Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights
From: Peter Webb on 25 Feb 2010 08:25

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b65e9b1-c2eb-445b-8eb8-206d78f0bc79(a)b30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 1:53 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message

> > For the speed of light c not to equal the universal speed limit d
> > would mean only that Maxwell's equations need to be replaced by
> > Proca's equations, which allow for the possibility of a massive
> > photon.
>
> And there is the rub.
>
> You cannot use 'd' instead of 'c' in SR without breaking either Maxwell or
> Galilean Relativity.

Maxwell's equations are not sacred. They constitute a theory that
must match observation, and are already known to break down at
the quantum level, where light is well-described by QED, which
represents the successful merger of SR with quantum theory.

SR is a deeper theory than Maxwell's equations. It is a statement
that the universe is described by a certain particular geometry
(in regions of sufficiently low gravity).

We seem to be using different understandings of the term
"Galilean relativity". To me, Galilean Relativity requires that
c = infinity, and imply the validity of the Galilean transforms,
rather than the Lorentz transforms. This would be the meaning
understood by the great majority of (legitimate) posters on these
newsgroups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation

_________________________
We do: By the term Galilean Relativity I am referring to the principle that
dynamics looks the same in all inertial frames, first enunciated by Galileo
using thought experiments involving dropping balls on moving ships. It still
stands at the bedrock of physics.

"The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by
Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo's ship.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)."

It is unfortunate his name also became attached to the Galilean Transform,
which I don't think was his idea and turned out wrong in practice.


> Using 'c' as the speed limit in SR is the only choice that doesn't break
> something else; its not simply based on observation or wishful thinking.

Einstein originally explored an axiomatic system comprising the
two postulates plus several common notions. Minkowski demonstrated
a powerful alternate formalization of Einstein's theory which was
essential to Einstein's later development of GR. Later researchers
have developed other derivations of Einstein's theory starting
from other assumptions.

For instance, you may have seen mentioned on these newsgroups the
group theory derivation of SR, which uses -only- the first
postulate plus a single experimental data point: "Is c finite or
infinite?"

Minkowski stands in somewhat the same relation to Einstein as
Descartes stands in relation to Euclid.

In Minkowski spacetime, "c" is the proportionality constant that
relates the time axis with the space axes. It happens to have the
same numerical value as the speed of light, but that is not the
primary importance of "c" in this alternate formulation of SR.

> > Fortunately, the speed of light c DOES seem to equal the
> > universal speed limit d to an accuracy of at least 10^-16.
> > http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/39867717.html
>
> > The minor discrepancy noted in the Fermi Gamma Ray Telescope
> > measurements could simply be a reflection of our ignorance
> > concerning the mechanism of gamma ray bursts, or (more exciting)
> > could be indicative of quantum foam effects. Even if confirmed,
> > these results should not be misconstrued as any sort of disproof
> > of SRT within its classical domain of applicability.
>
> > Jerry
>
> I was unaware of the finding, but am not impressed or surprised.
>
> What the article doesn't mention is that all light lags

typo: "leads"

____________________

I stand partially corrected. The neutrino flux from distant supernova reach
us before the light does, but that is because of delays getting through the
star, not through space.


> the neutrino flux,
> which may or may not comprise particles that have mass at various times.
> If
> shorter light wavelengths are slowed more than longer ones, it just means
> space has a non-zero refractive index.

typo: "dispersion"



> In practice, all known materials have
> non-zero refractive indexes, apparently now also including interstellar
> space.
>
> Its a long way from "interstellar space has a non-zero refractive index"
> to
> quantum foam. Even ignoring the fact that we don't actually know the high
> and low energy photons were created at the same time.

Agree. Although the results are real, the interpretations are
quite controversial.

Jerry

From: Jerry on 25 Feb 2010 09:03
On Feb 25, 7:25 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message

>> We seem to be using different understandings of the term
>> "Galilean relativity".  To me, Galilean Relativity requires that
>> c = infinity, and imply the validity of the Galilean transforms,
>> rather than the Lorentz transforms. This would be the meaning
>> understood by the great majority of (legitimate) posters on these
>> newsgroups.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>
> _________________________
> We do: By the term Galilean Relativity I am referring to the principle that
> dynamics looks the same in all inertial frames, first enunciated by Galileo
> using thought experiments involving dropping balls on moving ships. It still
> stands at the bedrock of physics.
>
> "The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by
> Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
> Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo's ship.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)."

We -both- need to be corrected.
Galilean -relativity- is not dependent on any value of c.
The Galilean -transforms- are dependent on c = infinity.

Jerry
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 09:19
On Feb 25, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f65fe091-2c6e-4a1d-9c50-21872decd4c7(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > 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 s/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?
>
> > ______________________________
> > Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> > different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit
> > inside
> > a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.
>
> If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn
> is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is
> traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical, will fit
> in the barn. If the barn is less at rest with respect to the aether
> and the ladder is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder,
> if it is traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical,
> will not fit in the barn.
>
> Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with
> respect to the aether.
>
> If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock
> on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin
> on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It
> is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause
> the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'
> has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the
> spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even
> though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the
> spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less,
> and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because
> time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept.
>
> ________________________________
> Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside
> a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.

If the ladder is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and
length is physical, the ladder will fit into the barn.

If the barn is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and
length is physical, the ladder will not fit into the bar.

There is no evidence the twin on the spaceship will age less. If the
spaceship is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, the atomic
clock on the spaceship will 'tick' faster than a similar clock on the
Earth, but there is no evidence as to how the increase in aether
pressure on the twin due to the speed of the spaceship will effect the
twin.
From: mpc755 on 25 Feb 2010 09:22
On Feb 25, 2:19 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f65fe091-2c6e-4a1d-9c50-21872decd4c7(a)t42g2000vbt.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 24, 3:48 am, "Peter Webb"
>
>
>
> <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > > 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 s/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?
>
> > ______________________________
> > Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> > different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit
> > inside
> > a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.
>
> If the ladder is less at rest with respect to the aether and the barn
> is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder, if it is
> traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical, will fit
> in the barn. If the barn is less at rest with respect to the aether
> and the ladder is more at rest with respect to the aether, the ladder,
> if it is traveling at close to 'c' and length contraction is physical,
> will not fit in the barn.
>
> Motion is not relative between frames of reference. Motion is with
> respect to the aether.
>
> If the spaceship is moving fast enough, the twin and the atomic clock
> on the spaceship, will exist under more aether pressure than the twin
> on the Earth. The atomic clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower. It
> is unknown if the additional aether pressure on the twin will cause
> the twin to age less, or more. The rate at which atomic clocks 'tick'
> has nothing to do with time. Even though the atomic clock on the
> spaceship 'ticks' slower than a similar clock on the Earth and even
> though there is additional aether pressure on the twin in the
> spaceship, it is not known if the twin on the spaceship will age less,
> and even if the twin on the spaceship ages less, it is not because
> time has changed. Time does not change. Time is a concept.
>
> ________________________________
> Short answer, no, you cannot name a single experiment where your theory is
> different to SR. You therefore believe that an 80 foot ladder can fit inside
> a 40 foot barn, and the twins "paradox". Welcome to reality.

If the ladder is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and
length contraction is physical, the ladder will fit into the barn.

If the barn is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, and
length contraction is physical, the ladder will not fit into the bar.

There is no evidence the twin on the spaceship will age less. If the
spaceship is moving fast enough with respect to the aether, the atomic
clock on the spaceship will 'tick' slower than a similar clock on the
Earth, but there is no evidence as to how the increase in aether
pressure on the twin in the spaceship will effect the twin.
From: Androcles on 25 Feb 2010 10:12

"Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:b966f8db-8728-4d2b-a731-3fa6228a36d8(a)m37g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 25, 7:25 am, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote in message

>> We seem to be using different understandings of the term
>> "Galilean relativity". To me, Galilean Relativity requires that
>> c = infinity, and imply the validity of the Galilean transforms,
>> rather than the Lorentz transforms. This would be the meaning
>> understood by the great majority of (legitimate) posters on these
>> newsgroups.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_transformation
>
> _________________________
> We do: By the term Galilean Relativity I am referring to the principle
> that
> dynamics looks the same in all inertial frames, first enunciated by
> Galileo
> using thought experiments involving dropping balls on moving ships. It
> still
> stands at the bedrock of physics.
>
> "The special principle of relativity was first explicitly enunciated by
> Galileo Galilei in 1632 in his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
> Systems, using the metaphor of Galileo's ship.
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity)."

We -both- need to be corrected.
Galilean -relativity- is not dependent on any value of c.
The Galilean -transforms- are dependent on c = infinity.
=======================================
You are INSANE!







First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115
Prev: Quantum Gravity 357.91: Croatia Shows That Probability of Vacuum Energy Density is More Important than its Vacuum Expectation Value (VEV) of the Hamiltonian Density, in line with Probable Causation/Influence (PI)
Next: Hubble Views Saturn's Northern/Southern Lights