A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: BURT on 23 Feb 2010 21:52 On Feb 23, 7:54 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 23, 10:51 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 23, 12:02 am, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 23, 12:16 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Notice how different this approach is from sitting back and trying to > > > > > decide whether mathematicians (or gangsters) are groups of people who > > > > > self-select themselves into delusions, and therefore their models are > > > > > not to be trusted. Why do that kind of nonsense, when you can simply > > > > > ask the coin to show its colors? > > > > > Because in the real world it is not simply a case of flipping the coin > > > > an infinite number of times. Let's face it, we both submit to evidence > > > > - that cannot be the difference between us. > > > > Actually, you tend to hand-wave away any evidence you don't like as > > > 100 years of bad experiments, as in the case of the Michaelson Morely > > > experiment and others like it with similar, albiet more refined, > > > steups, which you were insisting had problems for a long time. > > > Perhaps the difference is, we understand the experimental evidence and > > > you don't. > > > Where did he say the MMX was a bad experiment? IMO no 'experiment' is > > either good or bad, it's simply data. What's bad is predetermining > > HOW one will interpret data. Tom Robert hss a point (pointing out the > > 'bad' in science) when claims you cannot DO an experiment without > > first knowing (have predetermined) what you're looking for. That's > > plain BS and exemplifies the worse of science. Many times > > experimental data or observations can fit several explanations but, if > > one has predetermined HOW they want to make it fit their worldview > > those others aren't even considered. In fact, the MMX is a great > > experiment and it points out this fact. Scientist of that period had > > the mindset that solid matter could not be affected by simple motion > > because it was too rigid. They 'preconcieved' what the results MUST > > BE. To this very day that preconception is clung to by many. > > > > > > I don't think so. Perhaps if you gave an example from the most recent > > > > > century of physics. > > > > > I'm not arguing that religious principles have been used directly to > > > > create "practical, artificial devices". What I did suggest was that a > > > > theory can work because it promotes correct behaviors, independent of > > > > the truth of its explicit premises. > > > > So, for example, praying to Vishnu is a correct behavior, whether or > > > not he exists? > > > Example in science, virual particles... > > 'Virtual' anything in physics is a label which states 'we' don't know > what is going on in nature so we will just make something up. > > In the Casimir effect:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect > The aether displaced by each plate extends past the other plate, > pushing the plates together. > > > > > > > > Whether a theory's premises are factually correct IS DETERMINED by > > > > > whether it produces accurate predictions of measurements. That's how > > > > > science makes that determination in the first place. > > > > > Not really. Once you factor in technological constraints, margins of > > > > error, empirical constants, domains of applicability, sheer > > > > complexity, implict knowledge, and probably innumerable other issues, > > > > it becomes very difficult to discern whether the explicit body of > > > > knowledge is true or whether it simply produces sufficiently correct > > > > behaviours without there being any truth to its explicit form. > > > > And, if you can disprove a current theory, which means > > > 1) coming up with a theory that does something the old theory can't > > > 2) demonstrate that the new predictions you make are correct > > > This is BS. That is not the only criteria, and you should know this. > > > > If you can supplant an old theory with a new, better one, you can 1) > > > publish it, 2) gain great scientific acclaim, and 3) possibly win a > > > lot of money. > > > None of which is the actual persuit of scientific knowledge. In fact, > > it reflects on all that is 'bad' in the practice of modern science. > > 1) gate keeping, 2) Pursuit of celebrity status, 3) seeking/expecting > > capitalist gains from the process. In the ideal (alturistic) the > > pursuit knowledge and its disimination was a goal unto itself. But, > > knowledge is power, and some types of knowledge leads to dangerous > > venues, as such, such knowledge and it desimination must be regulated > > and controlled. Thus the need for gatekeepers and controlling what is > > freely published. If you think otherwise, you're living in > > fantasyland... > > > > If I could disprove Special Relativity, that would be great. I'd get > > > a nobel prize. But there are over 100 years of experiments that need > > > to be explained with any new theory and it needs to have something new > > > that relativity doesn't have. > > > Like how the system would behave at superluminal velocities, right. > > BTW, GR surplanted SR just like SR surplant Newton. > > > > The scientific community and scientific publications aren't afraid of > > > publishing new ideas. Nature even published an article on homeopathy > > > once (with a disclaimer at the beginning) because the experimental > > > setup seemed to be perfect, and yet, it gave these incredible, > > > surprising results, that even after you dilute out all of a solute, > > > water still somehow retains the properties of that solute. This > > > prompted other scientists to try to reproduce those results, and when > > > none could, the original team was investigated, and it turned out > > > there were researchers who were (perhaps by accident) causing errors > > > in the experiment. > > > > The reason the scientists here haven't accepted you with open arms > > > isn't because you're preaching something we don't like to hear, it's > > > because: > > > 1) You claimed that over 100 years of experiments are in error without > > > any actual, logical explanation of what that error was > > > 2) You > > > 3) You refuse to do any quantitative predictions, which would > > > immediately tell you whether or not a given modification to a theory > > > is wrong (to use the gravity example, if I said that gravity falls off > > > as 1/r instead of 1/r^2, that would have direct, obvious implications > > > to the real world that would be easily testable/measurable). > > > 4) You immediately assume that because certain physics doesn't work > > > the way *you personally* want it to, that it is because science is run > > > like a religion. That *your personal* philosophies are necessarily > > > the correct ones, and anything that doesn't fit in with *your personal > > > viewpoint* must NECESSARILY mean that science is wrong. > > > 5) It is very clear that you don't have a good understanding of > > > relativity or the concepts behind it. Even simply from the fact that > > > you're incapable of correctly doing the thought experiments that you > > > post here by yourself. It is necessary that you correctly understand > > > a theory before you go around pointing out its flaws. > > > And there are elements of models than cannot be readily discriminated, > > like, for example, whether the gravitational constant is, in fact > > constant throughout space, or, if above a certain mass, the > > gravitational force remains strictly proportional to the masses, ... > > etc., etc., etc. > > > > The funny thing is, you accuse so many people of "wrong thinking," > > > because obviously, education must cause wrong thinking, and yet, this > > > is all based on the fact that our thinking does not conform to *your > > > specific thinking*. You never consider that it might be your lack of > > > experience, your lack of education, your lack of knowledge, and your > > > personal inability to recocile certain concepts that's the problem? > > > Instead, it must be that everybody else has the problem. . . > > > To me, personally, wrong thinking is exemplified by extreme cynicism > > and closed mindedness. An in today's world of scientist this appears > > to be the norm. Like Feynman once said, what do you care what other > > people think? > > > Paul Stowe- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There is space geometry and its acompanying aether. Energy can flow through the Unfied field floating in the space aether by which it is ordered. Mitch Raemsch; Static aether push for all motions of orbit
From: J. Clarke on 23 Feb 2010 21:50 On 2/23/2010 8:36 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote: > On Feb 21, 11:52 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> On 2/21/2010 10:24 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Feb 21, 6:10 pm, mpalenik<markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Feb 21, 4:57 pm, Ste<ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >> >>>> This just further illustrates that you don't understand how physics >>>> actually works. The history of physics isn't a series of blunders >>>> that we've thrown out as we get better and better equations, hampered >>>> by our belief in the old equations. Rather, physics at just about >>>> every point in time since the renaissance has been a journey from very >>>> specific to more general rules--criteria by which any new physics must >>>> be constrained. >> >>>> For example, Kepler, while not really a physicist per-se, devised >>>> descriptions of the elliptical orbits that planets must follow. >>>> Newton, then, discovered that this is a special case of the >>>> conservation of angular momentum, which is a much more general >>>> principle--however, conservation of angular momentum MUST be able to >>>> reproduce the elliptical orbits of planets, or else it is wrong. >>>> Kepler's rules constrained Newton's theories. >> >>>> Special relativity then changed Newton's laws, a bit. The basic >>>> principles, like F = dp/dt remained, but Special relativity says that >>>> space and time must transform differently than they do in Newtonian >>>> mechanics. However, Newtonian mechanics is still a special case of >>>> special relativity--as the speed of an object approaches zero, the >>>> laws begin to reproduce Newton's laws. Newton's laws, in this way, >>>> constrain Special Relativity. Because if it did *NOT* reproduce >>>> Newton's laws at low speeds, it would be wrong. >> >>>> General relativity came along and it turns out that special relativity >>>> only works as a limiting case of general relativity, specifically, >>>> when there is no mass or energy present. As the amount of mass and >>>> energy present goes to zero, general relativity reproduces special >>>> relativity. If it could not do this, it would be wrong. >> >>>> Any new physics must be able to reproduce the old physics in the >>>> regimes in which it has been tested. Any new theory that cannot do so >>>> is necessarily wrong because it has already been ruled out by >>>> experiment. >> >>> Thank you for bringing this up and explaining it so well. A few days >>> ago in the DeSitter thread I wrote that in SR the speed of light is >>> made a universal constant by the second postulate. The coordinate >>> systems are constructed based on that fact. Because of that there is >>> no way you can measure the speed of light to be anything but c without >>> making a mistake. >> >> What point are you trying to support with that statement? If one >> _measures_ a velocity of light other than the one that it is commonly >> held to have and others replicate your result, and it is found that >> light has different velocities under different circumstances then it is >> not the measurement that is a mistake but you will have just thrown >> relativity right out the window and they'll be seeing you in Stockholm >> pretty soon. > > Hold that prize. The discussion was about the basis of SR. I > consider the second postulate to be a basic concept that SR was > founded on. I was informed by some of the experts here that my > thinking was outdated. You'll find some physicists who put mathematical formalisms over physical insight--the constancy of the velocity of light was one of Einstein's two basic postulates and special relativity can be derived using those postulates. That it can be derived in other ways doesn't alter that basic insight. The thing is, either relativity is a usefully accurate description of reality or it isn't. If it isn't then someone should be able to conduct an experiment that is inconsistent with relativity and show that it is invalid. So far many experiments have been performed and none have succeeded in showing it to be invalid. >>> I was then informed that the interpertation of SR >>> has been improved upon since 1905 and that what I had written no >>> longer applied. Further, relativity could survive even if it was >>> found that the speed of light wasn't exactly c. >> >> Uh, by definition the velocity of light is exactly c. Grok the >> concept--c is defined as "the velocity of light". Relativity makes no >> statement concerning a specific value that c must have, only that it is >> the same in all reference frames. It can be 2 millimeters per >> millennium or forty quintillion kilometers per femtosecond and >> relativity remains valid, as long as it demonstrably has that value and >> only that value, within the limits of experimental error. > > I am well aware that the speed of light is c by definition in SR. No, c is the speed of light, period. This has nothing to do with special relativity or general relativity or Newtonian mechanics or anything else. The physics community has chosen to write "c" instead of spelling out "the speed of light, whatever that might be". You're reading too much into it. It's just a shorthand. > That is basicly what I said in the paragraph above that starts with > "Thank you". Again the experts told me I was wrong, that the speed of > light was the distance traveled divided by the time. So what else would be, the color of apples divided by the temperature of a polar bear's nose? c is the velocity of light. By definition. That velocity has some measurable numerical value, you measure the time it takes light to travel a given distance and you have an approximation of the numerical value of c. You measure again with an improved apparatus and you have a more accurate approximation. The fact that the two approximations are different has no bearing on calling the velocity of light "c". Maybe is has more than one value, maybe it has two or three or a billion--so far though it seems to have just one. >>> To that I responded >>> that if the second postulate no longer applied then they weren't >>> talking about Einstein's SR and should use a different name for the >>> theory they were describing. From there it got into a pissing contest >>> and I left. Care to comment? >> >> You're using phrasing that can easily lead to misunderstanding. Rather >> than saying "if light has a velocity other than c", try saying "if it >> can be shown that the velocity of light is different in different >> reference frames", or "the velocity of light in vacuum is shown under >> some circumstances to be significantly different from that which has >> been measured for it in numerous experiments in the past". > > What's so hard to understand? They said the second postulate doesn't > matter any more, so I told them they could be talking about SR. Well then you created more confusion than you cured.
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 22:08 On Feb 23, 9:44 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 8:06 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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 > > > When the clocks are moved on the train they wind up at A' and B' and > > read 12:00:01 and 12:00:00, respectively. Since the embankment is at > > rest with respect to the aether when the clocks are moved to A and B > > they both read 12:00:00. > > > If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train should be > > ticking slow enough that the difference in the times at A' and B' > > should be outweighed by the slowness of the ticking. For example, > > let's say B' and A are co-located at 12:00:00. It takes 3 seconds, as > > determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B. It takes 5 seconds > > as determined by the clock at A to go from B' to A'. When B' and B are > > co-located their clocks will read 12:00:03 and 12:00:05, respectively. > > When A' and A are co-located their clocks will read 12:00:04 and > > 12:00:05, respectively. All of the Observers conclude the clocks on > > the train 'tick' slower than the clocks on the embankment. > > There is no "fast enough" here. RoS works whenever there is a > relative speed between frames. But what is different between AD and RoS is the unsynchronization of the clocks. In RoS it doesn't matter how the train is moving relative to the aether, the clocks when moved to A' and B' will still be synchronized with respect to each other and with respect to the train. This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not synchronized with respect to each other. > As for the slowness of the ticking > outweighing clock sync, you are just waving your arms. The two things > you time above tell you nothing about the tick rate of the clocks. > They aren't measuring the same thing. You wrote "It takes 3 seconds, > as determined by the clock at B', to go from A to B." What you need > to compare that to is the time for B' to go from A to B, as determined > by the clocks at A and B. That is where the clock sync comes in to > play. If the train is moving fast enough the clocks on the train will be 'ticking' slow enough that when the Observers on the train at A' and B' get back together and discuss what time the clock at A said when they both saw it it will have increased more in time than the clock at A' does even after including its unsynchronizaion.
From: Peter Webb on 23 Feb 2010 22:21 This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not synchronized with respect to each other. ___________________________ How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you think it exists at all?
From: mpc755 on 23 Feb 2010 22:24
On Feb 23, 10:21 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > This is not how it works in AD. Everything in AD is with respect to > the aether. When the clocks are moved to A' and B' they are not > synchronized with respect to each other. > > ___________________________ > How do you work out your speed "relative to the ether"? What makes you think > it exists at all? I have explained this to you at least 10 times. If you want to know how it works out with respect to the aether read the posts I have already posted in response to this question. |