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: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 05:57

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ae1e0767-bbd7-4260-9be9-c5ad9a92d17f(a)v20g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...
> On 1 Mar, 07:24, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...(a)DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> "Ste" <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> ____________________________________
>> Can appear simultaneous, yes, of course. That is a standard part of SR.
>
> Not "can appear simultaneous".
>
> *Is simultaneous*.
>
>
>
>> And in some
>> circumstances, the simultaneity also aquires an "absolute" character,
>> 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.
>>
>> ________________________________
>> "if the two observers were able to synchronise their clocks by a form of
>> instantaneous communication.", or if pigs could fly, or Star Trek
>> instantaneous teleporters existed, or I was the President of China.
>>
>> Show me how they can synchronise their clocks through instantaneous
>> communication and you have an argument.
>
> I'm not saying you can. I'm saying *if you could*. The definition of
> "simultaneous", for any sane person, is always going to be "if
> information could travel instantly".

It doesn't have anything to do with information travelling instantly for ANY
sane person

> But if you insist on relying only on real-world tests, then you can
> always put a third observer equidistant from the two observers, and
> this person would receive a signal from both observers simultaneously.

Is that supposed to have any relevance?

From: Inertial on 1 Mar 2010 06:00

"Ste" <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:190599c1-6e5e-4ad8-a741-272499753ad8(a)c16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> You didn't ask for a "definition of gravity".

He asked:

'Explain to me what gravity "really is" under Newton.'

If asking what something "really is" is NOT asking for a definition, then
I'm not sure what is (other than using the exact words "what is a definition
of gravity")

From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Mar 2010 07:29

On Mar 1, 12:29 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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. 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. 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".

I haven't read every one of the posts in this thread but I think the
topic was RoS. The question is "Is what is simultaneous in one frame
necessarily simultaneous in the other?" You have set up a special
case where they are. But we can also set up situations where they are
not, so the answer is no. And I did not call you an idiot. Please
comment on the remainder of that post.

> Apparently, both statements have been falsified. Hehehe. Next!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: Bruce Richmond on 1 Mar 2010 07:34

On Mar 1, 12:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote:
> "Ste" <ste_ro...(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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No, it is an easy way of avoiding a full explaination.

From: Peter Webb on 1 Mar 2010 08:00

What he does is demand continually that you dumb it down, and then finally
he complains its dumb.

The good news is that he almost certainly does not design cyclotrons for a
living, or develop space comunications systems, or teaches science or
physics at any level, and accordingly his views on SR are probably of no
wider concern than his own wildly inflated opinions of his own incredibly
meagre talents.