A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:12 Again: Q1. Do you believe light always travels at c with respect to: a) The observer, or b) The ether c) neither of the above Q2. Do you believe the equations of SR are: a) Correct b) Correct except for the time dilation one c) Neither of the above.
From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:24 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ec15dd9a-7b73-405d-8872-e3e885013206(a)t21g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... 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'. __________________________________________ Just to clarify, according to you, all observers in all intertial frames will measure light as travelling at c? Exactly as predicted by SR? > > 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. _______________________________________________ You believe all the equations of SR are correct. None of them mention the ether. Therefore your ether cannot be detected by any physical experiement. That is correct, right? If it is wrong, what equations does ether speed appear in, and how would you detect its existence? 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 �s/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 �s/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 �s/day faster than clocks on the ground". (quoted text from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_relativity_on_GPS). ______________________________________ None of the quoted text mentions the ether. So it is impossible to see what relevance it has. As I understand it, you believe that the equations of SR are all correct, including the one that says the speed of light is constant in inertial frames. Unless you have some disagreement about the predictions of SR, or can derive the equations of SR in a novel way, then you appear to have nothing to say.
From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:35 > ______________________________________ > 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, ______________________________________ Ohh yeah. That's a pretty unfortunate co-incidence. So lets wait 6 months until August 21st 2010; the earth will have moved 180 degrees in its orbit around the Sun and be moving the the opposite direction, and hence have a relative speed to the to ether of 60 kms/sec. What is the measured speed of light in a laboratory on earth moving at speed 60 kms/sec relative to the ether? 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. ________________________________ And if the experiment is conducted 6 months from now, when the earth will be moving at a speed of 60 kms/sec relative to the ether, what will be the measured speed? c + 60 kms/sec ? c - 60 kms/sec ? c? something else?
From: Uncle Al on 20 Feb 2010 20:36 Peter Webb wrote: > > Again: > > Q1. Do you believe light always travels at c with respect to: > a) The observer, or > b) The ether > c) neither of the above 1) http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 2) http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 3) Belief is irrelevant. 4) idiot > Q2. Do you believe the equations of SR are: > a) Correct > b) Correct except for the time dilation one > c) Neither of the above. 1) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity <http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html> 2) Belief is irrelevant. 3) idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
From: Peter Webb on 20 Feb 2010 20:45
"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:f7acdaea-b827-47a4-bca4-86384ca59e81(a)q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com... > 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. > You should look up, and learn, Minkowski space time. This gives a practical/mechanical explanation of SR that most physicists find very easy to use and understand. However even simple explanantions do involve high school mathematics. Like I said, it can only be "dumbed-down" so far. > 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". > Huh? You think some unnamed physicists are arrogant? Who? > 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". > Sure. The statement "physics does not make claim to any truths more fundamental than the eqns" is not a statement physics can even make. Unless you are arguing about the eqns, you are not arguing about physics. Note that you have not (as far as I can tell) discussed physics at all, you have been discussing your own personal philosophies. > This ideological position becomes even more detectable in the context > of grandiose claims that "physics gives us the eqns by which the > universe functions". > Umm, well, it does. Not all of them, of course, or there would be no need to do any more physics research. > 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". > What you are discussing is not physics, unless you want to claim that some equation of SR (or anywhere else in physics) is wrong. You are not claiming that, are you? > 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. If you believe that any prediction whatsoever of SR is wrong, you should tell us. Otherwise welcome to the camp that thinks that SR is a correct physical theory. |