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: PD on 26 Feb 2010 13:16

On Feb 26, 12:57 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 05:38, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:0a7587b5-d78e-4e7a-897d-e8ee8ed196ba(a)o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > 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.
>
> > Obviously if it did not address the real questions you have, Mark's handful
> > of diagrams and short lessons *didn't* teach you everything you "needed to
> > know about Minkowski space time".
>
> > Have you thought of buying a book, or finding a good web page, and actually
> > trying to learn it?
>
> Not really, no, because let me repeat again, *nothing mathematical
> will ever be the answer to my questions*.

A number of the references that I've suggested to you either use no
math at all or use high school algebra at best.

From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 13:17

On Feb 26, 1:21 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 06:37, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > 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.
>
> > You don't think electric and magnetic fields are physical?
>
> I was alluding to the "equations" bit. In any event, I think the
> conceptual foundations of the electric and magnetic fields seems a
> little unclear.

Again, unclear to YOU. It is presumptuous to imagine that if you do
not find them clear, then they are inherently unclear.

>
> > > 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 are therefore not alone in your ignorance.
>
> Touche. I personally fear for those who are not alone in their hubris
>
>
>
> > >> 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.
>
> > Some more work has been done on the concept. About a 150 years worth. Its
> > exactly how radio and TV transmitters work. You do concede that they do
> > work, right? And that radio is a form of light? And radio waves can be made
> > by simply oscillating electric and magnetic fields?
>
> > Just because you *nothing* about Maxwells eqns doesn't mean they need more
> > work. It means you need to do more work, to bring your knowledge of physics
> > up to where it was in the mid 19th Century.
>
> I think you misunderstand. I concede that light comprises some kind of
> oscillation, and that many of its manifestations are well-understood,
> but it seems to me (from what I've read) that it's conceptual basis is
> a bit suspect.
>
>
>
> > >> 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?
>
> > Well, there was huge advance made when this was reformulated for
> > non-inertial frames of reference in GR.
>
> > But the reason that SR has survived unchanged for 100 years is the same
> > reason that Newtonian mechanics survived unchanged for 300 years - as far as
> > we can tell with current measuring equipment, it works perfectly.
>
> Indeed. I suppose technologically there still plenty of shelf-life in
> relativity.

From: PD on 26 Feb 2010 13:20

On Feb 26, 1:31 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 26 Feb, 06:00, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >> > > I'm sorry, but in my mind there's a big difference between "adding
> > >> > > detail to the picture" and "showing that the picture is self-
> > >> > > contradictory".
>
> > >> > But you didn't show that it was contradictory. All you did was further
> > >> > constrain the relationship between gravity and distance.
>
> > >> Oh, please. You said that a linear fall-off of gravity with distance
> > >> was perfectly compatible with your mental image of gravity. But it
> > >> ISN'T, because there are unexplored implications of those permitted
> > >> assumptions that lead to contradictions. This is more than a detail
> > >> refinement.
>
> > > I'm afraid it isn't Paul. I'm not so sure that this won't go anywhere
> > > except just go back to what we agreed at the beginning, that my model
> > > makes no firm predictions and is virtually unfalsifiable, and yet it
> > > works
>
> > In what sense can it be said to work if it doesn't predict what is observed.
>
> It does predict what is observed, but only in a very loose way,

No. It *accommodates*, it does not *predict*. And this is where there
is a difference.
It is one thing to say that a certain behavior is *conceivable* within
a mental picture, it is another thing entirely to say that it is
*demanded* from a model. A prediction is usually precise enough where
it will be able to say, "you will see behavior X in quantity Qx,
behavior Y in quantity Qy, and behavior Z in quantity Qz, but you will
NEVER see behavior W and you will not see behavior Z in any other
quantity." This your mental picture does not do.

> and
> really acts as the underpinning for further investigation or
> refinement. Of course, philistines like yourself would look at a work
> of art, and say "is the frame really necessary", "is the colour really
> necessary", "is paint really necessary", and once all that is gone,
> point out that there is nothing meaningful left. But of course while I
> don't denigrate a mathematical formulation, there certainly seems to
> be a great deal of denigration amongst physicists towards the physical-
> conceptual aspects of their subject.

From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 19:40

On 26 Feb, 12:31, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> About this gravity thing. I am having a great deal of difficulty forming a
> mental picture of how it is supposed to work.

At a fundamental level, I do too.

> If the planets are separated
> by vacuum, how could one object possibly pull on another object when there
> is nothing between them? For that matter, how does one particle manage to
> pull on every other particle in the Universe at the same time? Are you
> positing some array of invisible springs, 10^160 of them, connecting the
> 10^80 particles in the Universe?

I think a more credible argument is that there *is* in fact something
in between the objects.

> Frankly, I find the suggestion that each time I move my finger to type these
> invisible gravity springs cause every other particle in the Universe to move
> ludicrous. Apart from anything else, how is this spooky action at a distance
> supposed to work, physically? Springs and levers? What is gravity supposed
> to be, physically?

I don't find it hard to believe that every movement of the finger
could have an effect on every other particle of the universe. In terms
of what gravity is and how it works, that remains to be explained.

From: Ste on 26 Feb 2010 19:42

On 26 Feb, 12:50, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > I agree, but as I say I don't see how my model can be deemed as "not
> >> > physics".
>
> >> Can you give me some details of your model. . this thread is too long to
> >> go
> >> back through it and try to find where you may have explained it
>
> > I've been more detailed in the past, but it basically just involved
> > planets, orbits, and an attractive gravity force that had some
> > relationship with distance.
>
> So you can't or won't give detail. OK .. fine.

Well there wasn't a great deal more essential detail than that,
although I might have included concepts like inertia.