ether patterns around all celestial objects superimposed upon the stationary ether assumed in the luminferous aether days (the CMBR). This obviously would account for the null of the MMX without the need for the Lorentz contraction but doesn't nullify the Lorentz contraction concept for any motion wrt the ether, such as in GPS. I wondered though, how this jives with your concepts of shadowing models (Le Sage) for gravity. Vern
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 10:22 I don't hold that alternate dimensions are a real possibility, so of course I don't accept that theories that employ them are credible. ____________________________ Well, firstly that is because you have no real idea of what a dimension is in physics. Also, you are not used to the mathematical representation of surfaces of different dimensions being equivalent to equations, so you don't easily "see" how dimensions pop out of Special Relativity as rotations - lets be frank here, your knowledge of rotation matrices is pretty slim I'm guessing. So you can't "see" whats going on because you are not sufficiently mathematically sophisticated. Secondly, SR does not postulate any additional dimensions - just the four normal one of three in space and on in time that probably even you have noticed, its just that you think you have an orthogonal view; you don't, your view is tilted by the speed you are going ... a fact quite easily demonstrated by SR and proved a thousand times a day. If you are having trouble understanding the concepts of different dimensions, read Flatland by Edwin Abbott. You will be relieved to hear that it contains almost no mathematics in the sense you probably understand it, but a great deal in a sense you don't.
From: Simple Simon on 18 Feb 2010 10:56
PD wrote: > > The rest length of the rod is unchanged. Since this rest length is the > length measured in only one frame (the rest frame), I'm reticent to > call it an intrinsic property. > Of two rods, the one with the greater rest length is "larger". Or, iif you prefer, the set of possible lengths of the rod with greater rest length is greater (and its supremum is its rest length). |