A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 20 Feb 2010 10:36 On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > truth more fundamental than that. > > ________________________________ > The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the > eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more > truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't > understand physics. On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to be systematically deprecated and devalued. And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to "objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles". Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to "the rest" as "just philosophy". This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the universe functions". Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned with it". And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence.
From: paparios on 20 Feb 2010 11:11 On 20 feb, 12:36, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 20 Feb, 05:27, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > If you're suggesting that it's improbable that a theory could work not > > because its premises were correct, but because it simply promoted > > correct behaviours, then wonders why religion has fared so well. In > > any event, I'm willing to accept Feynman's argument, basically that QM > > amounts to a workable mathematical model, and makes no claim to any > > truth more fundamental than that. > > > ________________________________ > > The whole of physics is like that, not just QM. Physics just gives us the > > eqns by which the universe functions. It does not make claim to any more > > truths fundamental than the eqns; the rest is just philosophy. > > > Your problem of course is that you don't understand the eqns, so you don't > > understand physics. > > On the contrary, my problem is that physics seems to have dispensed > with the physical. Yet it is the physical, as opposed to the > mathematical, that I am interested in. That is, the qualitative > physical concepts - what I've referred to as an explanation at the > the "practical-mechanical" level - that would seem to me to > distinguish physics from maths are largely absent, and indeed seem to > be systematically deprecated and devalued. > > And on top of this, there is an ideological arrogance on the part of > many in physics that is distasteful in light of their claims to > "objectivity" and "adherence to scientific principles". > > Indeed, your argument that "physics does not make claim to any truths > more fundamental than the eqns" is, itself, a philosophical position > and a statement of ideology - even though you refer disparagingly to > "the rest" as "just philosophy". > > This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context > of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the > universe functions". > > Not only is that a total falsehood when interpreted literally and in > the context of history, but moreover I know from the context that you > do not mean "regrettably, physics has only given us the eqns..." or > even "physics has given us the eqns, and I'm unable to say if there is > a more complete description", what you really mean is "these eqns > provide a complete and final description of the physical world, and I > hold that nothing else is relevant to physics and nor am I concerned > with it". > > And what I object to is not the content of these staments, but the > constant concealment of your ideological beliefs beneath allusions to > objectivity and ideological and philosophical independence. What a useless bunch of words!!! We as a limited species, with poor sensorial abilities and almost forever attached to this small planet, which is located on a very standard star, itself located on a very standard type of Galaxy, have tried to build physical models of Nature, which have helped us to grow and evolve into a relatively technologically sophisticated society. Most of the models have turned into useful tools to develop things we have become accustomed to use, on a daily basis (like TV, cellular phones, Internet, electrical vehicles, etc.). These physical models do need and use equations and geometry, since we need to get numerical values as results of the models and which can be tested by experiments to check their validity. Doing research on these subjects require time and some abilities which are not normally a characteristic of most of the average population (the same like the ability of playing a piano like Chopin or painting like Manet is not a normal characteristic of the average people). Even our best tested and successful models (like Quantum Mechanics, Quantum Electrodynamics, General Relativity) are just models. They represent our best representation of how we think Nature works. But every science researcher is quite aware of our limitations as humans to get closer to really understand how Nature work. It is probably an impossible task due to our natural inabilities. Of course, it has been evident that people like you are clearly lost in their quest, since you clearly do not understand the way scientific research is carried out. First mistake is thinking that this group will teach you anything. My advise is get a life and a different hobby. Miguel Rios
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 16:23 On Feb 20, 12:11 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:0c0c70e7-f3f0-4698-a3d7-4799b8db5ce7(a)o5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > _______________________________ > Actually, as I understand Maxwell's eqns quite well, I know exactly how > light propogates. Thanks anyway. > > > > > 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 > > ________________________________________________ > No, the eqns of SR says that it depends upon the speed relative to the > observer, not to the ether. > > In fact, the ether doesn't appear at all in SR. > > So you are making a claim that the time dilation formula in SR is wrong, and > you *don't* agree with SR. > > Which is the opposite of what you claim above. > > > 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. > > ___________________________________ > You keep changing your story. > > First you said that light always travels at c with respect to the observer. I never said the light travels at 'c' with respect to an observer moving with respect to the aether. Find where I said that. > Then you said that light always travels at c with respect to the ether. > > First you said that you agreed with the equations of SR. > Then you said the equation for time dilation in SR is wrong. > > Again: > > Q1. You believe light always travels at c with respect to: > a) The observer, or > b) The ether > c) neither of the above > > Q2. You believe the equations of SR are: > a) Correct > b) Correct except for the time dilation one > c) Neither of the above.
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 16:32 On Feb 20, 12:22 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:76046417-462a-4e57-8c52-dcbbba501e66(a)h12g2000vbd.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > ______________________________________ > Here's a much simpler question, which has no mirrors, trains, embankments, > lightning etc. > > Lets say the earth is moving relative to the ether at speed v. We measure > the speed of light in a vacuum on earth in the direction in which the earth > is moving through the ether. What do we measure the speed of light to be in > that laboratory on earth? c? c+v? c-v? Something else? The speed of light is 'measured' to be 'c'. It depends on the state of the laboratory on Earth with respect to the aether if the speed of light is 'c' with respect to the laboratory in nature. Since the aether is at rest, or almost at rest, with respect to the surface of the Earth, and since I am assuming the laboratory exists on the surface of the Earth, then the light waves in the laboratory are propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether which is at rest with respect to the laboratory. So, in this situation, the light waves are physically propagating at 'c' with respect to the laboratory.
From: mpc755 on 20 Feb 2010 16:53
On Feb 20, 4:23 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 12:11 am, "Peter Webb" > > > First you said that light always travels at c with respect to the observer. > > I never said the light travels at 'c' with respect to an observer > moving with respect to the aether. Find where I said that. > What I have said is for an observer moving with respect to the aether they will determine the speed of light to be 'c'. > > Then you said that light always travels at c with respect to the ether. > > > First you said that you agreed with the equations of SR. > > Then you said the equation for time dilation in SR is wrong. > > > Again: > > > Q1. You believe light always travels at c with respect to: > > a) The observer, or > > b) The ether > > c) neither of the above > b) Light propagates at 'c' with respect to the aether. Observers moving with respect to the aether will determine the light to propagate at 'c', even though the light waves are physically propagating at 'c' with respect to the aether the Observers are moving with respect to. In my response you refuse to read the Observers on the train are moving with respect to the aether. Even though the Observers on the train are moving with respect to the aether, they still determine the speed of light to be 'c'. > > Q2. You believe the equations of SR are: > > a) Correct > > b) Correct except for the time dilation one > > c) Neither of the above. > > d) Equations are correct. Clocks do in fact 'tick' slower the faster the clock is moving with respect to the aether. The difference is, in AD, the clock 'ticks' slower because of the increase in the aether pressure on the clock associated with the clocks motion with respect to the aether. 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 pressure associated with the speed at which the GPS satellite moves with respect to the aether and the 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). |