A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 13 Feb 2010 23:09 On Feb 13, 5:48 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kens...(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!- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - When frames are traveling behid light. Light diverges in distance. You can have a speed behind light. When it goes ahead it is then a relative that is less. Mitch Raemsch
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 00:49 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. > > 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? Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Think of the train and the embankment in Einstein's train gedanken to be filled with water. Consider the water to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Consider the clocks on the train to consist of paddles for the second hand. Let's have three Observers on the embankment all standing at M and they synchronize their clocks. Now, have two of the Observers walk to A and B from M. As two of the Observers walk towards A and B they are walking through the water. This increases the water pressure on the paddle and their clocks 'tick' slower than the Observer at M. Once the Observers get to A and B they stop and now their clocks 'tick' at the same rate as the clock at M, even though if you could see the time on all three clocks simultaneously the clocks at A and B would be slightly behind the clock at M. There are three Observers on the train at M'. Since the train is moving through the water the clocks on the train are already 'ticking' slower than the clocks on the embankment due to the increase the water pressure the clocks are under because the clocks are moving relative to the water while the clocks on the embankment are at rest with respect to the water. The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks. Two of the Observers start walking towards A' and B'. The Observer walking towards B' will have his clock 'tick' the slowest as they walk because their clock not only has to deal with the train moving through the water but their clock also has to deal with the additional rate at which the clock is moving relative to the water because the Observer walking towards B' is walking against the flow of the water. The Observer walking towards A' is walking with the flow of water and their clock will actually tick faster than the clock which remains at M'. Lightning strikes occur at A/A' and B/B'. The water propagates through the water at rest with respect to the embankment. The light from the lightning strikes arrives at M simultaneously. This correlates with the time on the clocks at A and B. The light from the lightning strikes at B/B' arrives at M' and then the light from the lightning strikes at A/A' arrives at M'. Now, if the Observers on the train do not know their state with respect to the water they will conclude the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A'. This matches to what the clocks at B' and A' say occurred. The reason for this is because when the clock was walked to B' it was under additional water pressure and 'ticked' slower than the clock walked to A'. Let's use some numbers to try and make this less confusing. The three Observers on the train synchronize their clocks to be 12:00:00. Let's say it takes them one minute, as determined by an outside observer, to walk to A' and B'. Because the clock being walked to B' is under additional water pressure, when the Observer gets to B', their clock will read 12:00:59. The clock being walked to A', since it is under less water pressure and ticks faster, will read 12:01:01. Now, if the lightning strikes take place at this moment and the light from B/B' reaches M' and then the light from A/A' reaches M' all three Observers agree the lightning strike at B/B' occurred prior to the lightning strike at A/A' because the clock at B/ B' read 12:00:59 and the clock at A/A' read 12:01:01 at the time of the lightning strikes. Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
From: Peter Webb on 14 Feb 2010 01:12 Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water _______________________________________ Yes. and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. __________________________________________ No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make any sense.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 01:21 On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water > > _______________________________________ > Yes. > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. > > __________________________________________ > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make > any sense. Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the medium in which it exists. The Observers on the train know their state with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in nature.
From: mpc755 on 14 Feb 2010 01:29
On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water > > _______________________________________ > Yes. > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature. > > __________________________________________ > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even make > any sense. Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the medium in which it exists being at rest. The Observers on the train know their state with respect to the state of the water at rest and are able to conclude correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in nature. |