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: Sam Wormley on 14 Feb 2010 15:41

On 2/14/10 9:48 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Feb 13, 8:48 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2/13/10 5:06 PM, kens...(a)erinet.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 13, 1:31 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 2/13/10 10:24 AM, kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> I can come up with an infinite number of ratios to come up with
>>>> the nine digits from the human definition of the speed of light!
>>
>>>> The real point is that the speed of light is a PHYSICAL CONSTANT
>>>> observed in nature. How it is defined and what numbers we humans
>>>> assign to the speed of light is arbitrary!
>>
>>>> Units of distance are DERIVED from the speed of light, not the
>>>> other way around.
>>
>>> ROTFLOL....hey wormy do you realize what you are saying???? The speed
>>> of light is born from a material meter stick. Hey wormy do you deny
>>> that your mother is not your mother?
>>
>> Seto--The speed of light exist independent of human. Meter sticks
>> are not require for it relativistic effects to show up. The speed
>> of light has been observed as an unchanging constant for so long
>> that human adopted it as part of the definition of the meter, a
>> unit of distance!
>
> No wormy....the speed of light is a constant by definition.

It is also constant (as in unchanging) without our definition, Seto!

>
>>
>> I'm glad you get a good laugh out of that, Seto!- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

From: JT on 14 Feb 2010 17:54

On Feb 14, 7:33 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 14:34, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 14, 1:31 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > "mpc755" <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:49c69202-f525-4bba-bfa0-09b662433837(a)s33g2000prm.googlegroups.com....
> > > On Feb 14, 1:12 am, "Peter Webb"
>
> > > <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > Now, here's the kicker. If the Observers on the train know they are
> > > > moving relative to water at rest with respect to the embankment, the
> > > > Observers on the train will be able to factor in the trains motion
> > > > relative to the water and calculate back and determine the lightning
> > > > strikes were in fact, simultaneous with respect to the water
>
> > > > _______________________________________
> > > > Yes.
>
> > > > and conclude the lightning strikes were simultaneous, in nature.
>
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > No. Nowhere in the 200 lines that preceded this do you show that reference
> > > > frame of the water is the reference frame of "nature". It doesn't even
> > > > make
> > > > any sense.
>
> > > Light propagates at a constant speed with respect to the state of the
> > > medium in which it exists.
>
> > > __________________________________________
> > > No.
>
> > > The Observers on the train know their state
> > > with respect to the state of the water and are able to conclude
> > > correctly the lightning strikes at A/A' and B/B' were simultaneous, in
> > > nature.
>
> > > ________________________________
> > > If by "in nature", you mean the "in the frame of reference of the earth
> > > considered as an inertial frame", then yes. If "in nature" means something
> > > else, perhaps you should explain exactly what "in nature" is supposed to
> > > mean.
>
> > As long as any Observer is able to factor in their state with respect
> > to the state of the medium in which the light propagates being at rest
> > then the Observer is able to conclude when the lightning strikes
> > occurred in nature.
>
> Well units is comparisson measurments that is agreed upon, if observer
> B,C,D,E,F is travelling different velocities but at moment X all is
> aligned parallell in fron of A and all agree on length of object A
> the distance to A then you deal with a *UNIT*
>
> Iif B,C,D,E,F all have different distance and length of A they do not
> deal with units they deal with ECDT=Einstein compressed diamond turds.
> In SR every *inertial frame*=set have it's own flavour of meters can
> be banana, cucumber or pretty much any extension you can think of.
>
> Those different flavoured units make the barn and the pole paradox a
> joke, actually they make it into turdjuggling.
>
> JT
>
>
>
>
>
> > If an infinite number of Observers in an infinite number of frames of
> > reference all exist in the same medium in which the light waves
> > propagate and all of the Observers are able to determine their state
> > with respect to the state of the medium the light waves propagate
> > through being at rest all of the Observers will arrive at the same
> > conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred in nature.
>
> > Even if the Observers themselves do not exist in the same medium in
> > which the light waves propagate, as long as every one of the infinite
> > Observers are able to factor in the light waves propagating through
> > the medium at rest, all of the Observers will arrive as to when the
> > lightning strikes occurred in the medium, in nature. All of the
> > Observers will arrive at the same conclusion as to when the lightning
> > strikes occurred. If an infinite number of Observers all arrive at the
> > same conclusion as to when the lightning strikes occurred then the
> > infinite number of Observers have determined when the lightning
> > strikes occurred in nature.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > - Visa citerad text -

Well what i very blunt try to say is following is that when we deal
with lengths,distances SRIAN very blunt try to get away with the
following concert. By calling a meter a meter they think that it gives
it properties of length, it is like using different lengths turds unit
of lengths and get by just by calling them a turd.

Something is very wrong in SR, they do not know what a unit is.

JT

From: Sam Wormley on 14 Feb 2010 17:58

On 2/14/10 4:54 PM, JT wrote:
> Well what i very blunt try to say is following is that when we deal
> with lengths,distances SRIAN very blunt try to get away with the
> following concert. By calling a meter a meter they think that it gives
> it properties of length, it is like using different lengths turds unit
> of lengths and get by just by calling them a turd.

ILLUCID

>
> Something is very wrong in SR, they do not know what a unit is.
>
> JT

There has never been an observation that has contradicted a
prediction of special relativity. Never.

Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

From: mpalenik on 14 Feb 2010 18:46

On Feb 14, 2:03 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 05:27, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ste 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.
>
> > Not true. You are making implicit assumptions that are not valid in the world we
> > inhabit.
>
> > At base, this is GEOMETRY, not any properties of light itself. And the only way
> > to understand it is to study SR and its underlying geometry, Minkowski spacetime.
>
> > The primary invalid assumption you make appears to me to be Euclidean geometry.
> > But you also implicitly assume that speeds add like vectors; they don't..
>
> > Indeed, even this is wrong: "I mean the alternatives are that
> > a object's velocity must cause either an increase or a decrease
> > in the speed of light in a particular direction relative to
> > something."
>
> > One does not "reconcile this physically", one reconciles it GEOMETRICALLY.
>
> > Speaking VERY LOOSELY, one could say that there are "grooves"
> > in spacetime that go in every direction at every point, with
> > the speed of light. And light "just happens" to always travel
> > in these grooves. The actual geometry is MUCH more interesting,
> > but as I keep saying, you must STUDY this -- your "20 questions"
> > approach on the internet is woefully inadequate.
>
> > Tom Roberts
>
> I'm afraid you're easily satisifed Tom. As I say, I'm not really
> interested in learning geometry, or talking about completely
> hypothetical "grooves in spacetime".
>

And as many people have repeatedly tried to explain to you, the answer
simply is geometry. When you accellerate, you rotate in spacetime.
Why? Because that's what accelleration means. That's what it means
to be travelling with a certain velocity with respect to something
else. It means that you're both "facing different directions". Every
effect predicted by relativity can be explained simply by the fact
that two different observers at different speeds are "facing different
directions" in spacetime--because that's what it means to be moving
with respect to something else. It means that you have a different t
and x axis.

From: mpalenik on 14 Feb 2010 18:48

On Feb 14, 2:09 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Feb, 20:28, mpalenik <markpale...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 13, 2:11 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I'm afraid I do not accept that my "choice of mathematical coordinate
> > > system" is the explanation for this.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > Think of it as your orientation in spacetime. For example, if you're
> > facing north, a natural coordinate system is that north is foward and
> > east is right. If you walk in a straight line, you'll end up going
> > north.
>
> > Now, turn 45 degrees. A natural choice of coordinate system is
> > northeast is forward and southeast is right. If you walk forward,
> > you'll go northeast.
>
> > Are you going to tell me that you won't accept that your natural
> > choice of coordinate systems is responsible for you ending up in
> > different places when you walk forward? It has to do with your
> > orientation, whether it's your orientation on the surface of the earth
> > or your orientation in spacetime--your orientation depends on what
> > happens when you move forward.
>
> Of course I accept that your orientation affects your direction. But
> there is nothing magic about perspective.- Hide quoted text -
>

Who said anything about magic? Your orientation in Minkowski
spacetime is what is responsible for everything predicted by
relativity. There's no need to invoke magic. If you acknowledge that
a moving observer is rotated in spacetime with respect to the
"stationary" observer and do the math, every observation the moving
observer akes matches the predictions of relativity. There is no
magic involved.