A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Peter Webb on 24 Feb 2010 01:03 "mpc755" <mpc755(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3f587f42-1458-48b4-b995-56dd1769ce29(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Feb 23, 11:18 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3d071cf9-0885-44d9-a3b0-2ebc4338fb16(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com... > 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. > > __________________________________ > You haven't outlined an experiment which would show your speed "relative > to > the ether". I suggested one - you measure the speed of light in your local > reference frame, For the 22nd time, the speed will be measured as 'c' in the local reference frame. > subtract it from 'c', and this gives you your speed > relative to the ether. You said this wouldn't work because the speed of > light will always be measured at 'c', so this will always show you are at > rest with respect to the ether. > > So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed relative > to > the ether as being anything other than zero. ___________________________________________________ So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed relative to the ether as being anything other than zero.
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 01:08 On Feb 24, 1:02 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f2c18327-9c66-48eb-9088-07bd98b058c5(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 23, 11:20 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:5d46b213-167c-46a8-9206-cdbefe14ce2c(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > 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? > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > > respect to the aether. > > > _________________________________ > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be > determined relative to another reference frame. > > ______________________ > How? > > 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. > > 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". > > ________________________________ > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for GPS > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it > failed. > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect. If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick' slower? > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a > different result from SR if your theory was correct?
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 01:10 On Feb 24, 1:03 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3f587f42-1458-48b4-b995-56dd1769ce29(a)k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... > On Feb 23, 11:18 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:3d071cf9-0885-44d9-a3b0-2ebc4338fb16(a)d27g2000yqf.googlegroups.com.... > > 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. > > > __________________________________ > > You haven't outlined an experiment which would show your speed "relative > > to > > the ether". I suggested one - you measure the speed of light in your local > > reference frame, > > For the 22nd time, the speed will be measured as 'c' in the local > reference frame. > > > subtract it from 'c', and this gives you your speed > > relative to the ether. You said this wouldn't work because the speed of > > light will always be measured at 'c', so this will always show you are at > > rest with respect to the ether. > > > So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed relative > > to > > the ether as being anything other than zero. > > ___________________________________________________ > So, please outline an experiment which would tell you your speed relative to > the ether as being anything other than zero. Relative speed in different frames of reference with respect to the aether can be determined by the rate at which atomic clocks tick. The faster an atomic clock 'ticks' the more at rest with respect to the aether it is.
From: mpc755 on 24 Feb 2010 01:14 On Feb 24, 1:08 am, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 24, 1:02 am, "Peter Webb" > > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > >news:f2c18327-9c66-48eb-9088-07bd98b058c5(a)b7g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > > On Feb 23, 11:20 pm, "Peter Webb" > > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > > >news:5d46b213-167c-46a8-9206-cdbefe14ce2c(a)a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com.... > > > 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? > > > > What you can determine is your state, or approximate state, with > > > respect to the aether. > > > > _________________________________ > > > How, exactly? How can you work out your speed relative to the ether? > > > The speed of one reference frame with respect to the aether can be > > determined relative to another reference frame. > > > ______________________ > > How? > > > 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. > > > 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". > > > ________________________________ > > GPS satellites cannot be used to measure ether speed. Time dilation for GPS > > satellites is exactly as predicted by Relativity, which does not include a > > component for ether speed. So if that is your test of ether theory, it > > failed. > > Time is a concept. There is no such thing as spacetime. The rate at > which atomic clocks tick is based on the aether pressure in which they > exist. Thinking time actually changes is incorrect. > > If you dropped a clock with a paddle off of a boat and the deeper it > was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a > clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the > increase in hydrostatic pressure is causing the clock to 'tick' > slower? > Modification: If you dropped a clock with a paddle for the second hand off a boat and the deeper it was dropped into the ocean the slower it 'ticked', as determined by a clock on the boat, would you say time has changed or would you say the increase in the hydrostatic pressure caused the clock, with a paddle for the second hand, to 'tick' slower? > > Can you describe a single experiment which you believe would show a > > different result from SR if your theory was correct? > >
From: J. Clarke on 24 Feb 2010 01:31
On 2/23/2010 11:38 PM, Bruce Richmond wrote: > On Feb 23, 9:50 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote: >> 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 reason I asked Mark's opinion was because of what he wrote just > above my "Thank you". "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." > > The experts here have said that the second postulate could be violated > without disproving SR. Considering your statement above about > throwing SR out the window I would say you agree with me that they are > wrong about that. > > In SR the second postulate reads "light is always propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the emitting body." That is it travels at some constant > speed in such a way that no ray of light could overtake another ray. > Remember, I mentioned this exchange took place in the DeSitter > thread. It was DeSitter that argued against the ballistic theory of > light, as promoted by Ritz > > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm > > In ballistic theory light can travel at c+v which would allow one ray > to overtake another. That would mean there is no single "speed of > light". > > >> 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. > > In SR the second postulate reads "light is always propagated in empty > space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of > motion of the emitting body." That is it travels at some constant > speed in such a way that no ray of light could overtake another ray. > Remember, I mentioned this exchange took place in the DeSitter > thread. It was DeSitter that argued against the ballistic theory of > light, as promoted by Ritz You're acting like using a letter to refer to a velocity is something magic. It's not, it's just a shorthand. > http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm > > In ballistic theory light can travel at c+v which would allow one ray > to overtake another. That would mean there is no single "speed of > light". So it is a convention of SR, and ether theory, that c is the > speed of light. That is why I included the qualifier "in SR". The "ballistic theory" is ancient history. >>> 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? > > If you defined c as the speed of light then the distance is derived > from c, not c from the distance. What distance would that be? The _distance_ is derived from whatever means you use for measuring distance. It has no bearing on using a letter to refer to the velocity of light. > In effect the distance is ct. The distance to _what_? > If > you now measure how long it takes light to travel that distance you > had better get t or you have proven that the speed of light isn't > constant. No, what you've done is made a measurement. >> 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". > > When I pointed out that in SR the speed of light is c by definition > due to the second postulate I was told by the "experts" that I was > wrong. Which experts were these and why do you care so much what they think? Read Einstein. >> 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. > > If it has more than one value then it is not a constant and SR just > got flushed down the tubes. Precisely. What of it? |