A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 23:22 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > ________________________________ > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this > > > your > > > claim? > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment. > > > __________________________________ > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with > > respect > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is always > > c > > ? > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. > > ________________________________ > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c, > according to you? As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes. ____________________________________ Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You should be telling the OP why he is wrong.
From: mpc755 on 18 Feb 2010 23:32 On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > ________________________________ > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this > > > > your > > > > claim? > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment. > > > > __________________________________ > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with > > > respect > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is always > > > c > > > ? > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. > > > ________________________________ > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c, > > according to you? > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes. > > ____________________________________ > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You > should be telling the OP why he is wrong. But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why. The reason why is due to the difference in the rates at which the clocks 'tick' as the synchronized clocks are moved to A' and B' from M'. As the clock is moved to B' it is being moved against the 'flow' of the aether and 'ticks' slower than the clock being moved to A'. That is how the Observers on the train determine the speed of light on the train to be 'c'. But the light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether and in the scenario I described in my earlier posts the light is traveling at 'c' with respect to the aether at rest with respect to the embankment. If the Observers have this information they will then be able to determine the light travels at 'c' from B to M' and from A to M'. So, it depends on the information the Observers on the train have which allows them to determine where the light travels at 'c' with respect to and to determine where the light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether to M'.
From: Peter Webb on 18 Feb 2010 23:59 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > ________________________________ > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this > > > > your > > > > claim? > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment. > > > > __________________________________ > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with > > > respect > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is > > > always > > > c > > > ? > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. > > > ________________________________ > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c, > > according to you? > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes. > > ____________________________________ > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You > should be telling the OP why he is wrong. But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why. ________________________________ You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are there any you disagree with?
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 00:36 On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this > > > > > your > > > > > claim? > > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment. > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with > > > > respect > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is > > > > always > > > > c > > > > ? > > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. > > > > ________________________________ > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c, > > > according to you? > > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes. > > > ____________________________________ > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong. > > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why. > > ________________________________ > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are > there any you disagree with? My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the aether. My other fundamental with SR and GR is the concept of spacetime. Time is a concept. Time does not change based upon momentum or gravitational potential. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing to do with time. Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether pressure. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". Combining the aether pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the ground". (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).
From: BURT on 19 Feb 2010 00:54
On Feb 18, 9:36 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 11:59 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:6576dabb-16ea-43d9-8741-c2d1af70b789(a)g11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com.... > > On Feb 18, 11:22 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:0f10e987-c21e-44cc-beec-03d48b731317(a)j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 18, 10:59 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > So claim that the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth > > > > > > travelling at speed relative to the ether of v is still c? Is this > > > > > > your > > > > > > claim? > > > > > > For the laboratory on the Earth the aether is at rest with respect to > > > > > the Earth so discussing this in terms of the Earth moving at 'v' with > > > > > respect to the aether is meaningless and shows you did not read my > > > > > responses because the laboratory is analogous to the embankment. > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > > > So completely independent of the speed at which the earth moves with > > > > > respect > > > > > to the ether, the measured speed of light in a vacuum on earth is > > > > > always > > > > > c > > > > > ? > > > > > The speed of light is always determined to be 'c'. > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > So in all inertial reference frames the speed of light in a vacuum is c, > > > > according to you? > > > > As determined by Observers in the inertial reference frame, yes. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > Terrific. So you agree that the speed of light is constant in all inertial > > > reference frames, and disagree with the subject line of this post. You > > > should be telling the OP why he is wrong. > > > But what I do not think the OP understands is the reason why. > > > ________________________________ > > You can invent any explanation you like, as long as it is consistent with > > the observed fact the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant. I assume > > you also agree with all the other predictions that SR makes? If not, are > > there any you disagree with? > > My fundamental differences with SR are two. One is, SR implies the > light travels at 'c' from A and B to M and from A' and B' to M' in > nature. This is incorrect. Light travels at 'c' with respect to the > aether. > > My other fundamental with SR and GR is the concept of spacetime. Time > is a concept. Time does not change based upon momentum or > gravitational potential. The rate at which a clock 'ticks' has nothing > to do with time. > > Atomic clocks 'tick' based on the aether pressure in which it exists. > An objects momentum determines the aether pressure on and through the > object. The greater the momentum the greater the associated aether > pressure. Whatever energy the object requires to displace the aether > the aether returns to the object as it 'displaces back'. The pressure > associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. > > The speed of a GPS satellite with respect to the aether causes it to > displace more aether and for that aether to exert more pressure on the > clock in the GPS satellite than the aether pressure associated with a > clock at rest with respect to the Earth. This causes the GPS satellite > clock to "result in a delay of about 7 ìs/day". The aether pressure > associated with the aether displaced by the Earth exerts less pressure > on the GPS satellite than a similar clock at rest on the Earth > "causing the GPS clocks to appear faster by about 45 ìs/day". > Combining the aether pressure associated with the speed at which the > GPS satellite moves in the aether and the aether pressure associated > with the aether displaced by the Earth causes "clocks on the GPS > satellites tick approximately 38 ìs/day faster than clocks on the > ground". (quoted text fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Space is the dimension of which the time grid shares. Mitch Raemsch |