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 1 Mar 2010 00:33

On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation:
>
> > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler
>
> > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25.
> > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now"
> > price of $5 to $10.
>
> [...]
>
> IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but
> doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math.

Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand
in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading
lists!

> Another thing I don't like is their constant repetition of how things
> aren't what we expect because we aren't used to dealing with the
> speeds involved. That's BS.

Yes, I get a bit tired of that even on this newsgroup.

From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 00:45

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e9b52490-dec2-4027-8a71-c831115ab04a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Feb, 17:20, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 8:42 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > You should give Ste a specific book recommendation:
>>
>> > Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler
>>
>> > The second edition can generally be picked up used for about $25.
>> > The first edition is frequently found on eBay with a "Buy it now"
>> > price of $5 to $10.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> IMO that book stinks for explaining SR. It presents the math but
>> doesn't provide the underlying reason for the math.
>
> Haha! And these pillocks wonder why I won't go out and spend a grand
> in money and 6 months of time, working through their extensive reading
> lists!
>
>
>
>> Another thing I don't like is their constant repetition of how things
>> aren't what we expect because we aren't used to dealing with the
>> speeds involved. That's BS.
>
> Yes, I get a bit tired of that even on this newsgroup.

Yet it is correct. Whether you tired of it or not.

From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 00:47

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
> On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Illustration:
>>
>> > E1
>>
>> > --------
>>
>> > E2
>>
>> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the
>> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be
>> > simultaneous.
>>
>> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on
>> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the
>> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about
>> seperation along the axis of travel.

That is correct

>> In the train experient A and B
>> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off
>> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally
>> considered in the train experiment.
>
> This is called "revisionism", Bruce.

No .. its not

> The statement was not "about
> seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is
> simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste,
> you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR".
>
> Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next!

There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are
simultaneous in another.

Bad luck STE.

From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 01:26

On 1 Mar, 05:19, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:320d036e-35c6-4a2b-ba4b-1d8e3a9067ba(a)z11g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Feb, 07:45, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> I'm confused, because I thought we previously agreed that two
> >> observers travelling along the same axis, maintaining equidistance
> >> from both events at all times, would both report each event as
> >> simultaneous with the other event. And moreover, if they not only both
> >> maintained equidistance from both events, but if they maintained a
> >> separation which was equal for both observers (which, if both
> >> observers are moving relative to each other, requires either a
> >> collision course between observers, or travel in diametrically
> >> opposite directions), then there is no question that the signals are
> >> received simultaneously.
>
> >> Illustration:
>
> >> E1
>
> >> --------
>
> >> E2
>
> >> The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the
> >> observers may move while always reporting both events to be
> >> simultaneous.
>
> >> _________________________________
> >> You still don't get it. You can say two events appeared to simultaneous
> >> or
> >> "were" simultaneous in *some* inertial reference frame. That does *not*
> >> mean
> >> they appeared simultaneous or "were" simultaneous in some *other*
> >> reference
> >> frame. The concept that is lost is "absolute simultaneity", not
> >> "simultaneity within a particular reference frame".
>
> > But clearly if the two *observers* are moving relative to each other,
> > then this is the definitive proof that events can be simultaneous when
> > measured from more than one reference frame.
>
> No .. it isn't. Do you know what an 'event' is?
>
> > And in some
> > circumstances, the simultaneity also aquires an "absolute" character,
>
> Nope
>
> > in that the events would be observed to be simultaneous if the two
> > observers were able to synchronise their clocks by a form of
> > instantaneous communication.
>
> Clocks that are wrong can show any time you want. But differently moving
> observers will always read a different difference in time on a given pair of
> separated clocks.

No they won't Inertial. I suggest you get out a paper and pencil, and
do some working out.

From: Ste on 1 Mar 2010 01:28

On 1 Mar, 05:47, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a34363d2-1afe-4b36-9ee8-65fc8ffc825a(a)t23g2000yqt.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Feb, 16:33, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> On Feb 28, 1:54 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Illustration:
>
> >> > E1
>
> >> > --------
>
> >> > E2
>
> >> > The line represents the line between events E1 and E2, along which the
> >> > observers may move while always reporting both events to be
> >> > simultaneous.
>
> >> You are correct about E1 and E2 being simultaneous to all observers on
> >> the line despite their motion relative to other observers on the
> >> line. The statement about spatially seperated events is about
> >> seperation along the axis of travel.
>
> That is correct
>
> >> In the train experient A and B
> >> are on the tracks, which we call the x axis. You have E1 and E2 off
> >> to the sides of the tracks on the y axis, which isn't normally
> >> considered in the train experiment.
>
> > This is called "revisionism", Bruce.
>
> No .. its not
>
> > The statement was not "about
> > seperation along the axis of travel". It was about "what is
> > simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another", and "Ste,
> > you are an idiot who knows nothing about SR".
>
> > Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next!
>
> There are no two frames where all event simultaneous in one frame are
> simultaneous in another.

There are no two frames where *all possible events* are simultaneous
in both frames, but in my scenario dealing with simply two specific
events, both are simultaneous in both frames.