A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Paul Stowe on 19 Feb 2010 01:00 On Feb 18, 7:59 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? And it does NOT! mean that the observer's system is 'at rest' in an aether! It just means that material systems behave in a manner that makes their speed irrelevant to its measurement. But there are actual physical properties that cause this, and the 'effect' is the Lorentz contraction and actual time dilation.
From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 01:12 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... 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. ________________________________ You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with respect to the observer. Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to what you claimed in your previous post. How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest compared to the ether? And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)?
From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 01:15 "Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:b801625e-f74d-47e3-aa99-0f5977e345bd(a)c34g2000pri.googlegroups.com... On Feb 18, 7:59 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? And it does NOT! mean that the observer's system is 'at rest' in an aether! It just means that material systems behave in a manner that makes their speed irrelevant to its measurement. But there are actual physical properties that cause this, and the 'effect' is the Lorentz contraction and actual time dilation. _______________________________ So SR says. But mpc755 has a different theory. I would like to know what his theory is, before telling him he is wrong (so I can explain where he has made his mistakes, and point him to suitable experimental data).
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 06:38 On Feb 19, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ________________________________ > You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with > respect to the observer. > > Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless > all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to > what you claimed in your previous post. > > How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is > travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest > compared to the ether? > I said the Observers in each inertial frame of reference will determine the light to travel at 'c'. I did not say the light is actually traveling at 'c' in nature. Three Observers get together at M' on the train and synchronize their clocks. The Observers will determine the light to travel at 'c' because the clock being moved to B' on the train 'ticks' slower while being moved because it is being moved against the 'flow' of aether. The clock being moved to A' 'ticks' faster than both the clocks at M' and B' while being moved because it 'ticks' faster because it is being moved with the 'flow' of the aether and is more at rest with respect to the aether while being moved than both the clocks at M' and B'. When the clocks stop being moved they are no longer synchronized but the Observers are unable to know this. When the clocks are stopped being moved they all exist under the same amount of aether pressure and all 'tick' at the same rate. The non-synchronized clocks on the train allow the Observers on the train to conclude the light travels at 'c' with respect to the train. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. > And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of > SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR > correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you > disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)? It is not so much a prediction but an understanding of nature. SR assumes time changes the faster something is moving. That is incorrect. Clocks 'tick' slower the faster they are moving with respect to the aether because the faster the clock is moving with respect to the aether the more aether pressure exerted on the clock causing it to 'tick' slower.
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 06:46
On Feb 19, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:27f905eb-2174-433f-b24d-03c80bd81617(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ________________________________ > You said in your immediately previous post light always travels at c with > respect to the observer. > > Which means it cannot possibly travel at c with respect to the ether, unless > all observers are also stationary with respect to the ether, according to > what you claimed in your previous post. > > How can light be travelling at c with respect to the observer if it is > travelling at c with respect to the ether, unless the observer is at rest > compared to the ether? > You would already know the answers to the questions if you read the posts you refuse to read. > And you haven't answered my other question. Is there any other prediction of > SR that you disagree with, or do you think that the equations of SR > correctly explain what happens in inertial frames of reference? If you > disagree with any of the equations, which one(s)? |