A constant speed of light in all reference frames? Surely you can't be serious. [Physics]

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: Ste on 25 Feb 2010 22:08

On 25 Feb, 09:18, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ab0ad038-f849-4d36-a73d-8bbb7bf7e366(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On 24 Feb, 17:37, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 24, 2:56 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Of course, I don't pretend to even have a
> > > speculative account for what this variable may be. I will finish
> > > however by saying that surely you accept that clocks that actually
> > > exist must have some common principles at a fundamental level, and
> > > that if the time dilation phenomenon operates at that level then it's
> > > quite plausible that they would all react in the same way to time
> > > dilation.
>
> > On this last point, I will simply conclude that, yes, indeed all
> > clocks operate with a common principle at some level, and that time
> > dilation operates at that level. That principle and that operation of
> > dilation are PRECISELY what is described by special relativity, as far
> > as we can tell from the evidence we have in hand. Congratulations.
>
> > Now, at this point, I imagine you might say, "But I don't BELIEVE in
> > special relativity and hold faith that there is some OTHER principle
> > and operation of dilation that is responsible for what is going on."
> > That is, of course, a possibility. Anything is possible. However,
> > among those models that have been tested and which do purport to
> > account for the principle that drives dilation, special relativity is
> > the demonstrated winner. You are free to put forward a new candidate
> > to add to the race. There are others who are doing exactly the same
> > thing this very day.
>
> As I say, I don't necessarily disbelieve SR. I just don't think it is
> conceptually very clear.
>
> _____________________________
> Have you tried? Found a simple link or book explaining Minkowski space time
> and tried to go through it? Where do you get stuck?

I think Mark's handful of diagrams and short lessons told me
everything I needed to know about Minkowski spacetime, which is that
however interesting and elegant it may be on a mathematical level, it
would in no way address the real questions that I have.

From: Ste on 25 Feb 2010 22:38

On 25 Feb, 09:46, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> And indeed, I said openly that I couldn't make that work, once I'd
> been able to construct a graphic where I could see the proof with my
> own eyes, and clearly the physical understanding on which that was
> based is untenable. As it stands, I don't really have any workable
> physical model for light under relativity.
>
> _________________________________
>
> Relativity does not provide a workable physical model for light, in fact it
> says nothing about it at all.
>
> The workable physical model for light is provided by Maxwell's eqns, which
> tell us *exactly* what light is; it is two out of phase electric and
> magnetic fields, and this uses the same maths and mechanisms as explain
> radio broadcasting, transformers, generators etc.

You know I actually got as far as reviewing Maxwell's equations before
I started to fall over laughing at my gullibility. I really should
have realised at the outset that "Maxwell's equations" were not going
to involve anything physical.

And incidentally, after realising this, but before responding, I
actually scrolled down through the posts and found that Paul Stowe had
also made exactly the same argument.

> You would be well off learning this before you attempt SR, as much of the
> experimentation and theory was motivated by physicists knowing that
> Maxwell's equations - used a billion times a day - used a Lorentz transform,
> and this would allow an absolute frame of reference to be established.
>
> In practice, the mathematics of Maxwell are harder than SR, but I will try
> and explain some key concepts.

Hell fire! Mathematically harder than SR?

> Most importantly, Maxwell's eqns are said to give rise to light waves, but
> these are fundamentally different what you think of as a wave. In water
> waves, there is a single variable - water height - and the wave exchanges
> energy with the medium through which it travels. Similarly with sound waves,
> where it is air pressure. In Maxwell, there are two waves always generated,
> the electric and the magnetic. The electric increases, it draws energy from
> the magnetic, the magnetic runs out, the electric collapses which feed
> energy into the magnetic, and so on ... multiply this by about 10^20 in
> speed and you have light.

This is a bit wooly. Obviously there is some sort of oscillation going
on, but I suspect more work needs to be done on the concept.

> The total energy of the photon/wave is constant, it simply exchanges energy
> between its electric and magnetic fields. If you ask what the electric wave
> is "waving through" - what is storing its energy as it goes up and down like
> a water wave - its the waves magnetic field, and the waves magnetic field is
> similarly beating against the electric field. This means there is no
> connection to any underlying medium which is waving, like in a water wave,
> it is self contained. This is ultimately why it has a Lorentz transform, and
> if you do the maths on Maxwell's equations you actually get the Lorentz
> contraction popping out automatically. The Michelson Morley experiment was
> specifically designed to compare the transforms for light and a physical
> object, and contrary to your opinion that physicists don't know how to
> design tests, was deliberately testing to the limits the prevailing
> understanding at that time, and found it to be wrong.
>
> The rest is now over 100 years of history; you are a little late to find a
> problem.

Lol. Perhaps a mistake more than 100 years ago is why there hasn't
been much theoretical or conceptual advance in 100 years?

From: Ste on 25 Feb 2010 22:42

On 25 Feb, 17:15, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 10:22 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm afraid I don't accept that this captures the certainty that many
> > people have in various scientific theories. I've just responded to
> > Mark who said that a theory with a 95% confidence should be accepted
> > universally by all
>
> I said I'm done with this conversation, but I'm not going to let you
> misquote me, you pathetic idiot.
>
> I said "it should be accepted by all as HAVING A 95% CHANCE OF BEING
> TRUE". I did not say it should be accepted as being true. I said it
> should be accepted that THERE IS A 95% CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE BY
> EVERYONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. I REPEAT, I DID NOT SAY IT SHOULD
> BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE--IT SHOULD ONLY BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS A 95%
> CHANCE THAT IT IS TRUE.
>
> If you are so mentally degenerate that you can't understand the
> difference, then it makes me wonder how you can make it through your
> every day life, you moronic imbicile.
>
> Once again, I will not discuss anything with you, but I sure as hell
> am going to call you on it if you make retarded inferences about
> things that I've said and then try to pass that off as my viewpoint.

Calm down. I see that perhaps I did explicitly misquote you, although
I'm not sure the inferences were so wrong.

If people accept that a particular theory has a 95% confidence, then
what are you saying they should do as a result? Do you think they
should devote just 95% of their time to that theory? 100% of their
time? Some other percentage?

And aside from what you think they should do, what do you think they
*actually* do?

From: Jerry on 25 Feb 2010 22:53

On Feb 25, 7:32 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:

> As you have seen here, some prefer to just flush the second postulate
> and say everything is fine.

I do not comprehend your desire to -intentionally- misunderstand
and thus to -intentionally- misrepresent the modern understanding
of relativity as various of us on these newsgroups have tried to
explain it to you.

You are not stupid, so the only explanation that makes sense to
me is that you are a troll. In previous exchanges, you succeeded
in wasting much of my time, so I imagine you were quite happy.

Einstein's basic insight was that that the universe could be
described as in terms of a certain particular geometry (in
regions of sufficiently low gravity). Einstein explored the
basic characteristics of this geometry in an axiomatic
development starting with the two postulates plus several common
notions.

Other researchers discovered alternate means of deriving this
same geometry. For example, Minkowski demonstrated a powerful
alternate formalization of Einstein's theory which was essential
to Einstein's later development of GR.

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.

An especially elegant derivation of SR, the group theory
derivation, uses only the first postulate plus a single
experimental data point: "Is c finite or infinite?" In the
group theory derivation of SR, the constancy of the speed of
light is a trivial consequence of the fact that photons are
believed to be massless.

The geometries described in these alternate derivations are
all formally identical to the geometry that Einstein discovered.
The speed of light is constant in all of these alternate
derivations. They differ in whether the constant speed of light
is a postulate or a theorem.

Your use of the word "flush" is deliberately provocative, and
is consistent with my hypothesis that you are simply being a
troll.

Jerry

From: Ste on 25 Feb 2010 23:44

On 25 Feb, 03:09, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 9:32 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > You came up with a bunch of hypotheses that have no basis in physical
> > > reality--about how brightness could affect the location of
> > > interference fringes (it doesn't, and I proved it doesn't), about the
> > > speed of light and measured brightness being able to "compensate" for
> > > each other--again none of which have any basis in physical reality--
> > > all because you wanted to dismiss the Michaelson-Morley type
> > > experiments. Again, there was nothing sensible about any of it,
> > > except that it was a way for you to attempt to justify not having to
> > > believe the speed of light isotropy measurements.
>
> > And indeed, I said openly that I couldn't make that work, once I'd
> > been able to construct a graphic where I could see the proof with my
> > own eyes, and clearly the physical understanding on which that was
> > based is untenable. As it stands, I don't really have any workable
> > physical model for light under relativity.
>
> And if this were actually coming from someone attempting to practice
> legitimate science or propose a realistic theory, he would have done
> that work ahead of time, instead of coming here and insisting that
> those claims were true before making any attempt to back them up and
> dismissing everyone's attempts to explain the experiments.

I didn't "insist that it was true". And I didn't dismiss your attempts
to explain, I dismissed your failure to explain. And my refusal to
take it on trust is because, frankly, there is no implicit trust in
terms of your ability as an authority to comprehend my questions and
give the answers in a comprehensible form. I accept all your
mathematical knowledge, but you don't seem to accept that there is
something more required.

> > That said, I don't think anyone can accuse me of being insensible or
> > lacking integrity in the way you suggest that it was a contrivance to
> > avoid believing the obvious.
>
> It's not a matter of integrity, it's a matter of knowledge of the
> scientific method and understanding of the requirements of scientific
> theories.

Listen, I didn't have to talk about the scientific method or
scientific theories to realise that it becomes unworkable to assume a
stationary medium.

> > > > For example, consider this illustration:
>
> > > > A------B---C
>
> > > > Basically you can express the distance AB with the value x, the
> > > > distance BC as value x/2, and the distance AC as value 3x/2. Or you
> > > > can express it as AB = 2x, BC = x, and AC = 3x. But this form of
> > > > expression always relies on comparison, and if you change the
> > > > reference value of X then all the other values change numerically (but
> > > > not physically - there is still some essential relationship that is
> > > > physically invariant).
>
> > > First of all, physically, if you double the distance between two
> > > objects, that does make a difference. For example, if you bring two
> > > molecules close engouh together, they will start repelling instead of
> > > attracting (this is the principle behind atomic force microscopy). If
> > > you shrank the sun down into a small enough region, it would become a
> > > black hole.
>
> > > The invariant quantity is the ratio of lengths: 2:1. And yes, this
> > > can be expressed as 1:2.
>
> > Yes, but you've subtly introduced a comparison again, of expressing
> > one length as a ratio of another. The question is how to express the
> > distance of BC in such a way that, no matter how the distance AB
> > changes, and without reference to any other standard, the expressed
> > distance of BC does not change. By your ratio method, if we double the
> > distance of AB (or halve the distance BC), then the ratios change to
> > 4:1.
>
> That's just retarded, quite frankly. You don't want to use units to
> measure it, and you don't want to compare it to anything else. You
> don't want relationships of distances, you don't want it in terms of
> meters, and presumably, you wouldn't accept the speed of light and
> time, either. Honestly, I give up at this point, I'm done with this
> conversation. If you don't even get why that's a stupid question,
> there really is no hope for you. I have much better things to do with
> my time. This is getting beyond idiotic.

Because your an arrogant fool who doesn't like to listen or reflect on
what you've heard. The question was simple: how to express a quantity
without comparison. You're right I don't want it in terms of a
comparison between *two* distances - either of which can change. Nor
do I want it in terms of a comparison between a distance and a
platinum bar - either of which can change. Time would be workable -
except for the problem that its rate of flow can change. If you can't
understand the significance of this question in the context of
measurement and relativity, then god help you.