A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 10:26 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 the response which answers your questions reflect on anyone but yourself? 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 a response which actually answers your questions reflect on anyone but yourself? Atomic clocks are separted on a train moving relative to the aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow' of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the 'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it 'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to the front of the train is under. Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A' 'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A' because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it was being walked to A'. Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate. So, even though the Observers synchronized their clocks, once the clocks are walked to their destination, the clocks are out of sync, in nature. Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates with the flow of the aether to A' and takes two seconds to arrive there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes four seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks read 12:00:04. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned the lightning strikes were simultaneous. Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B'. Since the light traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two seconds by the mirror at A' and will take four seconds to travel back to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after four seconds by the mirror at B' and will take two seconds to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M' arrives simultaneously back at M' and the clock at M' reads 12:00:07. When the Observers get back together and calculate how far the light traveled and the time of the arrival of the light based upon the time on their atomic clocks, the Observers on the train conclude the light waves propagated at 'c' with respect to the train. The light waves actually propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether but the Observers are unaware they are moving relative to the aether. If the Observers were aware they were moving relative to the aether they would then be able to calculate where the light traveled from with respect to the aether and determine the light waves propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether.
From: BURT on 19 Feb 2010 12:20 On Feb 19, 7:26 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 the response which answers your > questions reflect on anyone but yourself? 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 a response which actually answers > your questions reflect on anyone but yourself? > > Atomic clocks are separted on a train moving relative to the > aether. The clock moving towards the front of the train is under > greater aether pressure then the clock being moved to the back of the > train. The clock being moved to the front of the train is under more > aether pressure because that clock is being walked against the 'flow' > of the aether. The clock being walked to the back of the train is > under less aether pressure because that clock is being walked with the > 'flow' of the aether. While the clock is being walked to the front it > 'ticks' slower than the clock being walked to the back of the train > because of the additional aether pressure the clock being walked to > the front of the train is under. > > Let's assume after the clocks are walked to A' and B' the clocks at > A', M', and B' read 12:00:02, 12:00:01, and 12:00:00 respectively if > you could see all three clocks at the same time. The clock at A' > 'ticked' faster than the clock at M' while it was being walked to A' > because it was being walked with the 'flow' of the aether and was more > 'at rest' with respect to the aether than the clock at M' was and was > therefore under less aether pressure than the clock at M' was while it > was being walked to A'. > > Once all of the clocks are at A', M', and B', they are all at rest > with respect to the train and they are all under the same amount of > aether pressure and will 'tick' at the same rate. > > So, even though the Observers synchronized their clocks, once the > clocks are walked to their destination, the clocks are out of sync, in > nature. > > Now, a flash of light occurs at M' at 12:00:01. The light propagates > with the flow of the aether to A' and takes two seconds to arrive > there. The light propagates against the flow to B' and takes four > seconds to get there. When the light arrives at A' and B' both clocks > read 12:00:04. As far as the Observers at A', B', and C' are concerned > the lightning strikes were simultaneous. > > Now, the light is reflected by mirrors at A' and B'. Since the light > traveled with the 'flow' of the aether and was reflected after two > seconds by the mirror at A' and will take four seconds to travel back > to M' and since the light traveled against the 'flow' of the aether > and was reflected after four seconds by the mirror at B' and will take > two seconds to travel back to M' the light from the flash at M' > arrives simultaneously back at M' and the clock at M' reads 12:00:07. > > When the Observers get back together and calculate how far the light > traveled and the time of the arrival of the light based upon the time > on their atomic clocks, the Observers on the train conclude the light > waves propagated at 'c' with respect to the train. > > The light waves actually propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether > but the Observers are unaware they are moving relative to the aether. > If the Observers were aware they were moving relative to the aether > they would then be able to calculate where the light traveled from > with respect to the aether and determine the light waves propagated at > 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can travel ahead of light or behind at absolute speed. Mitch Raemsch
From: Paul Stowe on 19 Feb 2010 15:48 On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 luminferousaetherdays (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 First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of a stationary ocean. Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether affect but Sagnac's original version was. You really are describing Fizeau's experiment (effect) "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through a flowing water stream. Differences in the index of refraction is to be measured relative to stationary water. The resulting measurements were fully consistent with both relativity and the aether concept." If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized vortices. Thus circulations abound. Paul Stowe
From: Vern on 19 Feb 2010 16:17 On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > > 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 > > First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the > aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of > a stationary ocean. Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether > affect but Sagnac's original version was. You really are describing > Fizeau's experiment (effect) > > "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through > a flowing water stream. Differences in the index > of refraction is to be measured relative to > stationary water. The resulting measurements > were fully consistent with both relativity and > the aether concept." > > If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized > vortices. Thus circulations abound. > > Paul Stowe Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more. But modeling gravity is the key to understanding exactly what is going on with the ether, if you assume that it causes gravity as well as being the medium for emr. I'm just not that familiar with the Le Sage model to know whether it would work if there is a local circulatory motion. The sink-vortex model is the other alternative. Kepler's Laws supposedly can be explained by object's slip-streaming the filament lines. Vern
From: mpc755 on 19 Feb 2010 17:25
On Feb 19, 4:17 pm, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 19, 3:48 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Feb 19, 5:35 am, Vern <vthod...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > 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 > > > First of all the CMBR isn't evidence of a stationary aether, just the > > aether, no more that the oceanic background white noise is evidence of > > a stationary ocean. Sagnac (optical gyro) isn't a dragged aether > > affect but Sagnac's original version was. You really are describing > > Fizeau's experiment (effect) > > > "A light beam is passed perpendicularly through > > a flowing water stream. Differences in the index > > of refraction is to be measured relative to > > stationary water. The resulting measurements > > were fully consistent with both relativity and > > the aether concept." > > > If Maxwell was right the universe is highly turbulent and organized > > vortices. Thus circulations abound. > > > Paul Stowe > > Thanks Paul, I couldn't agree more. But modeling gravity is the key > to understanding exactly what is going on with the ether, if you > assume that it causes gravity as well as being the medium for emr. > I'm just not that familiar with the Le Sage model to know whether it > would work if there is a local circulatory motion. The sink-vortex > model is the other alternative. Kepler's Laws supposedly can be > explained by object's slip-streaming the filament lines. > > Vern Aether is displaced by matter. The aether is not at rest when displaced and 'displaces back'. How do we know the aether displaces back? Because light from behind where Jupiter was in its orbit still reaches us from distant stars (i.e. Jupiter does not leave a void it its wake). The pushing back is the pressure the aether exerts towards the matter. The pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive objects is gravity. |