A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Bruce Richmond on 21 Feb 2010 13:14 On Feb 21, 12:51 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? There is some contraction whenever a body is in motion WRT the ether. It doesn't happen just at speeds near c. When you measure a moving rod you note where the ends are *at the same time*. So clock sync will change the measurement. Got to go right now. Will talk more later. Bruce > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 14:01 On 21 Feb, 18:51, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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? Good point since they claim mutual time dilation and their is no prefered rest frame, how can they even claim that one object should be the contracted one.... Well i asked them so many times, but their theory lack consistency most paradoxes and answers is just AdHoc speculation and lack total connection with reality. So i do not expect you to get an answer at that question. JT > 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 -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text -
From: PD on 21 Feb 2010 16:40 On Feb 20, 9:36 am, 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. I note with interest that you at one point appeared to be interested in engaging in learning how it is that the speed of light could be the same, regardless of the motion of the source, or how it is that simultaneity could be frame-dependent. But your interest in the physics here quickly waned and you fell back to fussing about the sociology of scientists. What accounts for your short attention span for the physics? Note that in the discussions I was giving you, there was practically no math in favor of presentation of basic physical principles and their conceptual implications.
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 16:57 On 21 Feb, 01:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > 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. Peter, will you please stop treating me as an idiot, as though I somehow don't understand the nature of Minkowski spacetime. If you think Minkowski spacetime amounts to a "practical-mechanical explanation", then you have absolutely no idea what those words mean, and yet you continue to respond as though you do understand. That may be partly my fault for being unable to explain the concept of a "practical-mechanical explanation", or even perhaps it is just inexplicable or insignificant to certain people, but in any event please stop pretending you understand. > > 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. I note "physics" is again given a specific but unspoken definition, something equivalent to "that which people who call themselves 'physicists' are currently doing" - and the authority of this group is implicitly invoked on yet another occasion. You are simply mistaken if you think that all physics has ever been about is equations. Do you really think Benjamin Franklin stood at a blackboard all his life? > Note that you have not (as far as I can tell) discussed physics at all, you > have been discussing your own personal philosophies. Only because you see your own position as somehow "not involving 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". > > Umm, well, it does. Not all of them, of course, or there would be no need to > do any more physics research. If we were to extrapolate a trend from history, then physics has not yet given us a single equation which describes how the universe functions. It has given us some rules of thumb and some cumbersome approximations. Of course, it's not these inaccuracies in themselves that are the problem, but the certainty, pomposity, and implicit closed-mindedness with which the same fundamental arguments and ideas are aired on every available occasion by almost everyone here who claims to know any physics. > > 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? I am actually not claiming that it is right or wrong, because unlike you I chew a lot and swallow little. > > 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. Unfortunately I'll decline membership of the asylum for now.
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 17:23
On 21 Feb, 21:40, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 9:36 am, 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. > > I note with interest that you at one point appeared to be interested > in engaging in learning how it is that the speed of light could be the > same, regardless of the motion of the source, or how it is that > simultaneity could be frame-dependent. But your interest in the > physics here quickly waned and you fell back to fussing about the > sociology of scientists. What accounts for your short attention span > for the physics? Note that in the discussions I was giving you, there > was practically no math in favor of presentation of basic physical > principles and their conceptual implications. Actually I was still interested in discussing the invariance of 'c', and I do still have questions. Unfortunately, both threads appear to have been partly taken over by other posters arguing completely different points, and much of my own time and attention has once again returned to addressing the quips, implicit insults, and general "sociological" points raised. |