A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: mpc755 on 21 Feb 2010 11:58 On Feb 21, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative speed > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed of > > > > light then? > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > ______________________________________ > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured speed > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > relative to the ether? > > > He is with good company on this point. Read the 1904 paper by > > Lorentz. > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena > > > "It is to be remarked that the formulae for a system without > > translation are implied in what precedes. For such a system the > > quantities with accents become identical to the corresponding ones > > without accents; also k=1 and l=1. The components of (27) are at the > > same time those of the electric force which is exerted by one > > polarized particle on another." > > > Lorentz showed that the moving observer would measure the speed of > > light to be c in his own frame. Because of this there is no way to > > tell if you are at rest WRT the ether. But that doesn't prevent you > > from translating to the coordinates of another frame. If you just > > consider yourself to be at rest WRT the ether and work it out you get > > the same answer as you get by doing a two step translation from your > > frame to the ether to the other frame. Assuming you are at rest WRT > > the ether gives the same math as SR. > > > Bruce > > I think where I differ from Lorentz is in the 'ticking' rate of atomic > clocks. Two frames are moving relative to one another. I think Lorentz > is saying each Observer in a reference frame 'sees' the other > Observer's clock as 'ticking' slower than their own. This I disagree > with. The more at rest with respect to the aether an atomic clock is > the faster it 'ticks'. If the embankment is at rest with respect to > the aether and the train is moving with respect to the aether then the > clock on the embankment 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train. > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train will > arrive at the same conclusion which is the clock on the embankment > 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train. The same holds true for length contraction. I am not sure if length contraction exists at speeds not near 'c' but I do think length contraction will also be determined by motion relative to the aether. For example, we have two trains of the same length when they are at rest with respect to one another. One train stays at rest with respect to the aether and the other train is moving with respect to the aether. If there is length contraction, the train moving with respect to the aether will be physically shorter than the train at rest with respect to the aether. If the Observers on the two train were able to measure each train train they would both arrive at the same conclusion which is the train at rest with respect to the aether is longer than the train moving with respect to the aether. Now, since everything is shorter for the train moving with respect to the aether then the measuring stick is also shorter so both Observers will always arrive at the same conclusion that their own train is always the same length but if they could measure each others train they would arrive at the same conclusion that the train more at rest with respect to the aether is longer. If length contraction is physically real and if an Observer has a ladder and is moving close to 'c' and the ladder is placed into a garage at rest with respect to the aether then the ladder may fit into the garage while the ladder remains in motion relative to the aether. However, if the garage is moving close to 'c' with respect to the aether and is moving relative to a ladder at rest with respect to the aether the ladder at rest with respect to the aether will not fit in the garage moving at close to 'd' with respect to the aether. Motion, in terms of frames of reference where the frames of reference are at different states of rest with respect to the aether, is not relative.
From: Bruce Richmond on 21 Feb 2010 12:25 On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > > speed > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed > > > > > of > > > > > light then? > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > > speed > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > ____________________________________ > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > > frame? > > > Measured, yes. > > > _______________________________ > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist. There > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. > > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than > the clocks on the embankment. > > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense. You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading *according to their own clock*. The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync with the clock at A'*. The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A' and B' are out of sync*. So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact faster. Bruce > If the Observer on the embankment can see the clock on the train the > Observer on the embankment will determine the clock on the train to be > 'ticking' slower than the clock on the embankment. If the Observer on > the train can see the clock on the embankment the Observer on the > train will determine the clock on the embankment to be 'ticking' > faster than the clock on the train. > > If the Observers one the embankment and on the train have this > information the Observers will conclude the embankment is more at rest > with respect to the aether than the train is. > > > > > But it is the reason why it it measure to be 'c' which > > is the important part when discussing what occurs physically in > > nature. The 'reference frame' is moving with respect to the aether. > > When Observers synchronize clocks and then move to their respective > > destinations they are not moving the same with respect to the aether. > > As in the train example, the Observer moving towards B' is moving > > against the 'flow' of the aether and their clock 'ticks' slower than > > the clock at M'. The Observer moving towards A' is moving with the > > 'flow' of aether and their clock 'ticks' faster than the clock at M'. > > This unsynching of the clocks offsets the fact the light propagates at > > 'c' with respect to the aether. A flash of light at M' will reach A' > > and then B' but the clocks at A' and B' will read the same due to > > their not be synchronized. The light will be reflected by mirrors and > > now travel in the exact opposite direction in terms of the 'flow' from > > A' back to M' and from B' back to M' so the light waves reach M' > > simultaneously. > > > Flash of light occurs at M'. Light waves propagate with the 'flow' of > > aether towards A' and propagate against the 'flow' of aether towards > > B'. The light waves arrive at A' prior to arriving at B', in nature. > > But the time on each clock will read the same when the light arrives. > > The light waves then reflect off a mirror at A' and propagate against > > the 'flow' of aether towards M' and the light waves then reflect off a > > mirror at B' and propagate with the 'flow' of aether towards M'. The > > light from A' and B' arrives back at M' simultaneously. The Observers > > measure the speed of light to be 'c' while at the same time the light > > waves have propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Bruce Richmond on 21 Feb 2010 12:43 On Feb 21, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative speed > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed of > > > > light then? > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > ______________________________________ > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured speed > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > relative to the ether? > > > He is with good company on this point. Read the 1904 paper by > > Lorentz. > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena > > > "It is to be remarked that the formulae for a system without > > translation are implied in what precedes. For such a system the > > quantities with accents become identical to the corresponding ones > > without accents; also k=1 and l=1. The components of (27) are at the > > same time those of the electric force which is exerted by one > > polarized particle on another." > > > Lorentz showed that the moving observer would measure the speed of > > light to be c in his own frame. Because of this there is no way to > > tell if you are at rest WRT the ether. But that doesn't prevent you > > from translating to the coordinates of another frame. If you just > > consider yourself to be at rest WRT the ether and work it out you get > > the same answer as you get by doing a two step translation from your > > frame to the ether to the other frame. Assuming you are at rest WRT > > the ether gives the same math as SR. > > > Bruce > > I think where I differ from Lorentz is in the 'ticking' rate of atomic > clocks. Two frames are moving relative to one another. I think Lorentz > is saying each Observer in a reference frame 'sees' the other > Observer's clock as 'ticking' slower than their own. This I disagree > with. The more at rest with respect to the aether an atomic clock is > the faster it 'ticks'. If the embankment is at rest with respect to > the aether and the train is moving with respect to the aether then the > clock on the embankment 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train. But you don't *know* that the embankment is at rest WRT the ether. All you really know is how their clock syncs relate to each other due to their relative motion. > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train will > arrive at the same conclusion which is the clock on the embankment > 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: mpc755 on 21 Feb 2010 12:47 On Feb 21, 12:25 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:34 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 9:18 am, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:dba2b7ab-670a-473f-a7f3-5447e3f01e53(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com.... > > > On Feb 21, 12:27 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > >news:1c9cf786-36cc-4fce-8b57-7f45f5b88ddd(a)v1g2000yqk.googlegroups.com... > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative > > > > > > speed > > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed > > > > > > of > > > > > > light then? > > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured > > > > > speed > > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > > ____________________________________ > > > > OK, is the speed of light measured as 'c' in every inertial reference > > > > frame? > > > > Measured, yes. > > > > _______________________________ > > > How about the rest of the predictions of SR? Will lengths and times measure > > > according to SR? You have no problem with the 80 foot ladder fitting inside > > > the 40 foot barn, or the twins "paradox" ? > > > I have already explained to you probably twenty times now the atomic > > clocks 'tick' based upon the aether pressure in which the exist. There > > may be length contraction at speeds near 'c'. > > > What you fail to be able to understand is the rate at which a clock > > 'ticks' is based upon the aether pressure in which it exists. For > > example, we have a clock on the embankment and a clock on a train and > > both the train and the embankment exist in the same three dimensional > > space. Since the state of the aether is determined by its connections > > with the matter the state of the aether is that it can be considered > > to be at rest with respect to the embankment. Since the train is > > moving relative to the embankment the train is not at rest with > > respect to the train. The clocks on the train will 'tick' slower than > > the clocks on the embankment. > > > This nonsense of the Observer on the train seeing the clock on the > > embankment 'tick' slower and the Observer on the embankment seeing the > > clock on the train 'tick' slower is exactly that, complete nonsense. > > You have progressed a long way from where you were. It's time to take > another step. From you previous posts I see you agree that the clocks > on the train are out of sync with the clocks on the embankment. Now > consider how the train observers measure the tick rate of a clock on > the embankment. Viewed from the train the clock at A on the > embankment passes along the length of the train. No single train > observer can deterimine the tick rate of A because he only sees A for > one instant. So the tick rate at A is determined by having multiple > observers record the reading on clock A and the time of that reading > *according to their own clock*. > > The clocks at A and A' are compared when they pass and the difference > in their readings noted. Next the clocks at A and B' are compared and > their difference in reading noted. If that difference has increased > the train observers must conclude that the clock at A is running slow > because it has lost time compared to the clock at B' *which is in sync > with the clock at A'*. > > The track observers see what the train observers are doing and realize > the train observers got a different result because *the clocks at A' > and B' are out of sync*. > > So now maybe you can see that the train observers can *measure* the > tick rate of the embankment clocks to be slower, even if it is in fact > faster. > > Bruce > That makes sense. > > If the Observer on the embankment can see the clock on the train the > > Observer on the embankment will determine the clock on the train to be > > 'ticking' slower than the clock on the embankment. If the Observer on > > the train can see the clock on the embankment the Observer on the > > train will determine the clock on the embankment to be 'ticking' > > faster than the clock on the train. > > > If the Observers one the embankment and on the train have this > > information the Observers will conclude the embankment is more at rest > > with respect to the aether than the train is. > > > > But it is the reason why it it measure to be 'c' which > > > is the important part when discussing what occurs physically in > > > nature. The 'reference frame' is moving with respect to the aether. > > > When Observers synchronize clocks and then move to their respective > > > destinations they are not moving the same with respect to the aether. > > > As in the train example, the Observer moving towards B' is moving > > > against the 'flow' of the aether and their clock 'ticks' slower than > > > the clock at M'. The Observer moving towards A' is moving with the > > > 'flow' of aether and their clock 'ticks' faster than the clock at M'. > > > This unsynching of the clocks offsets the fact the light propagates at > > > 'c' with respect to the aether. A flash of light at M' will reach A' > > > and then B' but the clocks at A' and B' will read the same due to > > > their not be synchronized. The light will be reflected by mirrors and > > > now travel in the exact opposite direction in terms of the 'flow' from > > > A' back to M' and from B' back to M' so the light waves reach M' > > > simultaneously. > > > > Flash of light occurs at M'. Light waves propagate with the 'flow' of > > > aether towards A' and propagate against the 'flow' of aether towards > > > B'. The light waves arrive at A' prior to arriving at B', in nature. > > > But the time on each clock will read the same when the light arrives. > > > The light waves then reflect off a mirror at A' and propagate against > > > the 'flow' of aether towards M' and the light waves then reflect off a > > > mirror at B' and propagate with the 'flow' of aether towards M'. The > > > light from A' and B' arrives back at M' simultaneously. The Observers > > > measure the speed of light to be 'c' while at the same time the light > > > waves have propagated at 'c' with respect to the aether.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: mpc755 on 21 Feb 2010 12:51
On Feb 21, 12:43 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:44 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 21, 11:28 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 20, 11:21 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > > > And if conducted in a laboratory in low earth orbit, with a relative speed > > > > > of 25,000 kph relative to the ether - what will be the measured speed of > > > > > light then? > > > > > The light will be 'measured' to be 'c'. If the Observers in the > > > > laboratory in low Earth orbit know how they are moving with respect to > > > > the aether they will be able to determine the speed of light to be 'c' > > > > with respect to the aether. > > > > > ______________________________________ > > > > So, according to you, in every inertial reference frame, the measured speed > > > > of light is "c", completely independent of how the observer is moving > > > > relative to the ether? > > > > He is with good company on this point. Read the 1904 paper by > > > Lorentz. > > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_phenomena > > > > "It is to be remarked that the formulae for a system without > > > translation are implied in what precedes. For such a system the > > > quantities with accents become identical to the corresponding ones > > > without accents; also k=1 and l=1. The components of (27) are at the > > > same time those of the electric force which is exerted by one > > > polarized particle on another." > > > > Lorentz showed that the moving observer would measure the speed of > > > light to be c in his own frame. Because of this there is no way to > > > tell if you are at rest WRT the ether. But that doesn't prevent you > > > from translating to the coordinates of another frame. If you just > > > consider yourself to be at rest WRT the ether and work it out you get > > > the same answer as you get by doing a two step translation from your > > > frame to the ether to the other frame. Assuming you are at rest WRT > > > the ether gives the same math as SR. > > > > Bruce > > > I think where I differ from Lorentz is in the 'ticking' rate of atomic > > clocks. Two frames are moving relative to one another. I think Lorentz > > is saying each Observer in a reference frame 'sees' the other > > Observer's clock as 'ticking' slower than their own. This I disagree > > with. The more at rest with respect to the aether an atomic clock is > > the faster it 'ticks'. If the embankment is at rest with respect to > > the aether and the train is moving with respect to the aether then the > > clock on the embankment 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train. > > But you don't *know* that the embankment is at rest WRT the ether. > All you really know is how their clock syncs relate to each other due > to their relative motion. > Correct. But what about length contraction at speeds near 'c'. Won't the train moving near 'c' with its shorter measuring rod measure the train at rest with respect to the embankment to be longer and vice verse? Where the train at rest with respect to the embankment and its longer measuring rod to measure the train moving near 'c' with respect to the aether to be shorter? I still prefer Einstein's concept of "the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the ether in neighboring places" versus an 'absolutely stationary space'. The state of the aether's displacement is at every place determined by its connections with the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places. Since matter and aether are different states of the same material, the aether is displaced by the matter. A moving C-60 molecule has an associated aether displacement wave. > > The Observer on the embankment and the Observer on the train will > > arrive at the same conclusion which is the clock on the embankment > > 'ticks' faster than the clock on the train.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > |