Prev: Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy
Next: Physical Explanation for E=mc^2
From: Ste on 13 Feb 2010 08:29
I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
logical impossibility.

It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
in medium-speed of source).

Take an illustration:

A C
B

Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.

Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
dismiss that immediately.

Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
of travel.

A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
*and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
this physically?
From: Igor on 13 Feb 2010 09:19
On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> logical impossibility.
>
> It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> speed of bullet+speed of gun), and nor can they be subtractive
> relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> in medium-speed of source).
>
> Take an illustration:
>
> A                         C
> B
>
> Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> dismiss that immediately.
>
> Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> of travel.
>
> A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> this physically?

So are you saying the metric is not invariant?

From: kenseto on 13 Feb 2010 11:24
On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> logical impossibility.

The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
> It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> speed of bullet+speed of gun),

Yes the speed of light is not additive....the reason is that light is
being transmitted by a medium occupying all of space.

>and nor can they be subtractive
> relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> in medium-speed of source).

Yes the speed of light is not substractive becasue light is being
transmitted by a medium occupying all of space. What this mean is that
the speed of light in a medium is independent of the motion of the
source. However the arrival speed of light to an observer from a
moving source is dependent on the rate of arrival of frequency of
light waves from a moving source such as sodium is as follows:
1. The universal wavelength of sodium=589 nm.
2. The arriving speed of light from a moving sodium dource is:
c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength
of sodium 589nm)

I hope the above will resolve your problems.

Ken Seto

>
> Take an illustration:
>
> A                         C
> B
>
> Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> dismiss that immediately.
>
> Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> of travel.
>
> A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> this physically?


From: bert on 13 Feb 2010 12:23
On Feb 13, 11:24 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> > headache) for the last few days about this issue, and it's clear that
> > the speed of light (where light is either considered in the form of a
> > ballistic photon, or a wave-cycle) cannot, physically, be constant in
> > all relative frames, and at the same time be constant when travelling
> > between two objects in two different frames. It's a physical and
> > logical impossibility.
>
> The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> Light path length of the observer's physical ruler (299,792,458 m
> long) is assumes to be its physical length/the absolute time content
> for a clock second co-moving with the ruler.
>
>
>
> > It's also clear that velocities cannot be additive (in the form of
> > speed of bullet+speed of gun),
>
> Yes the speed of light is not additive....the reason is that light is
> being transmitted by a medium occupying all of space.
>
> >and nor can they be subtractive
> > relative to a background medium (in the form of speed of propagation
> > in medium-speed of source).
>
> Yes the speed of light is not substractive becasue light is being
> transmitted by a medium occupying all of space. What this mean is that
> the speed of light in a medium is independent of the motion of the
> source. However the arrival speed of light to an observer from a
> moving source is dependent on the rate of arrival of frequency of
> light waves from a moving source such as sodium is as follows:
> 1. The universal wavelength of sodium=589 nm.
> 2. The arriving speed of light from a moving sodium dource is:
> c'=(measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength
> of sodium 589nm)
>
> I hope the above will resolve your problems.
>
> Ken Seto
>
>
>
>
>
> > Take an illustration:
>
> > A                         C
> > B
>
> > Where A and B are atoms that pass infinitely close to each other. In
> > the illustration, A and B are separated from C by a distance L. A and
> > C are stationary relative to each other. B is moving, and approaching
> > C at a speed S. A pulse is emitted from both A and B simultaneously
> > towards C, at the point when A and B are equidistant from C.
>
> > Now, clearly, if velocities were additive, then light from B would
> > reach C much quicker than light from A. We don't see that, so we can
> > dismiss that immediately.
>
> > Next, if velocities were subtractive, like sound, well that seems like
> > a compelling explanation for what we see, which is that light from
> > both A and B travel towards C at the same speed. But the presence of
> > an absolute medium seems to fall down when one considers that, to be
> > consistent with observation, the speed of propagation orthogonal to
> > the direction of travel must be the same as the speed in the direction
> > of travel.
>
> > A speed (i.e. a mesure of distance traversed within a period of time)
> > cannot possibly be measured constant in all directions within a frame,
> > *and* constant between frames, where the frames themselves are moving
> > at a speed relative to each other. So how the hell does one reconcile
> > this physically?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Photons if ever slowed begs this question What energy brings them back
to c? No answer means their speed is constant. They also do not
bounce. I have the proper reflection theory TreBert
From: Ste on 13 Feb 2010 12:28
On 13 Feb, 15:04, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2/13/10 7:29 AM, Ste wrote:
>
> > I've been absolutely racking my brain (to the point of getting a
> > headache) for the last few days about this issue...
>
>    Physics FAQ:http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/index.html
>      http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/velocity.html

It's a shame that the only diagram - which enforces the rigor of
giving a physical explanation - was in relation to classical mechanics.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Prev: Lunar Laser-Ranging Detection of Light-Speed Anisotropy
Next: Physical Explanation for E=mc^2