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: Peter Webb on 27 Feb 2010 02:02

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1c82fe9-c833-4262-9bca-d62d9181c8b0(a)i39g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On 26 Feb, 12:52, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > Of course I'm not claiming to know anything profound about the solar
> > system. The conceptual model has been accepted for centuries, and I'm
> > not pretending to add anything new to it. The point I was making about
> > it is that the conceptual model is required to give any real meaning
> > to the equations.
>
> We already have such model .. that's the whole POINT of physics .. it is
> modeling reality. How reality behaves is the meaning to the equations ..
> they describe what is going on.

Then show the equations to a child. Ask him if he understands what is
going on. And remember, you're not allowed to mention the conceptual
aspect, or appeal to sensory perception. You must only use the
equations. If these equations alone describe what is going on
meaningfully, then the child ought to understand immediately.

___________________________________
Why a child?

Why not try and explain the equations of SR to a nematode worm? If they
really do encompass SR, then the nematode worm should understand SR
immediately. Or so your logic would suggest.

Here are the facts. To fully understand SR, you need to be reasonably
intelligent, have a basic maths ability, and have some knowledge of physics.

A child, a nematode worm, and yourself all miss out on some or all of these.

If you want to understand SR, you are going to need to learn some maths and
physics. Some things actually require work. Sorry.

From: eric gisse on 27 Feb 2010 02:06

Paul Stowe wrote:

[...]

>
> The very same ones as Lorentz's as Tom Roberts explained... So, given
> that LET and SR have the very same collection of equations and
> consequences, what's the difference between them?

Lorentz invariance.

Why do you still talk about LET as if it were relevant?

[...]

From: Ste on 27 Feb 2010 04:38

On 27 Feb, 05:50, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> > My only contention is that it is *not realistic* to say that from the
> > barn frame frame the ladder contracts and fits inside, while saying
> > that from the ladder frame it is the barn that contracts and the doors
> > actually never shut simultaneously. It is simply not realistic. If
> > such a thing appears to happen, then it is obviously an artefact of
> > subjective observation.
>
> Better not tell GPS units, particle accelerators, space probes, or light
> from distant stars that length contraction is not realistic, or they might
> all suddenly decide not to undergo length contraction, with obvious huge
> problems for navigation, particle physicists, astronomers etc all of whom
> rely upon things behaving in a not realistic manner which you don't
> understand for correct operation.

Why? If we assume that GPS satellites (or whatever) are taking the
position of "subjective observers", then there is absolutely no
problem. The point, perhaps, is that there is more to relativity than
meets the eye.

From: Ste on 27 Feb 2010 04:44

On 27 Feb, 05:54, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:73c93327-144e-4595-ada1-4bfff749884c(a)e19g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 26, 5:00 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 26 Feb, 18:20, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 26, 1:31 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> > But it does for example. My mental picture says that gravity will
> > never become stronger with increasing distance. That is a firm
> > prediction.
>
> But, in both the center of a spiral galaxy and the center of mass the
> gravitational potential is zero, increasing in strength until one
> reaches either the surface of a solid planet or, in the case of a
> galaxy the rotation speed verses area density starts to drop off. So,
> while I understand where you are coming from, technically, you're
> wrong.
>
> _____________________________
> In fact, the earth's gravity increases for a period as you go further
> underground. As you said, the exact opposite of the only prediction we have
> heard from the model.

The Earth's gravity increasing as you go underground I presume is due
to density layers. In any event, this is not the "exact opposite" of
the prediction, because the idea of having two planets "go
underground" towards each other's centres is absurd - we were, after
all, discussing a conceptual model of the solar system.

I know you'll say "ah, you're just making it up as you go along", but
we both accept I knew this fact (not least because I'd asked the
question on this group previously, about exactly how gravity drops off
as one goes underground into a spherical mass, and it was discussed at
some length), but once again instead of being sensible you seize on a
statement which was not tailored towards addressing this specific
point.

From: Peter Webb on 27 Feb 2010 04:51

"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:02f63c96-83b7-4fd4-b693-c3234f32416b(a)c37g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 26, 9:29 pm, "Peter Webb"
<webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4a4b9e26-7b46-4c0b-b41d-f9fda83efe1c(a)b9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 25, 11:27 pm, "Peter Webb"
>
> > Probably because relativistic mass increase is now an obsolete
> > concept. As for e = mc^2 again, while a consequence of the relativity
> > it is now considered that mass remains unchanged and the frame
> > dependent momentum/energy is solely an artifact of relative velocity.
> > As for 1905, Einstein penned Longitudinal mass and transverse mass
> > formulas (10. Dynamics of the Slowly Accelerated Electron
> > ofhttp://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/) identical to
> > Lorentz's of 1904, quote:
>
> > "This theory was further developed by Abraham (1902), who first used
> > the terms longitudinal and transverse mass for Lorentz's two masses.
> > However, Abraham's expressions were more complicated than those of
> > Lorentz. Lorentz himself expanded his 1899 ideas in his famous 1904
> > paper, where he set the factor to unity.[A 3] So, according to this
> > theory no body can reach the speed of light because the MASS BECOMES
> > INFINITELY LARGE at this velocity."
>
> > So, where's the difference of and mathematical significance?
>
> > ___________________________________
> > Like I said, Lorentz lacks (amongst other things) expressions for
> > momentum
> > and energy, including the now famous e=mc^2. This was not part of
> > Lorentz;
> > it is part of Special Relativity.
>
> "In fact, one can be far more general and precise: any theorem of LET
> is also a theorem of SR, and any theorem of SR is a theorem of LET.
> IOW: they are equivalent theories (i.e. they share the same set of
> theorems). As the theorems of a theory are the basis for comparing the
> theory to experiment, it is clear that SR and LET are experimentally
> indistinguishable." - Tom Roberts, 22 Nov 2003 -
>
> _____________________________
> Funny, we were discussing the theories of Lorentz prior to publishing of
> SR.
> LET was not the theory of Lorentz prior to SR. Easy mistake for you to
> make.

Really???

"For >7 years in this newsgroup, the phrase "Lorentz Ether
Theory" (LET)
has meant the theory based on Lorentz's 1904 paper, "Electromagnetic
Phenomena in a System Moving with Any Velocity Less than that of
Light",
and all logical and mathematical deductions from the presentation in
that paper." - Tom Roberts, 22 Nov 2003 - (Same article...)

Please note 1904 Paper! Your denial not withstanding, BUT YES! the
theory of Lorentz PRIOR TO Einstein's 1905 paper.

___________________________
But did not contain the expression e=mc^2. So if this is what you mean by
LET, it is not the same as SR.

> That includes all 'consequences' of the theory, including energy/
> momentum.

______________________________
All of SQ are consequences of two postulates. That does not mean that SR is
simply two postulates, does it?

>
> __________________________
> Sure. Show me where Lorentz said e=mc^2.

The same place Lorentz wrote about the PoR or Ros...

_________________________________
No, he did not. That is why you cannot show me where he said it, and have to
come up with this very lame answer.

> > > > > So the only thing that you can bring to the table is some
> > > > > philosophical
> > > > > interpretation of what is "really" going on.
>
> > > > So what? That all Einstein brought to the table!
>
> > > > _________________________________
> > > > Ummm ... time dilation? Mass increase in changing reference frames?
> > > > The
> > > > equivalence of mass-energy?
>
> > > Mass increase?
>
> > > _________________________________
> > > Yeah. The measured mass of objects is a function of the reference
> > > frame
> > > in
> > > which it measured. Learn some SR before telling us it is wrong. Or
> > > learn
> > > some SR before telling us its correct, if you prefer.
>
> > Get up to date.
> > _______________________________
> > I don't think there is much point in me talking about relativistic mass
> > to
> > somebody who doesn't understand basic concepts of SR. I am trying to
> > dumb
> > this down as much as I can.
>
> "Ah, arrogance AND stupidity all in the same package, how efficient of
> you..."
>
> Tell us how to measure the 'mass' of an object moving at 0.99c
> relative to you. Would you not 'measure' momentum/energy and
> 'compute' a mass equivalence? When and IF you brought it to 'rest'
> there is only rest mass. The relativistic mass vanished, dissipated
> as energy.
>
> __________________________
> Gee, so you have read an introductory book on SR. Your point is ....

My point is, the is no relativistic mass, there is, instead, there is
a non-linear increase of in the momentum/kinetic energy of moving
masses and not all momentum/energy is massive.... It it were photons
would be massive. Thus the original quandary, "Mass Increase?"

___________________________________________
Gee, so you have read an *introductory* book on SR. Your point is ....

> > Nobody is here to be educated. If the posters who disbelieve SR wanted
> > to
> > be
> > educated, they would buy a book instead of trolling here.
>
> Please show me where I said I disbelieve in the mathematical
> formulation used in SR? For the record, the math is right, the
> experiments sound. Note what Tom Roberts wrote above, one does not
> have to buy SR's philosophy to accept the mathematical formulation.

_______________________________
I am unaware of any philosophy in Einstein's 1905 paper. Perhaps you should
tell us which parts are "philosophy". I doubt you have ever read it, you
should, http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ provides the
full text.

>
> ________________________________
> Ummm ... SR's "philosophy"?
>
> SR is a collection of equations.

The very same ones as Lorentz's as Tom Roberts explained...

____________________________
Well, if Tom Roberts said that, Tom Roberts is wrong. Many equations of SR
do not appear in LET, including probably the only equation from SR that you
actually know, e=mc^2.

So, given
that LET and SR have the very same collection of equations and

___________________________
They don't.

consequences, what's the difference between them?
________________________
e=mc^2, for one thing. There are many others; perhaps you should learn some
SR ?

> "Existentialism", now that's a philosophy.

Yes, it is.

> > OK, tell me what it means for something to a property (in this case
> > actual
> > speed) that cannot in any way be measured?
>
> Sure it can, it's called the CMBR doppler. General Relativist have
> come to accept the CMBR as the preferred reference frame for
> astrophysical computations.
>
> ________________________________
> Ummm ... CMBR is measured. And it is not a pre3ferred reference frame for
> astrophyscial calculations, unless you can point to a single astrophysical
> calculation that uses it.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=CMB+preferred+frame&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2001&as_sdtp=on

_____________________________
Typical crank trick. Answer a question for evidence with a Google search.
Makes it look like you have provided evidence. You haven't.

> > Speculation, had Einstein not published 1905 both Lorentz and Poincare
> > would have probably gotten E=mc^2 with a year or two. Poincare was
> > almost there without and input from Einstein. It is a direct
> > consequence of Lorentz invariance.
>
> > ______________________________
> > Ohh, OK, Lorentz is *not* the same as SR, and Lorentz was (according to
> > you)
> > at least a year or two away from developing SR. This is *not* what you
> > claimed above, and this is exactly the point I have been disputing. Now
> > you
> > seem to agree you were wrong.
>
> LET is mathematically identical to the tenets of SR. Thus all
> consequences of SR are also contained in LET.

____________________________________________
The "tenets of SR" ? As far as I know, the tenets of SR are that there is a
maximum speed for information transfer, and that all intertial reference
frames are equivalent. LETR is not mathematically identical to those
statements. In fact, they are not even mathematical statements. Probably
better if you learn these theories before talking about them.

> There is no mass
> increase, instead there is kinetic energy and momentum for massive
> objects when moving relative to an observer. This understanding has
> lead to a general abandonment of the concept of relativistic mass. I
> think you'll find the terms invariant mass, proper length, proper time
> used in more modern discussions.
> ________________________________
> But, funnily enough, none of these were articulated by Lorentz, were they?

Actually they were, but not prior to 1905. And, Lorentz never
abandoned his aetherial perspective.

____________________________________
Ohhh, so LET (which have helpfully defined above as the theory published by
Lorentz in 1904) is not the same as SR. Excellent; my point exactly.