A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 06:52 > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > 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. ___________________________ That's fine. I have no idea what "in nature" is supposed to meand, but what SR predicts is that each person measuring the speed of light in a vacuum will get the same answer of c, irrespective of their local reference frame. You seem to agree. 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. _________________________________________ Sorry, not interested in the whole train thing. Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. _______________________________________ But you agree with the SR in that all observers measure the speed of light as c, completely irrespective of any motion they may have relative to the ether? Because that is exactly what SR predicts, and I believe to be true. > 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. __________________________________ Putting aside your mumbo-jumbo explanation, I just want to confirm that you agree that what SR predicts is exactly what happens. If not, and you have any experiment, test, measurement or observation where you think that the results would not be different from what SR predicts, what are these experiments, tests, measurements or observations?
From: Peter Webb on 19 Feb 2010 07:31 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:caf06774-b01d-4536-90fa-7086e39b3df5(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... 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. ________________________________ Well, for whatever reason I don't know. But you seem very shy about explaining what you believe. You said light moves with speed c relative to the observer, but you have also said light moves with speed c relative to the ether. The only way both of these can be true is if the observer is always at rest relative to the ether. Unless you have some other explanation. > 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)? ______________________________________ You didn't answer that question, either. You are very shy. Are you scared we will laugh at you?
From: Vern on 19 Feb 2010 08:35 On Feb 18, 5:59 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 18, 7:18 am,Vern<vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > > 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 canVern. Mathematically, differential speed yields > differential contraction, that why SR/LET works. Nature must, 'to its > own self, be true'. Internal consistency is a requirement. I understand that the Lorentz contraction formula works for both velocities. The CMBR is certainly evidence of a stationary ether, but the Sagnac effect and ether drag affecting orbits if we assume the higher velocities of planets and stars through that stationary ether are correct would seem to indicate circulatory flows around the planets and stars. The MMX can also be explained if there is a local circulatory flow. Does the pushing gravity model work for either a stationary ether or local circulatory flows? Or does the Le Sage model favor one over the other? Tom VanFlandern was adamantly against a local circulatory flow (for other reasons), but I'm not sure Tom had considered the Le Sage model with the higher orbital velocities wrt to the CMBR. Vern Vern
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 10:07 On Feb 19, 6:52 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > 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. > > ___________________________ > That's fine. I have no idea what "in nature" is supposed to meand, but what > SR predicts is that each person measuring the speed of light in a vacuum > will get the same answer of c, irrespective of their local reference frame. > You seem to agree. > > 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. > > _________________________________________ > Sorry, not interested in the whole train thing. > Then you will not understand how light propagates in nature. You will not understand what occurs physically in nature in terms of the propagation of light. > Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. > > _______________________________________ > But you agree with the SR in that all observers measure the speed of light > as c, completely irrespective of any motion they may have relative to the > ether? Because that is exactly what SR predicts, and I believe to be true.. > > > 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. > > __________________________________ > Putting aside your mumbo-jumbo explanation, I just want to confirm that you > agree that what SR predicts is exactly what happens. If not, and you have > any experiment, test, measurement or observation where you think that the > results would not be different from what SR predicts, what are these > experiments, tests, measurements or observations? My explanation explains what occurs physically in nature which allows the Observers on the train to be moving with respect to the aether at the same time conclude light propagates at 'c' with respect to the train.
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 10:13
On Feb 19, 7:31 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:caf06774-b01d-4536-90fa-7086e39b3df5(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > 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. > ________________________________ > Well, for whatever reason I don't know. But you seem very shy about > explaining what you believe. How does you unwillingness to read my response mean I am shy? I have asked you dozens of times to read the explanation as to what occurs in nature in order for the Observers on the train to conclude light travels at 'c' with respect to the train at the same time light is traveling at 'c' with respect to the aether. > You said light moves with speed c relative to > the observer, Again, I have not said light moves at 'c' with respect to the Observers on the train. I have said, repeatedly, the Observers on the train will conclude/determine the light speed to be 'c'. I never said it was actually propagating at 'c' with respect to the train. I have said light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. > but you have also said light moves with speed c relative to > the ether. The only way both of these can be true is if the observer is > always at rest relative to the ether. Unless you have some other > explanation. > > > 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)? > > ______________________________________ > You didn't answer that question, either. You are very shy. Are you scared we > will laugh at you? How does your unwillingness to read the response I reflect anything about anyone besides yourself? |