A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 18 Feb 2010 17:59 On Feb 18, 7:18 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 15, 11:21 am, PaulStowe<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 Actually it can Vern. Mathematically, differential speed yields differential contraction, that why SR/LET works. Nature must, 'to its own self, be true'. Internal consistency is a requirement.
From: JT on 18 Feb 2010 19:14 On 13 Feb, 14:29, 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? Imagine this... Imagine object A and B travelling parallell vectors in space, A travels 0.1 c and B travel 0.9 c. For some reason the both pass lined up between sensor C and D at same moment x, when the sensor beams reach their front both ships emit one puls forward and one puls backward. The four lightpulses can not possible travel invariant thru the space of C and D, for them to travel invariant in C and D space the two backward pulses must travel aligned and parallell forever and so must the two front pulses. And if they do there something weird going on within A and B, especially the light do not spread uniform around B the light puls infront is contracted and expands at c-v=0.1 c relative restframe B in the space and the lightfront at back expands at 1.9 c relative B. The expansion of the two lightpulses is not uniform and invariant in frame B unless there is shorter meters at the front then at the back. At even higher velocities like 0.999... c the deformation is even clearer. For example consider that the two light pulses have been travelling for a year after B passed between C and D and emitted the two pulses now B suddenly come to halt/stop. Now anyone must surely realise that the pulses never traveled invariant at B and at speed c to begin with. One pulse is a lightyear away the other one is just in front off B. The assertions of SR is ridculous i would go so far to say they are a deliberate hoax. JT
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 19:40 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5183f2b9-c790-40f3-a5eb-b86a72816f2f(a)y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 2:30 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. > > I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to > waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train' > with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'? > > __________________________________ > Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your > theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The > speed > of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a > laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed? > > If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks > being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference > then this 'conversation' is pointless. > > _________________________________ > There are in fact 4 possibilities: > > a) c > b) c+v > c) c-v > d) something else. > > You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single > character; that's not too much work for you, is it? d) Something else. In order to understand the something else read my posts discussing the simultaneity of lightning strikes as determined by Observers on the train and on the embankment. _______________________________ If the earth is travelling at v relative to the ether, and we measure the speed of light of earth in the direction we are travelling, what value do we get? Its some equation linking c and v, right? What is it?
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 19:45 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b232b4d3-422f-4f00-b485-d7a6f6ab5cd7(a)c22g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 2:30 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:8e724cb5-1db0-47c2-aa3d-5ed7150295ea(a)f15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 12:40 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(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. > > I have a great deal of confidence in my theory but why am I going to > waste my time having to go back through my posts and replace 'train' > with 'tabletop', or replace 'train' with 'Earth'? > > __________________________________ > Nobody is asking you to. I am asking you a very simple question about your > theory. Say the earth is moving at speed v relative to the ether. The > speed > of light in the direction the earth is travelling is measured in a > laboratory on earth. What is its measured speed? > > If you think the clocks being moved on a moving tabletop or the clocks > being moved on the flat bed cars of a moving train makes a difference > then this 'conversation' is pointless. > > _________________________________ > There are in fact 4 possibilities: > > a) c > b) c+v > c) c-v > d) something else. > > You could just answer 'a', 'b', 'c' or 'd'. That is only typing a single > character; that's not too much work for you, is it? If you want to understand how the Observers on an object moving at 'v' with respect to the aether determine the speed of light based upon 'synchronized' clocks, read my posts discussing the simultaneity of lightning strikes as determined by Observers on a train. ________________________________ Why won't you naswer the question? Simply answering the question above is not going to get us anywhere. ___________________________ Of course it will. You will be making a verificable claim about your theory, so we can verify if it is correct. You have to understand what is physically occurring in nature to the atomic clocks and the light with respect to the aether in order to understand how it is the Observers on the train 'measure' the speed of light. __________________________________ Earth moving at v relative to the ether. We measure the speed of light on earth in the direction we are travelling through the ether. What speed do we measure on earth for light? Simple question. Why won't you answer?
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 19:59
>> 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. > > I laugh that you take your inspirations and arguments from a novel, a > pure work of fiction. Obviously I can't recommend a book on tensors or complex manifolds. I have to "dumb-down" the resources I recommend based on the knowledge of the person trying to learn. Just about everybody in this thread is doing the same thing, dumbing it down to try and help you understand. Of course physicists don't talk to other physicists in the way they have been talking to you; they have pitched their answers at a level they assume that somebody with no knowledge of physics or maths could understand. Physics baby language. In your case, if you don't understand the concepts of different dimensions - as you say - then Flatland is an excellent choice. You could follow that up with Einstein's own explanation of Relativity for the layman, still very readable. If there is anything in either of these books you don't understand or agree with, I am sure lots of people (including myself) would be happy to help. So, time for you to learn some physics! |